- Thread starter
- #76
Ok, if the loophole was there then fair enough. I didn't know of it before but it did seem very 'convenient' at the time.
-
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.
Ok, if the loophole was there then fair enough. I didn't know of it before but it did seem very 'convenient' at the time.
What do you base that on?
Yes, as everyone said without knowing the full details of the DVD.
swantastic
Team Captain
Isnt it funny all the big mouths on here taliking shit about Goodes are Wet Toast supporters funny that.They should worry about there own backyard theres plenty of shit to clean up there.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- May 9, 2003
- 15,594
- 68
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Seattle Mariners and Seahawks
You must be joking.
coz he hit him from behind the weak........!
Unlikely. I think the AFL should issue a please explain to Godfrey. Perhaps a fine will spur him along!
Do you understand the word "typically"?
i think godfrey should have race awareness counselling....
Man I'm annoyed Goodes got off, but then Fevola was lucky to get off that striking charge teh week before, but it does appear the swans get a really good deal at the tribunal, and it does smack of favortism.
He deliberately charged into a player some distance off the ball. How can that ever be unpunished? It can't.
Who cares about a good record? Irrelevant to the discussion. In fact having a good or bad record should and must be eliminated from the decision making completely. Just the facts of the case be the deciding factor.
Who cares that there was no damage? Another irrelevant point.
The Tribunal showed its true colours tonight. To have a member of the judiciary come from the very club that Goodes plays for (Henwood) means the decision can be easily questioned...so much for independence.
Yeah, it was pretty confusing back then and probably is still confusing now. Heck, a lot of the media (who are all highly intelligent people, we all know) couldn't grasp the concept back then, so it was pretty funny to see all the crap that the newspapers had.
I haven't read up on the rules this season because I've lost all faith in the AFL admin in general by now, but I seem to recall that there's no longer any additional points for behind play? But they're just put you on a grading of "intentional" if its behind play? (seeing as how the old intepretation of intentional was so hopeless that nobody could ever get suspended on the grading)
The King!
Chosen One
if thats a belting then ill take up boxing
bit rich all the eagles fans going on when your willing to support criminal behaviour
I'm a tool???
What has "being his first time ever he has been reported so he deserves a reprimand " got to do with it?
You do the crime,you do the time.
Yes,he has a good record which would count for him,but that was definately worthy of at least a weeks suspension.
Every body except Sydney supporters seem to agree with me.
Just heard on SEN
Good, right decision in the end. Goodes is a great player with a clean record, i'm glad the tribunal used some common sense.
Barry Hall and Goodes can do what ever they like on the field. Its a new clause encouraging thuggery in the north eastern state
Yep, and Cousins and Kerr can do criminal activity off the field and still play as well!
- Thread starter
- #94
You're not the only one who's lost faith. Probably 99% of the general public have. Can't they go 1 year without changing anything? Just when we get used to it they change it again, usually for the worse.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
He was given 125 points = 1 week.
But that is the way the tribunal works.
Completely relevant and also the way the tribunal works.
That happens often and the other two members showed no disent.
But let's get back to "typically" - does anyone who answers my post understand this word?
Are you a complete moron?
IF it was Fletcher it would have stuck because Fletch has been suspended before.
Goodes has never been reported before. It was downgraded because he pleaded guilty and has the good record. What the **** is the problem? This isn't a Sydney only thing every player in the system can have charges downgraded for those reasons.
I can't help but laugh at this, BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
- Banned
- #98
Sweet, Byron can goes nuts this week, it seems that they can get off anything
The AFL is typically weak as a rule.
All the stuff with the Eagles proves that point. It's efforts with the clash jumper situation and at least not respecting the wishes of both Essendon and Collingwood and the respective club's consititutions is another. (Constitutions that were put in place by the club memberships of both clubs).
And in just about every case that has been brought up by the umpires/MRP to the Tribunal. In this latter situation, the AFL through its tribunal, has not backed the umpires and the MRP in the reports made. Real sad situation.
All the stuff with the Eagles proves that point. It's efforts with the clash jumper situation and at least not respecting the wishes of both Essendon and Collingwood and the respective club's consititutions is another. (Constitutions that were put in place by the club memberships of both clubs).
And in just about every case that has been brought up by the umpires/MRP to the Tribunal. In this latter situation, the AFL through its tribunal, has not backed the umpires and the MRP in the reports made. Real sad situation.
do you understand the word W@#KER if not just look in the mirror
