Goodes on report

[CAS79]

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=129639

"Goodes was booked for sliding feet-first into Hunt during the second half of the Swans' 16-point loss to the Cats on Friday night.

The incident was assessed as reckless conduct and low impact, meaning Goodes drew an initial penalty of 125 demerit points."

So basically he did something very similar less than 8 weeks ago and copped a week for it.

Obviously has not learned or adjusted the way he attacks a player who is on the ground.

He has not been reported for sliding the feet and he was right next to the bloke when they got to the contest so there was no SLIDING.

 

[warney7]

Absolute dog of a player, who consistently stretches the rules and gets away with it.

Did the same thing in the NAB cup and got a week (finally), so I don't see why this should be any different, especially with carry-over points.

Fact is, you can't challenge a player with your knees or your legs.

1 week is the only fair result, given precedence.

 

[.Shotties.]

Nowhere near as bad on replay as it seemed at the ground, but they were both very different actions. Surj dove on the ball to win it. Goodes dove into the contest knees first and leaning back, not really near the ball at all.

Surjan dove on the ball? He went in feet first at the contest. Another frame from when he starts his slide. I don't even really know how you could say Goodes wasn't really near the ball. While we're here, can people stop saying he was going at Surjan while Surjan on his knees? Look at the frame here, they're going to their knees at the same time. It's not like Surjan got to the ball and Goodes dropped in on him.

 

[legend166]

Thanks for those, Shotties. This is what I mean when I say that both players did the exact same thing:

 

[SisyphusV]

Clearly Surjan must also be reported.

 

[Macca19]

Thanks for those, Shotties. This is what I mean when I say that both players did the exact same thing:

Right, so Surjan, directly over the ball, dives over the ball with his hands out to trap the ball whilst on his knees. Goodes dives in knees first, leaning backwards with his arms metres from the ball. But yeah, same thing alright

 

[.Shotties.]

They're both leaning back, Surjan has his legs out (and ends up with studs up towards Goodes) and Goodes with them tucked in. So, no not exactly the same, but not the massive difference in intent as you seem to believe.

 

[Bluish]

I would love Goodes to be out for next week; he always tears us to shreds.

But having said that. If he gets weeks for that, it is an absolute joke.

 

[ausbacker]

Surjan dove on the ball? He went in feet first at the contest. Another frame from when he starts his slide. I don't even really know how you could say Goodes wasn't really near the ball. While we're here, can people stop saying he was going at Surjan while Surjan on his knees? Look at the frame here, they're going to their knees at the same time. It's not like Surjan got to the ball and Goodes dropped in on him.

Surjan clearly took possession of the ball well before Goodes arrived. I'm not sure that's a debatable comment. There was no intent to injure by Goodes but from what I observed, that's negligent, perhaps even reckless rough conduct because it could have caused serious injury.

 

[Pykie]

They're both leaning back, Surjan has his legs out (and ends up with studs up towards Goodes) and Goodes with them tucked in. So, no not exactly the same, but not the massive difference in intent as you seem to believe.

The key difference being................


Surjan has the ball.




Goodes is about 5 metres away from Surjan (and the ball) when he begins his slide.

Impact is low, so he should get away with it though.

But sliding in like that, at any level, is always frowned upon.........


Corey McKernan lost a Bronlow Medal for sliding knee's first....

 

[giantsully]

Thanks for those, Shotties. This is what I mean when I say that both players did the exact same thing:

Frankly I'd much prefer to see this - two fellas going hard for the footy but protecting themselves - than the current vogue of kamikaze headfirst diving for the ball hoping to draw the free kick. Better I guess would be to keep your feet altogether, but there really doesn't seem anything wrong from this footage?

 

[.Shotties.]

Surjan clearly took possession of the ball well before Goodes arrived. I'm not sure that's a debatable comment

He hasn't even taken possession at this point.

This is the thing, they're both sliding, both leaning back, they both started sliding at the same time, but Surjan would have been a step closer and as such would have gotten to the ball by some very very small measurement unit of time before Goodes.

 

[Macca19]

Come on, Surjan is directly over the ball, about to grab it. His sole attack was on the ball. He slid in to protect the ball. I dont think you can say the same with Goodes. All Goodes is trying to do is make a physical contest. How is Goodes going to win possession of the ball in the position he is in in your screen shot?

I dont even think its that bad but I think given this is the 2nd time this year hes gone in leg first into a contest then I think he's at risk of getting more points and missing a match.

 

[.Shotties.]

Come on, Surjan is directly over the ball, about to grab it. His sole attack was on the ball.

But he hadn't grabbed it, so the continual statement that he clearly had the ball when Goodes slid into him is wrong.

He slid in to protect the ball. I dont think you can say the same with Goodes. All Goodes is trying to do is make a physical contest. How is Goodes going to win possession of the ball in the position he is in in your screen shot?

