Tweet
Have the curator or the SCG trust been asked to provide a report as to why the ground was so hard and the steps they will take to ensure it doesn't happen again?
-
I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time -
I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his timeComment
-
Mattner was certainly driven into the ground, and it was probably his shoulder as much as his head that got hurt.
The first Jack incident I have no idea how it happened. If he was "driven into the ground" it was in an incident well off the ball. It occured shortly after he, Kirk and Moore coralled the Burgoyne brothers to the boundary line. Shaun stepped over with the ball and at that point Kirk was the closest Swan. Jack was someway behind, having done his part moments earlier. The vision doesn't capture how he went down. All you hear is the commentators saying that a Swans player has gone down. Presumably he either tripped over his own feet, or a Port player came in and game him a bump that forced him to ground. Or maybe it was Goodsey.
The second time happened in a multi-player scrimmage around the ball, I think.
The original charge against Adam last year was for a charge. He got it changed to a push. Over the years, the charge of charging has almost gone out of the book because it proved impossible to get a conviction for it. Many a player has been cited for leaping into a contest and making forceful contact with a hip and shoulder into an opponent in a marking contest. And yet the tribunal almost never sustained a charge of charging. Adam made contact with a forearm.
Also, until very recently, the penalties for striking and charging were the same (with other factors being equivalent - ie deemed force and negligent vs reckless etc). That was changed just a year or so ago to penalise more heavily charges such as that described above - ie those with the potential to be dangerous. What Adam did last year was dumb, no doubt, but it wasn't ever going to cause injury to his opponent. Under the previous tribunal penalties, it wouldn't have mattered had Goodes plead to striking or charging - he would have got the penalty he eventually received.
It is still very very rare for someone to even go to the tribunal on a charging charge. They tend to use the "unduly rough play" instead, just because it is interpreted more flexibly. I am pretty sure that players like Ben Johnson - after his head high hit on an opponent last year - were done for rough contact, not charging. I can't recall if anyone has been found guilty of charging in recent years. Certainly I think Goodes would have been very very unfortunate to have been found guilty of charging under the newer interpretation. If they wanted to "get him" with a higher penalty, they should have upped the ante re degree of force or intent.Comment
-
I agree with Liz. The issue was determined on the evidence of which there was nothing that could base a conclusive finding on the balancce of probabilities. Some people here are making a double inference. First inference - Goodes wacks hack, second inference - hack unconscioncious from Goodes wack. Conclusion, therefore that Goodes is guilty. You cant infer a hit that isn't clearly seen in the circumstances of the position of Goodes and his opponent. For Mathews to then make a third inference that we are favoured and that the judiciary are open to influence other than the evidence is an outragous thing for an AFL coach to publicly claim. Wheres Ando when you need him?Bevo bandwagon driverComment
-
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
"[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."Comment
-
Ever heard of being "reckless" on a footy field? Take a good hard long look over some incidents that have been suspended over the past few years and get back to me.
How does someone get suspended for "attempted striking"? No contact was made, but a player gets suspended....Comment
-
Former Swan Wayne Henwood has a faultless reputation and not for a moment am I suggesting any improper conduct on his behalf when Goodes was cleared on Tuesday night.
The Moose would know more about reckless tackling than anyone in the game. Perfected the head high tackle where he used his own head to tackle an opponent.Bevo bandwagon driverComment
-
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
"[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."Comment
-
You can't be suspended for attempting to strike someone on a footy field. The last time someone was charged with that was about 10 or so years ago when a Geelong player was reported for attempting to strike an opponent. The fact that he actually made contact with his team-mate meant that the charge was thrown out because he didn't make contact.
Attempted striking is completely different to attempted murder.Does God believe in Atheists?Comment
Comment