Goodes - surely must go this time

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Particularly considering Goodes only made contact with Selwood. But seriously, it was a nothing incident, and if anything, the offer is too much. There's no point in you all saying this 'if it was anyone else, it would have been 6/8/10/life' crap. If it was anyone else, they wouldn't have been reported.

Ahh haha yeah, easy to get caught up in the drama and make silly mistakes like that.

 

[Hinkley29]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Indeed.

On the one hand we have a dirty filthy sniper protected species = zero weeks.
And on the other we have young kid, clean record, however, plays for Fremantle. 4 weeks

Do the math...

Boo hoo.

M Stokes got 4 weeks as well in last year's pre season for a similar action. This was the "rule of the week" that they were cracking down on at the time.

Was Goodes lucky? Probably. But claiming some sort of anti-Freo conspiracy just makes you look pissweak.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

In all honesty could you call that impact as medium the same as Burgoyne.

The Swans legal team would have had a field day with that one and had it downgraded to low within seconds at a tribunal hearing just based on the Burgoyne and Murphy cases alone.

DST

It may have been borderline, but the stupid thing is that the advocates for Goodes cannot ask the tribunal to look at the video tape of, or the evidence from those cases you mentioned. It's against the rules of the system that make it look dopey. They would have to depend on the tribunal members applying consistency to their decisions.

 

[Bollox]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

When the dust settles the silly gibbons that exaggerated the incident will realise the initial contact was simply to the shoulder.

All the other guys suspended were reckless and usually front on to the head.

Bump gone wrong...no damage done...accident...first contact to the shoulder making it obvious.

Simply negligent...normally just a free kick.

 

[Gouldy]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

You didn't even see the "bump" if you can even call it that did you. You just got caught up in all the hype. Well done son keep up the good work. P.S Selwood is a dirty diver and played for the free kick.

dont go calling selwood a dirty diver. there is a player in every team that does it, selwood gets a hard job every game and always goes head first into a pack. for the amount a sh1t he cops game in game out, i think one dodgy free kick is acceptable?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Adrian Anderson, your points system sucks. ____ off.

 

[Brownie_30]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

I think the decision is correct, but in the light of recent decisions puzzling and inconsistent.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

I think the decision is correct, but in the light of recent decisions puzzling and inconsistent.

In other words its business as usual from the MRP.

 

[darrenzahra]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Is this a joke. Goodes is a protected species. How can he be offered a reprimand he ran straight at the man with his head over the ball with no attempt to gather the football. Goodes continues to get off reports. I not sure how the tribunal works but i believe they protect the head.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

The eagles set the 'spirit' of the game from first bounce, they were crashing in everywhere at the start, they were trying to impose themselves, and it was working, Goodes would have none of that, he hit back, pretty much stopping the spirited flow from the eagles, I thought the 'hip clip' was a beauty, a slight stride variation and a 'flick' of the hip, bang! It had the eagles thinking twice after that, and Im pretty sure he doesnt give consideration to being reported in the heat of the battle, he stood up when intimidated, and we won!

I'm pretty sure the prospect wouldn't concern him either

 

[DST]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Sometimes the points system just doesn't work with any common sense to it.
Ben Hudson gets the same points as Goodes and so also gets a reprimand after early plea but seriously 3 of his 5 points were based on intentional contact for a non event touch in the chest/stomach area that had absolutely no impact on Montagna at all. Goodes gets off because his head hit is rated as negligent contact. If it gets rated any higher, he gets a week. I'd love to know the MRP's definition of negligent head contact as compared to intentional tummy tapping and why one is worth 60% of the points given (Hudson 3/5 points) and the other only 20% of the points (Goodes 1/5 points).
For me the points are just too clinical and don't take into account common sense assessments of the actual offense committed.

Previous decisions would suggest that front on contact only will be rated reckless, anything from the side will be negligent.

When you have such a black and white points system it is always going to throw up different results by attaching different rating to different acts.

DST

 

[chrismcgrath]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

u should all go play netball, actually that might be a bit rough for u guys as well.
GET A LIFE!!!!

 

[Andrew Mc]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

If the players and or clubs are serious about the AFL taking to things too far and having a protected species, then the Bulldogs should go back to the tribunal, re-contest Murphy's charge and use the Goodes incident as justification. Murphy was practically in play, both players were standing and the hit to the head was minimal and gets weeks. Adam Goodes blatantly hits someone whilst they were down over the ball with his hip, has carry-over points and walks away.

I love how people keep bringing up Murphy, because it really does show that the MRP is being very much consistent. You do realise that the only difference in grading between Goodes and Murphy is that Murphy's was deemed medium impact, Goodes low. Considering one bloke was taken off with blood streaming, the other bloke got up and took his kick, I think you'd have a hard time arguing that the outcome could be any different. And for about the 400th time in this thread, Goodes didn't have any carry-over points. And if Murphy got "weeks" (when it was one with an early plea), then Goodes got a week (when it was zero with an early plea).

 

[West Coast 06]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Boo hoo.

M Stokes got 4 weeks as well in last year's pre season for a similar action. This was the "rule of the week" that they were cracking down on at the time.

Was Goodes lucky? Probably. But claiming some sort of anti-Freo conspiracy just makes you look pissweak.

