- Mar 15, 2006
- 8,419
- 6,557
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
-
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
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
Watch the replay.... Stenglein didn't even hit Goodes.... Goodes took a dive.
Yeah, well, when every second thread gets moved off to some sub-board that half the people here don't even know exists, you're going to miss stuff.
I found myself on the "Footy Fourth Estate" board a few minutes ago. WTF is that all about?
- Mar 15, 2006
- 8,419
- 6,557
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
West Coast 06
Norm Smith Medallist
Selwood isn't a turtle mate, he hasn't got a retractable head!It shows clearly that Goodes was not going for the ball and was quite happy to take the head off the player that was. Happy holiday Goodes, there is no way even you can get out of that one.
kane249
Wibble
- Oct 27, 2006
- 52,840
- 71,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Sth Freo, Liverpool, Chicago Bulls
Shoulder yes, when you hit a player in the head as well like Goodes did then your up a certain creek without a paddle
Personally, I think the operative thing here is...
"could Goodes have avoided or minimised contact with Selwood's head ?
having looked at that footage a number of times, I believe the answer is an unequivocal "YES".
Admittedly Goodes is running flat out, but he has made no effort whatsoever to avoid the contact. In fact, I would say the opposite.
If anything, he tilts his hip in towards Selwood's head.
There is no question st all that Goodes actually has a play for the ball at the time of impact (he doesn't), so the action has to be at the very least be negligent and and at worst, reckless.
Given the number of times he's got the benefit of the doubt in the past, I just can't see that they can let him off again and retain any semblance of credibility.
At least 2 weeks and maybe 4
"could Goodes have avoided or minimised contact with Selwood's head ?
having looked at that footage a number of times, I believe the answer is an unequivocal "YES".
Admittedly Goodes is running flat out, but he has made no effort whatsoever to avoid the contact. In fact, I would say the opposite.
If anything, he tilts his hip in towards Selwood's head.
There is no question st all that Goodes actually has a play for the ball at the time of impact (he doesn't), so the action has to be at the very least be negligent and and at worst, reckless.
Given the number of times he's got the benefit of the doubt in the past, I just can't see that they can let him off again and retain any semblance of credibility.
At least 2 weeks and maybe 4
kane249
Wibble
- Oct 27, 2006
- 52,840
- 71,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Sth Freo, Liverpool, Chicago Bulls
So don't protect a player with his head over the ball at all then? Why don't you ask Neil Sasche about that?
It shows minimal contact with the shoulder and mostly contact with Selwoods neck/head. And no, you are not allowed to bump if contact is made to the head - that has been made perfectly clear in the last couple of weeks.
- Oct 16, 2007
- 10,648
- 19
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- IC, SAC (Titans), EC, Daredevils
Wasn't it shoulder first, then went to the head. I thought shoulder was the intent since he contacted that first, and then it kind of slid to the head. Either way, he did contact the head and with it being 'sacrosanct' he'll get a holiday. Anything over 2 weeks would be a bit much, though.
Selwood's head is in front of his shoulder (as you would expect) and he is crouched over the ball.
You don't have to be Einstein to work out that if you run flat out and turn your hip towards a human being's shoulder, whose head (by definition is going to be in front of it), there is a 100% probability that you are going to hit his head as well.
What's Goodes defence going to be?
"Duh, well I only intended to bump him in the shoulder but to my horror, I disvovered that he had a head attached to it"
Get real.
Too late, footy's been watered down. Happy holidays Goodesy.
So I take it no one would have any drama with the Eagle who hit LRT on the chin with a front on bump being rubbed out for a few weeks?
I think it was "they are home" but whatever. Not saying he wasn't barracking for west coast just wondering what the hell it has to do with Goodes deliberately hitting someone in the head.
C'mon mate own up, you have no idea do you.
That was the perfect example of a shirtfront that is within the rules of the game.
Kidding right?
LOL
....
...
..
.
wait, that was a joke right?
LRT practically ran/walked into Brett Jones when he turned around, BJ stood his ground, arms tucked in etc, what more do you want? Adam Goodes ran directly at Selwoods head and made no visible attempt to stop or avoid the head. How do you even compare the two?
Goodes didn't even attempt to go for the ball, his sole intent was to bump, he didn't bother to deviate or slow down when he realised he was about to hit Selwood in the head. First part of the contact is on the shoulder but still hits him clearly in the head. Should be at least two weeks. Played a great game though damn him.
Maddhew
Cancelled
- Feb 9, 2007
- 4,619
- 3,351
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Has anyone considered the Swans have had a good run at the tribunal in the past because our Football Department/Legal Team are the best??
Its much like when everyone says the Swans win because they are lucky with injuries. We arent lucky, our medical staff are the best. Malceski had 28 touches on sat night 10 weeks after doing his ACL.
Its much like when everyone says the Swans win because they are lucky with injuries. We arent lucky, our medical staff are the best. Malceski had 28 touches on sat night 10 weeks after doing his ACL.
kane249
Wibble
- Oct 27, 2006
- 52,840
- 71,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Sth Freo, Liverpool, Chicago Bulls
Luck with plays a huge part in injuries, if he hadn't whacked Staker, Hall would have missed this many weeks with his broken arm anyway. See players like Jason Snell, Nathan Brown etc who have broken bones in freak accidents on the footy field. No medical staff is going to prevent something like that from happening or get you back any faster.
Maddhew
Cancelled
- Feb 9, 2007
- 4,619
- 3,351
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Of course luck plays a part, but the rest of your post is wrong, Good medical staff will get you back quicker, and will assist in limiting injuries, especially soft tissue.
I reckon we expect a lot from players in terms of making split second decisions and also changing their actions so quickly. It is easy to determine that they could have done something different from our couches, especially once we've seen multiple replays, some in slo-mo. I think this is where the AFL / tribunal / MRP has got things slightly out of kilter.
The Burgoyne one was a classic example. I just reckon that anyone who thinks he had time to do much different to what he did is kidding themselves. If the AFL really wanted to make a point it could have given him a week but even that would have been a bit harsh IMO.
Similarly, with the Waters one, it looked to be more like a collision of two players going for the ball. Even though Waters admitted he did bump his opponent, I can't see how he could have avoided contact.
There was another example last season when a Brisbane player was outed (Jason Roe?) after colliding with Luke Brennan's head. I really don't see what option Roe had in those circumstances - he was clearly trying to make the contest, just got there a split second after Brennan. I was disappointed he earned a holiday.
The Goodes one I think is worse than those three because he probably had more of a chance of avoiding contact altogether. But I still don't think the vision suggests he made intentional head high contact - which was the point of suggesting that the initial contact was to the shoulder. But as I originally said, it could well be graded as reckless rather than negligent. What should save Goodes from an extensive break is the fact that the impact wasn't that great. I am certainly not arguing that he doesn't deserve some holiday, based on comparison with other recent examples.
I have, several times. He got hit, no doubt about it. Not hard, not heavy, but he copped one. I won't mind admitting we have a couple in the Swans who don't mind staying down when there's a chance for a free but Goodes is not one of them.
