Goodes to contest charge/free to play(merged threads)

[BBBBH]

But BBBH, this is the problem with the reporting of this incident.

Goodes did not get off, he received a one week suspension for striking which is in line with what everyone thought he should receive.

But under the rules available to all playes, with his clean record and early plea he was given a discount on his penalty.

A couple of the articles written in the Herald Sun today are down right sloppy and the club should take that up with the Herald Sun. Mark Stevens has used Jarrod Molloy for comments knowing full well that he does not understand the system but still committed to print his opinions which are incorrect.

DST

but seriously.......'low-impact' it didnt look like the impact was of a low manner it was at least minimum.

it was
intentional
mid impact
to the body
and behind play

should've got 1 at least i think.

[NMWBloods]

Of course it was low impact. Godfrey jumped straight back up again and wasn't even hurt. It's hard to get much lower than that.

And there's no such thing as 'behind play' any more.

[liz]

Of course it was low impact. Godfrey jumped straight back up again and wasn't even hurt. It's hard to get much lower than that.

It is possible to get lower impact - ie negligible contact. In which case it wouldn't have been a reportable incident.

In the overall gamit of things, it was never going to cause injury.

I don't think anyone thinks it was a sensible thing to do and most of us probably cringe when we see it. But some of the vitriol pouring out of not just idiots on BF but also professional journalists is quite sad.

And surely to have an article commenting on the matter published in a daily newspaper, it should be a pre-requisite that you actually acquaint yourself with the framework under which the tribunal operates, so that you are aware that the in-play/behind the play distinction is no longer relevant and understand the principle of giving long serving players some leniency for their first indescretion (even if you don't agree with that principle).

[liz]

More ignorance of the tribunal on AFL Teams. I'm not that surprised that Danny Frawley doesn't "get it" but I'd thought more of David Parkin.

Main thrust of their argument was the inconsistency between the Goodes strike and the Gehrig strike a couple of weeks ago. Why did Gehrig get a week while Goodes "got off" (their phrasing)?

How hard, gentlemen, is it to understand that there is a loading system for players with recent prior offences and a discount system for players with a 5 year clean record? Why can't you look beyond your ignorant gut assessments to see how cases are assessed within the tribunal's framework?

Had they questioned the assessment of impact I would at least have been able to respect their opinion but how can professional commentators know so little about what they purport to comment on?

[NMWBloods]

It is possible to get lower impact - ie negligible contact. In which case it wouldn't have been a reportable incident.

That's what I mean.

I don't think anyone thinks it was a sensible thing to do and most of us probably cringe when we see it. But some of the vitriol pouring out of not just idiots on BF but also professional journalists is quite sad.

True, but it really was a very ugly look.

[Triple B]

plus we'll win this week anyway.

Taking a line thru your 'We'll lose this week' post before the Melbourne game, you have now got me worried about a game I wouldn't have thought we are in any danger of dropping.