Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

goodes off

  • Thread starter Thread starter bedford
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

If that is true the right verdict indeed as there wasn't much in it but I thought the high contact might get him a week only comparing other head high suspensions recently.

Now just gotta avoid going to the stupid Goodes is a protected species type threads and let the sheep cry foul alone.

Hope this is legit woohoo
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Further news.
The charge was for negligent contact and he will now have 93.75 points carry over if he pleads guilty he can play this week.

The sook Selwood was charged with contact on Monty and received 70.31 points,wait for his parents to be on all media outlets complaining about how hard their son was struck on the shoulder.

No charge for Stenglien,minimal impact


Spida was looked at for a bump on BIGCOX
 
Oh man hahaha this is so awesome, _____ shit to the flogs on the mainboard who consistently take pot shots at our club.
 
Banyo Bloods said:
If that is true the right verdict indeed as there wasn't much in it but I thought the high contact might get him a week only comparing other head high suspensions recently.

Now just gotta avoid going to the stupid Goodes is a protected species type threads and let the sheep cry foul alone.

Hope this is legit woohoo
Click to expand...
Do you truly think this result is good for the game,or just your side?How can all head high contact be a suspension,REF AFLs ,press release at the start of the year,yet this is not?:o
 
halfback dasher said:
Do you truly think this result is good for the game,or just your side?How can all head high contact be a suspension,REF AFLs ,press release at the start of the year,yet this is not?:o
Click to expand...
It was adjudged worth a week. Early guilty plea. Being a Hawthorn supporter, you may possibly know of a player who had a similar thing happen to them.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Banyo Bloods said:
If that is true the right verdict indeed as there wasn't much in it but I thought the high contact might get him a week only comparing other head high suspensions recently.

Now just gotta avoid going to the stupid Goodes is a protected species type threads and let the sheep cry foul alone.

Hope this is legit woohoo
Click to expand...

halfback dasher said:
Do you truly think this result is good for the game,or just your side?How can all head high contact be a suspension,REF AFLs ,press release at the start of the year,yet this is not?:oI love your side but i love the game more,and this result now changes the goal posts AGAIN:thumbsd:
Click to expand...
 
halfback dasher said:
Do you truly think this result is good for the game,or just your side?How can all head high contact be a suspension,REF AFLs ,press release at the start of the year,yet this is not?:o
Click to expand...

Sorry fellow Swannies but I totally agree with this post. Yes, it was minimal contact but the fact of the matter is that the contact WAS there and the AFL and the MRP have said that the head is sacrosanct. He should have gotten one week minimum - it was a dumb act.


Ok, now lynch me........
 
J-swan said:
Sorry fellow Swannies but I totally agree with this post. Yes, it was minimal contact but the fact of the matter is that the contact WAS there and the AFL and the MRP have said that the head is sacrosanct. He should have gotten one week minimum - it was a dumb act.


Ok, now lynch me........
Click to expand...
yes dumb post
 
Wow, this is awesome for us. Goodes + Hall in the team, tearing it up.

Give it a couple of hours and the main board will be in total meltdown about this. AFL's softened its stance since the over the top suspensions handed down in the past few weeks it seems.

It was shoulder before head/neck, though, so it seems pretty justified to me.

Meh. Time to move on to Saturday night :thumbsu:
 
J-swan said:
Sorry fellow Swannies but I totally agree with this post. Yes, it was minimal contact but the fact of the matter is that the contact WAS there and the AFL and the MRP have said that the head is sacrosanct. He should have gotten one week minimum - it was a dumb act.


Ok, now lynch me........
Click to expand...

Not dumb at all. I'm very suprised he got off. Can't help but smile about it, knowing he'll be lining up next week in an important game. But I certainly feel for some of the players suspended recently for similar things. There really wasn't much in it, but they've been very harsh on head high contact lately.

Gonna make BF a more interesting place to be this week though!
 
bedford said:
yes dumb post
Click to expand...
WHY IS IT A DUMB POST?J SWAN IS RIGHT ,or are you to young to understand the dvd you prob havent even seen?:rolleyes:As an unders coach i have .and this is a poor result.:thumbsd:So bedford,GET THE FAXS you one eyed twit.............. WELL DONE TO YOU JSWAN:thumbsu:
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

halfback dasher said:
Do you truly think this result is good for the game,or just your side?How can all head high contact be a suspension,REF AFLs ,press release at the start of the year,yet this is not?:o
Click to expand...

This result is fair I think most people as usual miss the point that he basically is charged for the offence only an early plea and no carry over points will allow him to play. Week in week out players get suspensions that are downgraded to lesser grades due to the early plea.

There are Swan fans on the main board joining in the chorus that the decision was a disgrace well sorry you won't get that out of me. I will loyally and happily support my team and the players through the good and the bad.

Good of the game ??? Needing to whinge at every opportunity against opposition teams isn't helping. I love the Swans first yes kill me. I love everything AFL second so far I have 11 of the 16 Jumpers framed around my bar and will have them all as I score them on ebay for the right price.
 
Banyo Bloods said:
There are Swan fans on the main board joining in the chorus that the decision was a disgrace well sorry you won't get that out of me..
Click to expand...

I don't think the decision was a disgrace. There are dubious decisions passed down every week by the MRP and Tribunal. On the weight of evidence and previous suspensions I thought he'd go. More suprised than anything, but certainly glad from our perspective that he's available. He's in damn fine form atm.
 
halfback dasher said:
WHY IS IT A DUMB POST?J SWAN IS RIGHT ,or are you to young to understand the dvd you prob havent even seen?:rolleyes:As an unders coach i have .and this is a poor result.:thumbsd:So bedford,GET THE FAXS you one eyed twit.............. WELL DONE TO YOU JSWAN:thumbsu:
Click to expand...

Are you captain coach?
;)

I challenge you to tell me what the MRP ruling should have been. DO NOT tell me "3 weeks".

Go and find the classifications, look at the video and define it.

These people throwing around "X WEEKS X WEEKS" is rubbish. It serves no purpose because the system is structured.

You might look at it and think it is 'bad for the game', but the system does not account for your opinion, only the facts.
 
this was on the main board it made me laugh

stellation said:
MRP: Explain yourself Adam.
Goodes: I honestly thought it was Hunter.
MRP: Fair enough, then we'll let you off with a warning.
Goodes: Thanks!
MRP: Just make sure next time that it actually IS Hunter!

Really is a bit of a joke he got off with a reprimand. Rather lucky.
Click to expand...


Everyone its over time 2 move on and focus on this weeks game
 
halfback dasher said:
WHY IS IT A DUMB POST?J SWAN IS RIGHT ,or are you to young to understand the dvd you prob havent even seen?:rolleyes:As an unders coach i have .and this is a poor result.:thumbsd:So bedford,GET THE FAXS you one eyed twit.............. WELL DONE TO YOU JSWAN:thumbsu:
Click to expand...
Sorry, but could you please edit the post, it was a bit hard to read.

Nope. Decision wasn't a disgrace, I thought, a bit surprising, but with the level of inconsistency from the tribunal, it is to be expected. Comparing it to Burgoyne's hit as some people on the main board are doing isn't feasible as his intent was greater than that of Goodes, who I thought aimed recklessly for the shoulder and slid up a little more than he had intended.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom