Game Chat – West Coast v Gold Coast

Written by Father Dougal on March 21 2021

Where and when: 6:10 pm Today at Optus Stadium 

What it means for the Eagles:  Losing to a fast starting Sun’s team could really hurt the Eagles later in the year, and they will want to start off strong. If they lost to the Eagles at Optus, well they will have a lot of company this year and I wouldn’t take that as a big thing. 

What it means for the Suns: Beating the Eagles would be a great way to start a real finals campaign. There have been a lot of upsets this round so, well at home, losing would be a bad sign, very bad sign. 

Supercoach Watch:

Eagles:  Liam Duggan….wait is that it….?

Suns: Matt Rowell….wait is that it again….?

Father Dougal’s Watch:  Um, Rowell it is, He is owned by many for good reasons, and wow do his owners want to see him do well. 

Father Dougal’s Tip:  I just can’t go against the Eagles at home for their season opener. West Coast wins the Battle of the Coasts by 15

3
0


Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom

36 thoughts on “Game Chat – West Coast v Gold Coast”

    1. Indication is injury sub is going to be activated for Rowell. who is on 9 points.
      I hope he is ok.

      0

      3
      1. Hunter Clark was very good too. It all depends on what DPP’s you have..

        I’ll seriously consider using a trade to Phillips, Serong, Stephenson, Heeney, Caldwell.

        I wish I had the money to go to Mills but I don’t.

        Selwood might be a good option too if Danger is out for a bit.

        1

        0
    1. If Danger gets suspended for more than one week (I believe that he should get off for what he did, but I know that unfortunately the MRO suspend people on outcomes, not actions) then he and Rowell will be traded out for Dusty Fwd and then use the spare cash to go Rowell to Tom Mitchell

      1

      4
      1. He chose to shoulder charge when he should have tackled, and someone got a head injury. He’ll be lucky to only miss 3.

        He’ll definitely go for at least 2.

        They’ve been rubbing players out for that for years even before the whole concussion thing took off.

        There is absolutely 0% chance of him getting off that one.

        6

        5
        1. Not disagreeing with your summary at all there HH, also understand the head needs to be protected, just disagree with the entire premise of basing suspensions on the result of a collision. I also know plenty of others may disagree.
          Look at Danihers elbow that he got a fine for last night, that elbow swing could have concussed Rampe but because it didn’t, he just gets a fine…. Doesn’t make sense to me and I’m happy for us to agree to disagree. Not trying to start an argument.

          10

          1
          1. I think there should be a component for intention and a component for outcome. Which is pretty much what there is.

            If you do something reckless but not deliberately causing hurt yet someone gets injured in the real world you don’t get off scot free because the intention wasn’t there.

            Outcome has to be a major part of it, for justice and equity.

            Why should the innocent party miss 6 or 8 weeks, maybe miss a finals series, and yet the Match Review people decide that there wasn’t enough intent so the aggressor gets a fine?

            It’s not like we haven’t had years and years of warning that if you bump or worse shoulder charge you’ll be spending weeks on the pine. How many times has Buddy done his penance over his career for precisely this?

            No one should be surprised, except maybe Danger who has long felt he had a special set of rules just for him.

            8

            3
            1. Some great points, however I’m not sure we can compare rules of a football game to the real world.

              By the same argument, we can rub everyone out for laying a tackle.
              If I run up and tackle someone to the ground while I’m walking down the street, I can be charged with assault, whereas in the game of football the tackle is a legal part of the rules of the game.
              Same goes for the bump, it’s still a legal part of the game that you can hip and shoulder someone. There is no law written into the rules that you can’t bump someone into the body which is what Danger did.
              Yes there is now a rule as of about 2 years ago that you’re responsible for the outcome of a bump, and under that rule I agree that Danger will be having a spell for 2 minimum.

              I just disagree with the rule generally as it leaves so much open to interpretation.

              I also love that our friggin awesome game has so many of these grey areas and nuances, and we can debate them on the best SC site going around!

              FOOTY’S BACK! YAYAYAYAYAYA!

              5

              1
              1. I’d rather clearly definable rules and far less “what the hell was that for” moments.

                Pointless, or at least incomprehensible whistles and frees is what’s brought Rugby to it’s knees in this country.

                If there’s any vagueness, or “open to interpretation” in a rule then it’s a rule that’s been badly thought out and needs to change.

                Sadly we’ve just added a few more into our game this year.

                3

                0
                1. Yep agree with that about some of the rules they brought in. I lament this every time there is any sort of “ruck infringement” paid. Legitimately at games whenever a free kick is called in a ruck contest, 100% of the crowd have no idea what it’s paid for.

                  Stopped watching Union years ago when not even the commentators on slow mo replay could even tell you wha5t a penalty was for….

                  1

                  0
          2. Spot on Jimmy, intentions and impact severity should count for more and result for less. If you hit someone high and hard enough to knock them off their feet, you should go whether they are concussed or not.

            What will incriminate Danger is that he probably didn’t need to shoulder the player but in that situation, most players would have.

            3

            0
  1. Wow that’s not good for Rowell 🙁
    Hate to see any type of injury especially to such a young talented player.

    On a more positive not I swapped Rowell too Taranto late last night. Phew. Watch LDU and tarantos ownership spike now

    5

    0
  2. I hope it’s not too serious – poor bugger. shoulder then a knee – don’t give a stuff about my points – just hope he’s ok

    17

    0
    1. Possibly a PCL which even for a low grade is half a season.

      Not a good start to the year for him, or for many SuperCoaches.

      🙁

      2

      0
  3. I’ve watched a few games this weekend, it’s a backman’s game now.

    I don’t know what to make of the rucks… The big 2 failing but others going well…

    5

    0
    1. Individual games.

      Grundy was lucky to score what he got and so was Gawn.
      Hunter was unlucky to score what he got.

      In the end, ruck scoring has ALWAYS been dependent on how often the umpire wants to wet his/her whistle

      3

      2
  4. Heads up everyone – I’ve just seen Motts’ score for this round and he’s definitely going to tell you about it later…

    6

    0
      1. But, I must say, I’m very disappointed in him … “no Dow”

        C’mon Mottsy, you’re not serious!!! *wink*

        1

        0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *