Goodes offered reprimand..SEN
Collapse
X
-
-
You don't ban those who supported your opponent, you make them wallow in their loserdom by covering your victory! You sit them in the front row. You give them a hat! Toby ZieglerComment
-
Comment
-
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
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Spida just commented on FSN that he reckons the club should just accept. Sounds like he was a little surprised by the outcome, though he didn't indicate whether that was just his view or was shared by others at the club.
Mind you, they did replay the incident a few times and it really was soft as butter. Still think he's on the lucky side but it was nothing like the other recent incidents (soft even as some of them were).Comment
-
Preparing myself for the "protected species" jibes we'll cop over the next few days. We'll probably get heaps of it on Footy Classified tonight. Caroline Wilson, like many footy "experts", seems to be anti Swans - she hops into us, and Roosy in particular, whenever she can. Let's hope Goodesy answers the critics the best way possible next Saturday night.... she really does detest our team.....and what could be better than that.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MTComment
-
Is Goodes still eligible for Charlie if he accepts the reprimand?
sensible decision by MRP, I thought he was having a week off which would have been a shame, he's up to 203 games on end isn't he?"He was proud of us when we won and he was still proud of us when we lost' Tami Roos about Paul Sept 06.Comment
-
No, no longer eligible if he accepts. Lucky boy tho watching it again Selwood does fumble the ball and the contact is pretty slight.Comment
-
Honestly, this could have been anywhere between 3 weeks and a reprimand, and in all cases could have been justifiable. He doesn't move off his line, and he doesn't brace for contact, which suggests he wasn't going for the man, and yet he doesn't go for the ball either. A very odd situation, and the MRP could have gone either way. As it was, they seem to have decided he was NOT playing the man, which renders the contact negligent. He didn't move off his line, and he didn't brace for a bump, so it was unintentional and negligent. Simple. But at the same time, they could have said that he didn't make any attempt at the ball, so he must have been playing the man, which makes the contact reckless, which would get him a considerably higher penalty. Both make sense. Goodes got lucky in a fifty/fifty decision.Officially on the Reid and Sumner bandwagon!Comment
-
MMmmm, thanks, he won't enjoy his mineral water much on charlie nite. He just has to chill out."He was proud of us when we won and he was still proud of us when we lost' Tami Roos about Paul Sept 06.Comment
-
Does anyone recall the Everitt incident that is described in that report? I don't remember anything that could even have warranted an investigation.
And does anyone know if the Selwood reprimand is for the tummy punch or the incident that led to Buchanan leaving the ground with a bloody cheek? I can't remember who it was who tickled Monty's tummy but one would have to assume it was the cheek incident, given the conclusions reached on other charges where the contact was deemed to be too insignificant to be a reportable offence.Bevo bandwagon driverComment
Comment