Goodes let off

[Eagle1/Syd]

This seems to get quoted every week. Where there is smoke etc.

The MRP, the AFL tribunal and the AFL admin are indeed a joke, no consistency whatsoever

yes i agree the culture at Sydney has always been Evil if i was the AFL i would bring them in for a good talking to

 

[NitWit]

Quoted for laughs.

It's obvious you have an ingrained hate for the Eagles NitWit, so I don't see why anyone would bother arguing with you about this. bzparks is a much better poster that you could ever hope to be. You just dragged this thread off topic simply to have a go at bz and the eagles, which while i'm sure is a favourite pasttime of yours is irrelevent to the thread. You lose at life.

I have provided the various Daniel Chick incidents for the following reasons:

1] Because this thread was started by an Eagles supporter. (Double Standards)
2] Daniel Chick was not suspended or reported in the incidents.
3] The Goodes charging incident was simular to the various Chick charging incidents.

I now refer to the bolded parts. Again we have to resort to making things up because we cannot provide the answers as to why Adam Goodes should be suspended for an incident that is simlar to incidents where Daniel Chick was not suspended or even reported.
I didnt drag this off-topic, I provide a case that was simular to Goodes' charging incident. If that player wasn't suspended, then neither should have Goodes.

You are right, there is no need to debate this, because I have already finished this thread a long time ago. I have proven you wrong many times yet you still come back for more.

If a user of this forum is going to post idiotic rhetoric, then yes they should be challenged. No it's not a favorite pasttime of mine, but if I see something that I disagree or is factually wrong, I will debate it. I couldn't care less if it is an Eagles supporter or a Managatang III's supporter.

Swans fans are continuously mistreated on these forums, it is about time someone provided factual evidence. A small minority of users believe that the Swans are given a free ride. I have proven they are not the only one's.

 

[.Shotties.]

This is the Swans we are talking about. Swans players don't get suspended for striking. Remember Barry Hall ?

Remember how he got off because the AFL's laws deemed him in play?

 

[NitWit]

Can you prove it to me? That is pretty funny

Wonder what freo fans have to say about that statement

Go back and re-read my original posts. Your comprehension sklls might need a work out.

The fact that not one of you can provide me a good reason as to why Chick was not suspended for charging, yet you believe that Goodes should have been, is sarcasm enough

 

[Quinz]

2] Daniel Chick was not suspended or reported in the incidents.

Well after saying that no one should bother arguing with you I think I will anyway.

I don't remember the Grant incident so I won't talk about that one, but the Malceski one was less that a second after he had got rid of the ball, was a good solid hit, front on, and not high. Plus it was in a final and we've already seen that the AFL don't like suspending players in finals, inconsistency there.

3] The Goodes charging incident was simular to the various Chick charging incidents.

It definately wasn't at all similar to the Chick hit last year. He hit him front on with a good bump, Goodes elbowed him from behind, I don't see any similarity here?

I now refer to the bolded parts. Again we have to resort to making things up because we cannot provide the answers as to why Adam Goodes should be suspended for an incident that is simlar to incidents where Daniel Chick was not suspended or even reported.

Again, the goodes incident was different to the Chick hit last year becuase he hit him from behind. I hope you're thinking of the same incident I am . The hit in 2003 is irrelevent because the tribunal was operating under a different system of grading and suspension, and I haven't seen that one so I don't know how bad it was.

I didnt drag this off-topic, I provide a case that was simular to Goodes' charging incident. If that player wasn't suspended, then neither should have Goodes.

The AFL tribunal does not allow past incidents to be used in defense, they have already proven that the same thing can get different results. Hall vs Gehrig is one example. Shaun Burgoyne got nothing, Michael Johnson got four weeks. Each case should be assessed independantly of any other one.

You are right, there is no need to debate this, because I have already finished this thread a long time ago. I have proven you wrong many times yet you still come back for more.

You've proven me wrong so many times? I've only said like one thing in this thread and I don't think you responded to that.

