Todays sleeper hold from Barry Hall that he just would not let go of instantly reminded me of pluggers big hold on Brad Fox of Essendon. I rekon it was at Waverley in the early 90's if I remember.
Can anyone else remember it. I can remember it more on urban legend than what actually happened.
I have heard big Stewie has stated that he thouht he was going to kill him and he tried to intervene.
Lockett Vs Fox
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
plugger66 wrote:My wife actually worked with Fox at the commonwealth bank at the time. He fainted as he couldnt breath and said to my wife he thought he was going to die.
you have a wife????.......
....poor dear.... 
...her...not you.....everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
-
johnc19690
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Wed 02 Jul 2008 11:57am
- Location: Sunbury
-
saintspremiers
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
This has been reported in the media also, so not new news.plugger66 wrote:My wife actually worked with Fox at the commonwealth bank at the time. He fainted as he couldnt breath and said to my wife he thought he was going to die.
Let's just hope Bazza gets a few weeks.
I'll try and get some inside info re Scott Thompson during the week from a very good source also!!!
How is your plastic doll going. Still getting plenty of use. Next time get a female one.stinger wrote:plugger66 wrote:My wife actually worked with Fox at the commonwealth bank at the time. He fainted as he couldnt breath and said to my wife he thought he was going to die.
you have a wife????.......
Reported for abuse of a family member. Something you should know about.stinger wrote:plugger66 wrote:My wife actually worked with Fox at the commonwealth bank at the time. He fainted as he couldnt breath and said to my wife he thought he was going to die.
you have a wife????.......
The Saintsfan Cometh
Okay that made me laughplugger66 wrote:How is your plastic doll going. Still getting plenty of use. Next time get a female one.stinger wrote:plugger66 wrote:My wife actually worked with Fox at the commonwealth bank at the time. He fainted as he couldnt breath and said to my wife he thought he was going to die.
you have a wife????.......
Follow me for my expert opinions on Twitter @DanielClark93
-
maverick
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5022
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 10:42am
- Location: Bayside
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 93 times
And meclarky449 wrote:Okay that made me laughplugger66 wrote:How is your plastic doll going. Still getting plenty of use. Next time get a female one.stinger wrote:plugger66 wrote:My wife actually worked with Fox at the commonwealth bank at the time. He fainted as he couldnt breath and said to my wife he thought he was going to die.
you have a wife????.......
Do you think he should be suspended for that though?rodgerfox wrote:Interestingly, it was....saintspremiers wrote:
Let's just hope Bazza gets a few weeks.
- high contact
- off the ball
- intentional
- high impact (ie. took 4 dudes to pry him loose)
Regardless of who it was and the prior angst it had caused him...surely a headlock doesn't deserve anything?
Barry is being treated as some sort of demi-god through this as if we have to feel sorry for him that he has anger problems and a big bad North defender stirred him up and shouldn't have.
The Saintsfan Cometh
-
rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
Why would the rules suddenly change?plugger66 wrote:Suspended for a headlock. I hope not. Dont care who it is.
It was....
- high contact
- off the ball
- intentional
- high impact (ie. took 4 dudes to pry him loose)
You're not going to suggest the AFL or the MRP change the rules to suit different scenarios?
That is crap. It was a wrestle and someone was put in a headlock. So from now on we dont fine players fro wrestling, we suspend them. RF you actually have less idea than I thought.rodgerfox wrote:Why would the rules suddenly change?plugger66 wrote:Suspended for a headlock. I hope not. Dont care who it is.
It was....
- high contact
- off the ball
- intentional
- high impact (ie. took 4 dudes to pry him loose)
You're not going to suggest the AFL or the MRP change the rules to suit different scenarios?
The rules don't change however...bugger me if he gets done for that the rules are a changin' and non-contact will be the next rule applied.rodgerfox wrote:Why would the rules suddenly change?plugger66 wrote:Suspended for a headlock. I hope not. Dont care who it is.
It was....
- high contact
- off the ball
- intentional
- high impact (ie. took 4 dudes to pry him loose)
You're not going to suggest the AFL or the MRP change the rules to suit different scenarios?
The Saintsfan Cometh
-
rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
I repeat...plugger66 wrote:That is crap. It was a wrestle and someone was put in a headlock. So from now on we dont fine players fro wrestling, we suspend them. RF you actually have less idea than I thought.rodgerfox wrote:Why would the rules suddenly change?plugger66 wrote:Suspended for a headlock. I hope not. Dont care who it is.
It was....
- high contact
- off the ball
- intentional
- high impact (ie. took 4 dudes to pry him loose)
You're not going to suggest the AFL or the MRP change the rules to suit different scenarios?
You're not going to suggest the AFL or the MRP change the rules to suit different scenarios?
It was....
- high contact
- off the ball
- intentional
- high impact (ie. took 4 dudes to pry him loose)
What if I was wrestling a guy and put an arm bar on him? Or a knee bar? It would take me 2 seconds to do it, and put him out for the season.
But cause it was during a wrestle, it's Ok?
-
rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
If you make high, intentional, forceful contact off the ball you get weeks.Saintsfan wrote:The rules don't change however...bugger me if he gets done for that the rules are a changin' and non-contact will be the next rule applied.rodgerfox wrote:Why would the rules suddenly change?plugger66 wrote:Suspended for a headlock. I hope not. Dont care who it is.
It was....
- high contact
- off the ball
- intentional
- high impact (ie. took 4 dudes to pry him loose)
You're not going to suggest the AFL or the MRP change the rules to suit different scenarios?
