Goodes

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

You have to love the screams of "not fair". Wouldn't mind betting that the clowns screaming that Goodes deserves 4 weeks are the same ones who derided the AFL & the MRP for being too soft in the Viney incident. The bump is dead!!!, remember all that hysteria from a few weeks ago?

Spare me. Goodse was careless, and the incident was no more than a glancing knock of inconsequential impact to the side of Selwood. Is this the direction you want the game to head down, or is it because its Goodes that you want him suspended. No player should ever be suspended for an incident like this.
 
You have to love the screams of "not fair". Wouldn't mind betting that the clowns screaming that Goodes deserves 4 weeks are the same ones who derided the AFL & the MRP for being too soft in the Viney incident. The bump is dead!!!, remember all that hysteria from a few weeks ago?

Spare me. Goodse was careless, and the incident was no more than a glancing knock of inconsequential impact to the side of Selwood. Is this the direction you want the game to head down, or is it because its Goodes that you want him suspended. No player should ever be suspended for an incident like this.

Couldn't have said it better.
 
So you're ignoring the insufficient force part of the equation?

Not at all. I could post it again, bold bold that bit, and make a separate point about that part of the ruling too if you like?

In fact, now you're bringing it up, I'm glad that a shoulder to the head of the (arguably) toughest guy in AFL, who is down for a good 20 seconds, and gets up groggy is now the definition for insufficient force.
 
If the whole MRP panel and system isnt scrapped at seasons end, AFL is in real trouble.
But as people have already stated its Goodes what else did we expect.
Its Sydney what else did we expect
Probably a reprimand or suspension like he has copped 4 out of the 5 times he has been to the MRP. Doesn't quite fit the he always gets off stereotype does it?
 
Eddie was right, they did let him off because of Indigenous week.

Case A: Low Impact
external


Case B: Insufficient Force
Untitled.jpg


Untitled2.jpg


There's no defending that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

You have to love the screams of "not fair". Wouldn't mind betting that the clowns screaming that Goodes deserves 4 weeks are the same ones who derided the AFL & the MRP for being too soft in the Viney incident. The bump is dead!!!, remember all that hysteria from a few weeks ago?

Spare me. Goodse was careless, and the incident was no more than a glancing knock of inconsequential impact to the side of Selwood. Is this the direction you want the game to head down, or is it because its Goodes that you want him suspended. No player should ever be suspended for an incident like this.
Perfect example of someone who knows nothing about the game.
Viney had NO alternative and was contesting a 50/50 ball. He turned and braced to protect himself.
Goodes jumped in the air and collected someone high. Deliberately.
 
Had he got a week for the first offence as he should have, he would have for another week for the second. The Bartram offence ridculously classed as negligent when he left the ground - consitently classed as reckless in other cases

Notice what isn't mentioned in this statement...

The match day report against Sydney’s Adam Goodes for rough conduct against Geelong’s Joel Selwood was assessed. The ball is loose following a boundary throw in and has bounced high in the air. Both players have their eyes on the ball, Selwood taps the ball forward and Goodes jumps in an attempt to contest the ball and braces for contact. Contact is made. It was the view of the panel the contact made was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.

That's right, they didn't look at the medical report - amazing really.
Selwood didn't leave the ground, he wasn't subbed for any amount of time for a concussion test. What are you expecting a medical report would have said? He suffered concussion? Then Geelong would be fined for not following concussion rules.
 
Perfect example of someone who knows nothing about the game.
Viney had NO alternative and was contesting a 50/50 ball. He turned and braced to protect himself.
Goodes jumped in the air and collected someone high. Deliberately.

Pesky marking contests, hey.
 
YEAH! Usually Selwoods head is covered in blood, therefor Goodes used insufficient force, close the book on that one. It wasn't like that aggressive headbutt by Stevie J which laid Crowley out flat, the MRP found all kinds of force in that one.
Selwood was actually rocked. You could see him staggering and he reached out and held onto his opponents hand to stop himself falling over. "The head is sacrosanct" is obviously plain old bullshit.

Goodes probably should have gotten off, but to cite insufficient force is corrupt.
 
Eddie was right, they did let him off because of Indigenous week.

Case A: Low Impact
external


Case B: Insufficient Force
Untitled.jpg


Untitled2.jpg


There's no defending that.


the balls location is slightly different in the two cases dont you reckon?

i thought he was lucky not to cop a week reduced to off by pleading guilty by letter of the law, but not more than harvey or hocking

stevie j was stiff

ill ignore the goodes rubbish about him being protected, put it aside

there are inconsistencies in this MRP, no denying that
 
:D Nice work SM put words in my mouth mate :thumbsu:

Does posting outside the confines of the SFA make you a twit????
Personal
Ablett, Judd and now Goodes
Defence rests
Perfect example of someone who knows nothing about the game.
Viney had NO alternative and was contesting a 50/50 ball. He turned and braced to protect himself.
Goodes jumped in the air and collected someone high. Deliberately.

Speaks the person who states the MRP is corrupt with no clear evidence that be laughed at in the courtroom :rolleyes:
 
the balls location is slightly different in the two cases dont you reckon?

i thought he was lucky not to cop a week reduced to off by pleading guilty by letter of the law, but not more than harvey or hocking

stevie j was stiff

ill ignore the goodes rubbish about him being protected, put it aside

there are inconsistencies in this MRP, no denying that

Now now don't come in being all reasonable.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Goodes

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top