I think you have misunderstood my position. I don't believe ms Higgins was anywhere near as inebriated as people are insinuating. I think she and he ended up doing something that they were dismissed for, and have been in reputation fix mode ever since. Her way to get around that, was to sling mud somewhere else, it has stuck, because he is a potato and was already covered in dirt.
If you read the trial notes and the judges notes it is recorded approximately how much alcohol Higgins consumed... be enough to eventually put me under the table. They're the facts. Consensual sex was virtually impossible... but I hark back to one of my original points, what kind of bloke seeks to take advantage of a drunk woman?
Did Justice Lee come to this conclusion based on his vast experience on the current nightclub/ bar hopping scene?
I think old folk who say things like "One does not pash" are completely out of touch with the current climate.
Well I've followed this thread pretty closely and can't find anyone saying, 'One does not pash...' Even in this old bloke's day, we did plenty of 'pashing' at the disco, some times with a few different gals, but that did not signal, 'She wants a r**t.'
But from what you're saying MBB (& 3 Leos), if a person is three sheets to the wind, they're fair game, regardless of what they might say if sober. To moi this is not so much a legal issue but in fact goes far deeper than that... beyond the 'law.'
I must be quaintly old fashioned, but I think not. Simply put, and perhaps it was my upbringing, if a woman is drunk you look after her and protect her from sexual predators. And I have done this, as a young fella (and just as horny as the next) through to present day. In fact I find men who prey on drunk people to be cowardly and predatory. And this attitude is not righteousness (though to a predator it would seem so), it's just common bloody decency and a basic male responsibility. That drunk woman could be your mother, sister or daughter... how would you like the men around her to behave?
As K pointed out, VFL good form does not automatically transfer to good AFL form. And this applies, especially, to the perplexing selection of Pitto... to replace a mid... WTF! I don't care how well Pitto played in the Magoos, his selection unsettled our side. Another sentimental selection?
Personally, I think Binnsy is close but his light body still concerns me... needs more strength in the contest. When the going got really hard and tough in the VFL Rottingwood game, especially in the second half, Binnsy went missing.
Ollie hasn't been down on form, he's been ordinary. Reality. Tries his heart out, but tackle failures and fumbles worry me. I'd definitely give him a spell in the Magoos to regain touch and work on hurting the opposition with possessions... not to mention much needed confidence.
Acres and Cotters are our best wingmen... both can run all day, defend well and then hit the scoreboard.
We literally won game(s?) last year without a recognised ruck.
You, among others, have pointed out how pointless some ruck stats are.
You, amonth others, have pointed out that the around the ground work is more important than what happens in the ruck.
So why are you, among others, so fixated on the need for a second ruck in the side?
For the record, Harry did not attend a single ruck contest.
As many of us have mentioned previously, bringing in a ruckman (Pitto) for a mid (Cerra) was baffling... to be kind. Dumb, to be blunt. This spanks of 'Old Carlton'... sentimental selections (which could also apply to small Durds & Fantasia).
It's not that it's the end of the world, but (as a I banged on about previously) with so many of our recent 'precarious' victories we cannot afford to ignore the signs; the reality, and flirting with form with silly errors at the selection table almost spanks of arrogance.
We are still very much a work in progress with a fair way to go yet.
In fairness, we did have 5 rushed behinds (they had 0) So it was essentially 14.9 to 16.4, and we had at least 1 hit the post, and 1 go down as touched when it was a goal. So its not so bad when you dive down into it.
It was more of a case of them not being able to miss more than it was our bad kicking.
And they couldn't miss because so many of their shots on goal were 'easy.' When a side has 20 shots on goal and nails 80% of them, you look at your defence... it wasn't 'luck', it was simply that their shots on goal were 'a walk in the park.' Poor pressure. We gave the 'suckers' an even break and made them look much better than they were.
...and doing okay. Has done some good things, hasn't looked out of place.
Blues 9.9 Dagpies 9.8
Dagpies came out strong after half time and opened up a 2 goal lead - the biggest of the game. 11 lead changes. Very entertaining game.
Pain in the clacker to watch... I've got the sound through the AFL link and picture through Edge! Through the AFL link (Firefox is my default browser) it is stop start buffering, whereas through Edge the picture is good but runs a little slow... running both browsers together fixes the Edge slowness!
As much as we'd like this year to be 17, based on what we have delivered so far this year, it aint so. Media comparisons of us with Rottingwood of last year -- come from behind narrow wins -- hasn't helped, in fact its probably fuelled unrealistic expectations. All season I've been worried about how we win.
It's been great that we've been winning, but it's the way we've been winning - just. Willed over the line. And if Charles doesn't pop up with a 2-4 goal burst of brilliance, we're rooted. That's what concerns this little black duck more than anything. Too nice, still? Can't kill off a side when in front... why? Got ahead of ourselves?
Our wins seemed to have lacked authority. And so much has depended on our classy individuals. At our best we see an attitude of 'hunting'... everyone hunting, but that's evaporated. We seem reactive, lacking fierceness and relentless, consistent pressure. Still with the lapses. We let other sides in... and that's consistent. We accept that other sides will have their time but this seems to serve as an excuse (for failure to win stronger). It's as if we're willing to coast for 3 quarters then come home with a wet sail and another meritorious narrow win.
And we wondered how we would deal with the expectations attached to what we should achieve in 2024, well, we can see it rather clearly.
Personnel. Yes, we have injuries but we had injuries in games and our best missing when we were flying last year and found a way to win, and win well. If there is a mitigation it would be our forward line, a 2 star reliance. Too many small forwards just not delivering. Specifically, Fantasia & small Durds. And let's not get started on our glaring need for a third taller forward. Despite the injuries I hope our selection this week is not conservative... a shake-up is needed. Fingers crossed there are a few shining lights in today's Magoos. And those who suggest TDK might be a worthwhile experiment in defense... I agree.