That's the rule.
That's what Hall did.
He most definitely should get weeks.
According to the ridiculous AFL rules.
So every wrestle now gets weeks not a fine. I repeat it was a headlock and a wrestle and as you said surely AFL and MVP arent going to change rules on the run. He will get a fine as all wrestling gets.rodgerfox wrote:I repeat...plugger66 wrote:That is crap. It was a wrestle and someone was put in a headlock. So from now on we dont fine players fro wrestling, we suspend them. RF you actually have less idea than I thought.rodgerfox wrote:Why would the rules suddenly change?plugger66 wrote:Suspended for a headlock. I hope not. Dont care who it is.
It was....
- high contact
- off the ball
- intentional
- high impact (ie. took 4 dudes to pry him loose)
You're not going to suggest the AFL or the MRP change the rules to suit different scenarios?
You're not going to suggest the AFL or the MRP change the rules to suit different scenarios?
It was....
- high contact
- off the ball
- intentional
- high impact (ie. took 4 dudes to pry him loose)
What if I was wrestling a guy and put an arm bar on him? Or a knee bar? It would take me 2 seconds to do it, and put him out for the season.
But cause it was during a wrestle, it's Ok?
As for scenario that actually didnt happen imagine if he killed him or killed all 3 players. Makes as much sense and you mentioning something that didnt happen. Now on your way and think of some more negitive things about the Saints that has happened since 2007.
-
rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
No, I never said that.plugger66 wrote:So every wrestle now gets weeks not a fine.rodgerfox wrote:I repeat...plugger66 wrote:That is crap. It was a wrestle and someone was put in a headlock. So from now on we dont fine players fro wrestling, we suspend them. RF you actually have less idea than I thought.rodgerfox wrote:Why would the rules suddenly change?plugger66 wrote:Suspended for a headlock. I hope not. Dont care who it is.
It was....
- high contact
- off the ball
- intentional
- high impact (ie. took 4 dudes to pry him loose)
You're not going to suggest the AFL or the MRP change the rules to suit different scenarios?
You're not going to suggest the AFL or the MRP change the rules to suit different scenarios?
It was....
- high contact
- off the ball
- intentional
- high impact (ie. took 4 dudes to pry him loose)
What if I was wrestling a guy and put an arm bar on him? Or a knee bar? It would take me 2 seconds to do it, and put him out for the season.
But cause it was during a wrestle, it's Ok?
I said....
It was....
- high contact
- off the ball
- intentional
- high impact (ie. took 4 dudes to pry him loose)
So according to the ludicrous AFL system, he has to go. It's really, really simple.
If he doesn't go, then the AFL are changing the rules.plugger66 wrote: I repeat it was a headlock and a wrestle and as you said surely AFL and MVP arent going to change rules on the run. He will get a fine as all wrestling gets.
As for something that did happen.....plugger66 wrote: As for scenario that actually didnt happen imagine if he killed him or killed all 3 players. Makes as much sense and you mentioning something that didnt happen.
It was....
- high contact
- off the ball
- intentional
- high impact (ie. took 4 dudes to pry him loose)
-
rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
Wrestling is fine.plugger66 wrote:It was a wrestle and under the rules of wrestling he will get a fine. Now go away and learn the rules unless of course you want the AFL and MVP to change the wrestling rule. Good bye and go back in your little hole.
This was ....
Intentional, forceful, head high contact off the ball.
What happens if you strike someone in the head whilst in a wrestle?
You would go. Why? Because it's intentional, forceful, head high contact off the ball.
A wrestle is a scrap where no other rules are broken. In this instance, it's absolutely clear that the AFL's most precious rule was broken.
Remember when J. Brown got weeks for putting Blake in a headlock?
So what happens if a FB and FF are pushing and shoving before a bounce and one of them pushes someone in the head. The umpire pays a free for head high contact but under your ridiculous scenario is would be head high contact, behind play and intentional and probably low impact. That is how stupid your argument is.rodgerfox wrote:Wrestling is fine.plugger66 wrote:It was a wrestle and under the rules of wrestling he will get a fine. Now go away and learn the rules unless of course you want the AFL and MVP to change the wrestling rule. Good bye and go back in your little hole.
This was ....
Intentional, forceful, head high contact off the ball.
What happens if you strike someone in the head whilst in a wrestle?
You would go. Why? Because it's intentional, forceful, head high contact off the ball.
A wrestle is a scrap where no other rules are broken. In this instance, it's absolutely clear that the AFL's most precious rule was broken.
Remember when J. Brown got weeks for putting Blake in a headlock?
-
rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
"Already facing a rough play charge for a head-lock on St Kilda ruckman Jason Blake, Brown picked up an extra wrestling count for an incident involving the Saints' Brett Voss after the AFL's video review late on Monday. Voss also faces a charge over the incident."
This was even back in 2004 befpre the AFL were wetting themselves over head-high contact.
Under the new rules, Hall is in far more trouble than Brown was back then.
This was even back in 2004 befpre the AFL were wetting themselves over head-high contact.
Under the new rules, Hall is in far more trouble than Brown was back then.
-
rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
If it was intentional, and forceful, then he'd absolutely be in trouble.plugger66 wrote:
So what happens if a FB and FF are pushing and shoving before a bounce and one of them pushes someone in the head. The umpire pays a free for head high contact but under your ridiculous scenario is would be head high contact, behind play and intentional and probably low impact. That is how stupid your argument is.
Steven Baker got weeks for attempted jumper punch during a wrestle for god's sake.