Goodes a protected species, says Matthews / The Moose to Blame?

[ShockOfHair]

Just as I was wondering about Brisbane as our official "rival", up steps Leigh Matthews.

Goodes is a protected species and as a Swan he gets the "double whammy", says the bald one.


Goodes a protected species: Matthews - Real Footy - Breaking News (http://news.realfooty.com.au/goodes-a-protected-species-matthews/20080404-23p0.html)

[NMWBloods]

Does anyone here really believe that Goodes made no contact to Thomas and it was the contact with the ground that knocked him silly? Imagine the uproar if we were fed that story if the roles were reversed! I think Goodes was as lucky as Hall (against Chris Grant) a few years ago.

[Claret]

I must say some surprising comments from him.

I'm not sure if he is trying to promote the game or to give the Swans more motivation but he's probably done both successfully.

[goswannie14]

Matthews is jealous, he was the greatest thug to play our game. He was the only player to be deregistered because of an on-field incident when he knocked out Neville Bruns behind play.

I once played cricket against Stephen Giles who was knocked out behind play with a cheap shot by Matthews. Gilesy would have loved to have bumped into Leigh in a dark alley to even the score.

Pot Kettle Black.

[Plugger46]

Does anyone here really believe that Goodes made no contact to Thomas and it was the contact with the ground that knocked him silly? Imagine the uproar if we were fed that story if the roles were reversed! I think Goodes was as lucky as Hall (against Chris Grant) a few years ago.

Agree entirely.

Very lucky.

[TheGrimReaper]

Does anyone here really believe that Goodes made no contact to Thomas and it was the contact with the ground that knocked him silly? Imagine the uproar if we were fed that story if the roles were reversed! I think Goodes was as lucky as Hall (against Chris Grant) a few years ago.

Don't you mean Matthew Maguire? :rolleyes:

Oh wait.....you're never wrong. :D

[Plugger46]

Don't you mean Matthew Maguire? :rolleyes:

Oh wait.....you're never wrong. :D

No he doesn't.

Grant went down behind the play after a scuffle with Hall in a game in '06.

[2005]

Cant believe Barney has said that.

Not denying he was one of the best to play the game , and as Ive said Goodsey is lucky not to of been nailed, though he was a dirty sniping little @@@@ especially behind play during most of career.
Lucky he didnt have the scrutiny the players have now , Im sure then Lethal would of hardly played a game !!
:confused:

[liz]

Does anyone here really believe that Goodes made no contact to Thomas and it was the contact with the ground that knocked him silly? Imagine the uproar if we were fed that story if the roles were reversed! I think Goodes was as lucky as Hall (against Chris Grant) a few years ago.

I have no idea whether Goodes made contact with Thomas. He has said himself he doesn't know. Interestingly, either the tribunal didn't think it worth asking Thomas or any of the umpires, or the press didn't think it worth reporting their responses. Maybe none of them knows either.

But the video evidence does not suggest that it was contact from Goodes that "knocked Thomas silly".

If Goodes had made forceful contact sufficient to "knock Thomas silly", one would expect to see Thomas body recoil backwards from the impact. Even just a touch. A smigeon. The video does not show that. It shows Thomas sliding down Goodes' body and continuing to slide, forwards, not backwards.

You can chose to interpret the facts as you see them. But there is no need to express disbelief that some of us see what the tribunal saw - that there is no video evidence that Goodes made contact.

The possibility that he was knocked out by his head hitting the ground is not implausible - given that two of our own players hit their heads hard on the ground (one of them twice) and had to leave the ground.

A question to you - do you think that Matthews is correct, that Goodes is somehow a "protected species". If so, why do you think that might be?

[NMWBloods]

No - I don't think for a moment that Goodes is a "protected species". I just think he was lucky, and if the situation was reversed then this site would be as up in arms as BF has been.

[AnnieH]

Leigh Matthews is @@@@-scared.
He was certain Goodesy would be rubbed out for a week so he wouldn't have to worry about him.
Now that Goodesy beat the tribunal, he should (read: hope) be up and firing this weekend.
Matthews has a problem ... who's he gunna put on Goodesy!
(Or still, how many of his team are available to have a go ... I give him a minimum of four match-ups.)

[undy]

I have no idea whether Goodes made contact with Thomas. He has said himself he doesn't know. Interestingly, either the tribunal didn't think it worth asking Thomas or any of the umpires, or the press didn't think it worth reporting their responses. Maybe none of them knows either.

