- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Posts
- 66,917
- Reaction score
- 58,833
- Location
- Lake Oval
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- SMFC. PMFC,OAFC
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 9
The Golden Ticket - Corporate tickets, functions, Open Air Boxes at the Adelaide Oval, ENGIE, Gabba, MCG, Marvel, Optus & People First Stadiums. Corporate Suites at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
8 Winner: myblueroan
MRP / Trib. Goodes Reported - GUILTY. Out 1 week
- Thread starter .Shotties.
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
MarkEllis
Rookie
Re: Goodes Reported
I truly give up.
There is no similarity with the pre season rub out. Leading with your feet is different to what Goodes did here.
It seems too me the MRP will disallow body contact in a body contact sport in a whim.
If they do not wish sliding contact a statement should be made so both parties in a contest know the implications. We are talking split seconds here. You have to act or not. All this crap about decision making is rubbish. Instinct rules a lot of these actions not premeditation.
We should challenge and go hard.
I truly give up.
There is no similarity with the pre season rub out. Leading with your feet is different to what Goodes did here.
It seems too me the MRP will disallow body contact in a body contact sport in a whim.
If they do not wish sliding contact a statement should be made so both parties in a contest know the implications. We are talking split seconds here. You have to act or not. All this crap about decision making is rubbish. Instinct rules a lot of these actions not premeditation.
We should challenge and go hard.
Re: Goodes Reported
but 80 carry over points which will push him over any further offence.
but for the sake of common sense and the fact we know the tribunal are prepared to diss the MRP after the Whitecross hearing, take it on.
but 80 carry over points which will push him over any further offence.
but for the sake of common sense and the fact we know the tribunal are prepared to diss the MRP after the Whitecross hearing, take it on.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Banned
- #206
Re: Goodes Reported
The MRP classified each of the criteria at the lowest possible level (for a suspension).
Negligent, body contact and low impact.
The 2 areas we could challenge are;
1 Accidental, rather negligent which would result in the case being thrown out and
2 The force was below the standard required to constitute low impact, which would also 'free' Goodes.
Given the way the MRP & the tribunal assess these incidents, little hope on the first I would have thought.
There were other options available to Goodes. He chose to slide in and as a result collected the Port player with his knees/legs.
The best hope I've felt all along is that the force with which he hit Surjan would be deemed not forceful enough to warrant consideration. The argument we could mount is that the Port player was able to continue on immediately and suffered no apparent ill effects. But even then the threshold of 'low impact' may not see Goodes cleared.
The downside of appealing is that he would have 45 additional carry over points (down to 135 points from 180, with a guilty plea), but given the fact that his current penalty would remain at 1 match irrespective I'd be in favour of challenging the MRP decision, although with limited confidence in the outcome.
The MRP classified each of the criteria at the lowest possible level (for a suspension).
Negligent, body contact and low impact.
The 2 areas we could challenge are;
1 Accidental, rather negligent which would result in the case being thrown out and
2 The force was below the standard required to constitute low impact, which would also 'free' Goodes.
Given the way the MRP & the tribunal assess these incidents, little hope on the first I would have thought.
There were other options available to Goodes. He chose to slide in and as a result collected the Port player with his knees/legs.
The best hope I've felt all along is that the force with which he hit Surjan would be deemed not forceful enough to warrant consideration. The argument we could mount is that the Port player was able to continue on immediately and suffered no apparent ill effects. But even then the threshold of 'low impact' may not see Goodes cleared.
The downside of appealing is that he would have 45 additional carry over points (down to 135 points from 180, with a guilty plea), but given the fact that his current penalty would remain at 1 match irrespective I'd be in favour of challenging the MRP decision, although with limited confidence in the outcome.
- Banned
- #209
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2009
- Posts
- 6,760
- Reaction score
- 4,342
- Location
- In the shadows of the SCG
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Re: Goodes Reported
Watching the replay again you'd say he tried to avoid contact but was already in motion. Fair chance he'd get off you'd reckon.
Watching the replay again you'd say he tried to avoid contact but was already in motion. Fair chance he'd get off you'd reckon.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Posts
- 1,154
- Reaction score
- 162
- Location
- DEEP INSIDE ALTARBOY ROB'S HEAD!!
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- WOMENS BEACH VOLLEYBALL
- Banned
- #212
Re: Goodes Reported
why doesnt the media speak up, why are they all pathetic little afl lappys
why doesnt the media speak up, why are they all pathetic little afl lappys
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Posts
- 29,393
- Reaction score
- 17,534
- Location
- Ensconced in velvet
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Lakers, West Ham
Re: Goodes Reported
Wait until it's Rioli, Judd, Murphy etc. You'll see them speaking up then.
