And attacking an injury is a lot worse then a shove in the back, where are we going with this?
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Goodes let off
- Thread starter bzparkes
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
And attacking an injury is a lot worse then a shove in the back, where are we going with this?
Good thing it was, then.
- May 3, 2006
- 11,979
- 7,033
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Perth, Donnybrook FC, Steelers
Sigh, if you had bothered to re read....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JzVyANa88g
As i said, who cares, ancient history. If you bother to go back through the thread, you'll see i agree with goodes just getting a reprimand. Incident was worth a week, and with his record he deserved leniency.
I was just commenting on the Hunter bumping incident you got on your high horse about, and the incident that brought it about...ie the eye gouge.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
sydney eagle
Norm Smith Medallist
This is the Swans we are talking about. Swans players don't get suspended for striking. Remember Barry Hall ?
- Banned
- #331
This is the Swans we are talking about. Swans players don't get suspended for striking. Remember Barry Hall ?
Eagles players don't get suspended for elbowing players in the head. Remember Gaspar?
Eagles players don't get suspended for punching someone in the nuts? Remember Kerr?
- May 3, 2006
- 11,979
- 7,033
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Perth, Donnybrook FC, Steelers
Eagles players don't get suspended for elbowing players in the head. Remember Gaspar?
Eagles players don't get suspended for punching someone in the nuts? Remember Kerr?
Gaspar, geez that'd be a loss.
He wouldnt elbow anyone anyway, he'd probably break his own arm doing it
- Banned
- #333
Totally irrelevant
He wouldnt elbow anyone anyway, he'd probably break his own arm doing it
Totally funny
- Thread starter
- #334
Eagles players don't get suspended for elbowing players in the head. Remember Gaspar?
Eagles players don't get suspended for punching someone in the nuts? Remember Kerr?
I was pretty sure Kerr did get suspended
Astounding that farting on a football field has made this such a popular and controversial thread.
- Banned
- #336
I was pretty sure Kerr did get suspended
I stand corrected
Nevertheless, Kerr only getting one week for that incident (after succeeding with his appeal) was a greater disgrace than Goodes getting away with what he did. NOTE: I was disgusted with what Goodes did and he better thank his lucky stars and start playing some decent footy
- Thread starter
- #337
I stand corrected
Nevertheless, Kerr only getting one week for that incident (after succeeding with his appeal) was a greater disgrace than Goodes getting away with what he did. NOTE: I was disgusted with what Goodes did and he better thank his lucky stars and start playing some decent footy
But Kerr was only trying to punch him in the thigh...
But Kerr was only trying to punch him in the thigh...
He was more well hung than he suspected.
- Banned
- #339
But Kerr was only trying to punch him in the thigh...
That was his defence...I'm sure he would have said anything to reduce the stigma of being called a "nut cracker"
He had a stubbie and just needed some nuts.
- Thread starter
- #341
Just wanted to shake hand with beef. Must've been Mitchell unlucky year though, someone else cracked him one there only a couple of weeks later. Who was that?
I was pretty sure Kerr did get suspended
What a stupid, stupid thread. You act like a 12 year old girl.
The funny thing is you gutless wonder, you forgot to has mention the king of the cheapshot. Not only does he do it week in week out, he has only been reported once for it (After the 2006 Qualifying Final), after, no less, charging Swans player Nick Malcheski.
Yes I refer to Daniel Chick.
How many weeks did he get for charging. Also can you please tell me how many weeks he got for charging Chris Grant from behind NOT in play? Can you please remind me? I believe he was let off both those times? But please correct me if I am wrong.
It appears that the AFL Tribunal has been consistent afterall. But again please inform me of the times Chick has assaulted a player from behind or charged a player off the ball and not been suspended?
Thread Over. Bye loser.
- Thread starter
- #343
Nice, sour grapes maybe? I bet you enjoyed the way GAblett put Mainwaring out of the '92 GF within the first couple of minutes.
Pathetic thread? Yours is a pathetic response
Nice, sour grapes maybe? I bet you enjoyed the way GAblett put Mainwaring out of the '92 GF within the first couple of minutes.
