Goodes cleared (previously Goodes suspended !!!!!!! but still eligble for Brownlow)

[Industrial Fan]

I thought Ben Johnson was lucky to get off his charge.

He got rubbed out for more or less the same thing last year.

[TheGrimReaper]

There is no justification for this comment.

Oh wait, here comes the Swans and Roos bashers.

I'm not allowed to defend Goodes am I, otherwise, I'll be going outside forum policy!

[TheGrimReaper]

I thought Ben Johnson was lucky to get off his charge.

He got rubbed out for more or less the same thing last year.

Ben Johnson didn't get off, he was suspended. he missed the finals and round 1 this year.

[Plugger46]

It's a bull@@@@ idiotic charge made by bull@@@@ idiotic people. The next time, this happens, the charge would be thrown out, especially if it's a Collingwood player and even if he has a record.

When have Collingwood been favoured at the tribunal? You're paranoid.

[Plugger46]

Ben Johnson didn't get off, he was suspended. he missed the finals and round 1 this year.

I think you'll find that 'Marry Me Goodes' means that he was involved in a similar incident (to the Bell one last year) on Friday night against Brisbane. I can't recall it myself.

[ScottH]

He's going to the tribunal:
Goodes to Contest Striking Charge

[NMWBloods]

Oh wait, here comes the Swans and Roos bashers.

I'm not allowed to defend Goodes am I, otherwise, I'll be going outside forum policy!

Defend him as much as you like, but it helps if you defend him sensibly.

Firstly - it's not a bull@@@@ charge. He elbowed a guy in the head.

Secondly - Collingwood do not have a history of doing well at the tribunal. They lost two players before GFs for striking charges not much worse than Goodes.

[Industrial Fan]

Ben Johnson didn't get off, he was suspended. he missed the finals and round 1 this year.

Contact between Collingwood's Ben Johnson and the Brisbane Lions' Simon Black from the fourth quarter of Friday's match was also reviewed. Although there was some contact to Black's neck, the majority of contact was to the shoulder area. The force was not considered unreasonable in the circumstances and no further action was required, the panel said.

Looked pretty similar to his previous hit to me.

[TheGrimReaper]

When have Collingwood been favoured at the tribunal? You're paranoid.

Of couse I'm paranoid. Not those Swans and Roos bashers out there, with any hint of people defending their team, they go on the all-out attack.

[TheGrimReaper]

Looked pretty similar to his previous hit to me.

Why isn't Goodes treated with the same treatment then?

[TheGrimReaper]

But oh wait, NWBloods thinks he deserves a 10 @@@@ing week suspension to justity his tip of the Swans being too old and too slow.

[NMWBloods]

But oh wait, NWBloods thinks he deserves a 10 @@@@ing week suspension to justity his tip of the Swans being too old and too slow.

@@@@ YOU! Oh wait, I'm not allowed to defend the Swans, I'll be going against the Forum Policy, and I'll be banned!

You really are being quite silly now.

I already said (quite naturally) there is nothing wrong with defending him. Ranting about it being bull@@@@ and the AFL are against us is hardly defending him though.

I have not attacked Goodes (or Roos for that matter).

I think he elbowed a guy in the head so naturally the MRP will look at it.

You are becoming hysterical and making ludicrous suggestions that somehow I am attacking the Swans and I want Goodes to get a ten week suspenson.

[Jewels]

I thought he would contest it, don't like his chances though. The footage, whilst not clear, shows Goodes swinging his arms about and the Port guy going down and staying down. I wonder if he would ever have been charged if the Port guy hadn't have stayed down. It was the staying down that got the commentators notice.

[TheGrimReaper]

I thought he would contest it, don't like his chances though. The footage, whilst not clear, shows Goodes swinging his arms about and the Port guy going down and staying down. I wonder if he would ever have been charged if the Port guy hadn't have stayed down. It was the staying down that got the commentators notice.

According to NWBloods, he has no right to contest, and we have no right to defend Goodes.

[TheGrimReaper]

You really are being quite silly now.

I already said (quite naturally) there is nothing wrong with defending him. Ranting about it being bull@@@@ and the AFL are against us is hardly defending him though.

I have not attacked Goodes (or Roos for that matter).

I think he elbowed a guy in the head so naturally the MRP will look at it.

You are becoming hysterical and making ludicrous suggestions that somehow I am attacking the Swans and I want Goodes to get a ten week suspenson.

It is a @@@@ing bull@@@@ charge! Oh wait, I'm not allowed to say that. Dearie @@@@ing me!