Goodes - surely must go this time

[wambat]

The facts are Goodes is a dirty sniper who knows he can get away with anything due to his protection from the AFL.

But when the shoe's on the other foot and he needs to take a small bump , he rolls around like Sam Mitchell.

Poor effort

 

[Tedeski]

The facts are Goodes is a dirty sniper who knows he can get away with anything due to his protection from the AFL.

But when the shoe's on the other foot and he needs to take a small bump , he rolls around like Sam Mitchell.

Poor effort

What would you say to him if you saw him in the street or sitting next to you at a restaurant.


"H..h..h..h..hi Mr Goodes...............I L..l...l...l...love the way you g..g..g..g..go about y..y..y..y..your f..f..f..f..football.
C..c..c..c..an I have your autograph. Sign it to W..w...w..w..wambat!"


Some of you guys wouldn't have a clue. The fact of the matter is that every AFL player has a little bit of mongrel in them otherwise they don'y last in the game. Who'd have thought that Murphy would have gone for something so bad last week. What about Kerr. I wouldn't judge one's character based on what they do on the footy field but rather by how they behave once they are out amongst the public.

Unlike Cousins, Kerr, Chic, Fevola, Gardiner, Didak, Brogan, Farmer, Franklin, etc...etc..... who are in a league of their own off when it comes to character off the field, Goodes is a role model off the field. In fact he is SO WELL respected amongst other players that he is the first player tagged in our team every week.

Any player that cops the heavy tag will lash from time to time. That Goodes has done it on a regular basis of late, some of it pushing the boundaries of course, suggest only one thing. That is that opposition players (& coaches) try to illegally take out of a game or use illegal tactics week in week out to unsettle him. It is noi coincidence that he starts each year off quite poorly with the heavy tagging but as the year wears on, he starts to assert himself more physically on the contest with devestating effect as you have all seen. With this extra physical aggression, the guy is going to sometimes make the odd misjudgement as he did the other night. Is he foolish for the collision with Selwood! Well in hindsight yes, but in the heat of the moment after he was hit by Stenglein earlier, not to mention the illegal manhandling by Selwood, Goodes became more physical whn there was an 'opportunity'. He judged poorly once again & he will face the consequences of his actions.
I say 2 weeks plus another 1 or 2 to shut every one up.

But a more reasonable sentence should be 1 week max.
WHY! Because Selwood got up & played out the match unaffected. In fact, apart from milking for the free kick to the max, it was a very, very low impact collision. You can only go by precedent & each of the suspensions to Murphy, & Burgoine & Waters resulted in the opponent either being taken off or bleeding & missing some game time. HIGH IMPACT.
You can't give an extra week based on the public wanting blood.
He has to be judged for the contact that it was. Low impact..................potentially dangerous, yes, but the MRP will judge it accordingly.

But I say he better get 4 or 5 otherwise if he is judged fairly & only gets 1, then they might as well give us the P'ship now & start the season again because we will never hear the end of it!!

Cheers to the fair & sensible judges out there on Big Footy!!

 

[Mike_blues]

what is this game coming to if he gets rubbed out?
nothing in it

 

[Shellz]

Three weeks.

 

[Beckers]

what is this game coming to if he gets rubbed out?
nothing in it

That unfortunate precedent has set in the last few weeks when McGlynn and Murphy were suspended! The AFL are determined to make our 'once great game' non-contact

There is no way he can escape this head high contact. I predict 1 - 2 taking the Goodes/Sydney factor into account.

 

[Tedeski]

The facts are Goodes is a dirty sniper who knows he can get away with anything due to his protection from the AFL.

But when the shoe's on the other foot and he needs to take a small bump , he rolls around like Sam Mitchell.

Poor effort

What would you say to him if you saw him in the street or sitting next to you at a restaurant.


"H..h..h..h..hi Mr Goodes...............I L..l...l...l...love the way you g..g..g..g..go about y..y..y..y..your f..f..f..f..football.
C..c..c..c..an I have your autograph. Sign it to W..w...w..w..wambat!"


Some of you guys wouldn't have a clue. The fact of the matter is that every AFL player has a little bit of mongrel in them otherwise they don'y last in the game. Who'd have thought that Murphy would have gone for something so bad last week. What about Kerr. I wouldn't judge one's character based on what they do on the footy field but rather by how they behave once they are out amongst the public.

Unlike Cousins, Kerr, Chic, Fevola, Gardiner, Didak, Brogan, Farmer, Franklin, etc...etc..... who are in a league of their own off when it comes to character off the field, Goodes is a role model off the field. In fact he is SO WELL respected amongst other players that he is the first player tagged in our team every week.

