Sliding "tackles"...

[ausbacker]

Speaking of hysteria...


That aside, I have no issue with Thomas getting off, nor Broughton, I'm still just amazed Goodes' wasn't thrown out when he

a) had won the ball seconds before the contest and had hit it to advantage
b) had gone to ground at the exact same time as Surjan, which the AFL counsel agreed with at the tribunal (which makes the continual argument on here that he was late or aiming at Surjan baffling)
c) was the same distance from the ball as Surjan when they both started sliding (again, accepted at tribunal)
d) Slid in with his knees while Surjan slid in with his studs aiming towards Goodes.

As I've posted more than a few times there was a fraction of a second and the bounce of a ball between what happened and the ball bouncing towards Goodes and him getting studded by Surjan. Though the latter happened anyway.

It's been pointed out to you time and time again why Goodes was suspended. You refuse to accept those explanations.

 

[.Shotties.]

It's been pointed out to you time and time again why Goodes was suspended. You refuse to accept those explanations.

Feel free to do it again directly addressing the points I raised. Plenty of people have said he should have stayed on his feet / tackled "with his arms / hands" / bumped Surjan off the ball but no one's yet provided an exact course of action about how Goodes was supposed to take one of the alternate actions over the course of less than half a second.

 

[ausbacker]

Feel free to do it again directly addressing the points I raised. Plenty of people have said he should have stayed on his feet / tackled "with his arms / hands" / bumped Surjan off the ball but no one's yet provided an exact course of action about how Goodes was supposed to take one of the alternate courses of action.

Goodes on Report

Feel free to re-read all the responses until your heart is content.

 

[.Shotties.]

Right, so you can't actually address the points or suggest an exact course of action in that time frame.

 

[oporto]

Right, so you can't actually address the points or suggest an exact course of action in that time frame.

FFS you are obbsessed. Move on, nobody cares any more

 

[ausbacker]

Right, so you can't actually address the points or suggest an exact course of action in that time frame.

I can, I simply choose not to given they were addressed repeatedly. You refuse to accept them. That's your issue, not others.

 

[.Shotties.]

I can, I simply choose not to given they were addressed repeatedly. You refuse to accept them. That's your issue, not others.

I think the fact that most people couldn't provide an alternative course of action within the circumstances in which the collision occurred using the reasoning they provided (ie: he should have performed action X, he was always going to be second to the ball) gives a clue to how solid their arguments were. As I said, if you can address the points I provided or provide an exact course of action in the circumstances I'm happy to hear it.

 

[liz]

I think it has become evident that Goodes was suspended not because he chose to slide but because he arrived at the ball second. After all, Surjan slid too.

I don't have an issue with that. It can be compared to the bump - ie you're free to do it but if you make head high contact, you are culpable, even if that was not the intention. The AFL just needs to come out and say it - slide and arrive second and you will be charged.

Presumably if Rohan had touched the ball with his foot fractionally before Thomas got to the ball, and then Thomas' body arrived at the ball a split second later with the same outcome, Thomas would have been found to be responsible?

If that is the interpretation, the AFL just needs to come out and say it.

Alternatively, they can change the rules to negate the Thomas and Broughton tribunal rules and say that if a player chooses to go to ground to contest a ball he is culpable for any serious injury to an opponent that results from it.

I don't think it there is a right or wrong answer. It is a matter of choice - ie does the AFL community want to try and prevent some injuries that could be seen as preventable, or does it want to accept these as a consequence of a high speed, high impact contact sport. What would be lost to the game in terms of spectacle and contest by changing the rules in this way in an attempt to reduce one category of injury (while acknowledging that the majority of injuries are not preventable without radical changes to the nature of the contest)?

If the AFL does tweak the rules to make it an offence to go to ground to compete for the ball if another player is injured as a result, there will undoubtedly be an uproar from many sections of the footy media. But a few years ago many were bemoaning the loss of the bump in its full glory. Now it is generally accepted that the game is still pretty good without the same number or ferocity of bumps. Changing the ways players are allowed to compete for the ball would be a more significant challenge, but if that is the way the AFL community goes, I am sure all will adapt within time.

 

[Fossie 32]

Good post Liz

Interesting to hear Leigh Matthews and Dermie's views on the matter - neither support allowing sliding into contests