MRP / Trib. The MRP thread

[CAS79]

I thought I would pop in here to see what swans fans thought of the incident. For the most part it is exactly what I thought. The mrp decision is a load of shit. Thomas won a free kick from the incident.

Well the free kick against Rohans a bit harsh, it's hard not to fall on the bloke when you dont have a leg anymore

Therefore this means the umpires don't even know what the rules are.any person who does not believe this ban is rediculus needs to follow another sport

Please ensure you adress this messege to former North Melboune player Nathan Thompson

. Thomas did what you would expect any of your players to do. He went low and hard at the contest. He got to the ball first and didn't care about what happened to him. If Thomas leg had missed rohan, rohan probably would have gone on to shoulder him in the head. Yer I feel for rohan he will be a gun one day quick and skillful

We hope, it's a long road back when the compound fracture is that low on the leg

. I agree with the last paragraph from the above. There needs to be a way to stop people getting injured like that. Problem is, its just a bit of badluck you can't turn the blame on anyone. Kids are brought up to go hard at the footy and get there first. Thomas did both and as a north fan I'm proud of him for that as he is sometimes seen as soft. But our great game is turning into a laughing stock. My junior team are allowed to go harder at the footy than a bunch of professionals. Let them play and let all us fans enjoy our footy. No more crap around these suspensions. From where I see it there won't be marking contests by the end of the year. As we all know what happened to Robbie gray when he was going for a marking contest.

To this point we agree. Below however your trying to make a point but be touchy wood around the Goodes issue and really said nothing at all.

On a side note the goodes/Thomas incidents are uncompareable. Thomas had many more factors in his favour. Not that I believe Goodes should have been suspended but. Thomas was first to the footy, was lower than rohan, unlike Goodes contact was only ever going to be low, it was wet, the technique of sliding with feet rather than knees will cause less body impact, Goodes had a freekick against him for it while Thomas got a free kick for him, Gary rohan was coming at a ferocious speed, case of wrong place wrong time incidental contact, Thomas had eyes only for the ball. The last one is the killer, with Goodes both occasions looking at his opponent when sliding for the ball

 

[CAS79]

In the 1996 Grand Final David King did a real slide tackle to Craig O'Brien for no time served. He did have eyes for the man.... any chance of a suspension all these years later.

 

[liz]

I thought I would pop in here to see what swans fans thought of the incident....

Not sure why you have quoted my post and used it to agree with me that the MRP decision is a load of rubbish. That is not what I said and, while I think it is a difficult case, on balance I think Thomas needs to be suspended if we want the risk of that kind of injury reduced (which I think it cant be).

I do agree that the Thomas and recent Goodes case are chalk and cheese. But I swear that 75% of BF posters have only watched the final second of the Goodes collision. He did not slide with his knees into a player who already had the ball. He started to slide towards a loose ball at pretty much the exact same time that Surjan did. He got there second. But by the time he knew he was going to get there second, it was impossible for him to stop.

I can handle him getting suspended (just) but the idea that it was a dirty, gutless act is so out of order. He was competing for the ball as much as Surjan was.

I am even more incensed by the dribble from some North fans that Rohan wasn't going for the ball and was bracing himself to bump Thomas. Rohan was on his feet (incidentally the advice handed out by BF "experts" to Goodes), had his eyes on the ball and was bending down to pick it up. Thomas comes in low from the side at speed and Rohan wouldn't have seen him coming. I don't question that Thomas was competing for the ball, but the suggestions he was somehow braver or fairer than Rohan are staggering.

 

[CAS79]

Not sure why you have quoted my post and used it to agree with me that the MRP decision is a load of rubbish. That is not what I said and, while I think it is a difficult case, on balance I think Thomas needs to be suspended if we want the risk of that kind of injury reduced (which I think it cant be).

I do agree that the Thomas and recent Goodes case are chalk and cheese. But I swear that 75% of BF posters have only watched the final second of the Goodes collision. He did not slide with his knees into a player who already had the ball. He started to slide towards a loose ball at pretty much the exact same time that Surjan did. He got there second. But by the time he knew he was going to get there second, it was impossible for him to stop.

I can handle him getting suspended (just) but the idea that it was a dirty, gutless act is so out of order. He was competing for the ball as much as Surjan was.

I am even more incensed by the dribble from some North fans that Rohan wasn't going for the ball and was bracing himself to bump Thomas. Rohan was on his feet (incidentally the advice handed out by BF "experts" to Goodes), had his eyes on the ball and was bending down to pick it up. Thomas comes in low from the side at speed and Rohan wouldn't have seen him coming. I don't question that Thomas was competing for the ball, but the suggestions he was somehow braver or fairer than Rohan are staggering.

Well said Liz

I dont think a suspension is warranted for a freak incident when Thomas had eyes for the ball but there has been some bile bullshit sent Rohans way who was competing for the ball on his feet. Gven the circumstances the claims are outlandish and disgraceful.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Typical of most Norf supporters sadly Cas.

 

[skipper kelly]

But I swear that 75% of BF posters have only watched the final second of the Goodes collision. He did not slide with his knees into a player who already had the ball. He started to slide towards a loose ball at pretty much the exact same time that Surjan did. He got there second. But by the time he knew he was going to get there second, it was impossible for him to stop.

