Adam Goodes lacks courage in the contested situations when he goes in feet first

[.Shotties.]

My question is why has Goodes not earnt a reputation, or media attention, for going into 50/50 contests in a dangerous manner?

This is why it can't be discussed without it turning into a shitfight. Because people throw out absolutes and refuse to budge from them. Goodes hasn't gotten any media attention for sliding? Are you joking?

Ok, because I am so dopey Gongswan, tell me exactly, slowly and in words I'll understand just what Shotties meant by his comment to me.... Because I must be really dumb.

Glasgow, context: You had just posted a comment stating Goodes' exact intentions in a contest despite you having absolutely no way of knowing and accused him of doing something.

In response, I facetiously accused you of being a racist in your commenting on an indigenous player despite not knowing your thought process at all. You were suitably affronted by this when it occurred to you, however you don't seemed to have recognised the significance of it.

 

[The King!]

SOMEBODY PLEASE... tell me how Goodes can be regarded as a fair player if he's going around deliberately chopping the legs out from under his opponents, or kneeing them when he arrives late into a contest?

I'm confused by Jon Longmire's defence of Goodes.



I

John longmire you mean?

Its based on 3 best and FAIRESTS and 2 brownlows for best and FAIREST, fine if you think he did something wrong on the weekend, but your crusade is a bit boring, seem to have a problem with some group or player week after week that you want to moan about.

How come you can try to highlight his whole career, but people talking about other incidents are dragging up the past. Given the experts disagree with you who cares if a few flogs on big footy do, why dont you get back to your usual whinging about geelong or something else

 

[MrFujiMoto]

This is why it can't be discussed without it turning into a shitfight. Because people throw out absolutes and refuse to budge from them. Goodes hasn't gotten any media attention for sliding? Are you joking?

Not to the point where he has had his reputation tarnished. He has recieved media attention for it once when it was a contentious issue last year and again with what Dermie said. I believe the way he has gone about these contests throughout his career should have recieved much more attention than it has. Don't get me wrong though, I actually don't mind Goodes as a player and would have loved him to be a Hawks player. If he was I would not have been happy with the way he went into contests though.

 

[tazhawk]

Chill out everyone.

Paul Roos has given us his explanation on a topic involving a Swans player.

I hope Adam gets some help with his soccer muscle memory condition.

Done dusted close thread/

 

[MrFujiMoto]

I must have missed the numerous posts in this thread from Swans supporters claiming he has never done anything wrong, and doesn't need to change his style of play.

Really fair call and I applaud those posts. Shame some are busy defending and deflecting.

 

[worthy]

It looks a little bit like Hannebery, but I'm not sure.

Edit: Oh wow, now Goodes is a dirtier player than Campbell Brown. I've heard it all.

Did someone say that? I missed it, lol it might be a bit rich.

 

[MF]

Really fair call and I applaud those posts. Shame some are busy defending and deflecting.

Every supporter base attempts to deflect in these type of threads. Doesn't make it right, but it's not isolated to Swans supporters.

As far as defending him goes, I'll defend him on this incident. He went in with the intention of winning the contest and attempted to kick the ball away from Gibson. It was a split second decision that he happened to get wrong.

I, and many swans fans refute the claims that it was intentional, malicious or cowardly which is the point being made by the OP.

 

[tazhawk]

Every supporter base attempts to deflect in these type of threads. Doesn't make it right, but it's not isolated to Swans supporters.

As far as defending him goes, I'll defend him on this incident. He went in with the intention of winning the contest and attempted to kick the ball away from Gibson. It was a split second decision that he happened to get wrong.

I, and many swans fans refute the claims that it was intentional, malicious or cowardly which is the point being made by the OP.

Not to mention the poor bloke has soccer muscle memory.

I hope Adam can get some treatment for this.

