Goodes - surely must go this time

[Chase the Ace]

Nothing in it.
No case to answer

 

[floppinab]

It was a dog act that was avoidable and extremely intentional. It could have resulted in concussion or a serious neck injury.

Again, no excuse, no downplaying. Admit he was hitting to cause damage and that he will get weeks plus carry over.

Avoidable, yes, intentional, yes, reportable and will get games, yes. Concussion, neck injury, no, there was never enough force in it to do any of that, Selwood was on his feet within a few seconds.

I don't think I'm trying to excuse or downplay it but just point out the circumstances around it. Go and have a look a the Stenglein hit on Goodes. I'd put it around the same level of intention and force as Goodes hit on Selwood, and the ball was metres away and not in reach of either of them.

 

[pharro]

It's a dilemma for the AFL. The head is sacrosanct but so is Adam Goodes.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Goodes has had several suspendable reports in a row and has got zero weeks

There's a reason for that. Simply Goodes gets reported for the most trivial things and they have no choice but to dismiss them. There's nothing in this one either, Goodes should be playing next week.

 

[omit]

any footage floating around?

 

[ChuckNorris]

He should get 4 weeks. Not because i think that is fair, but because stokes got the same earlier in the year for the same incident. But given the plea of 'Goodes behaviour' i think he will get 2-3.

 

[celtic_pride]

Meh, I just saw the reply last night, and although I'm not a fan of goodes, and hope he gets rubbed out eventually so he doesn't break Stynes record of consecutive games, honestly that was pretty much incidental contact IMHO, and pretty soft as butter (I think Selwood milked it a bit) ... Should get off ..

 

[pharro]

I wouldn't call it a dog act but you're right in that it's pretty hard to downplay or defend.

It would be good if the umps gave him the same level of protection offered to Kerr, Ablett and Judd but there's no need for him to resort to that crap.

I suspect he doesn't get protection from the umpires because they've seen some of those ordinary sniper attacks to the back of his tagger on TV just as we all have. And they figure he deserves no on field protection. It's not right, they should umpire what's there in front of them rather than any pre-conceived notions. We are seeing Lindsay Thomas get mauled and driven into the turf but he has a reputation for diving so they give him nothing. Que sera sera.

 

[garygee]

My question is what was he doing? Obviously not even attempting to go for the ball. So what else can it be but intentional contact whilst the player had his head over the ball. If he doesn't go there is something very wrong.

 

[pharro]

They will prove the initial contact was to the shoulder,nothing in it Selwood got straight up and kicked a goal.
Prediction-------- over 200 posts on this thread,all jealosy.Tunnelling will be back on the menu this week with the saints going to Sydney.

You'd have to think the Swans will be instructed to back off with their defensive body work. Anything vaguely resembling tunneling against Riewoldt will result in mid season rule changes. Again.

 

[Thunderbird]

It's a dilemma for the AFL. The head is sacrosanct but so is Adam Goodes.

Rubbish.

It is weak-minded to parrot the "protected species" rubbish and shows a lack of capacity for independent thought. Goodes may have got off at the tribunal once or twice (and has also been found guilty recently, hence the carry-over points), but to suggest that he is a "protected species" is unfounded rubbish that shows a lack of understanding of basic statistics.

When you look at the tribunal records for ALL current players, you will find some players are convicted more often than others. You will also find a few players that have got off a few times. Goodes is one of these. After all, someone has to be an outlier on the bell curve.

Now, if Goodes had been found guilty a few times, and another star player happened to be one of those statistical outliers that had been found not guilty a few times, it's likely that that player would also have been bleated about incessantly on BF as a "protected species" by a bunch of people who have no understanding of the concepts of normal distributions, standard deviations and outliers.

Regarding the incident in question, I have not yet seen it and cannot comment on it, but from the discussions I have seen on Swans boards many of us are already assuming he will be out for 2 weeks and are discussing who to pick as a replacement for the side. If Goodes is found guilty, so be it and we get on with our lives. The really weak-minded on BF will still bleat on about Goodes being protected even after two guilty verdicts in 12 months (which is technically what he will have should he be found guilty of this offence.)

 

[Thunderbird]

I suspect he doesn't get protection from the umpires because they've seen some of those ordinary sniper attacks to the back of his tagger on TV just as we all have. And they figure he deserves no on field protection.

And all his taggers throughout his career have been scrupulously honest players with blemish-free records, are completely fair and never scrag?

If you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

 

[PowerForGood]

The self-perpetuating prophecy defence

"Your honour, I've played 50 games consecutively, no missed matches through suspension, hence I have a clean record"
"OK, you get off this time"

and then it's
"Your honour, I've played 100 games consecutively, no missed matches through suspension, hence I have a clean record"
"OK, you get off this time"

and then it's
"Your honour, I've played 150 games consecutively, no missed matches through suspension, hence I have a clean record"
"OK, you get off this time, but this is the last time"

and now it'll be
"Your honour, I've played 200 games consecutively, no missed matches through suspension, hence I have a clean record"

FWIW, he should get off (given the way I'd like to see football played), but with the way the AFL has handled head-high contact this year, for the purposes of fairness and consistency, give him 3 matches.

