SA Footy

Booney wrote:And you all said we don't care about the SANFL.....

No AFL (players quoting) in the SANFL!

So Port are questioning the validity of the injury report because Curran played on after the hits. Have they not heard of delayed concussion? A precedent has already been set by the SANFL for this. A few years ago Presbury got suspended for a dangerous tackle on a Norwood player and missed the Preliminary final the next week. The Norwood player played out that game as well. Not sure why it should be any different for the Port players.

daysofourlives wrote:Surely Hartlett can be sanctioned over his comments, his club plays in the competition he is bringing into disrepute. I don't see how it would be any different to Sutcliffe or any of the Port players playing in the game saying it.
Give him a game as well.
Houston obviously on the cans, what the hell give him a game as well. Get them out of the comp one by one haha

I have a feeling that this might be one of those times when they are selectively 2 clubs again

daysofourlives wrote:Surely Hartlett can be sanctioned over his comments, his club plays in the competition he is bringing into disrepute. I don't see how it would be any different to Sutcliffe or any of the Port players playing in the game saying it.
Give him a game as well.
Houston obviously on the cans, what the hell give him a game as well. Get them out of the comp one by one haha

The SANFL suspend them from an AFL game?

cennals05 wrote:So Port are questioning the validity of the injury report because Curran played on after the hits. Have they not heard of delayed concussion? A precedent has already been set by the SANFL for this. A few years ago Presbury got suspended for a dangerous tackle on a Norwood player and missed the Preliminary final the next week. The Norwood player played out that game as well. Not sure why it should be any different for the Port players.

Plenty of precedent this year, all the talk of medical report is garbage. Round 13 Frampton got 3 downgraded to 2 (didn't appeal) other round examples Ben Davis 3 to 2, Aidyn Johnson 2 to 1 (didn't appeal), just to name a few where the players they were found guilty of hitting played on. The last round Jydon Neagle from CD got 3 to 2 for a high bump on Ladhams, he played on and played the next week. Frampton and Johnson have been reported for high contact, either they did or didn't. Frampton's other report in the game for striking was to the body and therefore got a fine (lucky he didn't get reported a third time, I think that can mean a send off).

mots02 wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Surely Hartlett can be sanctioned over his comments, his club plays in the competition he is bringing into disrepute. I don't see how it would be any different to Sutcliffe or any of the Port players playing in the game saying it.
Give him a game as well.
Houston obviously on the cans, what the hell give him a game as well. Get them out of the comp one by one haha

I have a feeling that this might be one of those times when they are selectively 2 clubs again

Don’t be stupid!
It’s one club but with 2 sets of rules.

Booney wrote:And you all said we don't care about the SANFL.....

Yes, changed a bit since Mark Williams wouldn't let Westhoff play in a Centrals GF as "there was no value in it". I guess when there's been 1 premiership between two teams in close to forty years (combined) it starts to become more important. They did say as part of their case to be included in the comp they'd attract more media attention.

Booney wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Surely Hartlett can be sanctioned over his comments, his club plays in the competition he is bringing into disrepute. I don't see how it would be any different to Sutcliffe or any of the Port players playing in the game saying it.
Give him a game as well.
Houston obviously on the cans, what the hell give him a game as well. Get them out of the comp one by one haha

The SANFL suspend them from an AFL game?

You do realise that any suspension in any competition carries across to others?

Dogs64 wrote:

cennals05 wrote:So Port are questioning the validity of the injury report because Curran played on after the hits. Have they not heard of delayed concussion? A precedent has already been set by the SANFL for this. A few years ago Presbury got suspended for a dangerous tackle on a Norwood player and missed the Preliminary final the next week. The Norwood player played out that game as well. Not sure why it should be any different for the Port players.

Plenty of precedent this year, all the talk of medical report is garbage. Round 13 Frampton got 3 downgraded to 2 (didn't appeal) other round examples Ben Davis 3 to 2, Aidyn Johnson 2 to 1 (didn't appeal), just to name a few where the players they were found guilty of hitting played on. The last round Jydon Neagle from CD got 3 to 2 for a high bump on Ladhams, he played on and played the next week. Frampton and Johnson have been reported for high contact, either they did or didn't. Frampton's other report in the game for striking was to the body and therefore got a fine (lucky he didn't get reported a third time, I think that can mean a send off).

Didn't get reported once on the day, the Match Review Panel cited him, so no can do there.

I don't expect Johnson to get off and wouldn't have appealed that one.

The Frampton one, worth appealing to play in a GF ( being the reason it's been appealed as opposed to the others you noted above ) and I think they might be successful as it was in play.

mots02 wrote:

Booney wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Surely Hartlett can be sanctioned over his comments, his club plays in the competition he is bringing into disrepute. I don't see how it would be any different to Sutcliffe or any of the Port players playing in the game saying it.
Give him a game as well.
Houston obviously on the cans, what the hell give him a game as well. Get them out of the comp one by one haha

The SANFL suspend them from an AFL game?

You do realise that any suspension in any competition carries across to others?

I do mate, yes.

Booney wrote:

Dogs64 wrote:

cennals05 wrote:So Port are questioning the validity of the injury report because Curran played on after the hits. Have they not heard of delayed concussion? A precedent has already been set by the SANFL for this. A few years ago Presbury got suspended for a dangerous tackle on a Norwood player and missed the Preliminary final the next week. The Norwood player played out that game as well. Not sure why it should be any different for the Port players.

Plenty of precedent this year, all the talk of medical report is garbage. Round 13 Frampton got 3 downgraded to 2 (didn't appeal) other round examples Ben Davis 3 to 2, Aidyn Johnson 2 to 1 (didn't appeal), just to name a few where the players they were found guilty of hitting played on. The last round Jydon Neagle from CD got 3 to 2 for a high bump on Ladhams, he played on and played the next week. Frampton and Johnson have been reported for high contact, either they did or didn't. Frampton's other report in the game for striking was to the body and therefore got a fine (lucky he didn't get reported a third time, I think that can mean a send off).

Didn't get reported once on the day, the Match Review Panel cited him, so no can do there.

I don't expect Johnson to get off and wouldn't have appealed that one.

The Frampton one, worth appealing to play in a GF ( being the reason it's been appealed as opposed to the others you noted above ) and I think they might be successful as it was in play.

Fair enough. I'd expect my club to do everything within reason to try to get players off given it is a GF. More a point to a lot of numpties posting on social media that it's all about whether the player hit plays on or not. Additionally trying to bring the AFL tribunal in to this, perhaps not understanding this is the SANFL.

Dogs64 wrote:

cennals05 wrote:So Port are questioning the validity of the injury report because Curran played on after the hits. Have they not heard of delayed concussion? A precedent has already been set by the SANFL for this. A few years ago Presbury got suspended for a dangerous tackle on a Norwood player and missed the Preliminary final the next week. The Norwood player played out that game as well. Not sure why it should be any different for the Port players.

Plenty of precedent this year, all the talk of medical report is garbage. Round 13 Frampton got 3 downgraded to 2 (didn't appeal) other round examples Ben Davis 3 to 2, Aidyn Johnson 2 to 1 (didn't appeal), just to name a few where the players they were found guilty of hitting played on. The last round Jydon Neagle from CD got 3 to 2 for a high bump on Ladhams, he played on and played the next week. Frampton and Johnson have been reported for high contact, either they did or didn't. Frampton's other report in the game for striking was to the body and therefore got a fine (lucky he didn't get reported a third time, I think that can mean a send off).

Makes the Fogerty ruling even more bizarre then. Grigg pretty lucky to not be eating through a straw for a month.

Frampton really is the poor mans Toby Greene. Both snipers, continually getting reported, but only Toby Greene is AFL standard.

cennals05 wrote:Frampton really is the poor mans Toby Greene. Both snipers, continually getting reported, but only Toby Greene is AFL standard.

Say Hi to James and Chris on your way out.

Booney wrote:

cennals05 wrote:Frampton really is the poor mans Toby Greene. Both snipers, continually getting reported, but only Toby Greene is AFL standard.

Say Hi to James and Chris on your way out.

I’m not one to hang opposition players as I’ve seen sine Glenelg blokes do ordinary things over the years, however Frampton was next level last Sunday.
On top of the two reports, he kneed & elbowed numerous times off the ball on players who weren’t looking.
Sniping, gutless, weak.

Booney wrote:

cennals05 wrote:Frampton really is the poor mans Toby Greene. Both snipers, continually getting reported, but only Toby Greene is AFL standard.

Say Hi to James and Chris on your way out.

Not sure if Chris ever got reported over his 240 plus games (probably did). James was reported at least once in his 240 plus games over 12 years. Frampton and Johnson at least twice so far this year (guilty once so far). The Port Club website only has Frampton as playing 3 games (Johnson 8 ), not sure if they rate games as a reserve.

Booney wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Surely Hartlett can be sanctioned over his comments, his club plays in the competition he is bringing into disrepute. I don't see how it would be any different to Sutcliffe or any of the Port players playing in the game saying it.
Give him a game as well.
Houston obviously on the cans, what the hell give him a game as well. Get them out of the comp one by one haha

The SANFL suspend them from an AFL game?

Seeing as they are part of a club that plays in the SANFL, yes they should be suspended, not for the SANFL to decide where that is, it just comes down to where the next game is that he is eligible to compete in. Rd 1 AFL would probably be before r1 SANFL so yes he would miss an AFL game

Port have engaged some heavy hitters in the legal game for this defence, hope they got paid in advance!

intimidation tactics, pathetic

Johnson appeal failed. Will miss the GF. AS expected.