Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 106

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

  1. #49
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,075
    Thomas found not guilty by tribunal. This makes the Goodes' suspension so unfair.

  2. #50
    On the Rookie List GongSwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wollongong NSW
    Posts
    1,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    Thomas found not guilty by tribunal. This makes the Goodes' suspension so unfair.
    Makes it look like a targeted attack, is the MRP now anti Sydney or anti Goodes? Hard to see it any other way, Goodes gets a week for no injury, Thomas breaks a guys leg and gets off. Very angry right now
    You can't argue with a sick mind - Joe Walsh

  3. #51
    Leadership Group goswannie14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Belmont, Victoria, Australia, Australia
    Posts
    11,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Beerman View Post
    Actually, Staker was out for at least a week, I think it was two in the end.
    No, Staker played the next week, then was suspended for striking in that game.
    Does God believe in Atheists?

  4. #52
    scott names the planets stellation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    peaches eaten, trousers rolled
    Posts
    9,338
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    Thomas found not guilty by tribunal. This makes the Goodes' suspension so unfair.
    I didn't think he should go, it was a very unfortunate accident- but really there's not a lot of consistency there.
    I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
    We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time

  5. #53
    Veterans List Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    7,006
    The right decision but very inconsistent.
    ..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

  6. #54
    Senior Player Plugger46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Narre Warren, Victoria
    Posts
    3,592
    I don't think either should have been suspended but there was more in the Goodes one. Great decision by the tribunal.

    As for a set against the Swans and Goodes, no I don't think so.
    Bloods

    "Lockett is the best of all time" - Robert Harvey, Darrel Baldock, Nathan Burke, Kevin Bartlett, Bob Skilton

  7. #55
    X-Tremist
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,013
    Ruled that it wasn't rough conduct.

    We should have had a better lawyer last week to argue that.

  8. #56
    On the Rookie List Dogzbody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The CAN
    Posts
    282
    Just posted on AFL.com, Lindsay is free to play http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsartic...5/default.aspx
    "We talked five times. I called him twice, and he called me twice."

    Eddie McGuire

  9. #57
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,075
    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.

  10. #58
    Veterans List DeadlyAkkuret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    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.
    This.

    If I didn't love the Swans so much I wouldn't give this sport the time of day.

  11. #59
    Absolutely ridiculous that this is not a suspension. This idea that leading with feet or legs is not rough conduct misses how the game works now. The sling tackle gets suspensions because of the result. - it is not illegal to a point. Likewise a player can use an elbow to a chest to fend away but if they raise it to the face this is rough conduct. I just think if they were looking at addressing this Thomas was a clear example of why it needs addressing. If rohan dived at the ball and the boot gets him then it must surely have also been rough conduct.

    Alternatively if we are not worried about leading with the feet then move on...

  12. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    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.
    Actually this puts it better than I had. And I agree completely

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