Pathetic thread? Yours is a pathetic response
Sour Grapes? No, just a stupid thread posted by someone who wears blue and gold colored glasses. You have criticised the integrity of the AFL Tribunal, I have proven you wrong.
So can you please explain it too me, or will you ask a mod to delete this thread because once again I have proven you wrong
As for your reply, wrong son, wrong. Now try again.
Answer the question, seeing as we are talking about the integrity of the Tribunal, and seeing as one Mr A. Goodes was let off for charging, another player who is constantly let off and reported on just the one occasion by the name of one Mr D. Chick, for charging at players behind play. I will give two examples.
The two incidents in question are:
1] Daniel Chick charging Nick Malcheski behind play, 2006 Qualifying Final (0 Weeks)
2] Daniel Chick charging Chris Grant, from behind. Round 13, 2005 Vs. Western Bulldogs. (No report)
So before we continue with the Goodes bashing, care to explain why Chick was let off in these two incidents?
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Thread starter
- #345
Sour Grapes? No, just a stupid thread posted by someone who wears blue and gold colored glasses. You have criticised the integrity of the AFL Tribunal, I have proven you wrong.
So can you please explain it too me, or will you ask a mod to delete this thread because once again I have proven you wrong
As for your reply, wrong son, wrong. Now try again.
Answer the question, seeing as we are talking about the integrity of the Tribunal, and seeing as one Mr A. Goodes was let off for charging, another player who is constantly let off and reported on just the one occasion by the name of one Mr D. Chick, for charging at players behind play. I will give two examples.
The two incidents in question are:
1] Daniel Chick charging Nick Malcheski behind play, 2006 Qualifying Final (0 Weeks)
2] Daniel Chick charging Chris Grant, from behind. Round 13, 2005 Vs. Western Bulldogs. (No report)
So before we continue with the Goodes bashing, care to explain why Chick was let off in these two incidents?
Proven me wrong how? When was anyone in this thread talking about Daniel Chick??? You want to go on bashing Chick then fine, start your own ****ing thread, don't ambush this one and go off topic.
Do I work for the MRP or the tribunal? HOW THE **** DO I KNOW WHY HE WASN'T REPORTED OR LET OFF YOU IDIOT?
Care to explain why Hall got let-off in the '05 preliminary? Go start your own thread, this is about Goodes, not Chick.
This is about Goodes. You called the AFL Tribunal inconsistent and weak. I presented an example in the case of Daniel Chicks various charging offenses, which were simular to Goodes' case, where Chick was let off, and in one instace was not reported at all.
Now, after taking off your blue and yellow colored glasses, tell me, if Daniel Chick was not suspended for charging, then should one A. Goodes have been, keeping in mind Chick's charging offenses where he was not suspended or reported?
I have proven you wrong in that respect, The AFL tribunal is consistent.
I am an idiot? Anyone reading this thread with a a dose of common sense would realise the only person in this thread acting like an idiot is you.
I have proven you wrong because of double standards. You accuse the AFL Tribunal of being unfair and inconsistent. I provide a simular case where Chick was let off. You lose I win
P.S. How did I go off topic when I have provided the Daniel Chick incidents where he was not suspened, which a remarkably simular to the A.Goodes incident.
Quoted for laughs.
It's obvious you have an ingrained hate for the Eagles NitWit, so I don't see why anyone would bother arguing with you about this. bzparks is a much better poster that you could ever hope to be. You just dragged this thread off topic simply to have a go at bz and the eagles, which while i'm sure is a favourite pasttime of yours is irrelevent to the thread. You lose at life.
Quoted for laughs.
It's obvious you have an ingrained hate for the Eagles NitWit, so I don't see why anyone would bother arguing with you about this. bzparks is a much better poster that you could ever hope to be. You just dragged this thread off topic simply to have a go at bz and the eagles, which while i'm sure is a favourite pasttime of yours is irrelevent to the thread. You lose at life.
There's a truly rich vein of irony in this....
shhh
- May 3, 2006
- 11,979
- 7,033
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Perth, Donnybrook FC, Steelers
Can you prove it to me? That is pretty funny
Wonder what freo fans have to say about that statement
