SAAFL Div 4 2008

[Felch]

Just to give you an idea Felch I just checked our team on the SAAFL website when we played you guys compared to our team which played PAOC on the weekend and there were 6 Players missing as well as Paradiso. Those six players are all walk up starters too and obviously Paradiso being arguably our best player makes 7 walk up starters that we didn't have on the weekend against the top side!

Yeah, i heard Paradiso is a gun - he didnt play against us. I looked at PAOC's team and they were very close to full strength, maybe a couple to come back. They do have pretty good depth though. We have PAOC in a fortnight, at home, so it will be good to see how things pan out.

[the joker]

i thought you guys had the North Haven v Portland forum to talk 5hit in... i suggest you use it

are you just pissed off you are one of the only people from Fitzroy on here. havent they got computers out there yet

[bucketts]

see college boy byrnes got let off last night at tynte st. inconclusive evidence they said.
the facts: byrnes kicked a behind, ball is dead behind the goals, nhfc player running past him to form zone, king hit by byrnes and dropped on the spot. no report from the 2 field umpires but reported by nhfc goal umpire. nhfc player down for about 3-4 minutes. field umpires tell nhfc that they can not report player because they did not see it, but the club can lodge a complaint. complaint lodged, video evidence submitted to tynte st. the video shows the instant the player was hit, but can not see the punch. inconclusive, no case to answer. FAIR ENOUGH
the other side.
pultney player ends up with broken jaw via contact off the ball (not far from the play as they said) no report from all the umpires, pultney lodge a complaint and 2 letters stating what happen, case to answer. nhfc player says it was not him. tynte st says, dob in who the player was, nhfc players says cant tell you, didnt see the contact, tynte st says someone has to pay, this stuff can not go on , on our footy fields, (fair enough) result 8 weeks suspension. no evidence bar a couple of letters (made up!!)? no reports, suspended 8 weeks.
byrnes case, reported, video showing the instant player was dropped, ball dead behind paoc goals, no games. the difference between the 2 investigations was a broken jaw to the pultney player and no injuries to the nhfc player. (except a sore chin and jaw)
maybe the nhfc player needs to lay assault charges, what would tynte st think of that, if he got locked up like the victorian bloke, after they said he has no case to answer too. it is there responsibility to stop this as they did against the nhfc player, but its a different story when it is a college team.

[amber_fluid]

see college boy byrnes got let off last night at tynte st. inconclusive evidence they said.
the facts: byrnes kicked a behind, ball is dead behind the goals, nhfc player running past him to form zone, king hit by byrnes and dropped on the spot. no report from the 2 field umpires but reported by nhfc goal umpire. nhfc player down for about 3-4 minutes. field umpires tell nhfc that they can not report player because they did not see it, but the club can lodge a complaint. complaint lodged, video evidence submitted to tynte st. the video shows the instant the player was hit, but can not see the punch. inconclusive, no case to answer. FAIR ENOUGH
the other side.
pultney player ends up with broken jaw via contact off the ball (not far from the play as they said) no report from all the umpires, pultney lodge a complaint and 2 letters stating what happen, case to answer. nhfc player says it was not him. tynte st says, dob in who the player was, nhfc players says cant tell you, didnt see the contact, tynte st says someone has to pay, this stuff can not go on , on our footy fields, (fair enough) result 8 weeks suspension. no evidence bar a couple of letters (made up!!)? no reports, suspended 8 weeks.
byrnes case, reported, video showing the instant player was dropped, ball dead behind paoc goals, no games. the difference between the 2 investigations was a broken jaw to the pultney player and no injuries to the nhfc player. (except a sore chin and jaw)
maybe the nhfc player needs to lay assault charges, what would tynte st think of that, if he got locked up like the victorian bloke, after they said he has no case to answer too. it is there responsibility to stop this as they did against the nhfc player, but its a different story when it is a college team.

what a crock of shit the tynte street mob are................if the roles were reversed and a Haven player hit a PAOC player..........Tynte st would have come down hard and given the Haven player plenty................but because Brynes plays for a college side they let it go...............and before all you college people jump up and down............I saw what Brynes did and he should have gone for 5+ weeks.

