SA Footy

What the?

Stunning. I thought he'd be unlucky to get a reprimand.

Hey All,

For those who were curious as to the outcome of Central's skipper Paul Thomas' tribunal hearing, I read with disgust in this mornings Advertiser that he has been banned for 1 game.

I just think, that once again, the incompetent and inconsistent tribunal have proven they do not have a decent system that is fair and consistent to all who front them.

I can understand that the club (Centrals) are very angry with the verdict handed down but as far as I know, there is no appeals system for them to go through. Of course it will sound like I'm just a whinging Dogs fan who is taking offence to one of our players being rubbed out, but in my opinion, the SANFL tribunal have been so inconsistent and out of the touch for the last 10 bloody years. There are numerous examples of incidents in years gone by, and this year for that matter, where players have done worse and gotten away with less, nothing more than a reprimand.

I just think it's a joke that one of the nicest guys in the SANFL, who has a great track record including a Magarey Medal, can get one week for an indiscretion, that as far as I knew, had no video evidence of the actual incident, despite being the ABC broadcast game. Now of course I'm not implying that a guy should be treated leaniently because of a clean past, but surely that is something that has to be taken into consideration. I just think the whole system stinks of poor judgement and shocking inconsistency.

Of course we are playing the Bays and no doubt, losing our co-skipper is a huge blow to our chances of getting a win ion the board, but I'm sure someone will step in to try and fill the void. Speaking of Glenelg, I reckon there will be one Bays player who would be thinking he is a pretty lucky man to have played the last few games based on the comparison of his incident and that of Paul Thomas', considering they both received the same punishment in the end.

Todd Grima, brother of Central's premiership hero Nathan, should surely be pleased that he only got one game for his errant strike against the Panthers in round 1. I found it hard to believe that after ALL the commentators and media experts who were at the game surmised that they were adamant Todd would be out for 3 games, if not more, only to find him missing the 1 game. Then Ben Schwarze fronted the tribunal two weeks in a row, getting off both times with a reprimand only. Now I understand they take each case on it's merits and it was bought to my attention that Shwarze probably didn't need to face at least one of the charges, but ONCE AGAIN, it is the shocking inconsistencies that frustrate us, the supporter, and no doubt, the player(s) in question and of course the club they play for.

I think Kris Grant and the club have every right to be furious about the suspension handed down and although it will be a grain of sand to them, I will be sending an email to the SANFL along the same lines of this post, advising them of my disgust in the way they operate their tribunal system. Let me say, once again, I'm not just coming out to have a suik now just because it was one of our players copping a rough decision, I, and many others no doubt, have felt this way for many a year, this just gives me a good reason to fire up about it and let the SANFL know what I think.

Big Phil...

Did he head butt an opponent?

Being found guilty would imply that he did.

Pushed his opponent with his forehead is a more accurate description of events (i.e. moved his head against the opponent, then pushed).

smac wrote:Being found guilty would imply that he did.

Pushed his opponent with his forehead is a more accurate description of events (i.e. moved his head against the opponent, then pushed).

Exactly Smac,

So the SANFL are saying that doing this is equivilant in terms of punishment to that of charging someone from behind with an errant elbow to the back of your opponents head ???

ABSOLUTE BS I RECKON... !!! ??

I guess there is no point carrying on any more though, there is nothing that can be done now, we just have to cop it on the chin and move forward to the weekend's game.

GO U DOGGIES...

Big Phil...

Boys, I think we've got to take the good with the bad.
We can't celebrate the tribunal for only giving Jim three games, then castigate them for giving Thommo one.

Having said that, I think the two cases above probably illustrate the inconsistency of the judiciary.

Dogwatcher wrote:Boys, I think we've got to take the good with the bad.
We can't celebrate the tribunal for only giving Jim three games, then castigate them for giving Thommo one.

Having said that, I think the two cases above probably illustrate the inconsistency of the judiciary.

Dogwatcher,

I agree with you to a degree, BUT, as I mentioned on here once before, it was actually a FACT that James Gowans punishment was decided APPROPRIATLEY as a 6 week ban. It was then reduced to 3 weeks in light of the Shubert instigation (ie - he whacked him first FOR NO REASON) so therefore, I felt that the punishment fitted that crime accordingly.

Like I mentioned with comparisons of past incidents, there is just WAY TOO MUCH INCONSISTENCY from the SANFL tribunal system to say they are fair and just for each individual players case...

GOD DAMN IT I'M ANNOYED WITH THIS OUTCOME...

Big Phil...

do they allow video evidence if cameras are available????

I can't recall the incident or Thomas getting his number taken

heater31 wrote:do they allow video evidence if cameras are available????

I can't recall the incident or Thomas getting his number taken

As far as I know, I think if it is available, they use it, but in saying that, I don't think any of the cameras actually caught the moment in question so it must have just been based on hearsay and witness statements from the likes of Walker and the umpires who MUST have seen it...

This must be the case, as James Gowans got 3 weeks reduced from his initial 6 game ban from the ugly Grand Final incident BECAUSE there was video footage not previously shown or seen, that highlighted the Shubert whack on James that CAME FIRST...

