Mick Malthouse is a hypocrytical tosser!

[Scoop]

Malthouse and Sheedy really aging bad.

Poor effort on the Tarrant front.

 

[tigertim]

One journo asked if Reid played a similar game to Tarrant.

Malthouse replies "I hope not!"  The audience giggles.

Typical case of misrepresenting the quote.  Malthouse actually did say he hopes not then went on to elaborate why he hoped not, that being that he has Reid earmarked more as a backman than a forward.

Can't see how that's mispresenting a quote.

He was asked if Reid plays like Tarrant and replies verbatim "I hope not!" 

Yes and then continued on to say why, which was conveniently not shown in the footage.  That in my view is misrpresentation and it happens all the time.

What Malthouse went on to do is try and cover his gaffe. Everyone knew what he meant by his two comments "our first choice to wear the no. 20" and "I hope not". They were both unsubtle references to his opinion of Tarrant. You can take it any way you wish.

 

[craig]

sheesh mick speaks a few home truths and everyone gets into him.
every coach in the league defends his players wheather they are duds or not. malthouse defended an underachieving slack arse dud while at his club. but as soon as he left mick spoke the truth nothing more nothing less. geez if its honesty we want from our coaches wallace would be singing plenty of home truths about our players. im sure everyone would consider him a darksider.
as for the rule change comments mick is 100% right ive had a gutful of the tinkering bartlett and those other *smile*s in charge are killing our game. i reckon the netball analogy is about right.

Agreed Clawsy

 

[craig]

as for the rule change comments mick is 100% right ive had a gutful of the tinkering bartlett and those other *smile*s in charge are killing our game. i reckon the netball analogy is about right.

Don't give a stuff about Malthouse bagging his former players but he is a *smile*wit ranting about rule changes.
Firstly, if the maggots actually umpired to the rules as they stand and have stood for a hundred years then we wouldn't have half of the so called tinkering.
Chopping arms in a marking contest or pushing a player in the back have always been against the rules it's just that the maggots have been spending so much time prancing around trying to find the best position to adjudicate from or making sure they gesticulate in such an exagerated manner that they have forgotten what they are actually there for.
If only the admin would also make the umpires ping the midfield parasites that spend all game with their back to the play scragging the footballers then we will get our game back to being played the way it was always intended, and with the skills and pace players have nowadays it will be electric.
I'm happy enough to see the stronger enforcement of deliberate head high bumps but just wonder whats going to happen when a player bumps someone side to side and there is some incidental head clash caused by the whiplash effect of a solid bump.

chopping arms and holding players out with your hands has always been part of the game.
personally the only time i would apply the in the back rule is when its dangerous.its become such a contentios rule nowdays with players collapsing their legs everytime they are tackled from behind. a player who does this all the time is peter bell and 99% of the time gets a free kick. if i was playing against him i would just concede the free and bury him.

Agreed again Clawsy, you can put some others such as Milne in that boat too.

 

[Bill James]

as for the rule change comments mick is 100% right ive had a gutful of the tinkering bartlett and those other *smile*s in charge are killing our game. i reckon the netball analogy is about right.

Don't give a stuff about Malthouse bagging his former players but he is a *smile*wit ranting about rule changes.
Firstly, if the maggots actually umpired to the rules as they stand and have stood for a hundred years then we wouldn't have half of the so called tinkering.
Chopping arms in a marking contest or pushing a player in the back have always been against the rules it's just that the maggots have been spending so much time prancing around trying to find the best position to adjudicate from or making sure they gesticulate in such an exagerated manner that they have forgotten what they are actually there for.
If only the admin would also make the umpires ping the midfield parasites that spend all game with their back to the play scragging the footballers then we will get our game back to being played the way it was always intended, and with the skills and pace players have nowadays it will be electric.
I'm happy enough to see the stronger enforcement of deliberate head high bumps but just wonder whats going to happen when a player bumps someone side to side and there is some incidental head clash caused by the whiplash effect of a solid bump.

Well said TM. Whats wrong with forwards kicking a hundred goals, its good to watch. Whats more if they get looked after according to the rules coaches will instruct players to kick to key forwards in contests and the need for the possession game will be reduced. Long overdue.

 

[GoodOne]

One journo asked if Reid played a similar game to Tarrant.

Malthouse replies "I hope not!"  The audience giggles.

Typical case of misrepresenting the quote.  Malthouse actually did say he hopes not then went on to elaborate why he hoped not, that being that he has Reid earmarked more as a backman than a forward.

Can't see how that's mispresenting a quote.

He was asked if Reid plays like Tarrant and replies verbatim "I hope not!" 

Yes and then continued on to say why, which was conveniently not shown in the footage.  That in my view is misrpresentation and it happens all the time.

What Malthouse went on to do is try and cover his gaffe. Everyone knew what he meant by his two comments "our first to wear the no. 20" and "I hope not". They were both unsubtle references to his opinion of Tarrant. You can take it any way you wish.

K so in your opinion he was covering a gaffe. I certainly didnt see it that way, The questioning must have taken Malthouse completely by surprise <sarcasm>. Regardless I think it would be even more hypocrytical to support Tarrant considering Collingwood instigated his move. They obviously saw short-comings in Tarrant otherwise they wouldnt have traded him. Personally, I think Tarrant is a very lazy footballer who has been very lucky to get as many chances as he has. Hard to forget him basically walking out and going AWOL at the start of his career.

I still think Malthouse was misrepresented, the Age article was alot more even in its reporting of his comments.

