-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Goodes - surely must go this time
- Thread starter Gavin Excell
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
I don't understand how that can be considered negligent.
He made no attempt to get the ball, all he tried to do was contact the player.
That's reckless at best. It's certainly not negligent.
I don't understand how that can be considered negligent.
He made no attempt to get the ball, all he tried to do was contact the player.
That's reckless at best. It's certainly not negligent.
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
Right so he did cop a week but for the early plea discount.
So stop calling it a reprimand then, that is not the same as being assessed below a week in the first place.
He could contest and try and wipe the points
DST
Right so he did cop a week but for the early plea discount.
So stop calling it a reprimand then, that is not the same as being assessed below a week in the first place.
He could contest and try and wipe the points
DST
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
Settle down all of you!
BBBBH is giving Goodesy lessons...... OR is that the OTHER WAY ROUND?
Settle down all of you!
BBBBH is giving Goodesy lessons...... OR is that the OTHER WAY ROUND?
_RT_
Community Leader
- Sep 17, 2006
- 47,254
- 92,114
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Furies Premiers 2010
- Moderator
- #280
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
Adam Goodes, Sydney, has been charged with a Level One rough conduct offence against Adam Selwood, West Coast, during the first quarter of the Round 11 match between Sydney and West Coast, played at Subiaco on Saturday June 7, 2008.
In summary, he can accept a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record with an early plea.
The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of four activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level One offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record.
For Cats fans:
Contact between Geelong's Jimmy Bartel and North Melbourne's Brady Rawlings from the first quarter of Friday's game was assessed. It was the view of the panel that the force of the contact was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. No further action required.
Contact between Geelong's Cam Mooney and North Melbourne's Scott Thompson from the second quarter of Friday's game was assessed. The force of the contact was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. No further action taken.
Adam Goodes, Sydney, has been charged with a Level One rough conduct offence against Adam Selwood, West Coast, during the first quarter of the Round 11 match between Sydney and West Coast, played at Subiaco on Saturday June 7, 2008.
In summary, he can accept a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record with an early plea.
The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of four activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level One offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record.
For Cats fans:
Contact between Geelong's Jimmy Bartel and North Melbourne's Brady Rawlings from the first quarter of Friday's game was assessed. It was the view of the panel that the force of the contact was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. No further action required.
Contact between Geelong's Cam Mooney and North Melbourne's Scott Thompson from the second quarter of Friday's game was assessed. The force of the contact was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. No further action taken.
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
He was entitled to bump the player he had the ball.
Do you want to remove the bump completely from the game.
It went high, he was found to miss a week for the high contact but for the early discount for a quilty plea should he not contest the charge.
DST
He was entitled to bump the player he had the ball.
Do you want to remove the bump completely from the game.
It went high, he was found to miss a week for the high contact but for the early discount for a quilty plea should he not contest the charge.
DST
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
On the AFL website:
http://www.afl.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=61095
SYDNEY Swans star Adam Goodes could be free to tackle St Kilda this week after the AFL’s Match Review Panel offered the dual Brownlow medallist a reprimand for his high bump on West Coast’s Adam Selwood.
Goodes, who avoided suspension earlier this year after beating a striking charge, has been charged with a Level One offence for rough conduct after his lower body made contact with Selwood’s head in the first term of the Swans’ win at Subiaco on Saturday night.
The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points) and totalled 125 demerit points.
However with no existing good or bad record, with an early plea Goodes can reduce that figure by 25 per cent – to 93.75 points – and escape a week’s ban.
In other Match Review Panel news:
Selwood, the victim of Goodes’ bump, can also escape with a reprimand despite being charged with a Level Two striking offence against Sydney Swans midfielder Amon Buchanan.
Fremantle’s Heath Black is facing two matches on the sidelines after being hit with a Level Four striking offence against Brisbane’s Troy Selwood.
Western Bulldogs ruckman Ben Hudson will also be okay to play next week despite being reported for striking St Kilda ballwinner Leigh Montana on Sunday. Hudson was hit with a Level Two striking charge but can reduce his points to below 100 and play against the Brisbane Lions this week with an early plea.
Geelong’s Paul Chapman and North Melbourne’s Michael Firrito have both been charged with wrestling one another but with an early plea will only face $900 fines.