Franklin should be copping twice the critisism that Goodes is.
Wait until it's Rioli, Judd, Murphy etc. You'll see them speaking up then.
Franklin should be copping twice the critisism that Goodes is.
nicky1995
Team Captain
Re: Goodes Reported
I will tell you why, it is Adam Goodes. They are champing at the bit to get stuck into him. I posted earlier that he would go, not because I felt he had a case to answer only that it was a forgone conclusion. Jason Dunstall is a case in point, he has an axe to grind about Sydney and buggered if I know what it is. He pulls his head in abit when broadcasting with Roos on Foxtel, but let loose he is the biggest smart.... god ever put breath in. end of rant.
I will tell you why, it is Adam Goodes. They are champing at the bit to get stuck into him. I posted earlier that he would go, not because I felt he had a case to answer only that it was a forgone conclusion. Jason Dunstall is a case in point, he has an axe to grind about Sydney and buggered if I know what it is. He pulls his head in abit when broadcasting with Roos on Foxtel, but let loose he is the biggest smart.... god ever put breath in. end of rant.
TheGoatBaron
Bigfooty’s Head Shake Officer
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Posts
- 31,848
- Reaction score
- 24,903
- Location
- South-West Victoria
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- South Melbourne Hellas
Re: Goodes Reported
Dermott Brereton did said on Open Mike in an interview with Mike Sheahan recently, that Jason Dunstall is one of the most arrogant/selfish person he has ever met, that's saying something.
Dermott Brereton did said on Open Mike in an interview with Mike Sheahan recently, that Jason Dunstall is one of the most arrogant/selfish person he has ever met, that's saying something.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Posts
- 29,393
- Reaction score
- 17,534
- Location
- Ensconced in velvet
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Lakers, West Ham
Re: Goodes Reported
That Goodes on report thread is full of typical garbage from supporters with a hate for Sydney or Goodes. North Melbourne supporters are so hard done by aren't they? And then you've got Carlton supporters going on about karma at the tribunal. Judd anyone?
No wonder I've only opened that thread twice, won't be doing it again.
That Goodes on report thread is full of typical garbage from supporters with a hate for Sydney or Goodes. North Melbourne supporters are so hard done by aren't they? And then you've got Carlton supporters going on about karma at the tribunal. Judd anyone?
No wonder I've only opened that thread twice, won't be doing it again.
Re: Goodes Reported
Should challenge imo
Should challenge imo
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Posts
- 12,113
- Reaction score
- 5,002
- Location
- Camped in the goalsquare
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Thread starter
- #218
Dude, do you even realise what you're posting half the time? Earlier in the thread you endorsed a post by robbie saying he should get a week and only had himself to blame.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2012
- Posts
- 18,188
- Reaction score
- 13,950
- Location
- Sydney
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
Usually by lunch (1300) when I check my various afl/swans app's.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Posts
- 1,154
- Reaction score
- 162
- Location
- DEEP INSIDE ALTARBOY ROB'S HEAD!!
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- WOMENS BEACH VOLLEYBALL
- Banned
- #222
Re: Goodes Reported
i'd be 99% sure they willchallenge, and then it becomes a 50-50 proposition...
i got a feeling goodes is there sunday...
i'd be 99% sure they willchallenge, and then it becomes a 50-50 proposition...
i got a feeling goodes is there sunday...
The King!
Chosen One
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Posts
- 165,764
- Reaction score
- 170,824
- Location
- Backwater
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Celtics , Redsox, Patriots
Re: Goodes Reported
Sliding in knee first could hurt someone he wont get off they will make an example of him.
i'd be 99% sure they willchallenge, and then it becomes a 50-50 proposition...
i got a feeling goodes is there sunday...
Sliding in knee first could hurt someone he wont get off they will make an example of him.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
- Posts
- 14,675
- Reaction score
- 2,048
- Location
- In the room beside you.
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- East Side Hawks
Re: Goodes Reported
Damn we should just ban everything that "could" hurt somebody. Like Malceskis beard or even Reid's shaven head!
Damn we should just ban everything that "could" hurt somebody. Like Malceskis beard or even Reid's shaven head!
Re: Goodes Reported
leaping on top of someone's head could hurt someone, but if your trying to take a screamer thats OK. He was only doing exactly what the other guy was doing - trying to trap an unpredictably bouncing ball with his legs/body. Any lawyer worth his salt will get him off.
leaping on top of someone's head could hurt someone, but if your trying to take a screamer thats OK. He was only doing exactly what the other guy was doing - trying to trap an unpredictably bouncing ball with his legs/body. Any lawyer worth his salt will get him off.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
-
- Locked