Any player that cops the heavy tag will lash from time to time. That Goodes has done it on a regular basis of late, some of it pushing the boundaries of course, suggest only one thing. That is that opposition players (& coaches) try to illegally take out of a game or use illegal tactics week in week out to unsettle him. It is noi coincidence that he starts each year off quite poorly with the heavy tagging but as the year wears on, he starts to assert himself more physically on the contest with devestating effect as you have all seen. With this extra physical aggression, the guy is going to sometimes make the odd misjudgement as he did the other night. Is he foolish for the collision with Selwood! Well in hindsight yes, but in the heat of the moment after he was hit by Stenglein earlier, not to mention the illegal manhandling by Selwood, Goodes became more physical whn there was an 'opportunity'. He judged poorly once again & he will face the consequences of his actions.
I say 2 weeks plus another 1 or 2 to shut every one up.

But a more reasonable sentence should be 1 week max.
WHY! Because Selwood got up & played out the match unaffected. In fact, apart from milking for the free kick to the max, it was a very, very low impact collision. You can only go by precedent & each of the suspensions to Murphy, & Burgoine & Waters resulted in the opponent either being taken off or bleeding & missing some game time. HIGH IMPACT.
You can't give an extra week based on the public wanting blood.
He has to be judged for the contact that it was. Low impact..................potentially dangerous, yes, but the MRP will judge it accordingly.

But I say he better get 4 or 5 otherwise if he is judged fairly & only gets 1, then they might as well give us the P'ship now & start the season again because we will never hear the end of it!!

Cheers to the fair & sensible judges out there on Big Footy!!

 

[sedders]

] You can only go by precedent & each of the suspensions to Murphy, & Burgoine & Waters resulted in the opponent either being taken off or bleeding & missing some game time. HIGH IMPACT.[/FONT]
You can't give an extra week based on the public wanting blood.
He has to be judged for the contact that it was. Low impact..................potentially dangerous, yes, but the MRP will judge it accordingly.

Nice rant, but the impact rating is not related to any injury. He was running pretty fast and leaned into him at the last minute. The impact span Selwood around. For the 599 other players this would be at least be medium impact

 

[Bollox]

Nice rant, but the impact rating is not related to any injury. He was running pretty fast and leaned into him at the last minute. The impact span Selwood around. For the 599 other players this would be at least be medium impact

So...your wishy washy theory means that a frustrated David Hille should have been suspended for a month for the elbow to Goodes' jaw a few weeks ago. The fact that Goodes didnt exaggerate it and just kept playing is irrelevant is it ?

Fact is that if a guy just keeps going and doesnt writhe about in agony like an Italian soccer twat then the bloke will likely get off.

Hille shouldnt have received anything but a reprimand at worst (got nothing) BUT if Goodes went down and played up to it the tribunal would have had no choice in the matter...with 10 camera's capturing it clearly it would have simply become a "dangerous elbow/high hit/medium impact ...etc etc.

Fact is that it DOES seem to matter if injury happens or not....whether or not it should matter is a different argument entirely.

Players unfortunately get no cred nor any respect for NOT exaggerating an incident.

 

[TheMase]

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?

Nothing in it. On first glance I thought so, but on reply it was fair contact. Won't even be looked at.

Goodes however will go, probably two weeks I would say. At the time of the incident I believe I yelled a few swear words and declared he'd be having a holiday.

I don't believe it was forceful contact, as I don't believe he was going at full pace. It did brush the shoulder, and therefore slowed the impact. I am not convinced it was deliberate in the sense he was going for his head, it will be classed reckless as opposed to intentional.

I would say 1-2 weeks, and would be surprised if it was more. The impact simply was not hard enough.

 

[sedders]

So...your wishy washy theory means that a frustrated David Hille should have been suspended for a month for the elbow to Goodes' jaw a few weeks ago. The fact that Goodes didnt exaggerate it and just kept playing is irrelevant is it ?

Fact is that if a guy just keeps going and doesnt writhe about in agony like an Italian soccer twat then the bloke will likely get off.

Hille shouldnt have received anything but a reprimand at worst BUT if Goodes went down and played up to it the tribunal would have had no choice in the matter...with 10 camera's capturing it clearly it would have simply become a "dangerous elbow/high hit/medium impact ...etc etc.

Fact is that it DOES seem to matter if injury happens or not....whether or not it should matter is a different argument entirely.

Another nice rant from a typically rabbid swans fan. Fact is we've heard this wishy washy theory from everyone in the afl over the years.

 

[Billy Bones]

If he doesn't go this time then I think the football public have every reason to believe that a different set of rules apply to him.

 

[Masten2McKinley]

he will prob only have to give demitro a head job and he will be right to play, it goodes they wont suspend him,

he should get 3 weeks though

 

[Billy Bones]

I'd rate it a 1 to 2 week suspension. It was definitely reckless.

 

[slidetribe]

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.

Care to address my other rebuttals?

 

[who gives a]

4 weeks for this protected species should be just right, fair player that he is but hes a weak sniper and has got away with murder over these past few years

 

[flyinghi64]

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

What when Goodes did the biggest Rinaldo you will see. The only thing to come of that is maybe a GOLD LOGIE nomination to Goodes.

