Details not known
but clear to play saints.
goodes reprimand only
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
cwrcyn
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4344
- Joined: Fri 15 Sep 2006 10:35am
- Location: earth
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1467 times
-
golden hawk
- Club Player
- Posts: 1136
- Joined: Tue 02 Nov 2004 10:58am
- Location: in the outer
-
Winmarvellous
- Club Player
- Posts: 1691
- Joined: Mon 25 Sep 2006 8:13pm
- Location: WA
-
Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5535
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 63 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
- Contact:
From the AFL site:
He is a very lucky boy in that his whack on Godfrey last season happened on the 1st May 2007 and those points have expired.
I think that this rule has changed prior to the start of the season as Baker was hung out to dry on carry over points.
I totally agree with (and predicted) the assessment.The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points) and totalled 125 demerit points.
However with no existing good or bad record, with an early plea Goodes can reduce that figure by 25 per cent – to 93.75 points – and escape a week’s ban.
He is a very lucky boy in that his whack on Godfrey last season happened on the 1st May 2007 and those points have expired.
I think that this rule has changed prior to the start of the season as Baker was hung out to dry on carry over points.
Didn't he have 70 points carried over from something earlier this year?Life Long Saint wrote:From the AFL site:
I totally agree with (and predicted) the assessment.The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points) and totalled 125 demerit points.
However with no existing good or bad record, with an early plea Goodes can reduce that figure by 25 per cent – to 93.75 points – and escape a week’s ban.
He is a very lucky boy in that his whack on Godfrey last season happened on the 1st May 2007 and those points have expired.
I think that this rule has changed prior to the start of the season as Baker was hung out to dry on carry over points.
2010 has a nice ring to it.
-
johnpeterbudgefanclub
- Club Player
- Posts: 1477
- Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2004 9:16pm
-
chook23
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7394
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:31am
- Has thanked: 12 times
- Been thanked: 156 times
expired 1st may this yearThe Doc wrote:Didn't he have 70 points carried over from something earlier this year?Life Long Saint wrote:From the AFL site:
I totally agree with (and predicted) the assessment.The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points) and totalled 125 demerit points.
However with no existing good or bad record, with an early plea Goodes can reduce that figure by 25 per cent – to 93.75 points – and escape a week’s ban.
He is a very lucky boy in that his whack on Godfrey last season happened on the 1st May 2007 and those points have expired.
I think that this rule has changed prior to the start of the season as Baker was hung out to dry on carry over points.
saint4life
How is it that the points are allowed to expire? That doesn't make sense!chook23 wrote:expired 1st may this yearThe Doc wrote:Didn't he have 70 points carried over from something earlier this year?Life Long Saint wrote:From the AFL site:
I totally agree with (and predicted) the assessment.The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points) and totalled 125 demerit points.
However with no existing good or bad record, with an early plea Goodes can reduce that figure by 25 per cent – to 93.75 points – and escape a week’s ban.
He is a very lucky boy in that his whack on Godfrey last season happened on the 1st May 2007 and those points have expired.
I think that this rule has changed prior to the start of the season as Baker was hung out to dry on carry over points.
I believe players can get reductions for good behaviour/record and extra loadings cos of a bad record, in which case they take into account the last five years worth of history. How can something that he was found guilty for, got points for (yet no suspension, again), not have an effect a little over 12 months later?
Doesn't make sense to me.
2010 has a nice ring to it.
the players code is obviously still happening in this day and age...can be the only way to explain...
* Contact between Essendon's Andrew Welsh and Hawthorn's Sam Mitchell from the second quarter of Saturday's game was investigated. The evidence given by player Mitchell to the panel was that no reportable offence was committed.
Well that unreportable offence left one of the Leagues gutsiest players on all fours for a considerable amount of time, with a number of Hawks plyers running in to fly the flag...faint did he???
the Tribunal...Pffffft a damn joke
* Contact between Essendon's Andrew Welsh and Hawthorn's Sam Mitchell from the second quarter of Saturday's game was investigated. The evidence given by player Mitchell to the panel was that no reportable offence was committed.