 

[melbournehammer]

I have been reluctant to buy into this seemingly interminable debate between hawks and anti goodes vs swans and pro goodes, but in the end i got sick of the ranting. As someone who played far more association football than afl, as well as refereed it, dermie's first point that goodes' toe poke/trip/lead with foot was dangerous in a soccer sense was simply wrong. what goodes did was not the sort of thing that gets you red cards. Red cards happen when you go over the top of the ball with a blocking or chopping down motion by a foot, often with the foot at right angles to the foot of the player with the ball - if glasgow hawk can take off the brown and gold glasses for a second he might actually agree. The other thing that gets you sent off is the sort of play that thomas actually did to rohan - sliding with the feet locked into a straight leg which is designed to take out the player.

On the second point of whether goodes has a reputation per selkan hawk's view - as a biased swans fan my view is that yes he has a reputation and its not great. opposition supporters often recognise how good he has been over his career because against almost every other side he has single handedly won us games. but they also remember things beginning or ending with the moloney incident as well as subsequent incidents including the sliding incidents last season. he has a reputation as a non-malicious but not very clean player. in some respects i think that is undeserved as he didnt actually hit moloney but on the other hand he hit him in the back with his shoulder which was just stupid. on the sliding thing he is the only one that is constantly referred to in this way. Mitchell on sat night approach a contest in a dangerous way and almost took out mcveigh's legs, but this has not been mentioned. and i don't mention it to say mitchell should have been cited. i mention it to say that goodes has a reputation elsewise why would this thread have reached the ridiculous links that it has.

in my view goodes was pretty unlucky re surjan but he had been warned and chose to again approach the contest in that way. On sat night when i saw it live i took the view he would be cited for tripping as he was clearly approaching the contest and was half a step behind gibson and chose nonetheless to stick his leg out (or as they say in soccer leave the leg in). Had he been playing soccer i would have expected that to have been a clear foul and perhaps a yellow card for choosing to leave the leg in when it was clear he wasn't going to get it. Because it was football i thought he might go for tripping. But the OTT reaction by dermott and what appears to be the greek chorus of hawks fans has made the discussion silly and is part of the reason that i was reluctant to join this website.

on the last point is goodes courageous. give me a break.

 

[MF]

Not to mention the poor bloke has soccer muscle memory.

I hope Adam can get some treatment for this.

Yes, we're all aware of Roos' ridiculous defense.

Any reason why you keep bringing it up?

 

[tazhawk]

Yes, we're all aware of Roos' ridiculous defense.

Any reason why you keep bringing it up?

Relax dude just having some fun on my work break.

 

[MrFujiMoto]

Every supporter base attempts to deflect in these type of threads. Doesn't make it right, but it's not isolated to Swans supporters.

As far as defending him goes, I'll defend him on this incident. He went in with the intention of winning the contest and attempted to kick the ball away from Gibson. It was a split second decision that he happened to get wrong.

I, and many swans fans refute the claims that it was intentional, malicious or cowardly which is the point being made by the OP.

I know every supporter tries to deflect these things but this thread is about Sydney, that is why the Swans supporters are being talked about in my post and I certainly don't mean all of them.

Even though I agree that it is split second and certainly not malicious, I think it is intentional to throw his boots into a contest and, to me, that is a cowardly and dangerous decision. I think it simply means his first instinct is not to put his head over it but to throw a foot at it or to use his feet and legs as a buffer contact and that is why I have questioned his courage and not his morals, though I can see how the less forgiving amongst us could question those too.

 

[worthy]

Wasn't there a thread called "goodes a protected species" a while back?

There was also a thread called: Goodes - no longer the umpires pet. started by a Swan no less, due to him finally being reported after his indiscretions were overlooked for so long.

 

[MrFujiMoto]

I have been reluctant to buy into this seemingly interminable debate between hawks and anti goodes vs swans and pro goodes, but in the end i got sick of the ranting. As someone who played far more association football than afl, as well as refereed it, dermie's first point that goodes' toe poke/trip/lead with foot was dangerous in a soccer sense was simply wrong. what goodes did was not the sort of thing that gets you red cards. Red cards happen when you go over the top of the ball with a blocking or chopping down motion by a foot, often with the foot at right angles to the foot of the player with the ball - if glasgow hawk can take off the brown and gold glasses for a second he might actually agree. The other thing that gets you sent off is the sort of play that thomas actually did to rohan - sliding with the feet locked into a straight leg which is designed to take out the player.

