Goodes - oh no (out 6 weeks)

[GongSwan]

The main difference between these rulings is the players involved, when it is a Melbourne nased player there is general outpouring of criticism of the ruling from the media and so called experts, but no one really gives a crap if a Sydney player gets rubbed out, or if an Adelaide player is left to play on what appeared to be a worse effort, becaus ehe wasn't fronting a Melbourne team. I'm not screaming conspiracy, just media hype and pressure. The MRP and tribunal does not want to start getting death threats on twitter. I'll say it again, Thomas does that to Judd or Ablett, gets a life sentence

[liz]

I think it's been said before but Goodes' own poor record at the tribunal is the only reason he missed a game. Without the poor record, he, like all the other cases, would have received a reprimand. He screwed himself with the stupid studs in first tackle in the NAB cup.

Not correct. Walker received a reprimand. Thomas and Broughton were exonerated.

I think the Goodes / Walker incidents have some similarities to each other but are also a bit different to the Thomas / Broughton incidents. The theme that links them is the "I got there first" defence that seems to be the only thing that matters.

[Melbourne_Blood]

Ok, but the point is he wouldn't have been suspended if not for a poor record. We can whine and moan all we want and cry "poor Sydney always gets the rough deal" , but if our Captain didn't ridiculously slide in studs first in the NAB cup, he wouldn't have been rubbed out for a lesser incident against Port. Thomas got what he deserved, nothing. Walkers was worse than Goodes, but he had no record ( though being at the head should have made it worse, I guess the opponent must have avoided those terrible grass abrasions Goodes left Surjan with ). I guess it is pretty unclear now what's kocher and what's not but hey, that's the MRP for ya.