Roast Steve Johnson's attitude

[Partridge]

Which one? I think his last three prior to this latest indiscretion (Ballantyne, Hanley, Jones) were all worthy of being cited. The Jones one pissed me off the most, but the sentiment of some on here is almost that it was the most innocuous. I don't like seeing players in the team I support resorting to those sort of cheap shots. Dropping the knees in on a prone opponent is a really good way of getting the opposition team extremely pissed off with you very quickly. And to rub salt in, it was a nothing game, against a nothing opponent, whom we were absolutely smashing. But Johnson just couldn't help himself.

Anyone who thinks that kneedrop on Jones's head was minor or innocuous, just ask yourself this:

How would you react if Hodge dropped a knee on Selwood like that? Or if Goodes dropped a knee on Bartel?

Exactly.

 

[Partridge]

There was **** all in the Ballantyne one, and even less in the Hanley one. that one still makes my blood boil every time I think about it.

The Hanley one was line-ball. Which I think they actually contested. But Johnson had put the target on his back by then.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

No I haven't. Go back to page 1 and read again. There are some posters here who are either openly criticizing him or thinly veiling it. I'm not going to name names, but I shouldn't have to. The other point here is that even though there's some things about his game i'd like SJ to change, the way he handled Crowley in the physical sense isn't one of them. Some players can brush it off, some can't, and some purely don't want to sometimes. I've seen SJ fall into all three categories during his career.

I did go back + read it before I commented. + against Freo it seems to be the same old story.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

Because the Fremantle medical report said it was. As soon as you're relying on an opposition side (let alone a top four rival) to do you a good turn, you're playing Russian Roulette (with one empty chamber). You might get lucky, but you're much more likely to find the opponent is a bit reluctant to put himself in by saying he accentuated the contact, ever since Campbell Brown got in trouble for saying exactly that.

Solution? Don't make reckless/intentional head-high contact with an opponent.

Which is exactly the point I've been making in by 79,000 comments on this thread

 

[Teriyakicat]

You just watch my tagger! He will nullify CreepyCrowley by shepherding, running between them, sledging, arms out, all the 1%'rs - he won't give away one free! You just watch + see Tyc, you will be amazed!

This bloke would come in handy Wouldn't cause any damage but could sure block up some space!

 

[Zouz Kitty]

This bloke would come in handy Wouldn't cause any damage but could sure block up some space!
View attachment 57817

THAT'S HIM!!! That IS my tagger! Now you're on the right track! pmsl

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

There was **** all in the Ballantyne one, and even less in the Hanley one. that one still makes my blood boil every time I think about it.

Deliberate --> low impact --> body contact. One game, down to a reprimand with an early plea, if you have a clean record. Those little jabs to the guts are actually incidents that the MRP consistently assesses the same way. In fact, I remember some supporters here screaming blue murder when Boyd didn't get suspended for a similar incident on Selwood, early last season. Except, of course, the incidents were given the same gradings and the same points. Johnson missed a game, because of his poor history; Boyd avoided suspension because he didn't have a poor history.

I admit, I'll have to look at the Hanley one again. I remember my reaction at the time was that Johnson was stiff there, but that it was always going to be a suspension. From memory he was laying a shepherd...may have left his feet?

 

[Pivo]

Which is exactly the point I've been making in by 79,000 comments on this thread

Might wanna brush up on dem written communication skillz then.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

Nothing wrong with my skillz, it's the ********* who have no comprehension skillz dat are da prob!

 

[Pivo]

Nothing wrong with my skillz, it's the ********* who have no comprehension skillz dat are da prob!

I don't get it.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

Hang on Pivotonian, I'll run + get the crayons . . .

 

[romeoh]

Anyone who thinks that kneedrop on Jones's head was minor or innocuous, just ask yourself this:

How would you react if Hodge dropped a knee on Selwood like that? Or if Goodes dropped a knee on Bartel?

Exactly.

The Jones one was stupid and weak. The others have all been ok imo.
ps. But Hodgey would have got 'no case to answer' and yep I would have been very cross.

 

[Pivo]

Hang on Pivotonian, I'll run + get the crayons . . .

Paint by Numbers please.

You're Steve Johnson to my Ryan Crowley.

To come back on topic.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Why should we take the good with the bad, when his poor behaviour means he misses important games + finals? It's not good enough, when every one knows the bump is out, the head is off limits + the camera is on him ALL THE TIME NOW! Then we have the likes of Ch7 commentators, who are quite frankly just DQ's, focussing on every single thing he does + going way OTT about him!
I agree it is unfair to focus on SJ more than other players, but that is beyond our control! Geelong need to concentrate on what they can control + that is SJ's behaviour!