If a user of this forum is going to post idiotic rhetoric, then yes they should be challenged. No it's not a favorite pasttime of mine, but if I see something that I disagree or is factually wrong, I will debate it. I couldn't care less if it is an Eagles supporter or a Managatang III's supporter.

Cool, but but in the end it is an opinion forum and that everyone's opinion differs, you can provide some facts while other people will provide others to prove that the swans are favoured (Hall incident for example). It's just a matter of which axe you have to grind.

Swans fans are continuously mistreated on these forums, it is about time someone provided factual evidence. A small minority of users believe that the Swans are given a free ride. I have proven they are not the only one's.

Swans fans are, in general, one of the better posting groups on this forum, but like any other club they will cop heaps on this site when an injustice is percieved by the bigfooty community.


Cheers, it's been fun.

 

[NitWit]

You keep refering to the Barry Hall incident. Why? It has nothing to do with this thread. What does have to do with this thread is the following:

* Goodes was reporting for charging. He got off. Eagles fans come on here and complain about a mis-carriage of justice.

* I then come along and remind Eagles supporters that one Daniel Chick was not even reported for charging, and in one case was reported but not suspended, which is in no way different to the Goodes charging incident. The proverbial egg is splattered across the face.

*Eagles supporters can still not answer my question. Why do they want to hang Goodes for escaping punishment and suspension, when Chick's charging incidents go unpunished. It is really a simple question.

The incident that I am refering to was simular to the Chris Grant cheap shot charge, from behind, in 2005. No report. No suspension.

 

[Quinz]

* Goodes was reporting for charging. He got off. Eagles fans come on here and complain about a mis-carriage of justice.

Not really a mis-carriage of justice, just that it deserved a week suspension IMO. And it's not just eagles fans either, all other fans apart from the swans fans and yourself have said he should have been suspended.

* I then come along and remind Eagles supporters that one Daniel Chick was not even reported for charging, and in one case was reported but not suspended, which is in no way different to the Goodes charging incident. The proverbial egg is splattered across the face.

The Maceski one was completely different and didn't deserve a suspension. The Grant one sounds similar and probably deserved a week as well.

*Eagles supporters can still not answer my question. Why do they want to hang Goodes for escaping punishment and suspension, when Chick's charging incidents go unpunished. It is really a simple question.

I don't think they want to hang goodes, but feel that he should have got suspended, as they are entitled to. Every week when the tribunal releases their results there are at least three threads complaining about it, it's nothing new.
[/QUOTE]

 

[swanniez1983]

while other people will provide others to prove that the swans are favoured (Hall incident for example). It's just a matter of which axe you have to grind.

If you're going to point our one incident (and perhaps Goodes to a lesser extent) as "proof" that the swans are favoured, then that's pretty inconclusive evidence. Look at it this way: very few swans players are reported. However, when they are, most have been found not guilty or have been able to reduce their sentence. So while this would make it look like we are being favoured, the total number of swans which have been cleared is not that high compared to players from each club.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Does anyone in here know what reprimand means? No? Didn't think so.

 

[swanniez1983]

Not really a mis-carriage of justice, just that it deserved a week suspension IMO. And it's not just eagles fans either, all other fans apart from the swans fans and yourself have said he should have been suspended.

He would have ben suspended if he didn't have a good record

 

[Quinz]

He would have ben suspended if he didn't have a good record

I understand that, and I still think he was a bit lucky. The original suspension was about right, but hey, good on the swans for getting him off. I don't mind it, I like watching him play.

 

[.Shotties.]

Care to explain why Hall got let-off in the '05 preliminary? \

For the 10th ****ing time, in the AFL's rules and in the DVD the AFL gave to clubs to demonstrate reportable offences Hall was shown to be in play.

Get it?

 

[Quinz]

If you're going to point our one incident (and perhaps Goodes to a lesser extent) as "proof" that the swans are favoured, then that's pretty inconclusive evidence. Look at it this way: very few swans players are reported. However, when they are, most have been found not guilty or have been able to reduce their sentence. So while this would make it look like we are being favoured, the total number of swans which have been cleared is not that high compared to players from each club.

I'm not claiming that the swans are favoured at all, just that people can come up with past examples to prove almost anything they want.