Its not an anti any club conspiracy. Its the fact that within the space of one week, the goal posts have been moved again.

There is no possible way the MRP has been consitent when you take the three findings for head high contact last week and compare them to the Goodes finding this week. That is why people are pissed off, the blatant inconsistency.

 

[Sharpy8]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

I think the decision is correct, but in the light of recent decisions puzzling and inconsistent.

agreed.....these bumps should not be reportable.....the tribunal is all random....its pathetic

 

[wolvesjr34]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Given McGlynn got 4 weeks for hardly touching the head, because Cornes deviated in his effort to get the ball... I'd be mad as hell if Goodes doesn't get at least 3 weeks. because his hit was WAY worse.

*note I didn't read the entire thread only to page 2*

 

[Smoky]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Goodes is the OJ Simpson of the AFL.

Adam Goodes reportable offences video should be used in the defence of every AFL footballer that goes before the tribuneral. Disgraceful effort on the AFL's part.

Protected species of the ultimate order.

 

[W.C. Fry]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

OMG i gargled up coke all over my monitor, i hope he wasnt serious

That coke you are drinking... is it inside you - or inside you stomach? Semantics aside its the same place yes? (Please dont say no its on my monitor )

Canberra is in the ACT.

But, I will humour you anyway.
We have 13 games a year 'inside of the state of NSW/ACT'.
You have 12 games as year 'inside of the state of WA'
Fremantle has 12.
Adelaide has 12.
Port Adelaide has 12.
Brisbane has 12.

The games at Manuka are paid for by the ACT government. The AFL schedules them there for the benefit of the clubs selling the games. This has nothing to do with the Sydney Swans. It has to do with the AFL assisting clubs with scheduling to find other revenue streams.

It is hardly a massive difference.

Kind of getting somewhere but your missing the point.
You have 13 games where 95% of the crowd will be supporting the swans.
We have 10.

It is only partly to do with the AFL assisting struggling clubs. Why has the eagles always been knocked back for these games when we can offer better financial deals? Its got more to do with the AFL's push into NSW and QLD. Side effect is helping you out with a lopsided draw.

Put it another way. Would you prefer 2 derbies against Western Sydney and another 10 games against random interstate sides? Would i prefer 11 games against random teams then 2 games in Bunbury?

 

[DST]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Is this a joke. Goodes is a protected species. How can he be offered a reprimand he ran straight at the man with his head over the ball with no attempt to gather the football. Goodes continues to get off reports. I not sure how the tribunal works but i believe they protect the head.

How many times do we have to say this, our game allows players to bump each other, therefore you do not have to make an effort to gather the football as long as the football is within 5 meters of the player being bumped.

Would you like the game to lose the bump?

DST

 

[Tedeski]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

He can "Talk" his way out of just about anything..... ____ing disgraceful

Why are people surprised about this? everybody knows hes a protected species..

If anyone did what that idiot did they would have been suspended.

Disgraceful act on behalf of the MRP.

Oooohhhhhh! Bradshaw out with a hammy. What's that? 3 or 4 weeks out!!

Goodesy keeps playing!

What a champion! What judgement by Goodes. He is a gun!

Lion's all of a sudden don't look like they'll threaten the finals without Bradshaw. Not to mention Brown doesn't look right.

And did I mention that Goodesy isn't missing a week!!

Hahaha.........

 

[Hinkley29]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Its not an anti any club conspiracy. Its the fact that within the space of one week, the goal posts have been moved again.

There is no possible way the MRP has been consitent when you take the three findings for head high contact last week and compare them to the Goodes finding this week. That is why people are pissed off, the blatant inconsistency.

I don't disagree with you, I was simply making the point that it was unnecessary to try and tie this issue to an anti-Freo conspiracy.

And since when do WC supporters stick up for Freo fans?

 

[wambat]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Its a shame goodes will be remembered for his dirty sniper antics, and how the AFL proteced him , rather than his feats as a player.

 

[BIGBEZ]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

Goodes is the OJ Simpson of the AFL.

Adam Goodes reportable offences video should be used in the defence of every AFL footballer that goes before the tribuneral. Disgraceful effort on the AFL's part.

Protected species of the ultimate order.

I was wondering why hes only got one glove

 

[Rik E Boy]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

THE TEFLON SWAN

 

[bomberboy5]

Re: Adam Goodes offered a reprimand

That coke you are drinking... is it inside you - or inside you stomach? Semantics aside its the same place yes? (Please dont say no its on my monitor )



Kind of getting somewhere but your missing the point.
You have 13 games where 95% of the crowd will be supporting the swans.
We have 10.

It is only partly to do with the AFL assisting struggling clubs. Why has the eagles always been knocked back for these games when we can offer better financial deals? Its got more to do with the AFL's push into NSW and QLD. Side effect is helping you out with a lopsided draw.

Put it another way. Would you prefer 2 derbies against Western Sydney and another 10 games against random interstate sides? Would i prefer 11 games against random teams then 2 games in Bunbury?

The Canberra deal is about being in every state and territory of Australia.

It is about helping the BUlldogs and Melbourne.

The Swans being involved is about the AFL not showing how deeply unpopular they have let the game grow there.

Only the Swans and Collingwood can draw a crowd in the capital. It is nothing to with a favour to the Swans. It does nothing to grow the game in Sydney at all.