 

[gus3232]

I was at the game and saw the incident and also the replay on the screen. I think it was a free kick and one was paid, but a report? I don't think there is a hell of a lot in it to be honest. Maybe a week with past points carrying over but no way a 3-4 week ban.

 

[Syd]

I was at the game and saw the incident and also the replay on the screen. I think it was a free kick and one was paid, but a report? I don't think there is a hell of a lot in it to be honest. Maybe a week with past points carrying over but no way a 3-4 week ban.

A pretty fair assessment I think.

Personally though, the way the AFL are on a head high crackdown 2 weeks isn't out of the question.

 

[PowerForGood]

Rubbish.

It is weak-minded to parrot the "protected species" rubbish and shows a lack of capacity for independent thought. Goodes may have got off at the tribunal once or twice (and has also been found guilty recently, hence the carry-over points), but to suggest that he is a "protected species" is unfounded rubbish that shows a lack of understanding of basic statistics.

When you look at the tribunal records for ALL current players, you will find some players are convicted more often than others. You will also find a few players that have got off a few times. Goodes is one of these. After all, someone has to be an outlier on the bell curve.

Now, if Goodes had been found guilty a few times, and another star player happened to be one of those statistical outliers that had been found not guilty a few times, it's likely that that player would also have been bleated about incessantly on BF as a "protected species" by a bunch of people who have no understanding of the concepts of normal distributions, standard deviations and outliers.

....that obviously include yourself.

This is not a random selection issue, where some people are lucky, and some are not.

This is supposed to be considered thought, deliberate decisions by learned people, dealing with rules and precedents. You are also not dealing with a homogenous group of player behaviours, but many types of AFL players - some are scrupulously fair, some who are clearly not.

There are outliers on the right-hand side (ie many suspensions) because they are, in fact, dirty players who deserve suspension.

The left-hand side (ie no suspensions), is far more emotive.

Whenever there is ONE outlier (someone who should have been suspended but wasn't), the outrage that comes out by the public in general should be the big red flag that says "Hey, maybe we got this one wrong". It is not a lucky dip (although I hear the MRP are bringing that it next year - more consistent!)

It's not a matter of getting lucky 3 or 5 or 15 times, so you can be a statistical outlier.

 

[Stenglein's a Champ!]

If Goodes goes, surely Stenglein should as well

For attempting to bump Goodes...?

 

[cougar000]

What is your plea Adam?????

I was concussed your honour from the hit Stenglein put on me in the first few seconds of the match.



If Goodes goes, surely Stenglein should as well

I'm Sorry Mr Rudd!

 

[kilaw]

The protected species are those who put their head over the ball, time and time again.

Those with fancy QCs and such... Well that's another story.

That guy that keeps defending Goodes sure knows how to spin em' right - not sure how many more lives Goodes has though, I'm predicting none. 1-2 weeks with an early plea.

 

[spoljar]

The AFL will surely find a way of reversing the report and giving Selwood 3 weeks for a strike on Goodes' hip.

 

[SydneyBomber]

the 'adam goodes rule' will ensure that the afl send him on an all expenses holiday to the whitsundays in the off season as a way of saying sorry for him being booked in the first place.

he will get nothing for it, yet again.

 

[NQTIGER]

I put this in the gameday thread but I'll put in again here before it turns in another 100 page diatribe.


What pisses me is the sort of protection afforded to Kerr. The umpires mikes picked up on the telecast comments to the effect of "keep an eye on Jack at the back of the stoppages", a clear reference to Jack's tag on Kerr. Surprise surprise Kerr picks up a shit load of cheap frees around the stoppages, no problem with that if the tag is holding, BUT,

Yet Stenglein can line up Goodes within 5 seconds of the game starting with an elbow to the head, no report, no free kick, no 100 page threads on bigfooty, NO PROTECTION for the Swans star player. I'm not surprise he was full of the angry pills after that. It's happening to him week after week and the opposition is well aware they can get away with it because the umps are keeping an eye on the Kerrs and Judds of the world and not Goodes.

Yes he's got to be able to wear it and get on with his game without resorting to retaliating like he did with Selwood but the lack of consistency give me the shits.

____....these swans are precious

 

[lions_den]

I hate Goodes for the fact he always gets off at tribunals when it's obvious he shouldn't, but maybe I should be hating the tribunal.

 

[HBF]

Just has to go this time. Made no effort to even bend over and pick the ball up. With his "record", might even think 2 weeks is on the table.

If the doesn't get suspended here, there will be "rioting on the streets".

 

[wambat]

The Tribunal will look to suspend Selwood for putting his head in the way of Goodes hip.

The greek donkey will have to work wonders this week.