The Hall one was just an example of a post that someone could use as part of the evidence to claim that the swans are favoured by the tribunal. Along with the increased salary cap due to "cost of living", umpiring in last years grand final and Goodes winning two brownlows , if they felt so inclined. But that wouldn't work out so well because you can find these examples for any club.

 

[Quinz]

For the 10th ****ing time, in the AFL's rules and in the DVD the AFL gave to clubs to demonstrate reportable offences Hall was shown to be in play.

Get it?

What I don't understand about that though is why was it originally assessed as 'behind play'? I'm pretty sure that he was offered a week because of that wasn't he?

 

[.Shotties.]

What I don't understand about that though is why was it originally assessed as 'behind play'? I'm pretty sure that he was offered a week because of that wasn't he?

Because they saw that it was 15-20 metres from the Swans player kicking and went on that alone.

The AFL stated, however, that a player is in play if he is (and I forget the exact wording so I'm paraphrasing) moving to be in the next play or highly likely to be in the next play. So because Hall brutally beat down / barely touched Maguire the hero / diver and recieved the ball in the next play he was deemed to be in play.

A stupid loophole, but not favouritism.

 

[Bernie Quinlan]

Go check revenue and football expenditure for the last 10 years. There is an article in real footy today about it. Sydney is one of the powerhouse clubs, and your club is a boil on its arse.

I concede you're possibly like many Swans fans and have only followed Australian Rules post-1996 - so here's a little history lesson for you before you engage in the ultimate act of hypocrisy and keep calling others parasites.

Only a few years before Footscray demonstrated what the power of legitimate, diehard and traditional football clubs and supporters was all about, your sorry sinking ship of a club was left to desperately and shamelessly throw itself at the feet of a bloke in a white suit, white shoes and pink helicopter. Then, when that cretin got convicted for medical fraud and sent to gaol for hiring a hitman to bash a former patient, the only way out for you was to ask the AFL if you could shamelessly gorge yourself on juicy slices of the profits that clubs like Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon had made all by themselves without any help from the likes of you.

You were so devoid of any class and dignity that you even had to beg a close-to-60-year-old immortal to come out of retirement to coach you, to raid other clubs' lists and steal their star players because you were utterly abject in being able to develop any of your own, and to be allowed to spend thousands more dollars than everyone else in a competition supposedly priding itself on the forces of equalisation.

Not content with that, you've continued to subscribe to much the same philosophies ever since to thoroughly reinforce the point that any success that you ever achieve will barely ever be anything more than tainted, hollow and artificial. And to think that your supporters continue to try and trash talk other sides like West Coast for supposedly morally dubious behaviour off the field while never even daring to be honest enough to mention incidents like the one involving Micky O (means 'no') Loughlin one night in Adelaide a few years ago is just downright embarrassing.

As for "football expenditure", are you sufficiently stupid to even raise that subject as a Sydney fan? You were saying something about p!ssants, parasites and boils before ... I can only assume, from the morally bankrupt nature of your argument, that it must take one to know one.

Do you seriously not understand that the Swans and Lions combined to spend at least $5 million more over the last five years than any other pair of clubs in the entire league? When you make a direct comparison with the Bulldogs, the Swans and Lions have each been allowed (under the AFL's laughable rules) to spend more than $6.5 million extra over the period from 2002 to 2006. (In other words, a total of $13 million more between them.) Considering the entire salary cap for clubs in 2002 was $5.56 million, this is clearly absolutely criminal (ironic, I guess, when we were talking about Edelsten before). Centuries from now, I wouldn't mind betting that your club will still be a laughing stock in relation to the scandalous 'cost of living' rort alone.

And yet you still have the hide, after all of that, to claim that Sydney is somehow a genuine powerhouse? You can have your AFL-purchased assets and premiership any day as far as I'm concerned; as much as you might try to diminish other teams with your juvenile and naive abuse, I'll happily take a traditional footy club that relies on its own hard work and effort instead, thanks all the same.

 

[Bloods Rule!]

