Goodes - surely must go this time

[rancidpants13]

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.

DST

but the rules say you can't make head/neck contact

there is no way around this: goodes is incredibly, unprecedentedly (is that a word?) lucky

this decision is wrong, simple as that

 

[smoovy]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

The only argument is whether it is negligent or reckless. One for the lawyers.

NEGLIGENCE
Definition of ‘negligent’ – [FONT=FWIRUR+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCo,Helvetica Neue LT]A player [/FONT][FONT=YSQBAF+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCo,Helvetica Neue LT]negligently [/FONT][FONT=FWIRUR+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCo,Helvetica Neue LT]commits a reportable offence if the relevant conduct constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the player to all other players. Each player owes a duty of care to all other players to not engage in conduct which will constitute a reportable offence being committed against that other player. In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances.
Negligence is constituted by a person’s breach of duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a reportable offence. While Australian Football is a contact sport, players owe a duty of care to others not to cause and to avoid illegal contact.
An extra onus applies to protect players from serious neck injuries when they have their head down over the ball and to protect players from bumps to the head. Bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that opponent has his head down over the ball, unless intentional or reckless, will be deemed to be negligent, unless:
[/FONT]a. [FONT=FWIRUR+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCo,Helvetica Neue LT]the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or
[/FONT]b. [FONT=FWIRUR+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCo,Helvetica Neue LT]the bump or forceful contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen.
The definition of negligent also contains specific wording relating to bumps to the head (see rough conduct section starting page 12).
An example of negligent contact may be where a player collides with another player who has taken a mark and where contact occurs just after the mark has been taken. The offending player has a duty of care to avoid any contact which would constitute a reportable offence by slowing his momentum as much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes negligence.
[/FONT]
RECKLESSNESS
More serious conduct is known as recklessness.
Definition of ‘reckless’ – [FONT=FWIRUR+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCo,Helvetica Neue LT]A player [/FONT][FONT=YSQBAF+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCo,Helvetica Neue LT]recklessly [/FONT][FONT=FWIRUR+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCo,Helvetica Neue LT]commits a reportable offence if he engages in conduct that he realises or that a reasonable player would realise may result in the reportable offence being committed but nevertheless proceeds with that conduct not caring whether or not that conduct will result in the commission of the reportable offence. The reckless commission of a reportable offence does not require any wish that the reportable offence be committed.
This does not require proof that the player turned his mind to the risk. The test is an objective one - the view of a reasonable player in all the circumstances
A player who without looking swings his arm backwards in a pack and strikes an opposing player in the face may be said not to have intended to strike his opponent but his conduct was reckless because it can be inferred from his action that he realised that his arm might make contact or alternatively a reasonable player in his position would have realised that such contact might be made. The guideline relating to inferring a state of mind with respect to intentional offences has application to determining if the player acted recklessly. However, even if it is not established that the player realised the risk, he will have acted recklessly if a reasonable player in his position would have realised the risk.
In the example given under negligent above, if a player collides with another player who has marked the ball, in circumstances where there is some further time after the mark has been taken, and where he blindly continued on, to contact the player taking the mark, then the act would best be described as reckless.
[/FONT]

 

[Chrissie90]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

I thought it was at least reckless, not negligent. I also thought that a hip to the head would hardly be low impact. How did they assess this in other similar cases?

 

[SANFORDWHEELER]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

Gold!!!

 

[red+black]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Typical stupid Swans supporter on ABC comparing Goodes to Hall, playing the victim card

 

[Docker Clint]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

And Heath Black gets offered two weeks with no footage.

It's becoming obvious now.

 

[Xsess]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Free Beau !

 

[Crosby87]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

If I was a player, I'd pay the fine to vent just how ridiculous this is.

 

[DST]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

At what point did he make any attempt to bump?

What is a bump then, if you cant use your hip to move someone off the ball?

I can't beleive you could call what Goodes did anything but a bump.

He didn't knee him, kick him or strike him, he bumped him but got the head. He has been given a week for it, but for the system allowing a discount for an early plea.

DST

 

[RUNVS]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Told you so. The AFL own Sydney, you can't expect them to damage their 'franchise'.
They're not even trying to hide it anymore.

Wrong.

Sydney own the AFL

 

[Quinz]

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.

He didn't try to bump him, he tried to take his head off. Either that or he is so uncoordinated and unaware of the situation that he didn't realise he was gong to hit Selwood in the head.

Selwood had tried to take out Goodes earlier in the game, and this was Goodes getting back at him. Pathetic from the MRP compared to suspensions from only one week ago, but not really surprising.

