The differance between Goodes and Mitchell

**JUDO** · 10th June 2008, 06:09 PM

Once again Adam Goodes has been reported for a line ball incident, Found guilty and taken a reprimand.
The system allows it.
He has been called Lucky and branded "untouchable" by the Melbourne Media. Who once again called for consistency from the match revue panel.
In less than a month apart Mike Sheahan has reported these two separate incidents.
1-Sam Mitchell charged with rough play- early plea-good behaviour, end result reprimanded free to play.
2-Adam Goodes charged with rough play- early plea-good behaviour, end result reprimanded free to play.

Goodes has been written up in the Melbourne media as a protected species!

Mitchell has been written up as a selfless hero who put the team before his chance of winning the Brownlow!

If these self indulging jouno's want consistency, then its time to look know further than there own pens!

**TheGrimReaper** · 10th June 2008, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by JUDO

Once again Adam Goodes has been reported for a line ball incident, Found guilty and taken a reprimand.
The system allows it.
He has been called Lucky and branded "untouchable" by the Melbourne Media. Who once again called for consistency from the match revue panel.
In less than a month apart Mike Sheahan has reported these two separate incidents.
1-Sam Mitchell charged with rough play- early plea-good behaviour, end result reprimanded free to play.
2-Adam Goodes charged with rough play- early plea-good behaviour, end result reprimanded free to play.

Goodes has been written up in the Melbourne media as a protected species!

Mitchell has been written up as a selfless hero who put the team before his chance of winning the Brownlow!

If these self indulging jouno's want consistency, then its time to look know further than there own pens!

God, I hate the Melbourne media and bigstupid. Just reading the trash on that site is just plain irritating.

What do they want? A 10 week suspension? I bet that's what Selwood's parents would want. I'm pretty surprised we haven't heard from Selwood's parents to be truthful.

Waaaa, waaaa @@@@ing waaaa is all we ever hear from the Needles supporters. Makes me want to puke.

To all the Swans supporters in Perth, live it up guys, enjoy the win even more!.

Stick it up those cry baby druglord supporters.

***goswannie14*** · 10th June 2008, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by TheGrimReaper

God, I hate the Melbourne media and bigstupid. Just reading the trash on that site is just plain irritating.

Simple answer to your problem....don't read it.

**TheHood** · 10th June 2008, 07:43 PM

An aspect of the decision is being ignored by the naysayers (surprise) is the practicalities of the impact.

Goodes has been lamblasted for not "going for the ball". There is no doubt in my mind that if Goodes had lowered his body and gone for the ball, he would have lowered his body and made dangerous impact with Selwood's head, impact via Goodes sharp shoulder or his head if it were clumsy.

It's a fact of footy that your head and the ball is often in very close prximity. If it was possible to minimise the impact, Goodes did that and his medicine is no Brownlow in 2008.

**giant** · 10th June 2008, 08:03 PM

Selwood fumbles as well which doesn't help - but Goodes makes no attempt to avoid him and he's riding his luck if he's going to keep playing these games. Needs to find the balance between standing his ground and playing the man.

**ScottH** · 10th June 2008, 08:14 PM

I was thinking it looked like a poorly timed bump. If Selwood hadn't of slowed and hit the ground, Goodes would've hit him on the shoulder. But, yes I agree, he needs to clean up his act a bit.

When he is in form as he is ATM, he doesn't need to take those uneccessary risks.

**Triple B** · 10th June 2008, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by goswannie14

Simple answer to your problem....don't read it.

It's like a car crash. Don't wanna look, just can't look away.

**JUDO** · 10th June 2008, 08:55 PM

I think you guys missed my point. For a week Mitctell was made out to be a marter, the same reporters made out that Goodes is a thug for the same offence. The image of Adam Goodes is being tarnished by a few bigot reporters not high hits.

**Big Al** · 10th June 2008, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by JUDO

I think you guys missed my point. For a week Mitctell was made out to be a marter, the same reporters made out that Goodes is a thug for the same offence. The image of Adam Goodes is being tarnished by a few bigot reporters not high hits.

This incident in isolation did not warrant a suspension. The problem is not with this particular incident but the fact he has escaped suspension 3 times. I believe if he'd been rubbed for the Godfrey hit (I still don't know how he got out of that one) there would have been less drama with this incident. Having said that, I agree hat the hysteria from the Melbourne media is hypocritical and over the top.

**chalbilto** · 10th June 2008, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Big Al

I agree hat the hysteria from the Melbourne media is hypocritical and over the top.

Thankfully the match review panel reviewed and adjudicated on the incident without the rabid hysteria from the Melbourne media and supporters. They must be commended on the professional level headed manner that it was assessed.

With regards to "Melbourne media personalities", it appears to me that Derek Humphrey-Smith (and I believe a solicitor to boot, who should know better in workings of legal systems and presumption of guilt) is becoming the "Neil Harvey" of the Melbourne press viz; they contact him for an opinion of condemnation in the similar vein that Neil Harvey was approached regarding cricket matters. If Derek Humphrey-Smith continues in the same manner, then in time, like Neil Harvey he will lose relevance and respectability in his opinions. The informed public with think him a fool who is only good for "dial for an agreeing opinion piece on a slow news day".