If controlling SJ's behaviour was an option I'd say ok.

But he isn't throwing players to the ground, bumping off the ground (hardly bumping at all now), getting players in headlocks, elbowing, tripping, etc... He is a ball player. I say that, just in case we forget this.

You were right when you said they are out to get him. I think Geelong should make a stand and just say it like you say it. And only a little less diplomatically. If a senior Geelong figure said that Steve Jiohnson is being targetted by the media, which is helping him get up before the tribunal on the most minor incidents and getting rubed out unfairly - then let the MRP defend itself! And lets name names: Brian Taylor. Let a senior Geelong official state that commentators like Brian Taylor get excited about reports every time SJ goes near the ball and it sounds like he is urging on a report. Then let Brian Taylor and others defend themselves about that.

And here's the rub: Brian Taylor and the MRP - after stating point blank they never do that - would have to shut their ****ing gobs to prove it, or get pointed out by everyone else that Geelong is right about this.

If this had been done prior to this accidental side on head collision with the approaching Crowley (oh yeah, thats right, it was Crowley approaching Johnson), could you imagine the uproar after Taylor started flapping his gums about it?

I admired the uproar re Viney.

 

[FredLeDeux]

If controlling SJ's behaviour was an option I'd say ok.

But he isn't throwing players to the ground, bumping off the ground (hardly bumping at all now), getting players in headlocks, elbowing, tripping, etc... He is a ball player. I say that, just in case we forget this.

You were right when you said they are out to get him. I think Geelong should make a stand and just say it like you say it. And only a little less diplomatically. If a senior Geelong figure said that Steve Jiohnson is being targetted by the media, which is helping him get up before the tribunal on the most minor incidents and getting rubed out unfairly - then let the MRP defend itself! And lets name names: Brian Taylor. Let a senior Geelong official state that commentators like Brian Taylor get excited about reports every time SJ goes near the ball and it sounds like he is urging on a report. Then let Brian Taylor and others defend themselves about that.

And here's the rub: Brian Taylor and the MRP - after stating point blank they never do that - would have to shut their ******* gobs to prove it, or get pointed out by everyone else that Geelong is right about this.

If this had been done prior to this accidental side on head collision with the approaching Crowley (oh yeah, thats right, it was Crowley approaching Johnson), could you imagine the uproar after Taylor started flapping his gums about it?

I admired the uproar re Viney.

The difficulty I see with that approach is that it might or might not work in the long run, but in the short run it's been my experience that the authorities, when presented with this type of blackmail, go even harder after the victim.
I recall us copping 6-8 weeks of absolute umpiring crucifixion after an inexperienced Thompson suggested that the umpire's version of a 1/4 time conversation was factually incorrect. The sub-text: "let that be a lesson to you".

 

[RegHickeyStand]

I do love this argument. So Ablett and Watson and Pendlebury and Dangerfield and even JOEL SELWOOD manage to deal with this attention on a weekly basis, but somehow resist the overwhelming urge to headbutt/bump/belt someone.

You know why he should just put up with the "junk stuff"? His - very large - pay packet. It's part of being a professional. Grow up and deal with it. And if it was the first offence, sure you could say everyone gets frustrated. That would be fair enough. Not when it's the 5th time in less than 3 seasons. Nowhere near it.

Seen all those guys dish it out too on the odd occasion. Thought Gazza was a bit lucky in one incident a week or so ago. You can only take so much. But you really need the foghorn loudspeaker attention of a Brian Taylor or Dermie and a few others to get it going on a player, and then target him everytime he goes near the ball in the media week in and week out until people start actually believing it. You know, he did bump a little high, and I think his foot was off the ground. He definitely pushed him off the ball, and even though it was the lightest of touches, he was stupid to do it. He deserved that week. Seems to be up every week.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

The difficulty I see with that approach is that it might or might not work in the long run, but in the short run it's been my experience that the authorities, when presented with this type of blackmail, go even harder after the victim.
I recall us copping 6-8 weeks of absolute umpiring crucifixion after an inexperienced Thompson suggested that the umpire's version of a 1/4 time conversation was factually incorrect. The sub-text: "let that be a lesson to you".

You know how many quarters - let alone weeks - SJ's "victims" over the past 18 months have missed? Zero.

The media and the MRP have even some Geelong supporters here thinking he is some kind of wild man with no discipline.

I get annoyed with his sooking and carry-on when he is playing shit like every other fan. But this is different. He is already targetted. Couldn't get any worse.

Eddie McGuire would fix this. Squeal like a stuck pig. Then if they try what you say, squeal louder. Embarrass them out of it.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Well, at least he is still smarter than his brother...