On the second point of whether goodes has a reputation per selkan hawk's view - as a biased swans fan my view is that yes he has a reputation and its not great. opposition supporters often recognise how good he has been over his career because against almost every other side he has single handedly won us games. but they also remember things beginning or ending with the moloney incident as well as subsequent incidents including the sliding incidents last season. he has a reputation as a non-malicious but not very clean player. in some respects i think that is undeserved as he didnt actually hit moloney but on the other hand he hit him in the back with his shoulder which was just stupid. on the sliding thing he is the only one that is constantly referred to in this way. Mitchell on sat night approach a contest in a dangerous way and almost took out mcveigh's legs, but this has not been mentioned. and i don't mention it to say mitchell should have been cited. i mention it to say that goodes has a reputation elsewise why would this thread have reached the ridiculous links that it has.

in my view goodes was pretty unlucky re surjan but he had been warned and chose to again approach the contest in that way. On sat night when i saw it live i took the view he would be cited for tripping as he was clearly approaching the contest and was half a step behind gibson and chose nonetheless to stick his leg out (or as they say in soccer leave the leg in). Had he been playing soccer i would have expected that to have been a clear foul and perhaps a yellow card for choosing to leave the leg in when it was clear he wasn't going to get it. Because it was football i thought he might go for tripping. But the OTT reaction by dermott and what appears to be the greek chorus of hawks fans has made the discussion silly and is part of the reason that i was reluctant to join this website.

on the last point is goodes courageous. give me a break.

Good post -

My point on the reputation might not have been overly clear. I know plenty of footy supporters who remember these incidents but his standing within the AFL and the media seems different. Maybe that is because he is a champion of the game or a favourite of theirs, I have no idea why really.

Good to see a fair assessment of the incident too. He tripped Gibbo - should have been a free and was well within the rights to be reported or given weeks but that all comes down to interpretation and the interpretation makes allowance for incidental contact.

The rules however make no allowance for deliberate or otherwise in tripping decisions. If you throw your legs at the ball and it brings someone to ground that is a trip, end of story, and tripping is a reportable offence.

 

[Essendonia]

Goodes definitely has had 'the rub of the green' with umps/MRP in his career. Simply a fact that interpretations have fallen in his favour when compelling arguments could have been mounted for alternate interpretations of his conduct.

From years of watching AFL and soccer, this incident resembles a moment where a player - in two minds - sticks out his leg to stop the competitor from reaching the ball as he realises that he can no longer reach it himself.

What's the defence? That a 300-game AFL champion with all his experience, nous and talent was unable to understand that if he stuck his leg out he wouldn't get the ball? He simply misjudged it? Come off it. It's an attempt to block with his leg, which is not tantamount to a trip, but certainly not a legal shepherd.

If he couldn't reach the ball, or properly effect a shepherd, bump on Gibson, he must wait till he and the ball (and Gibson) have moved positionally so that he has a new course of action open to him.

We've seen Fletcher stick out his leg a few times, and he cops the weeks for the stupidity of the reckless and dangerous action. Would like to see a comparative analysis of some of his 'trips' with this incident.

Bottom line, Gibson was not protected from what was an irregular (if not illegal/dangerous) attempt to impact play. With the fine tooth comb approach the MRP take to most matters, it is peculiar that Gibson's leg was not afforded the protection we would have expected to see in the current nanny-state climate of AFL officiating.

 

[.Shotties.]

What's the defence? That a 300-game AFL champion with all his experience, nous and talent was unable to understand that if he stuck his leg out he wouldn't get the ball? He simply misjudged it?

Given he was sprinting and missed an erratically bouncing ball by a matter of centimetres I don't think that's entirely unfair. People on bigfooty have a bad habit of viewing replays from various angles and speeds and assuming after the viewing 5 + the player who had seconds to react had the same perspective on the incident.

Disclaimer: I am not saying what he did couldn't cause etc. etc., I'm saying it wasn't an intentional hit on Gibson.

 

[.Shotties.]