Well that unreportable offence left one of the Leagues gutsiest players on all fours for a considerable amount of time, with a number of Hawks plyers running in to fly the flag...faint did he???
the Tribunal...Pffffft a damn joke
THE BUBBLE HAS BURST
2011 player sponsor
-
Saints Premiers 2008
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4335
- Joined: Thu 27 Oct 2005 11:21pm
- Location: Brisbane
it was the correct decision considering the player hit hardly moved however the negligence factor surely would by worth more resulting in a banplugger66 wrote:Correct decision. Now they will probably beat us next week.
what happened to the head being sacrosanct??? i thought goodes hit him in the head???
or is it only sacrosanct when a player gets hurt or isnt the indigenous poster-boy child???
"It's a work in progress," Lyon said.
-
SaintDippa
- Club Player
- Posts: 875
- Joined: Sun 20 Aug 2006 10:28pm
- Location: Mean Streets of Ringwood North
- Has thanked: 187 times
- Been thanked: 116 times
Goodes/Not Goodes dosent matter.
Never mind the intent (see Murphy), one week there is a duty of care not to make contact to the head, this week errrrrr, we'll let one slip.
Like I said, never mind who it is , how about some consistancy AFL.
Also change the rule if one umpire points a free one way then 5 seconds later another ump overrules. Cannot have Sunday happen again.
Never mind the intent (see Murphy), one week there is a duty of care not to make contact to the head, this week errrrrr, we'll let one slip.
Like I said, never mind who it is , how about some consistancy AFL.
Also change the rule if one umpire points a free one way then 5 seconds later another ump overrules. Cannot have Sunday happen again.
-
Little Dozer
- Club Player
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Tue 11 Jul 2006 4:44pm
- Location: Forward Pocket, Outer side, Linton Street end or bay 38 Waverley
-
SaintDippa
- Club Player
- Posts: 875
- Joined: Sun 20 Aug 2006 10:28pm
- Location: Mean Streets of Ringwood North
- Has thanked: 187 times
- Been thanked: 116 times
-
The Saintsational Man
- Club Player
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Mon 09 Jul 2007 12:04pm
-
saintspremiers
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Re the Goodes decision....it was deemed negligent.
The only thing in contention was the intent of the charge by Goodes on the opponent.
Could you argue it was reckless rather than negligent, given Goodes appeared to have no aim to go for the ball?
Yes, it was definitely low impact....does the MRP by default deem all "low impact" charges as "negligent"???
ie. if there is intent with the hit (ie. a "reckless" act), it would have "medium impact"???
Isn't it possible Goodes intentionally (or "recklessly") took out his opponent, but deliberately held back so as not too kill his opponent?
Had the corrupt MRP deemed it reckless, it would've given Goodes a 2 week suspension reduceable to 1 week with an early plea.
This IS the issue guys!!!
Also, re the loadings issue - a player gets a 10% loading if he has a 1 week suspension in the last 5 years.....Goodes had only a reprimand (ie less than 1 week), so no loading.....perhaps an sensible ammendment would be a 5% loading for a reprimand??
So......the MRP go the lenient charge on Goodes, and he's off the hook again!
The only thing in contention was the intent of the charge by Goodes on the opponent.
Could you argue it was reckless rather than negligent, given Goodes appeared to have no aim to go for the ball?
Yes, it was definitely low impact....does the MRP by default deem all "low impact" charges as "negligent"???
ie. if there is intent with the hit (ie. a "reckless" act), it would have "medium impact"???
Isn't it possible Goodes intentionally (or "recklessly") took out his opponent, but deliberately held back so as not too kill his opponent?
Had the corrupt MRP deemed it reckless, it would've given Goodes a 2 week suspension reduceable to 1 week with an early plea.
This IS the issue guys!!!
Also, re the loadings issue - a player gets a 10% loading if he has a 1 week suspension in the last 5 years.....Goodes had only a reprimand (ie less than 1 week), so no loading.....perhaps an sensible ammendment would be a 5% loading for a reprimand??
So......the MRP go the lenient charge on Goodes, and he's off the hook again!
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.