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
big difference,stenglein missed.
-
LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round SF Winner: And_ROOS
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Goodes - surely must go this time
- Thread starter Gavin Excell
- Start date
- Tagged users None
big difference,stenglein missed.
- Banned
- #52
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.
i agree with you about the tribunal and vlad but lets not start on the guys ethnicity....he is cypriot not greek
slidetribe
Team Captain
Yes, Jack was holding on to Kerr, on at least 5 different occassions, and that is illegal in AFL. Hence Kerr was awarded a free kick when the umpires saw it. What's your point? Seriously... have a cry.
Hmm, I THINK that may have something to do with the proven tag Goodes has as a cheap-shot player. He is known for fact to give low-blows/behind the play hits to players and get away with it because he's in bed with AFL. Stenglein on the other hand has no such tag. Comprehendo?
Oh there is consistency, Goodes consistently gets off for his indiscretions. And btw, you are talking chalk and cheese... Stenglein gave Goodes a bump in play, Jack was repeatedly holding Kerr out of play.
- Banned
- #55
Just saw it on Fox......that from a dual brownlow meddalist was disgracefull.........no attempt at the ball just tried to take the player out
I new he was a sniper but that is tottaly gutless
I new he was a sniper but that is tottaly gutless
SaintSyd
Debutant
Consistency or even the impression of consistency is not an issue for the AFL. It has proven it is willing to make blatantly inconsistent decisions in order to further its various agendas.
The umpire who reported Goodes indicated on the TV coverage that it was for "front on contact". It clearly wasn't front on and this could very well be the loophole that the AFL is looking for. Not that it needs a loophole........
The umpire who reported Goodes indicated on the TV coverage that it was for "front on contact". It clearly wasn't front on and this could very well be the loophole that the AFL is looking for. Not that it needs a loophole........
Lets not over react as the Sydney clause will be enacted again that is mandatory anytime that Goodes or Hall are cited.
Outcome - Selwood out for 4 weeks for deliberately headbutting Goodes leg / hip region.
Outcome - Selwood out for 4 weeks for deliberately headbutting Goodes leg / hip region.
Oh there is consistency, Goodes consistently gets off for his indiscretions. And btw, you are talking chalk and cheese... Stenglein gave Goodes a bump in play, Jack was repeatedly holding Kerr out of play.
Go and reread my post, I'm comparing Stengleins hit on Goodes in the first 5 seconds and then Goodes on Selwood, both hits to the head. The difference, no free kick, no report versus a free and a report.
Oh and by the way, what's your definition of in play
The ball was metres away from Goodes and he wasn't even attempting to get hold of it when Stenglein got him.Go and reread my post, I'm comparing Stengleins hit on Goodes in the first 5 seconds and then Goodes on Selwood, both hits to the head. The difference, no free kick, no report versus a free and a report.
Oh and by the way, what's your definition of in play
even the commentators said stenglein missed him.
Commentators........... oh yes Mr. "we're home (at half time)" Jakovitch.
No bias there.
Thats exactly what I said to a mate when it happened.Not sure if the charge can be altered(re worded) at MRP before it goes up.Swans lawyers (not sure if they'll be operating under instruction from the AFL as you suggest)will be busy sifting through the words as we speak,as any good counsel should for their client.I don't necessarily agree with things being played out this way but in their attempts to make all processes transparent the AFL has to offer each player who has to have their day in court a right of proper representation.Consistency or even the impression of consistency is not an issue for the AFL. It has proven it is willing to make blatantly inconsistent decisions in order to further its various agendas.
The umpire who reported Goodes indicated on the TV coverage that it was for "front on contact". It clearly wasn't front on and this could very well be the loophole that the AFL is looking for. Not that it needs a loophole........
In saying that I believe he should go as rules stand these days.I'm from the old school, you do the crime you do the time. At first look he appeared to alter his line towards the conteset making the bump his first intention not the ball.But isn't that what they are taught.This is what troubles me with the grading sysytem.In a contact sport why is intent to make contact punishable?