:

A question to you - do you think that Matthews is correct, that Goodes is somehow a "protected species". If so, why do you think that might be?

No, I think Goodes was treated OK, although I haven't watched the video more than once. At the game I didn't see the contact, I just saw the player on the ground, but it would have taken a big or very skilful hit to lay him out, which just didn't happen on the video. Matthews is just @@@@ stirring IMHO, something that he does from time to time. I'd guess that he is hoping to turn the crowd against Goodsey.

What have we heard from Port about the incident ? SFA as far as I know.

Matthews was reportedly at the game - he would have seen Jack getting concussed and Jack getting concussed.... he's just stirring.

[573v30]

Oh dear, that "protected species" line again... :rolleyes:

[bedford]

No - I don't think for a moment that Goodes is a "protected species". I just think he was lucky, and if the situation was reversed then this site would be as up in arms as BF has been.
i don't know how he was lucky,he didn't do anything but shrug him off,what are we all going soft

[liz]

I think you're probably right about Matthew's motives Undy. It is certainly unusual to hear another coach comment about a tribunal incident once it's been dealt with, other than sometimes to comment on relative penalties.

It's a strange tactic though because it does make him sound "scared". That is not something I'd normally associate with Matthews. I'd expect him to trust which ever opponent(s) he assigns to Goodes to go out there and do the job.

[Triple B]

NMW, the incident itself has been done to death already.

All agree Goodes was lucky, even those like Liz and I who aren't convinced that Goodes made forceful contact and caused Thomas to become dazed are still prepared to admit he was lucky to get off. You obviously think he should have done time, most don't. No problem.

However.......this thread is about Leigh Matthews comments.

Where do you stand?

[Margie]

If Matthews is suggesting with the comment "as a Swan he gets the double whammy" that the Swans are a protected species in umpires' eyes, then it's laughable.

I've looked at the video replay and honestly cannot tell if Goodes made contact with Thomas, which is obviously how the tribunal judged it.

Leigh Matthews is simply planting seeds for the conspiracy theorists to sow.

[NMWBloods]

NMW, the incident itself has been done to death already.

All agree Goodes was lucky, even those like Liz and I who aren't convinced that Goodes made forceful contact and caused Thomas to become dazed are still prepared to admit he was lucky to get off. You obviously think he should have done time, most don't. No problem.

However.......this thread is about Leigh Matthews comments.

Where do you stand?
As I said I don't think Goodes is a "protected species". I actually have no idea what Matthews is on about overall. Probably just building up a bit of interest in the game.

I also don't know what Roos is about saying that Brisbane are as good as they were in 2001-2003. Probably doing the same thing.

[Lucky Knickers]

Coach speak = CRAP

[Triple B]

As I said I don't think Goodes is a "protected species". I actually have no idea what Matthews is on about overall. Probably just building up a bit of interest in the game.

I also don't know what Roos is about saying that Brisbane are as good as they were in 2001-2003. Probably doing the same thing.

Fairy nuff.

[573v30]

It's pretty obvious Matthews gets his info from BigFooty. :D

[reigning premier]

If we're being honest, Goodes was very lucky to get away with it. I t may not have been visible on the footage, but the guy didn't fall over by himself and then require assistance from the ground. Nor did he head butt Goodes in the elbow.

The contact may or may not have been intentional. But either way it was reckless/dangerous and head high which resulted in a player needing assistance. Not good.

I'm happy he's playing, but I'm also thankful that the footage WASN'T available. If it was, I doubt he'd be playing.

[liz]

, but the guy didn't fall over by himself and then require assistance from the ground. .

But the video evidence that does exist suggests very much that he fell over by himself.

Goodes may not may not have made contact but if he did. it wasn't in the right direction to cause him to fall over on its own. Thomas was already falling.

And Kieran Jack required assistance to leave the ground. No-one is suggested he was hit by Goodes.;)

[reigning premier]

But the video evidence that does exist suggests very much that he fell over by himself.

Goodes may not may not have made contact but if he did. it wasn't in the right direction to cause him to fall over on its own. Thomas was already falling.

And Kieran Jack required assistance to leave the ground. No-one is suggested he was hit by Goodes.;)

I fall over regularly... Mainly under the influence of 14 beers but that's another story... But more often than not, I don't need assistance to pick me up and drag me home....

[bedford]

But the video evidence that does exist suggests very much that he fell over by himself.

Goodes may not may not have made contact but if he did. it wasn't in the right direction to cause him to fall over on its own. Thomas was already falling.

