The Flux Report - special interim edition

This unofficial St Kilda Saints fan forum is for people of all ages to chat Saints Footy and all posts must be respectful.

Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
AeonFlux
Club Player
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed 17 Jun 2015 4:20pm
Location: Special operation.
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 175 times

The Flux Report - special interim edition

Post: # 1560099Post AeonFlux »

Well, this report would be special if Rodger was doing it, but at least it is interim. (Still Christopher Pyne'g for you Rodge'.)


Righto. From the initial intel’ reports received:

WE WERE FLOGGED!!!

By the scumpires!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:

What did we lose by again? Oh yeah, one goal? Ok, here's seven...

The first marking contest block paid against us was TRIVUAL!!! (1)

The block against Roo was BLATANT, and not paid!!! And there were a couple of others too not paid to us which I’m not even counting. (2)

The holding the ball against Lonie would have been holding the ball... if the TACKLE HADN'T BEEN IN THE BACK!!! (3)

I'd like to see a replay of the mark that Bruce had taken off him for a push in the back. (4)

Ditto re why his mark wasn't paid in the goal square in the last - the one that Members then kicked off the ground, but hit the post. (5)

And that final quarter deliberate out of bounds by their defender was obvious as... he tapped it straight over the line... there was no team mate around. Despite the commentators saying it was well disguised (spare me guys!) it was as blatant as you'd see... no attempt at the pretext of a fumble or anything, just knocked it straight out!!! (6)

And then there was that high tackle paid against Newnes that gifted them a goal!!! The tackle wasn't high, it was holding the ball to us!!! Obvious as!!! How obvious you ask? So BLOODY OBVIOUS that even the commentators saw that one!!!(7)

There you go. We actually won by six goals, which would have been a fitting result.

Now I realise that there are some apologists for the ‘regime’ out there, who may try to come up with 66 reasons to distort these facts. Ok, in the interests of political expediency, I am prepared to meet you people half way.

Saints: 7 – 14 - 56
NotSaints: 9 – 8 – 62

If we just reverse our score to 14 - 7 – 91, then we can all 'look the other way' re those scumpiring ‘decisions’. We still get a ‘fitting’ result (literal and pun meanings both intended), and everyone is as happy as a Paedophile working in an Immigration Detention Centre. (Ok, I’m not going there on that last one - but you can... http://www.vice.com/read/australian-gov ... hild-abuse)

A final finding: The view (well, my view at least) was always that the bounce would be a major impediment to having female field umpires. After viewing field report footage of them in action from VFL and SANFL games, and after viewing the footage from Saturday night :evil: my view now is – BRING THE GIRLS ON!!!

Thoughts Sainters?

Thoughts, Rodger?

- Aeon.







(Sigh.) Paedos and pollies. No one likes house cleaning.

But I give it my best shot........... :twisted:


ReMembering:
Image Image Image Image

----- Rodger ------- Nymeria ------- BakesFan ----------- Aaron
HarryM wrote: Nope never heard of them :roll:
User avatar
HitTheBoundary
SS Hall of Fame
Posts: 2058
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2009 9:00am
Location: Walkabout
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 68 times
Contact:

Re: The Flux Report - special interim edition

Post: # 1560120Post HitTheBoundary »

AeonFlux wrote: After viewing field report footage of them in action from VFL and SANFL games, and after viewing the footage from Saturday night :evil: my view now is – BRING THE GIRLS ON!!!
Image


User avatar
Gordo' Sumner
Club Player
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri 19 Jun 2015 4:58pm
Location: nyc for a spell, things didn't turn out so well, every dive i played, ffs was lucky i got paid !!!

Re: The Flux Report - special interim edition

Post: # 1560222Post Gordo' Sumner »

HitTheBoundary wrote:
AeonFlux wrote: After viewing field report footage of them in action from VFL and SANFL games, and after viewing the footage from Saturday night :evil: my view now is – BRING THE GIRLS ON!!!
Image
FFS some of those umpiring decisions the other night !!!!!

then followed by paedos .......... protected by flowering politicians FFS !!!! what next FFS !!!! :roll: :roll: :roll:

a very very bad look !!!

so yeah, bring on the girls, and rock on mate.


Fortitude Fidelity Sayntas.
saynta
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 23165
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
Has thanked: 9115 times
Been thanked: 3951 times

Re: The Flux Report - special interim edition

Post: # 1560234Post saynta »

AeonFlux wrote:Well, this report would be special if Rodger was doing it, but at least it is interim. (Still Christopher Pyne'g for you Rodge'.)


Righto. From the initial intel’ reports received:

WE WERE FLOGGED!!!

By the scumpires!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:

What did we lose by again? Oh yeah, one goal? Ok, here's seven...

The first marking contest block paid against us was TRIVUAL!!! (1)

The block against Roo was BLATANT, and not paid!!! And there were a couple of others too not paid to us which I’m not even counting. (2)

The holding the ball against Lonie would have been holding the ball... if the TACKLE HADN'T BEEN IN THE BACK!!! (3)

I'd like to see a replay of the mark that Bruce had taken off him for a push in the back. (4)

Ditto re why his mark wasn't paid in the goal square in the last - the one that Members then kicked off the ground, but hit the post. (5)

And that final quarter deliberate out of bounds by their defender was obvious as... he tapped it straight over the line... there was no team mate around. Despite the commentators saying it was well disguised (spare me guys!) it was as blatant as you'd see... no attempt at the pretext of a fumble or anything, just knocked it straight out!!! (6)

And then there was that high tackle paid against Newnes that gifted them a goal!!! The tackle wasn't high, it was holding the ball to us!!! Obvious as!!! How obvious you ask? So BLOODY OBVIOUS that even the commentators saw that one!!!(7)

There you go. We actually won by six goals, which would have been a fitting result.

Now I realise that there are some apologists for the ‘regime’ out there, who may try to come up with 66 reasons to distort these facts. Ok, in the interests of political expediency, I am prepared to meet you people half way.

Saints: 7 – 14 - 56
NotSaints: 9 – 8 – 62

If we just reverse our score to 14 - 7 – 91, then we can all 'look the other way' re those scumpiring ‘decisions’. We still get a ‘fitting’ result (literal and pun meanings both intended), and everyone is as happy as a Paedophile working in an Immigration Detention Centre. (Ok, I’m not going there on that last one - but you can... http://www.vice.com/read/australian-gov ... hild-abuse)

A final finding: The view (well, my view at least) was always that the bounce would be a major impediment to having female field umpires. After viewing field report footage of them in action from VFL and SANFL games, and after viewing the footage from Saturday night :evil: my view now is – BRING THE GIRLS ON!!!

Thoughts Sainters?

Thoughts, Rodger?

- Aeon.







(Sigh.) Paedos and pollies. No one likes house cleaning.

But I give it my best shot........... :twisted:
Makes you wonder doesn't it. You can't fix a game between the Hawks and say the Suns because the Hawks are too damn good. Lot easier to make a close game a certainty with just one or two crook or crooked decisions.

Easy money. Gambling on sport has tainted american gridiron, soccer and cricket. I can't see why the Afl wouldn't attract organised crime.


Post Reply