[Sturtman]

see college boy byrnes got let off last night at tynte st. inconclusive evidence they said.
the facts: byrnes kicked a behind, ball is dead behind the goals, nhfc player running past him to form zone, king hit by byrnes and dropped on the spot. no report from the 2 field umpires but reported by nhfc goal umpire. nhfc player down for about 3-4 minutes. field umpires tell nhfc that they can not report player because they did not see it, but the club can lodge a complaint. complaint lodged, video evidence submitted to tynte st. the video shows the instant the player was hit, but can not see the punch. inconclusive, no case to answer. FAIR ENOUGH
the other side.
pultney player ends up with broken jaw via contact off the ball (not far from the play as they said) no report from all the umpires, pultney lodge a complaint and 2 letters stating what happen, case to answer. nhfc player says it was not him. tynte st says, dob in who the player was, nhfc players says cant tell you, didnt see the contact, tynte st says someone has to pay, this stuff can not go on , on our footy fields, (fair enough) result 8 weeks suspension. no evidence bar a couple of letters (made up!!)? no reports, suspended 8 weeks.
byrnes case, reported, video showing the instant player was dropped, ball dead behind paoc goals, no games. the difference between the 2 investigations was a broken jaw to the pultney player and no injuries to the nhfc player. (except a sore chin and jaw)
maybe the nhfc player needs to lay assault charges, what would tynte st think of that, if he got locked up like the victorian bloke, after they said he has no case to answer too. it is there responsibility to stop this as they did against the nhfc player, but its a different story when it is a college team.

what a crock of s***t the tynte street mob are................if the roles were reversed and a Haven player hit a PAOC player..........Tynte st would have come down hard and given the Haven player plenty................but because Brynes plays for a college side they let it go...............and before all you college people jump up and down............I saw what Brynes did and he should have gone for 5+ weeks.

Has been happening for years boys and will never change.

[Super Coach]

not gettin on the whole tynte st Vs NorthHaven debate but
we have been up 5 times this year and they have got every1 wrong,
* Forrest open hand slap to chest = 2 games (shouldnt have got a yellow card)
* Burridge loose elbow = got 2 games (should have got 4+)
* Hughes late hip & shoulder= 1 game (should have been down ground free kick)
* Rowlands? =8 games (no one seen this happen, shouldnt have had to front)
* Butler kneeing= 2 games (should have got 4+)

3 of these peolple didnt deserve games but between them got 11 games. WOW

now Byrnes punch wasnt huge but with video evidence and goal umpires report
surely he cant walk free!

IMO!

[Roaring Lion!]

Just to give you an idea Felch I just checked our team on the SAAFL website when we played you guys compared to our team which played PAOC on the weekend and there were 6 Players missing as well as Paradiso. Those six players are all walk up starters too and obviously Paradiso being arguably our best player makes 7 walk up starters that we didn't have on the weekend against the top side!

you are going to struggle to beat any team with 7 of your best players out let alone beat PAOC..............especially with Div 4 being so even as well.

Div 4 is really even as a few boys have said with 7 starters out makes it tough but u still gave PAOC a good run & after seeing Pooraka at full flight earlier this year they are best we have seen & the team to beat!
As for the rest of the Top 5 sides which is nearly set now!
PAOC are good & around the mark but i think they can be beaten especially against more physical style sides but they do have great depth through all grades!
North Haven will give any side a good run for their money as they are young, quick & classy but can they stand up in finals im not sure as a few injurys may just test their depth a bit to match it with the Top 2!
Portland are the smokey's with both their A's & B's travelling along nicely & just slipping under the rader a little bit as they are the dark horse in the field & one to watch come the business end of the season so watch out!
Mitcham have got a bit of a fight on their hands to keep 5th spot & seem to be the only side that has really troubled the Bulls this year but i cant see them staying in the finals race long enough to get a crack at them!
As for the rest of the field its a slim chance of finals but more of a greater fight to stay away from relagation with Pultney!

[Felch]

My main concern with the SAAFL investigation process is the precedent they may be setting by using spectator witness statements and accounts to charge a player. Whats stopping a club from 'making-up' a story to get one of their opponents star players suspended ? Not too hard to get a group of witnesses to say they saw something. I dont want to get into whether the players found guilty over the past few weeks have been harshly treated or not, but IMO, its a worrying trend and could open a huge can of worms. I think that unless an actual official (field, goal or boundary umpire, or match-day official) can verify an incident, then no action should be taken. I know of a recent case with a C4 player, who was given a suspension because of spectator witness accounts - the umpires in charge claim to have seen nothing. Now i dont know whether he was guilty or not, but whos to say the story wasnt just invented to get back at a bloke. I know people are going to say 'Dont belt blokes, and it wont be a problem', but maybe guys are not getting belted in the first place - from my experience, unlikely, but still possible.

Its been said on here before, and i know The Big Shrek has mentioned this, but the whole SAAFL tribunal/investigation process needs to be more tranparent. They dont even put them up on the website anymore.

[LMA]

Sturtman hit the nail on the head it's never gonna change. The SAAFL have and always have had a soft stance on college sides and some glamour clubs, unfortunately both amateur clubs I've been involved with have been on the wrong end of SAAFL favouritism and outrageously bias umpiring.

