Tribunal news from weekend's game - Thomas and Ted

[ugg]

The AFL360 discussion hinted at the fact there is another camera angle of the incident that the AFL used to assess the incident. If there is, I don't believe it has been shown. All we've seen is the standard C7 footage. If I understood them correctly, it sounds like this footage might show a clearer view of the collision between foot and ankle.

Two different angles of the incident starting from about 1:55, I think the first one in particular doesn't look very good for Thomas. He was clearly at the ball before Rohan and really had no need to slide if he had just wanted to pick up the ball.

[Doctor]

Does it look to anyone like Gaz may have gotten his foot stuck in the turf at just the moment the contact happened? You'd normally expect to slide with the contact rather than have the foot planted and immobile I'd have thought.

[Q...]

I think the grading of the contact as severe is wrong, regardless of whether there were contributory factors to the severity of the injury. Had Thomas slid in from a distance at greater speed, maybe. But though I think there was a sliding motion, he wasn't travelling that quickly when (if) he made contact with Rohan's ankle.

The AFL360 discussion hinted at the fact there is another camera angle of the incident that the AFL used to assess the incident. If there is, I don't believe it has been shown. All we've seen is the standard C7 footage. If I understood them correctly, it sounds like this footage might show a clearer view of the collision between foot and ankle.

How would you judge the severity of the contact if not based on the outcome?

[Meg]

Thomas found not guilty by tribunal. This makes the Goodes' suspension so unfair.

[GongSwan]

Thomas found not guilty by tribunal. This makes the Goodes' suspension so unfair.

Makes it look like a targeted attack, is the MRP now anti Sydney or anti Goodes? Hard to see it any other way, Goodes gets a week for no injury, Thomas breaks a guys leg and gets off. Very angry right now

[goswannie14]

Actually, Staker was out for at least a week, I think it was two in the end.

No, Staker played the next week, then was suspended for striking in that game.

[stellation]

Thomas found not guilty by tribunal. This makes the Goodes' suspension so unfair.

I didn't think he should go, it was a very unfortunate accident- but really there's not a lot of consistency there.

[Big Al]

The right decision but very inconsistent.

[Plugger46]

I don't think either should have been suspended but there was more in the Goodes one. Great decision by the tribunal.

As for a set against the Swans and Goodes, no I don't think so.

[R-1]

Ruled that it wasn't rough conduct.

We should have had a better lawyer last week to argue that.

[Dogzbody]

Just posted on AFL.com, Lindsay is free to play http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsartic...5/default.aspx

[Meg]

I am one of those who thinks that neither Goodes nor Thomas should have been suspended. But I began to accept the Goodes' decision when Thomas was cited and therefore it seemed the AFL was taking a consistent approach. But this outcome - Goodes suspended, Thomas not guilty - is so disrespectful to Goodes. He has effectively been told by the AFL, and explicitly told by Longmire - that he has to keep on his feet and take the risk that what happened to Rohan could happen to him. While Thomas has been given the message that it is ok to slide in past the ball even knowing that another player is contesting the ball and therefore there is a risk of taking out his legs. I am sure Thomas didn't intend to hurt Gary but surely by the precedent set by the AFL it had to be both reckless and rough conduct.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I am one of those who thinks that neither Goodes nor Thomas should have been suspended. But I began to accept the Goodes' decision when Thomas was cited and therefore it seemed the AFL was taking a consistent approach. But this outcome - Goodes suspended, Thomas not guilty - is so disrespectful to Goodes. He has effectively been told by the AFL, and explicitly told by Longmire - that he has to keep on his feet and take the risk that what happened to Rohan could happen to him. While Thomas has been given the message that it is ok to slide in past the ball even knowing that another player is contesting the ball and therefore there is a risk of taking out his legs. I am sure Thomas didn't intend to hurt Gary but surely by the precedent set by the AFL it had to be both reckless and rough conduct.

This.

If I didn't love the Swans so much I wouldn't give this sport the time of day.

[Melbournehammer]

Absolutely ridiculous that this is not a suspension. This idea that leading with feet or legs is not rough conduct misses how the game works now. The sling tackle gets suspensions because of the result. - it is not illegal to a point. Likewise a player can use an elbow to a chest to fend away but if they raise it to the face this is rough conduct. I just think if they were looking at addressing this Thomas was a clear example of why it needs addressing. If rohan dived at the ball and the boot gets him then it must surely have also been rough conduct.

Alternatively if we are not worried about leading with the feet then move on...

[Melbournehammer]

I am one of those who thinks that neither Goodes nor Thomas should have been suspended. But I began to accept the Goodes' decision when Thomas was cited and therefore it seemed the AFL was taking a consistent approach. But this outcome - Goodes suspended, Thomas not guilty - is so disrespectful to Goodes. He has effectively been told by the AFL, and explicitly told by Longmire - that he has to keep on his feet and take the risk that what happened to Rohan could happen to him. While Thomas has been given the message that it is ok to slide in past the ball even knowing that another player is contesting the ball and therefore there is a risk of taking out his legs. I am sure Thomas didn't intend to hurt Gary but surely by the precedent set by the AFL it had to be both reckless and rough conduct.

Actually this puts it better than I had. And I agree completely