ADAM GOODES

[best on hill]

with all the hype abut the head high bump over the last few weeks. i find it very inconsistant that goodes has be offered a reprimand when other players have received suspentions.

[mumbles]

Very lucky man

[SCD]

It's quite simple...

Sydney is a market the AFL are trying to grow and develop - therefore they can't afford for the best player up there to miss games, so they let him off everytime... how else has he got off 4 times in 2 years.... surely he has carry over points that would start to come into play????

AFL = WEAK

They need to make a real decision and treat this team the same as everyone else.

[Blue Boy]

There was no doubt what he was tryin to do !!!

Whom eva has made this decision has made this whole farce of head high even worse !!!

[rogernumber10]

Adam Goodes had points carried over from last year, which expired after round 5 this year, as those points last on your record for 12 months. If you have games' suspension in your history, a 10 per cent loading for each single game suspension (up to five games), lasts on your record for three years. Goodes obviously has no suspensions in his record.
In round two after the Port game, he went to the Tribunal on a charge and had it thrown out, so he wasn't suspended then. The sequence with him is this:

- Rd5 2007 - Goodes takes a reprimand and has points carried for 12 months (these points would guarantee any next offence within 12 months would result in a suspension)
- Rd2 2008 - Goodes is charged. He has points carried over, and is facing a suspension. The charge is heard by the Tribunal and dismissed, meaning no suspension, but the carry over points still apply for another three rounds.
- Rd5 2008 - Carry over points are voided after 12 months and no longer apply
- Rd11 2008 - Goodes charged and can accept a reprimand.

In terms of his offence over the weekend
- it was rated the lowest level of impact. Selwood got up, had no treatment, and kicked the goal. If Selwood had been injured, left the ground, had treatment etc, he gets a higher level of contact rated against him, which impacts on the rating of the offence and the suspension is either 3 with an offer of 2 for a guilty plea, or 2 with an offer of 1. Because Selwood got straight up (luckily for Goodes) it was the lowest level of impact.

As a contrasting example
- Shaun Burgoyne had the same rating of intent, same contact to head, but was rated as more severe impact because Mitchelle got carried off on a stretcher and was out of the game for 30 minutes. Burgoyne also had points carried over from within the last 12 months after an earlier reprimand, which bumped up his penalty.
- Brett Burton had prior suspensions which bumped up his penalty, taking it up to a potential three games if he contested.
- Beau Waters has prior suspensions which ensured his penalty could not be lessened with an early plea.
- Robert Murphy got Ellis and Ellis went off the ground for treatment, meaning he was classified as a higher level of conduct, because the player he met was out of the game for a quarter or so.

That's the various differences, which should now kick the debate along further.

[JK]

I reckon the level of injury sustained in a collision like that (with Goodes on Selwood) should be irrelevant ... The point remains that there was the potential for injury in what was a thoroughly avoidable clash IMHO, and as preventation is better than cure, there was an opportunity here to act as a further deterrant for players in future, unnecessarily making contact with the head.

Not trying to have a go at the AFL as it seems any system set in place to deal with onfield transgressions will have a "hole" somewhere, but we are getting some pretty confusing adjudications at present imho.

[Drop Bear]

Goodes is a protected species. He always gets off which is a crock of shit! Burgoyne and Burton will be fuming after that ridiculous decision to reprimand him.

[Brad]

Goodes should have at least got a game like 99% of other players would have!

[rod_rooster]

There were several incidents this round that would have attracted more interest from the MRP in previous weeks but given they let Goodes off they were unable to do much about them otherwise it would have been even more obvious than it already is that Goodes is a protected species.

[Dirko]

I reckon the level of injury sustained in a collision like that (with Goodes on Selwood) should be irrelevant ... The point remains that there was the potential for injury in what was a thoroughly avoidable clash IMHO, and as preventation is better than cure, there was an opportunity here to act as a further deterrant for players in future, unnecessarily making contact with the head.

Not trying to have a go at the AFL as it seems any system set in place to deal with onfield transgressions will have a "hole" somewhere, but we are getting some pretty confusing adjudications at present imho.

Correct, IMO, Goodes had one thing in mind...to clean him up with a bump. Had no intention for the ball ala Russell, and it was more luck then anything that he didn't collect him.

rogernumber10, surely the panel could see that he had no intention for the ball, and luck played a part in Selwood not getting cleaned up.
He surely is the teflon man....

[the joker]

I think Shaun Burgoyne and Chocco would be very disapointed bout that outcome

[Hazbeen]

I think Shaun Burgoyne and Chocco would be very disapointed bout that outcome

couldn't agree more, Goodes seems to be a protected species.

[Courtney Fish]

So if you clean up a hard nut and he gets up straight away you are better off than hitting a softc*ck who can't deal with it? Also I heard that the Hawks trainers called for the stretcher for Sam Mitchell prematurely and that once it is on the ground he had to go off on it because that is the rules. Did this effect S. Burgoyne's bump rating?

[jackpot jim]

The whole system is a JOKE. It would be all quite amusing if wasn't F**KING with footballers careers.
I've thought long and hard about the perfect solution to this problem and the answer is that our resident GURU on all things Sport and Gambling - MAL - should be appointed by the AFL as being the sole Arbitrator on all disputes of any nature. I Have never known any person to be so knowlegable and to accuratley assess any individual aspect of Footy, Cricket, Races etc and inevitably he always comes to the RIGHT conclusion.

[GWW]

Goodes' own coach came out and said he deserved at least a week, i think that shows how much of a joke the system is. Time for Adrian Anderson to go, of course Demetriou should have been sacked years ago too!!

[NO-MERCY]

Goodes' own coach came out and said he deserved at least a week, i think that shows how much of a joke the system is. Time for Adrian Anderson to go, of course Demetriou should have been sacked years ago too!!

SPOT ON GWW, the whole systems a joke.
They don't know the meaning of the word CONSISTENCY.

[stan]

I said joking when discussuing the Stewart incident from the Port v Carlton match that Goodes would get off, I was kidding thought he would get at least one week in looking at what has happened in the last few weeks. It wasnt front on and I guess thats where the big weeks lay. Still he went for the head and tried to take it off. Again a lucky man mr goodes.

[Psyber]

Tip for players - weaken the opposition. When you get hit lie there and wait for the stretcher or at least to be helped off.

[stan]

Look im not crazy about the fact that they are trying to remove the bump from football, but christ at least show some consistancy.

[saintal]

Should have been rubbed out given the precedent has been set.

And they just happen to be playing St Kilda this week