Brisbane Lions utility Troy Selwood copped a $1200 fine for wrestling but, like Chapman and Firrito, can have that reduced by 25 per cent to $900 with an early plea.
Meanwhile, a match-day report against Carlton’s Jordan Russell was withdrawn.
No other players were cited from the seven matches up until Monday, with the Match Review Panel to assess the Melbourne-Collingwood clash on Tuesday.
On the AFL website:
http://www.afl.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=61095
SYDNEY Swans star Adam Goodes could be free to tackle St Kilda this week after the AFL’s Match Review Panel offered the dual Brownlow medallist a reprimand for his high bump on West Coast’s Adam Selwood.
Goodes, who avoided suspension earlier this year after beating a striking charge, has been charged with a Level One offence for rough conduct after his lower body made contact with Selwood’s head in the first term of the Swans’ win at Subiaco on Saturday night.
The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points) and totalled 125 demerit points.
However with no existing good or bad record, with an early plea Goodes can reduce that figure by 25 per cent – to 93.75 points – and escape a week’s ban.
In other Match Review Panel news:
Selwood, the victim of Goodes’ bump, can also escape with a reprimand despite being charged with a Level Two striking offence against Sydney Swans midfielder Amon Buchanan.
Fremantle’s Heath Black is facing two matches on the sidelines after being hit with a Level Four striking offence against Brisbane’s Troy Selwood.
Western Bulldogs ruckman Ben Hudson will also be okay to play next week despite being reported for striking St Kilda ballwinner Leigh Montana on Sunday. Hudson was hit with a Level Two striking charge but can reduce his points to below 100 and play against the Brisbane Lions this week with an early plea.
Geelong’s Paul Chapman and North Melbourne’s Michael Firrito have both been charged with wrestling one another but with an early plea will only face $900 fines.
Brisbane Lions utility Troy Selwood copped a $1200 fine for wrestling but, like Chapman and Firrito, can have that reduced by 25 per cent to $900 with an early plea.
Meanwhile, a match-day report against Carlton’s Jordan Russell was withdrawn.
No other players were cited from the seven matches up until Monday, with the Match Review Panel to assess the Melbourne-Collingwood clash on Tuesday.
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
Wow. Just wow. But what can you expect from the AFL's lovechild.
PS - Sydney now has to leave NSW 3 more times this year from the next 11 games. How that can happen from a one state team i dont know. Its beyond a joke how much the AFL look after these guys. Im sick of it.
Wow. Just wow. But what can you expect from the AFL's lovechild.
PS - Sydney now has to leave NSW 3 more times this year from the next 11 games. How that can happen from a one state team i dont know. Its beyond a joke how much the AFL look after these guys. Im sick of it.
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
But he should have. The rule that points are cleared after 12 months is bullshit.
But he should have. The rule that points are cleared after 12 months is bullshit.
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
Yup, at least Waters attempted to go for the ball at some stage. Goodes charged straight into the head of Selwood, clearly wasn't going for the ball. If that's not at least reckless Goodes must have the awareness of Justin Koschitzke.Tell Beau Waters that.
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
I hope every team targets him, roughs him up, antagonises him to the point that he lashes out and finally gets the 3-4 weeks he deserves.
Maybe Round 15 v Hawthorn. We can only hope.
I hope every team targets him, roughs him up, antagonises him to the point that he lashes out and finally gets the 3-4 weeks he deserves.
Maybe Round 15 v Hawthorn. We can only hope.
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
Regardless who it was...if that was one of your club's best players, would you really want them being rubbed out for that? OK Goodes has been lucky BEFORE, this surely was not a reportable/suspendable offence.
The game is already soft as shit and Goodes hardly targeted him. All those complaining...if you want guys rubbed out for that, go follow netball.
Talk about a contradiction - most posters complain about how soft the AFL is making the game, yet you want incidents like Goodes punishable by suspension...Please!
Regardless who it was...if that was one of your club's best players, would you really want them being rubbed out for that? OK Goodes has been lucky BEFORE, this surely was not a reportable/suspendable offence.
The game is already soft as shit and Goodes hardly targeted him. All those complaining...if you want guys rubbed out for that, go follow netball.
Talk about a contradiction - most posters complain about how soft the AFL is making the game, yet you want incidents like Goodes punishable by suspension...Please!