 

[Legends of 2017]

at the start of the conference, was he having another go at a journo, like a schoolteacher? Something along the lines of 'when are you going to ask a sensible question?'etc?

 

[chislop]

as for the rule change comments mick is 100% right ive had a gutful of the tinkering bartlett and those other *smile*s in charge are killing our game. i reckon the netball analogy is about right.

Don't give a stuff about Malthouse bagging his former players but he is a *smile*wit ranting about rule changes.
Firstly, if the maggots actually umpired to the rules as they stand and have stood for a hundred years then we wouldn't have half of the so called tinkering.
Chopping arms in a marking contest or pushing a player in the back have always been against the rules it's just that the maggots have been spending so much time prancing around trying to find the best position to adjudicate from or making sure they gesticulate in such an exagerated manner that they have forgotten what they are actually there for.
If only the admin would also make the umpires ping the midfield parasites that spend all game with their back to the play scragging the footballers then we will get our game back to being played the way it was always intended, and with the skills and pace players have nowadays it will be electric.
I'm happy enough to see the stronger enforcement of deliberate head high bumps but just wonder whats going to happen when a player bumps someone side to side and there is some incidental head clash caused by the whiplash effect of a solid bump.

chopping arms and holding players out with your hands has always been part of the game.
personally the only time i would apply the in the back rule is when its dangerous.its become such a contentios rule nowdays with players collapsing their legs everytime they are tackled from behind. a player who does this all the time is peter bell and 99% of the time gets a free kick. if i was playing against him i would just concede the free and bury him.

Agreed again Clawsy, you can put some others such as Milne in that boat too.

Glen or Stephen?

 

[tigertim]

as for the rule change comments mick is 100% right ive had a gutful of the tinkering bartlett and those other *smile*s in charge are killing our game. i reckon the netball analogy is about right.

Don't give a stuff about Malthouse bagging his former players but he is a *smile*wit ranting about rule changes.
Firstly, if the maggots actually umpired to the rules as they stand and have stood for a hundred years then we wouldn't have half of the so called tinkering.
Chopping arms in a marking contest or pushing a player in the back have always been against the rules it's just that the maggots have been spending so much time prancing around trying to find the best position to adjudicate from or making sure they gesticulate in such an exagerated manner that they have forgotten what they are actually there for.
If only the admin would also make the umpires ping the midfield parasites that spend all game with their back to the play scragging the footballers then we will get our game back to being played the way it was always intended, and with the skills and pace players have nowadays it will be electric.
I'm happy enough to see the stronger enforcement of deliberate head high bumps but just wonder whats going to happen when a player bumps someone side to side and there is some incidental head clash caused by the whiplash effect of a solid bump.

chopping arms and holding players out with your hands has always been part of the game.
personally the only time i would apply the in the back rule is when its dangerous.its become such a contentios rule nowdays with players collapsing their legs everytime they are tackled from behind. a player who does this all the time is peter bell and 99% of the time gets a free kick. if i was playing against him i would just concede the free and bury him.

Agreed again Clawsy, you can put some others such as Milne in that boat too.

Glen or Stephen?

Whoooaa! Is PRE getting into political humour?

 

[Scoop]

Re: Mick Malthouse is a hypocritical tosser!

Malthouse another classic stuff up.

Complained that no one on the rules committee who make the changes plays the game.

Yep spot on, that is except your captain and so called greatest player Nathan Buckley.

Do your research you muppet.

Sheedy and Malthouse have evolved into the two old guys who sit in the balcony and heckle with no idea.

Waldorf Malthouse and Stadler Sheedy. Just a couple of old fools.

 

[the claw]

Re: Mick Malthouse is a hypocritical tosser!

Malthouse another classic stuff up.

Complained that no one on the rules committee who make the changes plays the game.

Yep spot on, that is except your captain and so called greatest player Nathan Buckley.

Do your research you muppet.

Sheedy and Malthouse have evolved into the two old guys who sit in the balcony and heckle with no idea.

Waldorf Malthouse and Stadler Sheedy.  Just a couple of old fools.

no wonder we have these types of rules being bought in. buckley bartlett and healy with all due respects to kb has the game ever seen bigger soft *smile*

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Re: Mick Malthouse is a hypocritical tosser!

Malthouse another classic stuff up.

Complained that no one on the rules committee who make the changes plays the game.

Yep spot on, that is except your captain and so called greatest player Nathan Buckley.

Do your research you muppet.

Sheedy and Malthouse have evolved into the two old guys who sit in the balcony and heckle with no idea.

Waldorf Malthouse and Stadler Sheedy.  Just a couple of old fools.

no wonder we have these types of rules being bought in. buckley bartlett and healy with all due respects to kb has the game ever seen bigger soft *smile*

Ask Graeme Hinchen and Bruce? Nankervis how soft KB was.

 

[nitrotiger]

Bruce nankervis?
couldnt play to save himself.........


And lay off kevin bartlett or Ill be pickin your teeth outta my fist for a month....
K.B.was an out and out Richmond champ that played in 5 flags.Period.

End of argument you tryhards.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Bruce nankervis?
couldnt play to save himself.........


And lay off kevin bartlett or Ill be pickin your teeth outta my fist for a month....
K.B.was an out and out Richmond champ that played in 5 flags.Period.

End of argument you tryhards.

Ease up nitro, I was referring to KB (reputedly) breaking Hinchen's jaw behind play and splaying Nankervis' nose across his face.