I didn't see Thommo's incident first hand, but aparently it was NOTHING as bad / intentional as say the Daniel Kerr head butt on Scotty West, it was more described (as above by Scribe) as using his head to push away Kingsley Walker. Sometimes, as an intimidation factor more than anything, you see this happen where guys will "lock horns" or butt heads in a pushing away motion to tell the opposition player he doesn't like him "in his space" !!

Anyway, I'm exhausted from saying how I feel about this, like I mentioned, nothing more can be or will be done about it, we just have to now move on and focus on the game at hand...

GO U DOGGIES...

Big Phil...

There goes my $50 on him for the magarey.

Big phil, you should be used to the poor and baffling decisions handed out at the tribunal. Unless the clubs start complaining for change or consistency it will continue to happen. I think in this case a reprimand should have been the most severe penalty. Still who is suprised after the penalty Gowans got in the GF and the Sporn trial game head high penalty when the contact was intitated by his opponent!

P.S. For you info Kingsley Walker's account of what happened supported Thomas in that it was a light push and not forceful contact so he was trying to help him before you go off "half cocked"* inferring Walker stitched him up.

Dose he get to keep the Bob Quin medal?

Yes.

Seeing as I was in the Flinders for the game and unable to either go to or watch any SANFL on the long weekend I can only go on other people's assessments. I read the club was filthy with the decision and while I trust the club's opinion seeing as they've not put a foot wrong in 10 years IMHO, if Thomas made contact to another player with his head then he put himself in this position. However, if it was just a "push" to get his opponent off him and the contact wasn't to the other player's head then I'm surprised. If Thomas wasn't pushing his opponent off him, or if contact was made to Walker's head then bad luck. A game is the penalty for things like that. Can anyone tell me how it compares to Ciccolella's headbutt in the 2004 GF? We all thought a game was right for that, so if this is similar then the same must apply.

drebin wrote:Big phil, you should be used to the poor and baffling decisions handed out at the tribunal. Unless the clubs start complaining for change or consistency it will continue to happen. I think in this case a reprimand should have been the most severe penalty. Still who is suprised after the penalty Gowans got in the GF and the Sporn trial game head high penalty when the contact was intitated by his opponent!

P.S. For you info Kingsley Walker's account of what happened supported Thomas in that it was a light push and not forceful contact so he was trying to help him before you go off "half cocked"* inferring Walker stitched him up.

Hey Drebin,

You are so right and like I've mentioned before the SANFL does not have the media spotlight and financial backing of the AFL to set up an in depth tribunal system like the big league. I think it should be looked at on a smaller scale and there should be valid means of appeal for clubs to fight against a bad verdict. I just think, along with many other aspects of the SANFL, they seem to do things in a very inconsistent and poor manner.

I don't think there is any short term hope of seeing change, as you pointed out above, unless ALL the clubs kick up a stink about it. I guess there aren't enough "poor judgments" occurring often enough for the clubs to want to fight for change. They are generally putting their efforts into other, more important areas such as off field status with membership, facilities, financial status etc, etc and therefore just cop the decision on the chin and move on.

Oh and by the way, at no stage did I suggest, or even think, that Kinga would have "dobbed" him in or stretched the truth to make it sound worse than what it was. I would like to think that most of the SANFL blokes get on alright off the field when the heat of the battle is over and I'm sure Mr Walker is a top bloke and trust that he was honest to the tribunal as the day is long. In reference to GrahamL's comment, I think that Thommo's incident was nowhere near as bad as Cicca's heat butt in the 2004 GF and didn't he end up not getting reported at all ??? Then the Eagles dingbat had the bloody nerve to cry like a baby clutching his face when he got a slight shove back. All this after headbutting someone (I think it was a Gowans twin) and still getting away with it. In comparison Thommo's decision is bloody ludicrous.

And just on your other point, why do people still HARP ON about the "surprise" in the penalty handed down to James Gowans for his Shubert whack in the GF last year. How many times do I have to remind people that James actually got 6 WEEKS which to me, was was the appropriate punishment fitting the crime. The reason it was bought back to 3 weeks was because there was CLEAR evidence that Shubert was the instigator and the tribunal decided that 3 weeks should be taken off because he was only retaliating back to Shane's initial whack on the noggin'.

Big Phil...

Very disappointing result, but as DW said, we must take the good with the bad. Admittedly though, the action of Alleway in the final quarter was more reckless than the action of Thommo. Not saying that Alleway should have gone up before the tribunal, just stating an opinion of two different incidents.
Cheers

Head Butt...no video..umpire giving evidence........1 week is very fair

redden whites wrote:Head Butt...no video..umpire giving evidence........1 week is very fair

Umpire giving evidence,the useless pricks cant even make the correct decisions on the ground so I`d imagine that things would be very similar off.1 week is very fair,pigs arse. I saw the incident and it was as weak as piss,typical over reaction from that pre madonna Tony Dey.

Jardog wrote:

redden whites wrote:Head Butt...no video..umpire giving evidence........1 week is very fair

Umpire giving evidence,the useless pricks cant even make the correct decisions on the ground so I`d imagine that things would be very similar off.1 week is very fair,pigs arse. I saw the incident and it was as weak as piss,typical over reaction from that pre madonna Tony Dey.

Not sure if Tony Dey was born before Madonna or not Can't argue with you on that one Jardog.