Not to the point where he has had his reputation tarnished. He has recieved media attention for it once when it was a contentious issue last year and again with what Dermie said. I believe the way he has gone about these contests throughout his career should have recieved much more attention than it has.

Leaving aside your change in goalposts on media attention, what do you mean the way he's gone about these contest through his career? He's been playing since 1998, when was the first time you saw him go into a contest feet first? How many times have you seen him do it pre-2011?

 

[worthy]

Given he was sprinting and missed an erratically bouncing ball by a matter of centimetres I don't think that's entirely unfair. People on bigfooty have a bad habit of viewing replays from various angles and speeds and assuming after the viewing 5 + the player who had seconds to react had the same perspective on the incident.

Disclaimer: I am not saying what he did couldn't cause etc. etc., I'm saying it wasn't an intentional hit on Gibson.

What are you saying? Are you saying that it was a bit clumsy and dangerous, but he wasn't intentionally trying to injure, maybe a poor decision made in a split second, not reportable but ugly.

I think that would be a fair assessment.

 

[Essendonia]

Given he was sprinting and missed an erratically bouncing ball by a matter of centimetres I don't think that's entirely unfair. People on bigfooty have a bad habit of viewing replays from various angles and speeds and assuming after the viewing 5 + the player who had seconds to react had the same perspective on the incident.

Disclaimer: I am not saying what he did couldn't cause etc. etc., I'm saying it wasn't an intentional hit on Gibson.

No one's saying it was 'an intentional hit'. I said it was a blocking action.

The fact that he's sprinting and missed by a few cm is not a strong argument. If you're playing a game (especially as well as Goodes has, for as long as he has), you know if you're going to make it to the ball or not. You've done it that many times that you're able to judge.

It's not an ordinary action of a football to put a foot across the path of an opponent. That is the sole issue. And that does not even take into account any issues of mens rea or intent.

 

[flyinghi64]

A dangerous act that he has done many times before.
Should have been a free kick at bare minimum but realistically a report as well.
This is the type of dangerous action the AFL keep talking about cleaning out of the game so they must have been wearing blinkers when looking at this.
90% of other players would have copped something for doing this.
My 2c worth.

 

[Blue and Gold Blood]

Goodes' indiscretions are slowly catching up with him, the same way Judds' indiscretions did. At first people wanted to let Judd escape penalty with the campbell brown eye poke (including myself) simply because we all put it down to a one-off brain fart that wouldnt happen again. But it did, and along with a 2nd eye-poke, there was also the Baker elbow, the pavlich elbow, and the attempted arm break (chicken wing tackle) incident. The AFL bosses didnt like it one bit, but when there is 4 incidences of Judd attacking defenseless players on the ground with video footage, you cant continually turn a blind eye.

And whilst its not surprising that Goodes has escaped punishment for his legs/feet first tackle slide on Gibson last weekend, the media attention brought about by dermie hopefully goes a long way to seeing Goodes rubbed out next time he performs the dangerous slide on someone else.

 

[.Shotties.]

A dangerous act that he has done many times before.

Name every incident of it in his career.

 

[worthy]

No one's saying it was 'an intentional hit'. I said it was a blocking action.

They probably have amongst the 32 pages of crap.

 

[worthy]

Name every incident of it in his career.

Don't do it, he's not interested.

 

[Gongswan]

Goodes' indiscretions are slowly catching up with him, the same way Judds' indiscretions did. At first people wanted to let Judd escape penalty with the campbell brown eye poke (including myself) simply because we all put it down to a one-off brain fart that wouldnt happen again. But it did, and along with a 2nd eye-poke, there was also the Baker elbow, the pavlich elbow, and the attempted arm break (chicken wing tackle) incident. The AFL bosses didnt like it one, but you can when there is 4 incidences of Judd attacking defenseless players on the ground with video footage, you cant continually turn a blind eye.

And whilst its not surprising that Goodes has escaped punishment for his legs/feet first tackle slide on Gibson last weekend, the media attention brought about by dermie hopefully goes a long way to seeing Goodes rubbed out next time he performs the dangerous slide on someone else.

Even Hawks supporters haven't the idiocy to call this a slide, you haven't even bothered to watch it, mr troll face