Well, seen as the game isn't played in slow motion, nor are there chances to base actions on repeated viewings, I'd say Goodes thought he could make it to the ball given the distance between Goodes and the ball and Surjan and the ball would have been about a step and he was sprinting at top speed.

 

[ausbacker]

He hasn't even taken possession at this point.

This is the thing, they're both sliding, both leaning back, they both started sliding at the same time, but Surjan would have been a step closer and as such would have gotten to the ball by some very very small measurement unit of time before Goodes.

The sooner you stop referencing still images and watch tape at speed the more reliable your argument will become. Surjan clearly takes possession of the ball before Goodes gets there. I don't happen to think it's a particularly bad incident more it's negligent at best.

As Macca19 has mentioned, Goodes intent wasn't to injure Surjan, it was to create a contest. The reckless conduct from there is a matter of interpretation, but he did careen into Surjan in what could be construed as dangerous. That's not a slight on Goodes, it's just the way it unfolded.

 

[.Shotties.]

The sooner you stop referencing still images and watch tape at speed the more reliable your argument will become. Surjan clearly takes possession of the ball before Goodes gets there. I don't happen to think it's a particularly bad incident more it's negligent at best.

I did watch it at speed, from both players being on their feet metres from the ball to when contact occurs over about a second.

The reckless conduct from there is a matter of interpretation, but he did careen into Surjan in what could be construed as dangerous.

See, how is it Goodes careening into Surjan? They left their feet at the same time going for the ball. Goodes went in knees tucked back and Surjan went in studs towards Goodes. I'm not saying Surjan should be punished or is to blame, I think it's a nothing incident, I'm just curious as to why it's all on Goodes with near identical actions and timing to Surjan. Because Surjan got to the ball a millisecond earlier?

 

[Macca19]

See, how is it Goodes careening into Surjan?

Its already been said by numerous people in this thread.

 

[CAS79]

Its already been said by numerous people in this thread.

Numerous people said a lot of things in the children overboard incident as well. turned out that numerous speaking were talking out of their you know what.

 

[Bollox]

There's nothing in it, certainly nothing worthy of a suspension.
No point going overboard simply because he's a name player...if it was Surjan going in on Bird would it even have been reported or cared about ? nahhh maybe a free kick.
Thats the reality of it...BUT i dont know when how or why he's suddenly sliding into contests this way in 2012 and been 2 or 3 i've sen so far. Looks more like he's trying to protect himself going in..either way its neither a good look nor safe and its probably about time he copped a small fine for it and a "do it one more time and its holiday time".

You dont suspend guys for something they havent actually caused but "might"...otherwise there'd be 50 reports a game. Umps have seen this before already this yr so are keeping an eye on him and made the report. BUT suspension ? For what ? Contact ? bugger all, both together, intent ? obviously not to hurt, reckless ? not really/possibly, negligent ? possibly/probably. Contact ?, low and below waist. Just all airy fairy and non worthy of penalising a team

Yes, time to nip it in the bud. Dont ask him how or why he's now doing it...just a token fine accompanied by a "thats it..no more ok "

Whilst its tempting and not saying i dont do it...take the name out of the equation and its a 50/50 whether it would even be looked at. Last warning.

Talking about a guy who hasnt been spotted gouging eyes or trying a steven seegal..very occasional angry pills (see hird at scg) but all great players have their moods. This just looks like bad habit from pre season training protecting himself at contests.

 

[tonk]

What should he be suspended for?

For being Adam Goodes.

 

[Pklz]

Looked like a genuine contest to me, both hard at the ball and both doing the same thing to protect themselves. I couldn't even find a free kick in that contest let alone a reportable offense.

 

[nohairandfair]

Got done in the pre-season and will go again for a clearly unacceptable and dangerous "tactic".

 

[Ceanag]

For all his skill and talent you can't take away the fact that Goodes has a history of being a dirty player who is prone to taking cheap shots on unsuspecting opponents ..

 

[Sydney Bloods]

For all his skill and talent you can't take away the fact that Goodes has a history of being a dirty player who is prone to taking cheap shots on unsuspecting opponents ..

So in your opinion was this incident a cheap shot?

If not are your bringing it up because it will go to his record?

No his record is very good Not reported for any "cheap shots". the incident in the pre-season was not a cheap shot, it was reckless and dangerous but not a cheap shot.

Poor form mate calling a 300+ game player dirty, particularly one with a record as good as Goodes has stop hating.

 

[robbieando]

Numerous people said a lot of things in the children overboard incident as well. turned out that numerous speaking were talking out of their you know what.

So most Swans fans are the Liberal Party and the ones saying that Goodes should get a suspension are the ALP...

Worse over-reaction from Swans fans on Big Footy I've ever seen