And Kieran Jack required assistance to leave the ground. No-one is suggested he was hit by Goodes.;)
Liz,quite right.
what is it going to take for people to realise this,when is this crap going to end.
i don't think a lot of swans fans realise what a champion we have got,even last week he had our 6th best stats,including the equal most 1st poss.and clearences at stoppages,equaled by nogy and only bettered by s.burgoyne.
so lets hope he can help get us another flag

[connolly]

Matthews is jealous, he was the greatest thug to play our game. He was the only player to be deregistered because of an on-field incident when he knocked out Neville Bruns behind play.

I once played cricket against Stephen Giles who was knocked out behind play with a cheap shot by Matthews. Gilesy would have loved to have bumped into Leigh in a dark alley to even the score.

Pot Kettle Black.

Indeed! Probably wished he had a better silk, Convicted crims (and Mathews is the only footballer convicted of a criminal offense on a football field still connected to the game - so why does anyone listen to his zero credibility comments?) are always dirty on the innocent.

[floppinab]

Leigh Matthews is @@@@-scared.


Don't know about that, I think he is trying to get into Goodsey's head a bit more, maybe get him second guessing himself. Wierd though, Goodes might not even see the comment given the team would be well and truely in Brissy by now and probably not reading the media.

[liz]

Don't know about that, I think he is trying to get into Goodsey's head a bit more, maybe get him second guessing himself. Wierd though, Goodes might not even see the comment given the team would be well and truely in Brissy by now and probably not reading the media.

But doesn't that suggest stll that Matthews is - if not scared - not sure he has anyone capable of quelling Goodes if Goodes decides to turn it on?

[Bear]

I definitely agree he was very lucky to get off.

He swung his elbow back when the player was holding on quite low (and slipping down at the same time). If you're going to do this, you're a fair chance at elbowing him high, and although not deliberate, it appeared to be reckless and/or negligent high contact, and thus worthy of a week.

That's my interpretation of the evidence, and I must admit I thought he was gone as soon as I saw it, both live and on the replay.

On the Kieran Jack incident, it happened right below us, and was an unprovoked hit way off the ball. If there was video footage we would be talking weeks.

[ScottH]

I think lethal was taking the piss. He was laughing his head off as he said all of that.

[liz]

I think lethal was taking the piss. He was laughing his head off as he said all of that.

Shows how important context is. I haven't seen the press conference - just read the quotes. Certainly if one imagines him saying them while joking they sound a lot less sour than if you read them in black and white.

[ScottH]

Shows how important context is. I haven't seen the press conference - just read the quotes. Certainly if one imagines him saying them while joking they sound a lot less sour than if you read them in black and white.


Certainly does.

[Margie]

Shows how important context is. I haven't seen the press conference - just read the quotes. Certainly if one imagines him saying them while joking they sound a lot less sour than if you read them in black and white.

Needed a smilie :)

[CureTheSane]

No - I don't think for a moment that Goodes is a "protected species". I just think he was lucky, and if the situation was reversed then this site would be as up in arms as BF has been.

Same.

Where is everyone here who was condemning the AFL a couple of weeks ago for being 'anti Sydney'?

:D

[Reggi]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/sport/afl/story/0,27046,23486054-5016169,00.html

Hmm Lions blaming The Moose for Goodes getting off.

As much as they try to build a rivalry, nothing can make up for the fact they look like Hot water bottles on the field. Maroon is a shocking colour

[anne]

Leigh Mathews has gone too far - if that comment doesn't inspire the Swans I don't know what would!

[goswannie14]

I think you need to read the story again Reggi. It is the reporter, not Brisbane that has alluded to Moose possibly being the reason for Goodes getting off.

The reporter actually raises a good point. In cases like this things not only need to be right, they need to be seen to be right.

[Reggi]

Is there a difference?

[stellation]

There is a pretty big difference when you are saying


Hmm Lions blaming The Moose for Goodes getting off.

Although saying they look like hot water bottles did make me chuckle ;)

[goswannie14]

Is there a difference?You are kidding, right?

They are two different people (Matthews/The Lions and the reporter), and the reporter has admitted he is a Swans fan. Matthews says nothing about Henwood in the article, the reporter does.

[Chow-Chicker]

Considering last year's escapes as well as last week, Goodes was extremely lucky to get off. I've seen far less offences being treated far more harshly by the tribunal than what they have meted out to Goodes in the last couple of years. That's being honest and realistic.

[elroy67]

Steven King kicking Jeff White in the face at a ruck contest surely has to be the benchmark when considering "protected species" status at the tribunal.