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
Agreed, and that is what the MRP should be. However at the start of last year, and on other occasions this year any head high contact has been heavily sanctioned.
Kelly and Stokes were given 4 and 5 weeks respectively for their high hits last year, a few others this year were given 3 then downgraded to two.
For him to get nothing, for the same contact which he had every chance to avoid is downright disgusting.
What is it going to take, Goodes snapping someone's neck?
Did he get a reprimand or just get the discount points and go below 100 points?
It's an important distinction, as I agree a reprimand was very lucky but if the stated grading was above 100 points for a week then that is consistent with the Burgoyne case a couple of weeks ago.
DST
Agreed, and that is what the MRP should be. However at the start of last year, and on other occasions this year any head high contact has been heavily sanctioned.
Kelly and Stokes were given 4 and 5 weeks respectively for their high hits last year, a few others this year were given 3 then downgraded to two.
For him to get nothing, for the same contact which he had every chance to avoid is downright disgusting.
What is it going to take, Goodes snapping someone's neck?
- Banned
- #290
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
He had every right to bump Selwood they are the rules, nothing says you need to go for the ball as long as the bump is within 5 meters of the ball.
DST
He had every right to bump Selwood they are the rules, nothing says you need to go for the ball as long as the bump is within 5 meters of the ball.
DST
rancidpants13
Cancelled
- Banned
- #294
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
i didn't want to say anything, and certainly not get involved with fellow swans fans on this, but this is possibly the most disgraceful penalty inconsistency in recent years
this issue is NOT specifically just about what goodes did, it is what goodes did in terms of what other players with clean records have done and been suspended for in recent weeks
i'm quite stunned, flabbergasted actually
goodes' bump was as lazy as it was undisciplined and stupid, and i fully understand and empathise with all these anti-swans conspiracy theorists over this incident
goodes should not be playing this week
i didn't want to say anything, and certainly not get involved with fellow swans fans on this, but this is possibly the most disgraceful penalty inconsistency in recent years
this issue is NOT specifically just about what goodes did, it is what goodes did in terms of what other players with clean records have done and been suspended for in recent weeks
i'm quite stunned, flabbergasted actually
goodes' bump was as lazy as it was undisciplined and stupid, and i fully understand and empathise with all these anti-swans conspiracy theorists over this incident
goodes should not be playing this week
Re: Goodes offered a reprimand
I'll admit it, as soon as you admit you are named after a spreadsheet - with an extra l.
The fellow who played for Geelong was Exell.
I'll admit it, as soon as you admit you are named after a spreadsheet - with an extra l.
The fellow who played for Geelong was Exell.
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
Bullsh*t... He's been lucky that many times.
Bullsh*t... He's been lucky that many times.
Brasil2007
Club Legend
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
I couldn't agree more. He clearly just wanted to run through Selwood, when he could have stopped, gone around him, whatever. Selwood wasn't moving - not like there was any doubt where Goodes was going to hit him.
Burgoyne was crucified in comparison - not facing the player and both players were moving around a ball (which was also moving).
As for those arguing he shouldn't have been reported, I have no idea what planet you are from, or which part of "duty of care" you don't understand. You might not agree with the rule, that's fair enough (although I would find it hard to see why) but how you can argue the application is beyond me.
I couldn't agree more. He clearly just wanted to run through Selwood, when he could have stopped, gone around him, whatever. Selwood wasn't moving - not like there was any doubt where Goodes was going to hit him.
Burgoyne was crucified in comparison - not facing the player and both players were moving around a ball (which was also moving).
As for those arguing he shouldn't have been reported, I have no idea what planet you are from, or which part of "duty of care" you don't understand. You might not agree with the rule, that's fair enough (although I would find it hard to see why) but how you can argue the application is beyond me.
Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand
The bloke SHOULD be embarrassed to walk on to the field next week.
And he SHOULD be even more embarrassed when he goes to shake the hand of the likes of Murphy, Waters, Burgoyne et al at the end of a game.
How could you stand tall and proud alongside the likes of these players when you are so obviously being given such favours?
The bloke SHOULD be embarrassed to walk on to the field next week.
And he SHOULD be even more embarrassed when he goes to shake the hand of the likes of Murphy, Waters, Burgoyne et al at the end of a game.
How could you stand tall and proud alongside the likes of these players when you are so obviously being given such favours?