 

[jerry springer]

has to be 3 weeks

 

[giantsully]

That unfortunate precedent has set in the last few weeks when McGlynn and Murphy were suspended! The AFL are determined to make our 'once great game' non-contact

There is no way he can escape this head high contact. I predict 1 - 2 taking the Goodes/Sydney factor into account.

So exactly the same as Murphy, Waters and Burton then? YOu'll need to explain to me how the Goodes/Sydney factor applied to their decisions?

 

[Tedeski]

If he doesn't go this time then I think the football public have every reason to believe that a different set of rules apply to him. quote]

The North Melbourne victim mentality has shown it's ugly head yet again.

Why is it that every thread relating to anything Swans always is greeted with the "different set of rules" comments from those that must lack intelligence?

Sorry, but that is the only way I can describe some of these posters because surely you guys don't REALLY believe this. "Different set of rules" my arse!

Lets start my argument on the footy field.
Free kicks! The Swans have had the worst frees for to against ratio of ANY other club now since Roos has been coach. We are talking EVERY YEAR!
Once again, we are at 268 against! That's about 38 more frees against then the next team......or....15% more frees against.
The trend continues!
CLEARLY the AFL DONT LIKE our game style. The umpires don't like it either because we cause a lot of stoppages & they constantly are having to bounce the ball. That's too much work for some of them & they umpire accordingly.
Demetriou told the world that he didn't like our style & we gave him a red face in 2005.

You say we have a different set of rules. I say you are right but clearly we are penalised for it where it really matters & that is on the field of play.

Argue all you like about the suspensions but we clearly will always start every game behind the eight ball when it comes to umpiring against our style.

What's your reply to that?

 

[Juddism]

It Shows Contact To The Shoulder,you Are Still Allowed To Bump Arn't You

lol..don't be an idiot, of course he hit his head in that bump, 2 or 3 weeks and that's the bottom line.

 

[flyinghi64]

If he doesn't go this time then I think the football public have every reason to believe that a different set of rules apply to him. quote]

The North Melbourne victim mentality has shown it's ugly head yet again.

Why is it that every thread relating to anything Swans always is greeted with the "different set of rules" comments from those that must lack intelligence?

Sorry, but that is the only way I can describe some of these posters because surely you guys don't REALLY believe this. "Different set of rules" my arse!

Lets start my argument on the footy field.
Free kicks! The Swans have had the worst frees for to against ratio of ANY other club now since Roos has been coach. We are talking EVERY YEAR!
Once again, we are at 268 against! That's about 38 more frees against then the next team......or....15% more frees against.
The trend continues!
CLEARLY the AFL DONT LIKE our game style. The umpires don't like it either because we cause a lot of stoppages & they constantly are having to bounce the ball. That's too much work for some of them & they umpire accordingly.
Demetriou told the world that he didn't like our style & we gave him a red face in 2005.

You say we have a different set of rules. I say you are right but clearly we are penalised for it where it really matters & that is on the field of play.

Argue all you like about the suspensions but we clearly will always start every game behind the eight ball when it comes to umpiring against our style.

What's your reply to that?

I'll have a go at this one.
Firstly we are talking about reports and penalties, not free kicks.
Secondly the reason for the " different set of rules " mentality is the fact that certain players get a more favourable outcome than others, don't think I need to name names.
Thirdly you said the Swans always get more frees against than anyone else. Umm doesn't that go to show the Swans give away more free kicks. Whether this is a discipline thing or an aggression thing the fact remains they give a lot of frees away.
BUT BUT BUT, I would much rather give away 20 frees in the middle of the ground and in defence and get 10 frees in my forward 50. The free count says we lose 2 to 1 but my brain says we got the better deal.

 

[Ron The Bear]

CLEARLY the AFL DONT LIKE our game style.

Demetriou said as much, and I'm sure they don't as it runs contrary to what they're trying to engineer. Damn effective though.

 

[DST]

That's not the issue, the issue is that "the head is sacrosanct", as stated by Demetriou during the week. If the MRP/tribunal is consistent, Goodes must go (Stenglein also), but experience tells us to expect verdicts that will not make sense.

Did you read my post, I said that the contact did end up being high and therefore he will receive a week or two as contact to the head is now outlawed.

The issue comes with grading the charge and in this instance he was entitled to bump Selwood as he had the ball (despite people saying he needed to avoid contact), the initial contact was to shoulder not the head and it ended up being low impact.

You cannot compare this case to Murphay or Burgoyne as contact was made front on and directly to the head with both making servere contact.

No carryover points, an early plea will probably see it settle as 2 weeks discounted to 1 week.

DST

 

[Sprinting Goat]

Nothing in it.
No case to answer

What he said.

 

[.Shotties.]

LRT practically ran/walked into Brett Jones when he turned around, BJ stood his ground, arms tucked in etc, what more do you want?

I was actually kinda having a dig at of a lot of people basing the fact that he should be rubbed out purely on the basis of contact with the head a la

he hit his head in that bump, 2 or 3 weeks and that's the bottom line.