Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 106

Thread: Tribunal news from weekend's game - Thomas and Ted

  1. #25
    Leadership Group goswannie14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Belmont, Victoria, Australia, Australia
    Posts
    11,166
    Quote Originally Posted by GongSwan View Post
    Luke Darcy sees nothing wrong with what Thomas did, but was one of teh one calling for Goodes head. It's official, I don't like him
    That's not what he says here...http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsartic...5/default.aspx
    Does God believe in Atheists?

  2. #26
    I don't think Thomas or Goodes deserve to be suspended, but if Goodes went then so must Thomas. Simple as that.

  3. #27
    Veterans List Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    7,007
    Quote Originally Posted by Melbourne_Blood View Post
    I don't think Thomas or Goodes deserve to be suspended, but if Goodes went then so must Thomas. Simple as that.
    Consistency does demand that even though both decisions will be completely wrong in my view.
    ..And the Swans are the Premiers...The Ultimate Team...The Ultimate Warriors. They have overcome the highly fancied Hawks in brilliant style. Sydney the 2012 Premiers - Gerard Whately ABC

    Here it is Again! - Huddo SEN

  4. #28
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Melbourne_Blood View Post
    I don't think Thomas or Goodes deserve to be suspended, but if Goodes went then so must Thomas. Simple as that.
    +1

  5. #29
    It's Goodes to cheer!! Site Admin ScottH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Master of the house, keeper of the zoo
    Posts
    23,597
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by aardvark View Post
    Ted Richards, Sydney Swans, has been charged with a Level two striking offence against Lindsay Thomas, North Melbourne, during the second quarter of the round Four match between the Sydney Swans and North Melbourne, played at the SCG on Sunday April 22, 2012.

    In summary, due to a five-year good record, he can accept a reprimand and 70.31 points towards his future record with an early plea.

    Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the North Melbourne Football Club, the incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level one offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has an existing five-year good record, which reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 93.75 points towards his future record and a reprimand. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 70.30 demerit points towards his future record and a reprimand.


    Did anyone notice this?
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple B View Post
    Mmmm, I'll have to watch the replay for that. Teddy was down our end for that quarter as well and I certainly can't remember thinking 'Oh, he could go for that'.
    Not sure which qtr, but I think we were going to the right of screen.
    Ted came in a second late and going to punch the ball, and Thomas ducked his head into his fist/arm.
    I believe a free for high contact was made.

  6. #30
    What the frack! cruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Grounded
    Posts
    6,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Al View Post
    We can't whinge about Goodes last week and then demand Thomas be suspended for a similiar incident.

    It's a body contact sport and these things, as tragic as it was, do happen.
    We can argue for consistency though. I only think that Thomas should be suspended because of what happened to Goodes.
    Occupational hazards:
    I don't eat animals since discovering this ability. I used to. But one day the lamb I was eating came through to me and ever since then I haven't been able to eat meat.
    - animal psychic Amanda de Warren

  7. #31
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,315
    Quote Originally Posted by ugg View Post
    Lindsay Thomas didn't receive a free kick during the 2nd quarter so one can only assume it was an off the ball incident with Ted.
    It was in 3rd quarter - video footage on http://www.afl.com.au/ in Match Review Panel segment. Ted was going for the spoil and his other arm swings back and hits Thomas on head. Looks unintentional I think.

  8. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by goswannie14 View Post
    I couldn't be bothered posting in response to the Goodes suspension but at the time my thought was that Goodes needs to stamp this out of his game because he was going to seriously injure someone, sooner or later. He deserved what he got.

    The same applies to this one. Rohan holds his feet as he approaches the ball (because that's what he's taught to do). Thomas decides he is going to slide into the ball, under Rohan and get his body between Rohan and the ball, allowing momentum to turn his body around, gain possession find his feet and run off. Oh, he's a clever one, isn't he?

    If Rohan had dived forward to grab the ball he would have copped a boot to the face (fractured skull / cheekbone risk). If he had done the same as Thomas, gone in feet first, it would have look at lot like the Goodes one from last week. Whoever gets in first cops it and the culprit is whoever arrives second. As it turned out Rohan chose to keep his feet and try to swoop on the ball.

    picture.png

    The outcome was that Thomas foot just happened (unlucky really) to plant straight on to Rohan's ankle just as Rohan pitched forward adding his weight to the joint going in the opposite direction to Thomas'momentum. Snap!

