Patrick Smith on the final free

El Wood · Post: # 983506Post **El Wood** » Mon 06 Sep 2010 3:02pm

He speaks rationally, in his own unique way.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sp ... 5914511997

bigcarl · Post: # 983511Post **bigcarl** » Mon 06 Sep 2010 3:06pm

can't work out what he is trying to say

bigred · Post: # 983512Post **bigred** » Mon 06 Sep 2010 3:07pm

In between bites of tasty, tasty donut.

bergholt · Post: # 983513Post **bergholt** » Mon 06 Sep 2010 3:09pm

bigcarl wrote:didn't like the result so he wants the rule changed.

i don't think you read the article correctly...

bigcarl · Post: # 983514Post **bigcarl** » Mon 06 Sep 2010 3:11pm

bergholt wrote:
bigcarl wrote:didn't like the result so he wants the rule changed.
i don't think you read the article correctly...

you're right. he doesn't make his point very well. i'm still trying to work out what he is trying to say and couldn't be bothered reading it again. life's too short.

Superboot · Post: # 983526Post **Superboot** » Mon 06 Sep 2010 3:29pm

People have been saying the free to Jimmy shouldn't have been paid, given the conditions and circumstances.

Smith is simply taking that proposition to its absurd logical conclusion and making the point that if you apply that argument to that tackle then you are on a very slippy slope.

In a nutshell, he basically supports the awarding of the free.

bigcarl · Post: # 983527Post **bigcarl** » Mon 06 Sep 2010 3:30pm

Superboot wrote:People have been saying the free to Jimmy shouldn't have been paid, given the conditions and circumstances.

Smith is simply taking that proposition to its absurd logical conclusion and making the point that if you apply that argument to that tackle then you are on a very slippy slope.

In a nutshell, he basically supports the awarding of the free.

thanks for saving me the trouble and time of trying to comprehend it.

Mr Magic · Post: # 983529Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 06 Sep 2010 3:32pm

Having just read the article, I think he was quite clearly making his point that the 'football expert commentators' had gotten it terribly wrong in portraying the incident in teh manner they ahve.

Maybe it's becasue I heard him on SEN this morning discussing his pov that has made his column seem clear to me?

But are we allowed to take any notice of Patrick?
Posters on here have been advising everyone to ignore him for years.
Afterall, he's just the senior football writer for The Australian.
Doesn't that make him their equivalent of Sheehan and Wilson?

sainta · Post: # 983536Post **sainta** » Mon 06 Sep 2010 3:41pm

It's actually an article appearing to be in our favour.

His opening paragraphs going on about 3 point posters was a roundabout and sarcastic way of proving his point, which could throw off some readers.

bigcarl · Post: # 983539Post **bigcarl** » Mon 06 Sep 2010 3:43pm

sainta wrote:It's actually an article appearing to be in our favour.

His opening paragraphs going on about 3 point posters was a roundabout and sarcastic way of proving his point, which could throw off some readers.

yeah, i get that. why not just come out and say what he wants to say?

sainta · Post: # 983540Post **sainta** » Mon 06 Sep 2010 3:44pm

Maybe he gets paid per word he writes lol

HSVKing · Post: # 983548Post **HSVKing** » Mon 06 Sep 2010 3:54pm

He writes dumb and sarcasticly just like how he speaks.

iF anyone has seen the South Park episode where they show how Family Guy is written, I can picture Patrick in a very similar way...

Patrick and other Orstraliarn writers at work.

gringo · Post: # 983564Post **gringo** » Mon 06 Sep 2010 4:26pm

I am not hating P Smith quite as much now. Why is the voice of reason so unappealing to the rest of humanity? He may actually cement popular opinion.

But he has the same point I have been making, why would you not call a free just because of the conditions and the time. A really poorly reported bit of over dramatisation by a news hungry media. Why don't they just stop having umpires and let the commentary decide punishment, then they could really bastardise certain players with their punch and judy show style villain portrayals. Mark Robertson would have 25 Brownlows struck every year for his over enthusiasm for the cats.

FQF · Post: # 983664Post **FQF** » Mon 06 Sep 2010 5:56pm

Cannot understand why people are complaining about the way he has written this article.

If arguing a point was as simple as 'saying what you want to say' then there would be no art of debating.

He has skillfully proven why everyone crapping on about the 'spirit of the game' is wrong.

Like him or not, he is a very talented writer.

Dr Spaceman · Mon 06 Sep 2010 6:00pm

FQF wrote:Cannot understand why people are complaining about the way he has written this article.

If arguing a point was as simple as 'saying what you want to say' then there would be no art of debating.

He has skillfully proven why everyone crapping on about the 'spirit of the game' is wrong.

Like him or not, he is a very talented writer.

I normally can't stand Patrick but really enjoyed this article.

FQF, your analysis is spot on!

stinger · Post: # 983670Post **stinger** » Mon 06 Sep 2010 6:04pm

El Wood wrote:He speaks rationally, in his own unique way.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sp ... 5914511997

i will never call you fatprick again parick.......all is forgiven....

Patrick Smith on the final free

Patrick Smith on the final free

Re: Patrick Smith on the final free

Re: Patrick Smith on the final free

Re: Patrick Smith on the final free

Re: Patrick Smith on the final free