And if Lethal considers we get a good run from the umps, then I would hate to see how many free kicks they would pay against us if they were more 'balanced'.

[stellation]

Considering last year's escapes as well as last week, Goodes was extremely lucky to get off. I've seen far less offences being treated far more harshly by the tribunal than what they have meted out to Goodes in the last couple of years. That's being honest and realistic.
That's pretty much how I feel too. This is another occasion of Adam getting off when it was a bit of a line ball decision, when a lot of other guys miss games.

It is just a but too much of a coincidence that a guy, who at times can be a bit of a hot head, was very frustrated and didn't hit another player, when it looked like he did to me but the footage was inconclusive, and it just happened to be that the ground was really, really tough (yet no other injuries as far as I am aware apart from this obscure one?).

I agree with the article that they should have a more dynamic roster so that there are no perceived conflicts of interest.

[liz]

It is just a but too much of a coincidence that a guy, who at times can be a bit of a hot head, was very frustrated and didn't hit another player, when it looked like he did to me but the footage was inconclusive, and it just happened to be that the ground was really, really tough (yet no other injuries as far as I am aware apart from this obscure one?).




Why was he frustrated? The game was barely a few minutes old.

And both Jack (twice) and Mattner came off the ground looking pretty dazed after their heads made solid contact with the ground. Jack didn't come back on the ground after the second time.

And Adam didn't "get off" last year. He pleaded guilty and was given the sentence that applies to all players under the tribunal rules, taking into account his previous lack of any convictions.

[stellation]

That's a good point liz, I completely forgot it was early in the game.

And god forbid a Swans should do something wrong!

[stellation]

Have the curator or the SCG trust been asked to provide a report as to why the ground was so hard and the steps they will take to ensure it doesn't happen again?

[stellation]

And both Jack (twice) and Mattner came off the ground looking pretty dazed after their heads made solid contact with the ground. Jack didn't come back on the ground after the second time.
Did their heads hit the ground in similar circumstances? I honestly can't remember. Wasn't Jack driven into the ground?



And Adam didn't "get off" last year. He pleaded guilty and was given the sentence that applies to all players under the tribunal rules, taking into account his previous lack of any convictions.
Sorry, I should have said that I thought his opportunity to plead lower than 1 week was fortunate.

[liz]

Mattner was certainly driven into the ground, and it was probably his shoulder as much as his head that got hurt.

The first Jack incident I have no idea how it happened. If he was "driven into the ground" it was in an incident well off the ball. It occured shortly after he, Kirk and Moore coralled the Burgoyne brothers to the boundary line. Shaun stepped over with the ball and at that point Kirk was the closest Swan. Jack was someway behind, having done his part moments earlier. The vision doesn't capture how he went down. All you hear is the commentators saying that a Swans player has gone down. Presumably he either tripped over his own feet, or a Port player came in and game him a bump that forced him to ground. Or maybe it was Goodsey.

The second time happened in a multi-player scrimmage around the ball, I think.

The original charge against Adam last year was for a charge. He got it changed to a push. Over the years, the charge of charging has almost gone out of the book because it proved impossible to get a conviction for it. Many a player has been cited for leaping into a contest and making forceful contact with a hip and shoulder into an opponent in a marking contest. And yet the tribunal almost never sustained a charge of charging. Adam made contact with a forearm.

Also, until very recently, the penalties for striking and charging were the same (with other factors being equivalent - ie deemed force and negligent vs reckless etc). That was changed just a year or so ago to penalise more heavily charges such as that described above - ie those with the potential to be dangerous. What Adam did last year was dumb, no doubt, but it wasn't ever going to cause injury to his opponent. Under the previous tribunal penalties, it wouldn't have mattered had Goodes plead to striking or charging - he would have got the penalty he eventually received.

It is still very very rare for someone to even go to the tribunal on a charging charge. They tend to use the "unduly rough play" instead, just because it is interpreted more flexibly. I am pretty sure that players like Ben Johnson - after his head high hit on an opponent last year - were done for rough contact, not charging. I can't recall if anyone has been found guilty of charging in recent years. Certainly I think Goodes would have been very very unfortunate to have been found guilty of charging under the newer interpretation. If they wanted to "get him" with a higher penalty, they should have upped the ante re degree of force or intent.

[connolly]

I fall over regularly... Mainly under the influence of 14 beers but that's another story... But more often than not, I don't need assistance to pick me up and drag me home....