I could understand if it were a non contact sport which somer people seem to be trying their damndest to achieve.The game has been sanitised to such a level now that the "mum & dad supporters" need to be appeased so as to keep the "cashcow" fattened enough for those that (?) the game.
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
They'll bring him before the tribunal, apologise for wasting his time, give him a 200 point credit on his record and pay for his flight home.
You should consider a name change.May I suggest Man With No Idea?
kane249
Wibble
- Oct 27, 2006
- 52,664
- 70,533
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Sth Freo, Liverpool, Chicago Bulls
Actually it was Jason Dunstall who said it didn't connect, but why let facts get in the way of a good whinge right?
The problem with Goodes bump is the impact seems to be mostly against the head and neck region. If the AFL are at all serious about not having players end up in wheelchairs then Goodes has to go for at least 3 games, AFTER the reduction for an early plea and clean record.
kane249
Wibble
- Oct 27, 2006
- 52,664
- 70,533
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Sth Freo, Liverpool, Chicago Bulls
He's got carry over points from a previous report, so no clean record
- Oct 16, 2007
- 10,648
- 19
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- IC, SAC (Titans), EC, Daredevils
He'll go, and he probably should, for 1-2 weeks. I was a bit iffy about whether it was intentional, but since Goodes could've stopped ..
Hopefully he puts the angry pills away for times when he really needs them.
Hopefully he puts the angry pills away for times when he really needs them.
What a crock, the contact was not front on which is the issue with head and neck contact.
He was also entitled to bump him as well as the Selwood had the ball.
However his contact ended up being high (after initially making contact with the shoulder) and therefore he should be given a week for the slight contact to the head. Add in the 70 carry over points and it may end up 2 weeks.
DST
Wow, looks like we continue to deal with fact and logic on these boards (goodes rule, protected species, etc. etc.) Probably will get 1-2 with an early plea. Should have pulled out and didn't and the consequences were ordinary. Similar principle to that applied to the parents of West Coast supporters.
To those saying Stenglein made no head high contact with Goodes around 5 metres off the ball need perhaps have taken a few blows to the head themselves. Clearly connected with twice as much force as the 'hit' by Goodes. Does this mean he is looking at 4-5 weeks? What i have to question is why at a centre bounce with all three umpires focussing on that area did none spot the head high contact on Goodes and pay a free kick. Perhaps too busy targeting individual players just in case they were holding on during a contest? Maybe if umpires focussed on the rules of the game and not on particular contests or players they may find themselves making a few correct decisions.
And as for all the free kicks paid to the likes of Kerr and Lynch for arms around the player away from the contest. Had Barry Hall been afforded the same level of on field protection earlier in the season a free would have been paid ten seconds before Staker copped the full brunt of Hall's non-dominant fist.
To those saying Stenglein made no head high contact with Goodes around 5 metres off the ball need perhaps have taken a few blows to the head themselves. Clearly connected with twice as much force as the 'hit' by Goodes. Does this mean he is looking at 4-5 weeks? What i have to question is why at a centre bounce with all three umpires focussing on that area did none spot the head high contact on Goodes and pay a free kick. Perhaps too busy targeting individual players just in case they were holding on during a contest? Maybe if umpires focussed on the rules of the game and not on particular contests or players they may find themselves making a few correct decisions.
And as for all the free kicks paid to the likes of Kerr and Lynch for arms around the player away from the contest. Had Barry Hall been afforded the same level of on field protection earlier in the season a free would have been paid ten seconds before Staker copped the full brunt of Hall's non-dominant fist.
kane249
Wibble
- Oct 27, 2006
- 52,664
- 70,533
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Sth Freo, Liverpool, Chicago Bulls
Stenglein twice as hard? get your hand off it, you will go blind. Goodes' acting was poor, and Jason Dunstall even acknowledged that. Perhaps there was no free because the ump wasn't duped by the dive?
If he doesn't go, there's a number of other suspended players who should just throw their hands in the air and walk away from the game.
