Brad Scott unleashes

[jacko57]

Didn't Scott say he was glad Goodes was suspended after the tribunal agreed Goodes was going for the ball but should have taken some other, undefined action?

No, IIRC he made no comment on the Goodes Tribunal decision ; he simply answered a reporter's question by admitting Goodes' absence should help our chances of winning.

 

[.Shotties.]

No, IIRC he made no comment on the Goodes Tribunal decision ; he simply answered a reporter's question by admitting Goodes' absence should help our chances of winning.

Didn't say he commented on the tribunal. When a decision of the nature he's upset about now came down on Goodes he said he was happy Goodes was out.

 

[giantroo]

What a response from AA.... Turns to water...

 

[ozgamer]

I see absolutely no evidence from the footage that suggests that his sole objective was 'the ball'.

Are you sponsored by OPSM like the umpires?

 

[greennick]

Are you sponsored by OPSM like the umpires?

I agree with him. If the sole objective was the ball, his arm wouldn't have been down, it would have been outstretched trying to pinch the ball from in front of Joseph.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Are you sponsored by OPSM like the umpires?

Get a clue...

 

[AndyLucimitis]

I agree with him. If the sole objective was the ball, his arm wouldn't have been down, it would have been outstretched trying to pinch the ball from in front of Joseph.

Yep - this fairly obvious point seems to get missed in all of this. As Leigh Matthews - who always seems to be able to cut through the crap - said on 3AW he was going the ball AND trying to hurt the player.

I said on MRP forum, it wasn't a 'dog act' (nor was Wellinghams) but he attacked the ball AND the player, got it wrong and so deserves a penalty.