If he'd been found guilty of charging he would have gotten a week regardless, so any suppositions beyond that, an elbow to the face, as your example are irrelevant.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Goodes let off
- Thread starter bzparkes
- Start date
- Tagged users None
A good record doesn't mean you get off - it means you get a discount (25%) on the points.
Do the Roos have anyone big enough to run through Goodes? besides Thompson, who's not going to be there. Brown maybe? if he's not too busy being towelled up.
I take it that you're aware of how acceleration works?
Should have got 4 weeks for such a gutless act behind play when the player didn't even know he was there.
gutless goodes? ha this bloke is a champion, if anyone Anthony 'Thug' Rocca is the gutless one. What's his record at the tribunal compared to Goodes? would love to know if you can tell me
Its the first time someone has had the guts to report Goodes (or any other Swines player) for behind the play incidents, but luckily enough the AFL made sure the charges didn't go anywhere.
Its the first time someone has had the guts to report Goodes (or any other Swines player) for behind the play incidents, but luckily enough the AFL made sure the charges didn't go anywhere.
Giansiracusa anyone?
Yes, all those controversial, unreported behind the play incidents that Swans players have been involved in recently...
Yes, they came up with this points system years in advance just in case a Swans player was ever charged with a low level offence. Those cunning bastards.but luckily enough the AFL made sure the charges didn't go anywhere.
I can tell that you just flat out didn't see the incident.
Ever heard of Glenn Archer? Heard he's got a bit of a mean streak in him when he wants to use it.
Can't see him running through Goodes...
Would be pretty easy to ping Goodes actually...just have Arch coming in off the square on Goodes' sore side.
And it's quite a legitimate tactic - if you are on the field carrying an injury, then arguably you are fair game - not great sportsmanshop admittedy, but, you can't stop opponents testing out injuries to see what happens.
And it's quite a legitimate tactic - if you are on the field carrying an injury, then arguably you are fair game - not great sportsmanshop admittedy, but, you can't stop opponents testing out injuries to see what happens.
Not aimed at you Pazza, but I love how those baying loudest about dog acts are those encouraging dirty but legitimate play on Goodes.
Lmao, i think that's giving AD and his goons far too much credit!
So what're you saying is the only way to get Goodes is with a cheap shot?
The King!
Chosen One
why is this thread so long, it wasnt worth doing any time over. there are worse incidents week in week out. it was worth a free maybe even a 50m but not a report.
There is a polite difference between a Goodes v Archer clash and the one between Goodes and Godfrey.
In the first situation, contact would be easily expected by Goodes - it happens in the game all the time. And it would defintely be in the play.
Whereas in the case that Goodes had to front, the contact is clearly not expected and it was away from the play.
For Goodes to then turn around - and say that "Yes I Hit Him" and ask for the charge to be changed - and then have the Tribunal back him on it, is a sad situation. If Goodes was really guilty, he should have just worn the week. It's called being honest about your actions and living with the consequences of them.
Now he's playing this week - with a sore shoulder. He's gonna cop it - and has himself to blame for being out there.
In the first situation, contact would be easily expected by Goodes - it happens in the game all the time. And it would defintely be in the play.
Whereas in the case that Goodes had to front, the contact is clearly not expected and it was away from the play.
For Goodes to then turn around - and say that "Yes I Hit Him" and ask for the charge to be changed - and then have the Tribunal back him on it, is a sad situation. If Goodes was really guilty, he should have just worn the week. It's called being honest about your actions and living with the consequences of them.
Now he's playing this week - with a sore shoulder. He's gonna cop it - and has himself to blame for being out there.
Nup - reckon there's a bloke who wears #23 at Essendon who has a good formula...just keep Goodes out of the play is his way...even if that means not getting it yourself.
The King!
Chosen One
\
what should he do?? he said yes im guilty cos the defence team would of advised it was the best way to get off. any player at any club would of done the same.
An attack on an injured player and an admittedly dirty shove in the back. There's a difference for sure, but it doesn't make it better or fairer.
So attacking an injured person is behaviour that you can hold your head up over because it's in play and may be expected?
Please.
The player Goodes hit was turning his head away from Goodes after just saying something, so I doubt it was totally unexpected and what's more
a) it wasn't away from play, the ball had only just rolled over the line a few metres away
b) in or away from play does not excuse any dirty play by a footballer.
Goodes did nothing of the sort, he admitted to the action he had taken, but he didn't agree it was the action with which he was charged.
He was honest, he admitted it, he was punished, I fail to see your point.
A reprimand is a punishment? It's like getting a community based order for a crime. Dead-set laughable punishment.
Had he took the week that was on offer in the first place, then it would have been so much easier - a lot less expensive and therefore faith in the MRP and the umpires in reporting incidents in matches would be restored.
The King!
Chosen One
Sorry, but that is a load of illogical hogwash.
If the MRP had charged him with head high contact, are you suggesting he should just have said, yes m'lord, I hit him so I will plead guilty as charged regardless of the fact I didn't actually hit him high?
Goodes is well within his rights to argue he struck, not charged. I have never ever seen another instance of a jabbing action with an arm classified as a charge.
Had the MRP properly classified it as a strike in the first place they'd have saved everyone a lot of time and retained faith in the MRP process.
Under the structure of penalties put in place by the AFL and his 10 year unblemished record (explicitly built into the penalty system) Goodes was clearly entitled to fight for the reprimand that he believed that structure imposed.
Don't try and pretend any other club or any other player would have done differently.