I agree with Liz. The issue was determined on the evidence of which there was nothing that could base a conclusive finding on the balancce of probabilities. Some people here are making a double inference. First inference - Goodes wacks hack, second inference - hack unconscioncious from Goodes wack. Conclusion, therefore that Goodes is guilty. You cant infer a hit that isn't clearly seen in the circumstances of the position of Goodes and his opponent. For Mathews to then make a third inference that we are favoured and that the judiciary are open to influence other than the evidence is an outragous thing for an AFL coach to publicly claim. Wheres Ando when you need him?

[connolly]

Considering last year's escapes as well as last week, Goodes was extremely lucky to get off. I've seen far less offences being treated far more harshly by the tribunal than what they have meted out to Goodes in the last couple of years. That's being honest and realistic.

Mate if ever I accidently elbow my mate in the pub who is falling over behind me and he hits the deck and hits his scone and tragically suffers serious injuries please please don't be on the jury

[NMWBloods]

And both Jack (twice) and Mattner came off the ground looking pretty dazed after their heads made solid contact with the ground. Jack didn't come back on the ground after the second time.Both Jack and Mattner were thrown forcefully to the ground. It's not often you see a guy just trip and fall and knock himself out.

[liz]

Both Jack and Mattner were thrown forcefully to the ground. It's not often you see a guy just trip and fall and knock himself out.


The first time for Jack? If he was thrown forceably to the ground well off the ball (which he was when he went down the first time), at very least it should have been a free to Sydney.

[stellation]

The first time for Jack? If he was thrown forceably to the ground well off the ball (which he was when he went down the first time), at very least it should have been a free to Sydney.
As it should have been a free to the Bulldogs when Chris Grant had sudden stomach cramps at the SCG years ago ;)

[Chow-Chicker]

Mate if ever I accidently elbow my mate in the pub who is falling over behind me and he hits the deck and hits his scone and tragically suffers serious injuries please please don't be on the jury

Ever heard of being "reckless" on a footy field? Take a good hard long look over some incidents that have been suspended over the past few years and get back to me.

How does someone get suspended for "attempted striking"? No contact was made, but a player gets suspended....

[connolly]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/sport/afl/story/0,27046,23486054-5016169,00.html

Hmm Lions blaming The Moose for Goodes getting off.

As much as they try to build a rivalry, nothing can make up for the fact they look like Hot water bottles on the field. Maroon is a shocking colour

Former Swan Wayne Henwood has a faultless reputation and not for a moment am I suggesting any improper conduct on his behalf when Goodes was cleared on Tuesday night.

The Moose would know more about reckless tackling than anyone in the game. Perfected the head high tackle where he used his own head to tackle an opponent.

[connolly]

How does someone get suspended for "attempted striking"? No contact was made, but a player gets suspended....

The same reason people get convicted of attempted murder. Had a shot and missed. Missing isn't the same as innocence.

[NMWBloods]

The first time for Jack? If he was thrown forceably to the ground well off the ball (which he was when he went down the first time), at very least it should have been a free to Sydney.The only one for Jack I recall is that he was thrown down on the half forward flank (when we were going left of screen on TV), it was around the ball but I don't recall if he had it or not, and when he hit the ground his head flung back into the ground.

[goswannie14]

The same reason people get convicted of attempted murder. Had a shot and missed. Missing isn't the same as innocence.You can't be suspended for attempting to strike someone on a footy field. The last time someone was charged with that was about 10 or so years ago when a Geelong player was reported for attempting to strike an opponent. The fact that he actually made contact with his team-mate meant that the charge was thrown out because he didn't make contact.

Attempted striking is completely different to attempted murder.

[connolly]

You can't be suspended for attempting to strike someone on a footy field. The last time someone was charged with that was about 10 or so years ago when a Geelong player was reported for attempting to strike an opponent. The fact that he actually made contact with his team-mate meant that the charge was thrown out because he didn't make contact.

Attempted striking is completely different to attempted murder.

The point I was making was that offences in life and on footy fields depend on intent or negligence or recklessness, which are considered a type of mens rea . But thanks for the info.

[Chow-Chicker]

You can't be suspended for attempting to strike someone on a footy field. The last time someone was charged with that was about 10 or so years ago when a Geelong player was reported for attempting to strike an opponent. The fact that he actually made contact with his team-mate meant that the charge was thrown out because he didn't make contact.

Attempted striking is completely different to attempted murder.

Apologies....attempted tripping. Grover from Freo was done for attempted tripping last year.

