Tweet
That deliberate trip on Goodsey was a disgrace to the game and the Saints should have had a more severe penalty.
That guy has surely gone for the year!
That guy has surely gone for the year!
-
-
Don't scare me like that! I didn't see the game and thought you meant how many weeks for Goodes as if he was the one who tripped his opponent! Phew!!! -
..And the Swans are the Premiers...The Ultimate Team...The Ultimate Warriors. They have overcome the highly fancied Hawks in brilliant style. Sydney the 2012 Premiers - Gerard Whately ABC
Here it is Again! - Huddo SENComment
-
Certainly deserves a couple of weeks imo. When it first happened I thoguht Goodes had tripped over his own feet, but the replay told the story well and truly."You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."Comment
-
I thought he was going om holidays.
Zero weeks as the rules have been changed. That's why he didn't get a 50 metre penalty awarded his way.In memory of my little Staffy - Dicey, 17.06.2005 to 1.12.2011- I'll miss you mate.Comment
-
Pretty sure a deliberate trip is still a suspendable offence. Or is it just tripping by foot? That one was about as blatant as they come and certainly not a case of the reward matching the sin because Goodes on a charge out of the midfield is nigh on unstoppable.
It used to be that a report was an automatic 50m penalty but they did change that rule a few years ago (probably for the best). And of course, the Saint wasn't booked on the spot so it wouldn't have come into play even if that was still the rule. Goodes clearly thought he deserved a 50 though - I was surprised the umpire didn't call play on after he moved forward of the mark.Comment
-
To me on the replay it was a kick and not a trip and that is what got Goodesy's dander up. It was a kicking action which to me represents a different act from tripping that most times is a desperate throwing out of the leg. Kicking was always seen as the lowest act a player could do, even in the days of Jack Dyer it was seen as a dog act. Certainly in the 60's it was up to an 8 week suspension and a stigma was attached to the offender. I recall I think McIntosh of St Kilda going for I think 8 weeks, and it remained with him for his career. The fans certainly reminded him of it often. One of the Pascoe brothers from North also got a hefty penalty and it haunted him for the rest of his career.Comment
-
On the telecast the Ump said they would refer it so it will get looked at. If it was as deliberate as it looked it should be season over IMO.Comment
-
Goodes clearly thought he could punch the ball through the goals as well. Perhaps someone should give the players an update of the rules.
Goodes remonstrated with Umpire Chamberlain ( hey mods isn't that refreshing) about getting a 50 metre and the midget said to Goodesy that that rule had been updated years ago. Gerard Healey was on the commentary and they had a laugh about it. Then they made the comments how once upon a time not too long ago, that would have been a 1 to 2 week suspension.In memory of my little Staffy - Dicey, 17.06.2005 to 1.12.2011- I'll miss you mate.Comment
-
Just heard Polo was seen limping at the airport. I wonder if he has a sore foot ??Comment
-
..And the Swans are the Premiers...The Ultimate Team...The Ultimate Warriors. They have overcome the highly fancied Hawks in brilliant style. Sydney the 2012 Premiers - Gerard Whately ABC
Here it is Again! - Huddo SENComment
-
Looked pretty blatant on the replay, doubt there will be any suspension though, after all who in Melbourne cares if the Swans get a rough deal, SMFC members asideYou can't argue with a sick mind - Joe WalshComment
Comment