 

[ATSAM]

If controlling SJ's behaviour was an option I'd say ok.

But he isn't throwing players to the ground, bumping off the ground (hardly bumping at all now), getting players in headlocks, elbowing, tripping, etc... He is a ball player. I say that, just in case we forget this.

You were right when you said they are out to get him. I think Geelong should make a stand and just say it like you say it. And only a little less diplomatically. If a senior Geelong figure said that Steve Jiohnson is being targetted by the media, which is helping him get up before the tribunal on the most minor incidents and getting rubed out unfairly - then let the MRP defend itself! And lets name names: Brian Taylor. Let a senior Geelong official state that commentators like Brian Taylor get excited about reports every time SJ goes near the ball and it sounds like he is urging on a report. Then let Brian Taylor and others defend themselves about that.

And here's the rub: Brian Taylor and the MRP - after stating point blank they never do that - would have to shut their ******* gobs to prove it, or get pointed out by everyone else that Geelong is right about this.

If this had been done prior to this accidental side on head collision with the approaching Crowley (oh yeah, thats right, it was Crowley approaching Johnson), could you imagine the uproar after Taylor started flapping his gums about it?


Thank you , thank you, thank you. Finally someone standing up for one of our players.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Anyone who thinks that kneedrop on Jones's head was minor or innocuous, just ask yourself this:

How would you react if Hodge dropped a knee on Selwood like that? Or if Goodes dropped a knee on Bartel?

Exactly.

There have been knees going in on players for years that haven't been cited
Not sure if you remember this incident (Post 268 by The Emu):
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...n-podsiadly-offered-reprimand.1020646/page-11
(sorry- not sure how to copy the file on its own)

EDIT- And I think the Johnson knee drop on Jones was upper chest, not head, FWIW...

 

[Mike Williamson]

GYC - you've summed up the whole situation in it's entirety! The fact that SJ keeps repeating the same mistake simply means he couldn't care less about his suspensions + probably has the attitude that he is above scrutiny because of his sheer brilliance on the ground!

Do you honestly believe he is thinking straight when he does these things?

 

[FredLeDeux]

There have been knees going in on players for years that haven't been cited
Not sure if you remember this incident (Post 268 by The Emu):
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...n-podsiadly-offered-reprimand.1020646/page-11
(sorry- not sure how to copy the file on its own)

EDIT- And I think the Johnson knee drop on Jones was upper chest, not head, FWIW...

Definitely stupid, unprovoked, pointless.
But equally definitely the chest and not the head.
If it had been the head he quite rightly would have been looking at serious time.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Do you honestly believe he is thinking straight when he does these things?

I have absolutely no idea why he keeps doing these things, when he must clearly be aware of the possible consequences, no matter that the majority of the incidents are not serious in themselves.
Explanations such as stupidity or selfishness are obviously both facile and probably wrong.
It would require an expert psychologist to come up with the correct answer, and one suspects that it is the same driver as that which makes him take so many playing risks, with such devastatingly brilliant results, as well as the ridiculous failures.
It's also relevant to the question of "punishment".
He knows he's cost himself a Brownlow, and possibly two of them, and that isn't sufficient incentive to cure the behaviour; so what punishment would do it?
It would take a very good psych to come up with the answer, though.
After all, the 4000 expert psychos already posting here have so far failed dismally.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Definitely stupid, unprovoked, pointless.
But equally definitely the chest and not the head.
If it had been the head he quite rightly would have been looking at serious time.

Great video.

The best one I saw was the one that showed Nathan Jones getting up seconds after absolutely not affected at all. He wasn't aware anything happened and took the kick unaffected and played on. Like nothing happened. Zero seconds off the field. Zero seconds in the hands of the trainer. The Melbourne trainer didn't bother to come out. How is that not insufficient force?

The MRP found that this woman was holding up the Eiffel Tower.

 

[Teriyakicat]

I have absolutely no idea why he keeps doing these things, when he must clearly be aware of the possible consequences, no matter that the majority of the incidents are not serious in themselves.
Explanations such as stupidity or selfishness are obviously both facile and probably wrong.
It would require an expert psychologist to come up with the correct answer, and one suspects that it is the same driver as that which makes him take so many playing risks, with such devastatingly brilliant results, as well as the ridiculous failures.
It's also relevant to the question of "punishment".
He knows he's cost himself a Brownlow, and possibly two of them, and that isn't sufficient incentive to cure the behaviour; so what punishment would do it?
It would take a very good psych to come up with the answer, though.
After all, the 4000 expert psychos already posting here have so far failed dismally.

4000 Fred? It's just an illusion- if you look carefully, you'll notice there are only 4 of us posting 1000 times each