Adam Goodes - Reprimanded

[saintsownthedome]

Reported on SEN that Goodes has been reprimanded for his head high bump on Adam Selwood.

Probably the first player to be cited for head high contact this year but not suspended.

Unfortunately no surprise as this bloke, and his team seem to have different rules to the rest of the competition.

 

[Theprofessional]

Reported on SEN that Goodes has been reprimanded for his head high bump on Adam Selwood.

Probably the first player to be cited for head high contact this year but not suspended.

Unfortunately no surprise as this bloke, and his team seem to have different rules to the rest of the competition.

*COUGH* WHAT? Yeah he should of got suspended but different rules to the rest of the competition by god....

 

[anti.]

yep.

example 1...barry hall 2005 PF final.

in the play my arse.

 

[HoldenMCaulfield]

I did not think that his bump was intentional. But then again, Shaun Burgoyne's bump on Mitchell was certainly not intentional.

I think it is good to see that they are correcting the somewhat exaggerated penalties.

But is is ironic to see that they changed their view on these bumps with Goodes being reported...

 

[liz]

I did not think that his bump was intentional. But then again, Shaun Burgoyne's bump on Mitchell was certainly not intentional.

I think it is good to see that they are correcting the somewhat exaggerated penalties.

But is is ironic to see that they changed their view on these bumps with Goodes being reported...

Doesn't have to be deemed intentional - and indeed, neither was by the MRP. Goodes clearly made much lighter contact than Burgoyne, so there should be a difference in penalty. This much of a difference? Probably not. There is no way Burgoyne should have got 3 weeks and Goodes can consider himself fortunate to get a reprimand given previous adjudications on head high contact. I think most Swans fans were already looking forward to this week's game against your mob 'sans Goodes'.

 

[siamang]

*COUGH* WHAT? Yeah he should of got suspended but different rules to the rest of the competition by god....

Are you a newbie to AFL in general? Oh yeah, of course you are, you're a swans fan after all.

 

[Skystyler]

Doesn't have to be deemed intentional - and indeed, neither was by the MRP. Goodes clearly made much lighter contact than Burgoyne, so there should be a difference in penalty. This much of a difference? Probably not. There is no way Burgoyne should have got 3 weeks and Goodes can consider himself fortunate to get a reprimand given previous adjudications on head high contact. I think most Swans fans were already looking forward to this week's game against your mob 'sans Goodes'.

not me. I was confident he'd get off with a warning, like Mitchell did.
Selwood threw himself into the Goodes train's path. True, Goodes did not attempt to take evasive action or apply the brakes, but nor did he deviate or brace himself for contact. He jump kept running through him. Free kick, for sure. Reportable? I hardly think so.

 

[wellst]

what a fu**en discrace to the AFL tribunal system. Get some bloody consistency

 

[swanniez1983]

yep.

example 1...barry hall 2005 PF final.

in the play my arse.

Example 2....Travis Gaspar 2005 PF

Elbowing a player in the head is fair go

 

[olmate]

what a fu**en discrace to the AFL tribunal system. Get some bloody consistency

what he said

 

[Dudley]

yep.

example 1...barry hall 2005 PF final.

example 2 barry hall vs WCE 2008

Oh, well it was a good theory for a while

 

[Armitage2Riewoldt]

Got the same as Baker did and no one saw what Bakes did.

Oh the wonders of the MRP.

Ah well, we'd have lost if he was playing or not.

 

[_Interpol_]

*COUGH* WHAT? Yeah he should of got suspended but different rules to the rest of the competition by god....

Turn it up, you know he get's treated different, this week proves it beyond any doubt

 

[goodie23]

C'mon, is anyone honestly surprised?

 

[Squizz]

The thing I don't understand is how his points from the previous offence "expired" after only 12 months. I thought you carried them for 5 years. Added together he would have had a week off. Interesting to read Humphrey-Smith's comments - as a former umpire he was unimpressed that it was not deemed reckless.

 

[cartwright]

C'mon, is anyone honestly surprised?

not me.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

The thing I don't understand is how his points from the previous offence "expired" after only 12 months. I thought you carried them for 5 years. Added together he would have had a week off. Interesting to read Humphrey-Smith's comments - as a former umpire he was unimpressed that it was not deemed reckless.

He has enough points for a 1 week suspension, but an early plea brings him a 25% discount and thus below the 100 point threshold that brings a suspension.

 

[holllywood]

what was he actually doign any way. he just sorta ran and collected selwood on teh way. it was wierd, i was scared.

 

[Squizz]

But what about his carry over points (75 I believe) that "fell off" from the previous reprimand?

 

[TheMase]

But what about his carry over points (75 I believe) that "fell off" from the previous reprimand?

It is the same for all players. 12 months to the round of the suspension, the points reset.

The discount for a 'good record' lasts 5 years however.

They are separate issues.

 

[L_J_T]

Absolutely disgraceful...its just like Leigh Matthews said "Adam Goodes is a protected species" how could Robert Murphy get 2 weeks for a fair bump when Goodes clearly had Selwood lined up with no intention of missing him.

 

[okeydoke7]

This is tone of the worst decisions the tribunal have made. truly ridiculous. it wasnt a big bump, but had to get weeks. all this does is prove the inconsistences of the tribunal. after last weeks results, had to get weeks. ben johnson = 6 weeks for the same evidence. baker got 7 for a head high block. goodes got nothin even though he had no intention to go for the ball. had selwood been injured or bleeding, it would have got weeks, but becuase the hit didnt clean him up means he gets off? if Murphy's was weeks, so was Goodes' simple. i know we dont want the bump gone, but if the AFL have a rule in place, the consequences have to be the same for everyone...including Adam Goodes. hes a great player, but how he didnt go against melbourne last year astounds me, and how he gets off again sickens me. murphy should take the AFL to court and stick it right up em'. Demetriou should be saked for being an incompotent CEO who earns more money than the prime minister forn changing things we don t want changed and keeping the things we dont want changed. I know demetriou isnt on the tribunal, but its not only the Adam Goodes part of the issue, the actual tribunal needs another overhaul. this system was supposed to be the AFL's saving grace, buit again it seem all this system shows is its lack of competancy and consistency and Demetriou needs to seriously look at somehow evening up the competition. A reprimand is not enough, based on the rules of Australian Football. Goodes could go out on the field with a bow and arrow and it wouldnt get noticed. enough is enough. The tribunal needs to be consistant, and Goodes needs to be penalised, The AFL should step in and appeal the decision, as they have the power to officially appeal a decision. It is a blotch on the name of the AFL, and its so called fairness.

 

[olmate]

Absolutely disgraceful...its just like Leigh Matthews said "Adam Goodes is a protected species" how could Robert Murphy get 2 weeks for a fair bump when Goodes clearly had Selwood lined up with no intention of missing him.

That one has me totally bamboozled

Murphy hit Ellis square on with not much intent (we called it a shirtfront)

If we had these rules 20 years ago me and my mates would of had a lot of drinking time on the outer

It wont be long before the players have .....GA or WA or GD on their backs

 

[Squizz]

It is the same for all players. 12 months to the round of the suspension, the points reset.

The discount for a 'good record' lasts 5 years however.

They are separate issues.

OK - ta.