Byrnes getting off, in 3 words - Predictable, Laughable, F***ed

Ah well, I suppose the Luxury Car Tax is punishment enough for the poor bloke

[LMA]

[quote="the joker"][quote="Punk Rooster"]i thought you guys had the North Haven v Portland forum to talk 5hit in... i suggest you use it

There was discussion between PAC v Pooraka a few pages back Punk are you gonna start a new thread for them ?
It's a clear cut case of Weight of Numbers, common sense and knowledge I would of thought.

Lighten Up !

[amber_fluid]

Sturtman hit the nail on the head it's never gonna change. The SAAFL have and always have had a soft stance on college sides and some glamour clubs, unfortunately both amateur clubs I've been involved with have been on the wrong end of SAAFL favouritism and outrageously bias umpiring.

Byrnes getting off, in 3 words - Predictable, Laughable, F***ed

Ah well, I suppose the Luxury Car Tax is punishment enough for the poor bloke

Yeah go easy on the bloke...............the Luxury car tax is a killer.............Pffft as if I'd know!!

[Footy Follower]

My Tips for this week:

Adelaide Lutheran v Pooraka Look for the Bulls to get back on track this week
Fitzroy v Unley 4-6 goals leaving Unley almost certain to be relegated
Portland v CBCOC 6-8 goals
PAOC v Pultney WOW!!!!! Ummm about 30 goals
Mitcham v North Haven 2 goals Game of the round, hoping Mitcham get up for our sake to give us a bit of breathing space, but I think Havens will be too strong in a tight one!

Goodluck to all involved

[Pag]

Its been said on here before, and i know The Big Shrek has mentioned this, but the whole SAAFL tribunal/investigation process needs to be more tranparent. They dont even put them up on the website anymore.

It took me a while to find mate but it is there...

http://www.saafl.asn.au/news/tribunal.php

[Felch]

Its been said on here before, and i know The Big Shrek has mentioned this, but the whole SAAFL tribunal/investigation process needs to be more tranparent. They dont even put them up on the website anymore.

It took me a while to find mate but it is there...

http://www.saafl.asn.au/news/tribunal.php

Sorry mate, i actually meant the investigations. The website never showed the Rowland's outcome, the 2 blokes we had suspended for urinating on a tree or the one in C4 i mentioned.

How many others are happening each week ?

[Pag]

Its been said on here before, and i know The Big Shrek has mentioned this, but the whole SAAFL tribunal/investigation process needs to be more tranparent. They dont even put them up on the website anymore.

It took me a while to find mate but it is there...

http://www.saafl.asn.au/news/tribunal.php

Sorry mate, i actually meant the investigations. The website never showed the Rowland's outcome, the 2 blokes we had suspended for urinating on a tree or the one in C4 i mentioned.

How many others are happening each week ?

Ah, with ya now.

[Super Coach]

Adelaide Lutheran v Pooraka 700 points
Fitzroy v Unley 321 points
Portland v CBCOC 9 points
PAOC v Pultney 4 points
Mitcham v North Haven drawn series

Good luck

[Q.]

Its been said on here before, and i know The Big Shrek has mentioned this, but the whole SAAFL tribunal/investigation process needs to be more tranparent. They dont even put them up on the website anymore.

It took me a while to find mate but it is there...

http://www.saafl.asn.au/news/tribunal.php

Sorry mate, i actually meant the investigations. The website never showed the Rowland's outcome, the 2 blokes we had suspended for urinating on a tree or the one in C4 i mentioned.

How many others are happening each week ?

Two more investigations were held on Tuesday.

Investigations and their outcomes are best kept on the downlow so we are not aware of the double standards and bias that eventuate.

[malleebull]

the bulls should have a few back this weekend. should get back on track!!!

[Roaring Lion!]

Adelaide Lutheran v POORAKA by 30pts Bulls easy but can the Dogs stay in touch with the Top5?
FITZROY v Unley by 18pts result can still put either team in relagation zone but GO U LIONS!
PORTLAND v Cbcoc by 6pts hard to beat Thunder at home is a tuff ask & they will end the Dolphins finals hopes!
PAOC v Pultney by 60+ pts as the Reds will send the Blues down to Div5 next year & they think Div4 is dirty LOL!
Mitcham v NORTH HAVEN by 1pt as Footy Follower said Game of the Round, Eagles need to cement that Top5 possie but Magpies for me just!

Good Luck Boys!

[Iron Fist]

my tips for this week:
adelaide lutheran v Pooraka, 7 goals
Fitzroy v Unley, both teams with alot to play for!
Portland v CBCOC, portland to bounce back after there loss to havens!!
PAOC v pultney, dunno whether pultney should bother rocking up?
mitcham v north haven, will be close, haven to just get up though