[liz]

The only one for Jack I recall is that he was thrown down on the half forward flank (when we were going left of screen on TV), it was around the ball but I don't recall if he had it or not, and when he hit the ground his head flung back into the ground.

And has been pointed out, he went down twice, and came off the ground after each occasion.

If he was "forceably driven into the ground" on the first occasion it should have been a free since he wasn't on the ball. I am not suggesting he was - but pointing out that it is not necessary for someone to be forceably driven into the ground for them to hit their head sufficiently hard on the ground for them to get mild concussion.

The boundary rider reported that he (Jack) was asked by the bench what happened and he said he couldn't remember. So it sounds like he did hit his head reasonably hard.

[NMWBloods]

Probably could have been a free, but I'm not sure why that matters. He hit his head very hard indeed on the one I recall. I noted it during the match in the game thread - it was near the end.

[liz]

It matters because someone has suggested that unless someone had their head forceably pushed into the ground, it is hard to imagine they would be injured sufficiently to force them off the ground. The inference being that Thomas couldn't possibly have hurt his head when he hit the ground and hence he MUST have got a whack from Goodes.

I am merely pointing out that there is at least one other incident of a player being hurt enough to leave the ground after hitting his head on the turf who WASN'T "forceably driven into the ground".

[bedford]

As it should have been a free to the Bulldogs when Chris Grant had sudden stomach cramps at the SCG years ago ;)
do you actually follow the swans?

[NMWBloods]

It matters because someone has suggested that unless someone had their head forceably pushed into the ground, it is hard to imagine they would be injured sufficiently to force them off the ground. The inference being that Thomas couldn't possibly have hurt his head when he hit the ground and hence he MUST have got a whack from Goodes.

I am merely pointing out that there is at least one other incident of a player being hurt enough to leave the ground after hitting his head on the turf who WASN'T "forceably driven into the ground".The Jack one - he was thrown backwards onto the ground and his head flung back into the ground with force. So his head wasn't directly forceably driven into the ground, but it was as a result of the force he was thrown onto the ground.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

do you actually follow the swans?

I think he/she just follows Nick Davis;)

[ScottH]

do you actually follow the swans?

With both his/her eyes.

[liz]

The Jack one - he was thrown backwards onto the ground and his head flung back into the ground with force. So his head wasn't directly forceably driven into the ground, but it was as a result of the force he was thrown onto the ground.


You seem to be reading selectively.

There were TWO separate "Jack incidents", one of which was not captured on TV.

[NMWBloods]

You seem to be reading selectively.

There were TWO separate "Jack incidents", one of which was not captured on TV.
I'm just commenting on the one I saw. I don't know what happened in the other and haven't seen a description of it.

I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that on the other occasion Jack simply fell and was mildly concussed from just hitting his head on the ground?

[liz]

If posts 48 and 61 don't already answer that question, nothing else I can write will.

[NMWBloods]

Okay - I re-read #48 and follow-up posts. I see your point, but given there is no indication of what happened to Jack in that case I can't see it as being indicative of players being knocked out just by falling over.

[ShockOfHair]

So the pitch was at fault, just as Mark Williams predicted. Whodda thought?

I thought it was one of his pre-game sledges, like calling the Cats chokers.

[stellation]

do you actually follow the swans?
I do, why?

[goswannie14]

I do, why?He missed the smilie which indicated you were just having a bit of fun.

[bedford]

He missed the smilie which indicated you were just having a bit of fun.
i don't use them sorry.
i just reckon goodes has been bagged enough.

[Ugly Ducklings]

who really cares? he got off and he's going to tear brisbane apart tonight. again. thats why matthews is saying all of that. he can't match up against goodes. thats it. we've been lucky with the tribunal but it's all within the rules of the new system.
go swans.

[ROK Lobster]

I do, why?You don't even know if you are a man. How the hell do you know who you support?

[stellation]

You don't even know if you are a man. How the hell do you know who you support?
True, if you don't know your sex you don't know the region to support.

[reigning premier]

They just replayed the Mathews interview on Triple M.... He's dead set laughing through the whole thing...... Context is a wonderous thing.....

[ROK Lobster]

They just replayed the Mathews interview on Triple M.... He's dead set laughing through the whole thing...... Context is a wonderous thing.....

It was on the tele too. Thought the same thing RP.

[reigning premier]

It was on the tele too. Thought the same thing RP.

Looks like sour grapes in print.... Looks like he's taking the p^ss in reality!

[CJK]

Brisbane 10 news had tape of Adam arriving at their airport being asked about LMs' comments.

He looked bored. And said nothing.