I didn't get past reading that last screed's line about the pink helicopter. The rest of the rant was probably as inaccurate - you do know there never was a pink helicopter don't you? But take that as truth along with the rest of the bile that the Melbourne media pours out to compensate for the state's teams' inadequacies.

By the way, if Sydney is so tainted, why were you blokes happy to take our cast off coach?

 

[memberforever]

I didn't get past reading that last screed's line about the pink helicopter. The rest of the rant was probably as inaccurate - you do know there never was a pink helicopter don't you? But take that as truth along with the rest of the bile that the Melbourne media pours out to compensate for the state's teams' inadequacies.

By the way, if Sydney is so tainted, why were you blokes happy to take our cast off coach?

Same reason you took out cast off coach, then had to pay him out beacuse supporters bucked up.

 

[.Shotties.]

Same reason you took out cast off coach, then had to pay him out beacuse supporters bucked up.

Uh...Just throwing it out there, but you ARE aware that what you just said makes no sense, right?

 

[Mancey]

Whoa, respect Bernie.

Quite possibly the best post i've ever seen on this website.

Awesome work

 

[memberforever]

Uh...Just throwing it out there, but you ARE aware that what you just said makes no sense, right?

Probably

 

[Bernie Quinlan]

I didn't get past reading that last screed's line about the pink helicopter.

Thus proving the point yet again that many Swans fans run at 100km an hour in the opposite direction (by their own admission, choosing not even to read) as soon as facts are presented to them.

The rest of the rant was probably as inaccurate - you do know there never was a pink helicopter don't you?

Der, yes. Do you not understand sarcasm? I realise Edelsten has desperately protested in recent years that it was blue and white and not pink - but do you agree with the basic point that the Swans completely humiliated themselves by giving themselves over to such an individual?

By the way, if Sydney is so tainted, why were you blokes happy to take our cast off coach?

What?! I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make or what you have against the Dogs for employing Eade - who (notwithstanding anything that might or might not have happened at Sydney) is an outstanding coach? Frankly, the way that Sydney treated him was absolutely freaking appalling; it's hardly as though you still own him or have some kind of hold on him. It's the absolute reverse, in fact.

And it's unbelievable that you should raise this subject at all given the Swans' conduct re Wallace. Just unbelievable. Seriously, is it mandatory for some Swans fans to come across as having an IQ that's lower than their shoe size?

 

[Blue Dawn]

Not surprising. The AFL love Sydney/Goodes.

Not half as much as they love your mob.

 

[Bernie Quinlan]

Whoa, respect Bernie.

Quite possibly the best post i've ever seen on this website.

Awesome work

Thanks a lot, Mancey.

If posters like Dr Jolly want to make such hypocritical and patronising remarks, then I'm more than happy to take them up on it.

And I like your work too, btw.

 

[liz]

What?! I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make or what you have against the Dogs for employing Eade - who (notwithstanding anything that might or might not have happened at Sydney) is an outstanding coach? Frankly, the way that Sydney treated him was absolutely freaking appalling; it's hardly as though you still own him or have some kind of hold on him. It's the absolute reverse, in fact.

Some of the points you make are entirely valid. The Swans do have some embarrassing moments in their history, though some need to be viewed in the context of a struggling club uprooted to a strange city without the proper infrastructure in place and with the VFL (as was) clearly having little appreciation of the challenges they faced to make it work.

I wouldn't claim the Swans to be a powerhouse of the comp, that's for sure. They are still vulnerable financially and still represent a niche sport in their home market. Huge strides have been taken over the last decade but when the off-field performances drop - which they inevitably will in time - who knows how rough a ride the Swans will have financially and within the media until they are able to climb up again. Compared to the likes of Essendon, West Coast, Adelaide and the Pies they have no claims to be a powerhouse at all.

I am, however bewildered by your comments on the Swans treating Eade appallingly. Care to elaborate? Eade quit halfway through a season after the board indicated they weren't, at that stage, prepared to extend his contract beyond the end of that season. The vast majority of coaches will land up being sacked - or resigning under pressure - by at least one club during their careers. I'd have thought Eade's "treatment" was very mild compared to the way some other coaches have been treated.