 

[rancidpants13]

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!

but this is not simply a matter of looking at the goodes-selwood incident in isolation, or excusing it under the "don't let footy go soft" campaign
in comparison with other very similar incidents (although i don't include the murphy one), the MRP analysis is disgracefully inconsistent
and it seems the vast majority of posters here (including this swans fan) are furious mainly for that reason

 

[Brasher]

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

Great post!

Personally this is not about Goodes, this about the fact that my team's best player was rubbed out the week before for a similar incident (that was not even awarded a free kick at the time) along with a number of others over the last 12 months.

 

[BrisGirl]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

A couple of years ago, Charman got 2 weeks for thinking about hitting someone. Charman actually didn't hit the player, but the tribunal charged him with intent to hit.

Charman was really was suspended for 2 weeks on that charge.

Then Goodes aims for and hits someone in the head, which is the biggest offence in our game today, and he gets a reprimand.

I believe the umpires would be just as dumbfounded.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

RECKLESSNESS
More serious conduct is known as recklessness.
Definition of ‘reckless’ – [FONT=FWIRUR+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCo,Helvetica Neue LT]A player [/FONT][FONT=YSQBAF+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCo,Helvetica Neue LT]recklessly [/FONT][FONT=FWIRUR+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCo,Helvetica Neue LT]commits a reportable offence if he engages in conduct that he realises or that a reasonable player would realise may result in the reportable offence being committed but nevertheless proceeds with that conduct not caring whether or not that conduct will result in the commission of the reportable offence. The reckless commission of a reportable offence does not require any wish that the reportable offence be committed. [/FONT]
[FONT=FWIRUR+HelveticaNeueLT-LightCo,Helvetica Neue LT][/FONT]

That's the important bit.

Looking at that, I'd say Goodes was pretty damn lucky to get away with a "negligence" ruling.

 

[Link_Wray]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Maybe the MRP has been hearing all the noise on their decisions being increasingly over the top. The victim is consistency.

 

[DST]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

but the rules say you can't make head/neck contact

there is no way around this: goodes is incredibly, unprecedentedly (is that a word?) lucky

this decision is wrong, simple as that

Correct, but they have graded it as low impact and thus he can guilty plea it down to under a week.

I certainly agree that it was a report, but they were always going to grade it low impact which would result in it being under 100 points.

The fact that he didn't have any carry over points meant he was extremely lucky to dodge the week.

DST

 

[Feerits Elf]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

You leave Kieren out of this

 

[deesrgone08]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Why is this guy getting away with everything. The AFL is a joke, his new name should be OJ Simpson, he can get away with anything.

 

[Mr Reliable]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

The MRP is an independent body.

The AFL is equally fair to all 16 clubs.

Adam Goodes is an incredibly fair player, some might say a cleanskin.

He wasn't reckless in smacking into Sellwood's head as he bent over the footy.

Adrian Anderson is a gun administrator.

Surprisingly, KB is supporting the MRP on SEN.

I am full of it tonight.

 

[Hawthorn United]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Does this mean he can't win the Brownlow anymore since it was over 100 points before the early plea? One thing for him to get off so often, would be an injustice if he won (or in contention for) the Brownlow this year.

 

[PHX]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Scary I'm agreeing whole heartedly with the Ox on SEN.

 

[Chattanooga]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

What is a bump then, if you cant use your hip to move someone off the ball?

I can't beleive you could call what Goodes did anything but a bump.

He didn't knee him, kick him or strike him, he bumped him but got the head. He has been given a week for it, but for the system allowing a discount for an early plea.

DST

Robert Murphy.

Robert Murphy.

Robert Murphy.

No history whatsoever - misses a week of football.

 

[chrisjie]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Told you he'd get off.

+1 AFL conspiracies!

Another favourite is the "now we know what a win feels like" statement from the umpires haha

Will never be proven, but they're pretty interesting.

 

[DST]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

He didn't try to bump him, he tried to take his head off. Either that or he is so uncoordinated and unaware of the situation that he didn't realise he was gong to hit Selwood in the head.

Selwood had tried to take out Goodes earlier in the game, and this was Goodes getting back at him. Pathetic from the MRP compared to suspensions from only one week ago, but not really surprising.

Get your hand off it, how do you know what Goodes intention was.

He had every right to use his body to bump him off the ball. Initial contact was to the shoulder and then went high, Goodes will not be the first footballer to be 10cm's off the mark with a bump.

What saved him from a couple of weeks was that he made slight contact to the head which correctly warranted a free kick along with a low impact grading from the MRP.

DST