I can handle him getting suspended (just) but the idea that it was a dirty, gutless act is so out of order. He was competing for the ball as much as Surjan was.

I am even more incensed by the dribble from some North fans that Rohan wasn't going for the ball and was bracing himself to bump Thomas. Rohan was on his feet (incidentally the advice handed out by BF "experts" to Goodes), had his eyes on the ball and was bending down to pick it up. Thomas comes in low from the side at speed and Rohan wouldn't have seen him coming. I don't question that Thomas was competing for the ball, but the suggestions he was somehow braver or fairer than Rohan are staggering.

Agree with all this.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

Not sure why you have quoted my post and used it to agree with me that the MRP decision is a load of rubbish. That is not what I said and, while I think it is a difficult case, on balance I think Thomas needs to be suspended if we want the risk of that kind of injury reduced (which I think it cant be).

I do agree that the Thomas and recent Goodes case are chalk and cheese. But I swear that 75% of BF posters have only watched the final second of the Goodes collision. He did not slide with his knees into a player who already had the ball. He started to slide towards a loose ball at pretty much the exact same time that Surjan did. He got there second. But by the time he knew he was going to get there second, it was impossible for him to stop.

I can handle him getting suspended (just) but the idea that it was a dirty, gutless act is so out of order. He was competing for the ball as much as Surjan was.

I am even more incensed by the dribble from some North fans that Rohan wasn't going for the ball and was bracing himself to bump Thomas. Rohan was on his feet (incidentally the advice handed out by BF "experts" to Goodes), had his eyes on the ball and was bending down to pick it up. Thomas comes in low from the side at speed and Rohan wouldn't have seen him coming. I don't question that Thomas was competing for the ball, but the suggestions he was somehow braver or fairer than Rohan are staggering.

Shit yes!!

 

[Sanecow]

NORTH Melbourne footballer Lindsay Thomas has successfully had a rough-conduct suspension overturned at the AFL tribunal.

Consistency.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

****ing joke.

 

[No1SwansFan]

Liz all of what you said I totally agree with. Only wish I could convey it as well as you did.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Grass abrasions = suspension.
Broken leg = all good to go.

Where is the duty of care for Lindsay Thomas to Gary Rohan? Oh right, he ain't a Swan nor, is he Adam Goodes, nor is he a protected species.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

If the tribunal was consistent Goodes would have played last Sunday and...well, I don't need to finish this point.

****ing joke.

 

[Sanecow]

So, it's a one match ban for an act that, at its worst, could break a leg but actually breaking another player's leg isn't even a free kick.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

So, it's a one match ban for an act that, at its worst, could break a leg but actually breaking another player's leg isn't even a free kick.

Potientially causing damage is far more dangerous according to the tribunal, than actually causing damage. Seriously....how can they let Thomas off, after what they said to Goodes last week, about duty of care to Surjan?

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Let it go guys it was a accident very unfortunate but it is what it is, i think we need to revise our legal team as Goodes should of got off easily as well.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Goodes should sue the MRP and tribunal for this...

 

[rooboy44]

massive difference between the two. goodes slid in leading with his knees and his body backwards which means there was no way he was contesting for the ball where as LT led with his body and actually cleared the ball to our advantage. cannot compare the two

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Oh **** here we go.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

massive difference between the two. goodes slid in leading with his knees and his body backwards which means there was no way he was contesting for the ball where as LT led with his body and actually cleared the ball to our advantage. cannot compare the two

Go away!!

 

[PAdman]

not coming in to troll so a mod can delete my comment if posts from other teams arent allowed

theres no conspiracy theory against your club, thomas shouldnt have got anything so the mrp came to its senses in the end

i think you guys will be thinking more rationally in a week and will agree he shouldnt have gotten anything

 

[AG]

Go away!!

Nothing wrong with what he said. I'll remove trolls, opposition posters are free to post.

Don't want this to be a hostile board.

 

[grimlock]

Calm down, you don't have to make everything into a drama. Thomas was charged, he was entitled to a hearing and the independent tribunal exonerated him. This is how the system works. Any notions of conspiracies or that Goodes should sue the AFL are just pure claptrap

 

[TheGoatBaron]

If he wants to chat about it, there's a thread on the main board, isn't there?

Goodes should have gotten off, if Thomas got off, where is the consistency from the tribunal? Where is the duty of care from Thomas to Rohan, when Goodes had one for Surjan?

Consistency, where is it?

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Given the incident has sidelined one of our most promising players for a year you'd expect that North supporters would know this place is more sensitive than usual and stop with the self-righteousness.

Actually you wouldn't expect it but one can hope. Maybe some (including myself) are overreacting but I don't think so, the majority of their comments are laced with a pompous attitude.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

If he wants to chat about it, there's a thread on the main board, isn't there?

Goodes should have gotten off, if Thomas got off, where is the consistency from the tribunal? Where is the duty of care from Thomas to Rohan, when Goodes had one for Surjan?

Consistency, where is it?

Less about the MRP and more on how we presented the case to challenge we really ****ed it up.