You're a Bunch of Factors

Can anyone else understand why Goodes didn't get suspended after his head high bump against West Coast? Seems VERY similar to Brett Burton and Shaun Burgoyne's bumps where they were suspended for multiple games. What a joke

It's an absolute joke. The head is sacrosanct, and he took his eyes off the ball.

Irrespectively on intention (Burton had no intention of a head high hit), he got him. 1 week.

And given that Goodes has had 2 reports in the last 12 months that he's managed to get off of, the general football community wonder why he can still escape a ban.

Stupid MRP

Bacon wrote:Irrespectively

interesting word there bacon. irrespective of this, goodes did get 1 week, but due to an early guily plea.

even paul roos said that goodes should have got matches for that - at least 2, the same as burton and burgoyne.

there was nothing in it, thats why, he just brushed by him as he was running past

Paul Roos actually said he "should have got a week", which he did. But the early plea, as benny the cunt said, coupled with him having zero points carry over (they only last so long, like demerit points), meant it was downgraded to about 70 points, and he's free to play.

It does, however, rule him out of the Brownlow race.

I haven't see it, but I've heard that people are shocked that he wasn't suspended. As a WCE supporter, I'm all for a lynching at noon.

steve_g wrote:there was nothing in it, thats why, he just brushed by him as he was running past

Burgoyne just brushed past Mitchell too but obviously just got him in the right (or wrong) spot to knock him out. As far as I can see the only real difference between the two was that Mitchell got knocked out by Burgoyne where as the Goodes/Selwood incident didn't end up in an injury. Seems silly that just because the player got injured the penalty is more severe.

stevo wrote:

steve_g wrote:there was nothing in it, thats why, he just brushed by him as he was running past

Burgoyne just brushed past Mitchell too but obviously just got him in the right (or wrong) spot to knock him out. As far as I can see the only real difference between the two was that Mitchell got knocked out by Burgoyne where as the Goodes/Selwood incident didn't end up in an injury. Seems silly that just because the player got injured the penalty is more severe.

That's the one of the main reasons he only got a week initially - his bump was deemed LOW impact, whereas Burgoyne's was deemed HIGH impact.

The fact that it was also ruled as negligent, and not intentional ... that's the point that has me stumped.

Players get a loading for bad history... Goodes took an early plea in Round 5 2007, giving 70.31 carry over points. What happened to them?? They disappeared after 1 year, ok, I'm happy with that.

So, he was found guilty though, so he's got a bad record, so why isn't there the 10% loading??

It's his 3rd report in about 28 games of footy, yet escapes suspension every time.

I saw little difference between Goodes, Murphy & Burgoyne. I heard Waters wasn't much different, but I haven't seen that. 3/4 were suspended.. where's the consistency?

add burton's one into the mix as well bacon - certainly looks like favoritism on the goodes front there.

waters' was a little more straghtforward, from what i remember it was a front on bump - , he probably deserved to get suspended

but burton and burgoyne especially did pretty much the same thing as goodes.

i wonder whether burton would have got off if he had 2 brownlows under the belt and played for sydney where big name players such as hall and goodes are required to bring people through the gates?