Tribunal news from weekend's game - Thomas and Ted

[mcs]

I'm not convinced Thomas should have been suspended - but if he isn't suspended then neither should Goodes have been. Inconsistency is the bane of officialdom in our game - all I want is consistency!

[Legs Akimbo]

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

The AFL tribunal or match review panel or whatever the heck it is called is officially an absolute joke. How they can take themselves seriously let alone expect anyone else to is beyond me.

The inconsistency is just breathtaking.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I know Thomas didn't intend on injuring Rohan, that should go without saying, but how is sliding in at someone's feet okay but two players sliding in to each other with knees/thighs isn't? I know which one I'd rather, and it's not someone taking my ankles out from underneath me.

[Plugger46]

I think the difference is Thomas actually gathered the footy and his eyes were clearly focused on the footy. Goodes really didn't get anywhere near it. I don't think either should have been rubbed out but I do think that they're different.

[Wardy]

Well the decision has been made I dont like it but thats it. Ok Goodsie now play yr heart out for the rest of the year and come in 2nd to JPK for the Brownlow and make the AFL look really stupid.

[ScottH]

I think the difference is Thomas actually gathered the footy and his eyes were clearly focused on the footy. Goodes really didn't get anywhere near it. I don't think either should have been rubbed out but I do think that they're different.

Reckon your right.
Looking at the Thomas one, his intent was protecting the ball from Rohan, not colliding with the player.
Still sucks to be Goodes.

[Meg]

I think the difference is Thomas actually gathered the footy and his eyes were clearly focused on the footy. Goodes really didn't get anywhere near it. I don't think either should have been rubbed out but I do think that they're different.

Re your point that Goodes didn't get anywhere near the ball - this is from one of the reports I read last week:

"he (Goodes' advocate David Galbally QC) submitted footage from a wider angle which showed both players started sliding from an equal distance, with only an unpredictable bounce of the ball meaning Surjan arrived first. AFL legal counsel Jeff Gleeson SC agreed Goodes had no intention of hurting Surjan and was trying to get the ball. But the jury's verdict backed Gleeson's contention that the Swans star still breached his duty of care by sliding in without regard for Surjan's welfare."

Goodes himself said:
""The ball was my target," he said. "I realised someone else was in the play, but my commitment was to win that 50-50 ball.
"I knew from the past, being reported for going in with my feet so I slid on my knees to try to get lower. I don't know what else I could've done."

Well Goodes now knows what he is expected to do - stay on his feet while another player is sliding and risk having his leg broken as happened to Rohan. But ok for Thomas to slide apparently. There is a report of reasons for Thomas acquittal on a video on AFL website but it keeps stopping at the critical point of the explanation when I try to listen to it. Perhaps we will read more tomorrow and perhaps there is a convincing explanation of why the tribunal thinks Thomas ok and Goodes not. I hope so because at the moment is seems very unfair.

[GongSwan]

There was never any suggestion of intent in the charge, as there wasn't in Goodes case, if Goodes was the test for the new rules "guidelines" then it stands to reason that what Thomas did was the same, sliding in feet first, making unnecessary contact and impact. If Goodes was suspended because of the new guidelines, how can some other idiot get away with the same thing but worse? No matter what his intent, if it's not rough conduct are we suggesting that Rohan broke his leg was an act of God? Of course it was an accident, but according to the guidelines, if u slide in feet first, you get penalised

[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.

Reckon your right.
Looking at the Thomas one, his intent was protecting the ball from Rohan, not colliding with the player.
Still sucks to be Goodes.

This is simply not right. It is irrelevant that his intention was the ball, because he wasn't charged with intent.

But I think this is wrong as well. His intention was to protect the ball and to knock his opponent out of the way. This is how players are taught to win the ball. Knock the player away and protect the space where the ball is.

There is no doubt that he didn't intend to break his leg. But he did intend to protect the ball come hell or high water.

That is part of what makes the game so exciting to watch - the sheer speed and physicality of the sport. But be under no illusions, he went past the ball with it on his inside so that he could make sure rohan wouldn't get to it. And if he collected rohan along the way well done to him.

[Meg]

Further to my post above, this was in The Age last week re Goodes:

"Goodes' defence was based around him sliding to collect the ball rather than deliberately sliding into an opponent, which is forbidden. His counsel, David Galbally, QC, said Goodes would have collected the ball first had it not deviated away from him late. Furthermore, Galbally said Surjan was arguably more at fault than Goodes because the Port Adelaide player had an outstretched leg whereas Goodes slid on his knees to prevent feet-first contact, the type which cost him a one-match ban during the NAB Cup. Nevertheless, the tribunal jury of Richard Loveridge, Emmett Dunne and Wayne Schimelbusch decided Goodes was negligent in deciding to slide."

I know I am going back through last week's to-and-fro and it is time to move on, but the Thomas decision has upset me on behalf of Goodes. (You can see him standing in the background of the video of the boys singing the team song in the rooms after the game. I really felt for him, I'm sure he so wanted to play in that game.)

[R-1]

I think the difference is our lawyer ran the wrong argument. We should have been arguing it wasn't rough conduct, which is how Thomas got off. If it's found to not be rough conduct then we never even get to the question of intent and forseeable harm.

[robamiee]

absolute joke....we know Thomas didn't mean it, but his leg is straight out with studs up..
Goodsey was knees bent, how the hell did he get a week for knee to knee contact and thomas gets off sliding feet first into a pack...
astounds me absolutely astounds me..

i guess seeing how we are 4-0 the victorian pack has to try and peg us back a bit...

[alison.z]

This thread pretty much sums up my thoughts - It's the lack of consistency that really gets to me. Feels like a trial by media where they were calling for Goodes' head last week and he was found guilty yet everyone was outraged over Thomas and he was cleared.

The AFL had a real chance to set a precedent to stamp out these types of incidents and (hopefully) reduce severe impact injuries such as Rohan's.

Instead they completely failed and players are still left confused by what they can and can't do - causing more dangerous grey areas in the game.

[Yuri H]

This thread pretty much sums up my thoughts - It's the lack of consistency that really gets to me.

Me too. It's utter hypocrisy. I'm just spluttering mad at the moment, so can't articulate well ... just ... just ... grr.

[Q...]

This is simply not right. It is irrelevant that his intention was the ball, because he wasn't charged with intent.

But I think this is wrong as well. His intention was to protect the ball and to knock his opponent out of the way. This is how players are taught to win the ball. Knock the player away and protect the space where the ball is.

There is no doubt that he didn't intend to break his leg. But he did intend to protect the ball come hell or high water.

That is part of what makes the game so exciting to watch - the sheer speed and physicality of the sport. But be under no illusions, he went past the ball with it on his inside so that he could make sure rohan wouldn't get to it. And if he collected rohan along the way well done to him.

I agree with everything that you say except that it seems that you are condoning Thomas' actions. He wanted to make sure that Rohan was out of the way and given the way he arrived at the contest the only thing that was going to hinder Rohan was his feet. As evidenced by the outcome, that is a dangerous tactic to employ.

I agree with the intent of what Darcy said. I'm not sure a formal code of conduct for the players needs to be adopted, but I think any player that condones, let alone participates in that style of play, should be denigrated by his peers, teammates and opposition alike.