    So, whichever way you look at it, Thomas was highly likely to injure Rohan as soon as he made the decision to slide into the ball feet first. Its a cardinal sin in Soccer and so it should be in AFL. Thomas got off lightly (and so did Goodes, IMHO). Rohan paid the penalty.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    He had observed that people who did lie were, on the whole, more resourceful and ambitious and successful than people who did not lie.

  9. #33
    Fandom of Fabulousness Lucky Knickers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,220
    Blog Entries
    1
    I feel sick watching the footage of Gaz. I don't envy the MRP hearing having to view it a thousand times. AFL360 just showed it 7000 gratuitous times.
    Pandora's box is wide open with the duty of care requirement that is the obligation of the players.
    How do you prove that Thomas had it in this case and Goodes didn't?
    So now we have to keep our feet, be careful not to bend over for the ball so we don't clash heads, not slide in for the ball unless we are doing it head first (even then we shouldn't because if we hurt someone's knee you showed no care for yourself or your opponent).
    A game played at pace and speed by men weight 70kg+ making split second decisions doesn't really lend itself to an injury free environment.

  10. #34
    Leadership Group goswannie14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Belmont, Victoria, Australia, Australia
    Posts
    11,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Legs Akimbo View Post
    I couldn't be bothered posting in response to the Goodes suspension but at the time my thought was that Goodes needs to stamp this out of his game because he was going to seriously injure someone, sooner or later. He deserved what he got.

    The same applies to this one. Rohan holds his feet as he approaches the ball (because that's what he's taught to do). Thomas decides he is going to slide into the ball, under Rohan and get his body between Rohan and the ball, allowing momentum to turn his body around, gain possession find his feet and run off. Oh, he's a clever one, isn't he?

    If Rohan had dived forward to grab the ball he would have copped a boot to the face (fractured skull / cheekbone risk). If he had done the same as Thomas, gone in feet first, it would have look at lot like the Goodes one from last week. Whoever gets in first cops it and the culprit is whoever arrives second. As it turned out Rohan chose to keep his feet and try to swoop on the ball.

    The outcome was that Thomas foot just happened (unlucky really) to plant straight on to Rohan's ankle just as Rohan pitched forward adding his weight to the joint going in the opposite direction to Thomas'momentum. Snap!

    So, whichever way you look at it, Thomas was highly likely to injure Rohan as soon as he made the decision to slide into the ball feet first. Its a cardinal sin in Soccer and so it should be in AFL. Thomas got off lightly (and so did Goodes, IMHO). Rohan paid the penalty.
    I was pondering this when I was out walking tonight. It's interesting that the result of the incident means one guys season is over and another gets a 3 week holiday. Barry Hall punched someone a few years ago, the guy played the next week and Hall got 8 weeks. Something just doesn't seem to add up with that.

    I know it is the action that is judged, not the result, but I just don't like that so much emphasis is put on a punch, but not on a reckless action.
    Last edited by goswannie14; 23rd April 2012 at 10:37 PM.
    Does God believe in Atheists?

  11. #35
    On the Rookie List GongSwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wollongong NSW
    Posts
    1,362
    Quote Originally Posted by goswannie14 View Post
    In the video he says Thomas shouldn't be suspended, if Goodes went, for something that caused no damage, Thomas has to be worse doesn't it?

    To be honest, I'm not certain either should be suspended, but if one goes the otehr must follow. Also I think the MRP is a bad bad joke
    You can't argue with a sick mind - Joe Walsh

  12. #36
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,694
    I think the comparison with the Goodes issue from last week is a bit of a furphy. I can stomach Goodes getting suspended for that if they consistently suspend players who slide from a faiir distance to a contest, even if they think they have a reasonable chance of winning that contest (which I think Goodes could reasonably have had when he started to move to the ball). If we can reduce the risk of avoidable injury by re-educating players, so be it. Better for the odd player to have a week off than for another player to have a broken ankle or a head injury.

    The Thomas one is more akin to the pre-season Goodes incident, IMO, given he collected Rohan with his foot. No, he didn't intend to. He was trying to win the ball. But in very few suspendable incidents is a player trying to injure his opponent. But do we want to discourage players attacking a contest in the way Thomas did? I think we do, given what happened. And lets face it, while Thomas wasn't intending to make contact with his foot on Rohan's ankle, once he did at that speed, the fact that Rohan now has a broken ankle is not just a freak accident. Contact like that is going to result in something breaking far more often than not.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO