by Big Fulla » Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:38 am
by tigerpie » Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:45 pm
by Big Fulla » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:41 pm
by adelaide bank » Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:32 pm
by locky801 » Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:06 pm
Big Fulla wrote:My rant is also on the GSFL thread.
Bottom line for me is the Encounter Bay FC need to take responsibility for this just as much as the kid. He had a pattern of reports and still was allowed to play. Any junior program within any decent club would look at that and intervene, meet with the kid and his parents and get to the bottom of the issue. Not just keep playing him until he does some real damage, to himself, to the GSFL and the Encounter Bay FC.
It's poor management is just as equally poor as the incident itself. If managed properly from the first report incidents like this should be avoided. Poor effort. Easy enough to take pot shots at the kid now, where's the accountability by the club that kept allowing him onto the footy oval in the first place?
by Super Ally » Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:05 pm
by A Mum » Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:08 pm
Seagull wrote:Any news of the outcome of his challenge to the SANFL Commission tonight?
by Old Dog 13 » Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:54 pm
A Mum wrote:Seagull wrote:Any news of the outcome of his challenge to the SANFL Commission tonight?
Been wondering the same thing.
by A Mum » Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:05 pm
by valleys07 » Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:33 pm
by locky801 » Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:06 pm
by wycbloods » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:37 pm
Seagull wrote:locky801 wrote:Umpires in that comp having a meeting to discuss strike action evidently
Story just on 7 news stated that the child in question has come from a troubled background, how many more times do we have to hear this
And not wishing to appear racist,but how many caucasian kids have had troubled backgrounds and would not have got any reduction in the term had it been one of them?
It would almost be open slather now, the precedent has been set.
by locky801 » Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:38 pm
Seagull wrote:wycbloods wrote:Seagull wrote:locky801 wrote:Umpires in that comp having a meeting to discuss strike action evidently
Story just on 7 news stated that the child in question has come from a troubled background, how many more times do we have to hear this
And not wishing to appear racist,but how many caucasian kids have had troubled backgrounds and would not have got any reduction in the term had it been one of them?
It would almost be open slather now, the precedent has been set.
I agree the precedent has been set but we can't sit here and bag people for making a decision you assume to be based on the kids race when we don't know that has been considered or not. I would like to think that they would have come to the same conclusion, not that i agree with it, no matter the race of the person involved.
In the TV report I watched, the first person to speak was an Aboriginal Legal Rights representative with a huge sign behind for all to read.He said it was a great and proper result.
by ORDoubleBlues » Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:19 pm
by A Mum » Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:26 pm
by footy1992 » Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:48 pm
by tigerpie » Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:43 pm
by Shirtfront » Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:06 pm
by CoverKing » Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:14 pm
by Waterboy » Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:37 pm
Shirtfront wrote:I heard the umps have decided to strike. Any confirmation of this. For once, i agree with the Ump's!!!!
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |