Goodes' hit

[_Interpol_]

A valuable contribution.

What, you don't agree? A few days ago you were all on ths same thread saying he's gone, 1,2,3 weeks... and now it was fair and slow mo and all this crap.

He will get what he deserves, and the record for consecutive games is not that. Jimmy Stynes earn't that run, scum like Goodes has had 3 different incidents let go by the AFL. You know it's a joke

Baker gets 4 for something nobody saw (7 with carry over) and your prescious gets 1 for that, and credited for good behavior of all things, even though he is up the MRP once a year or more.

 

[bedford]

What, you don't agree? A few days ago you were all on ths same thread saying he's gone, 1,2,3 weeks... and now it was fair and slow mo and all this crap.

He will get what he deserves, and the record for consecutive games is not that. Jimmy Stynes earn't that run, scum like Goodes has had 3 different incidents let go by the AFL. You know it's a joke

Baker gets 4 for something nobody saw (7 with carry over) and your prescious gets 1 for that, and credited for good behavior of all things, even though he is up the MRP once a year or more.

This is one of the reasons i call them St.Scum

 

[liz]

What, you don't agree? A few days ago you were all on ths same thread saying he's gone, 1,2,3 weeks... and now it was fair and slow mo and all this crap.

He will get what he deserves, and the record for consecutive games is not that. Jimmy Stynes earn't that run, scum like Goodes has had 3 different incidents let go by the AFL. You know it's a joke

Baker gets 4 for something nobody saw (7 with carry over) and your prescious gets 1 for that, and credited for good behavior of all things, even though he is up the MRP once a year or more.

If you're capable of actually reading, you'll see most on here think he was on the fortunate side. But at the same time, the incident was right at the lower end of the scale in terms of impact.

As for "he's up the MRP (sic) once a year or more", nothing beats some facts. He's been there three times in a career of almost a decade. Two were found to be low impact cases and he received the appropriate penalty. The other one was found to be unsustained as there wasn't actually any evidence presented that he'd even hit the bloke.

Agree that the Baker one was unusual and maybe he was unlucky, though presumably the tribunal heard some eye witness accounts that they, at least, found compelling.

All this protected species stuff is just plain odd. Why on earth would the MRP want to "protect him"?

 

[The Dalai Kirk]

Biscay and Interpol, I was just wondering why you were so upset with the result? Surely in the spirit of a good contest you'd want Goodes out there?

You're not worried about him imposing his hard style of footy on your soft st kilda skin? Fancy calling Goodes a protected species - the majority of st kilda players don a protective layer of cotton wool before a game...even Lyons says the team is soft...

Enough complaining.

 

[biscay]

Biscay and Interpol, I was just wondering why you were so upset with the result? Surely in the spirit of a good contest you'd want Goodes out there?

You're not worried about him imposing his hard style of footy on your soft st kilda skin? Fancy calling Goodes a protected species - the majority of st kilda players don a protective layer of cotton wool before a game...even Lyons says the team is soft...

Enough complaining.

Never said i was upset with the decision,but we are always being told head contact is a no no,and you must admit he certainly didnt have eyes on the ball,last week i wrote how i though Murphy[footscray]didnt deserve to be rubbed out and he was imo goodes was worse than murphy,remember we played the doggies last week.like watching him play.Oh by the way we werent soft before RL,but thats a different story

 

[The Dalai Kirk]

Fair enough Biscay. I just get annoyed when Goodes gets singled out as a "protected species". I hardly think there's a conspiracy at the MRP. Then again, I did hear rumour that they were involved in Roswell, JFK's assassination, Watergate...etc.

 

[liz]

Oh by the way we werent soft before RL,but thats a different story

That's because the team was judged by Soggy Cornflakes' standards, not Lyon's.

FWIW I don't think St Kilda are soft. No team with Hayes, Ball, Harvey, Hudghton can be completely soft. I do think they are being asked by their coach to play a style of football that they don't all completely buy into. Whatever Lyon likes to claim, there is no doubt that he's borrowed certain aspects of the Swans' approach and imposed them on the Saints. But the "Swans' way" is not something that Roos invented overnight. There has been a clear evolution in the Swans' style from 2002-2008 and it has been driven as much by the players as by the coaches. So the entire team (or so it seems - maybe Dicky N is an exception) has bought into it, they believe it, and most of the time they can execute it well. I just don't think that the Saints players have the same unswerving belief that it is an approach that can work for them and hence they are far less consistent with it that Sydney is.

 

[bedford]

If anybody wants a fair piece of journalism have a look at Greg Baum's piece on Real Footy,then have alook at Richard Hinds.