SA Footy

jo172 wrote:

jo172 wrote:Guys, I've taken off the shot, not because of any potential action but just because it's not the type of shot we want to promote.

Also, had that been a shot of Cox and a raised elbow, others would be jumping up and down whilst others jumped to conclusions. - thx Lisa

Quality shot

Surely when the photo is on the League's Facebook site there are different rules though?

EDIT - I notice it was taken down there as well. Funny oversight in any event

Second EDIT - I think there's substantial hypocrisy in leaving up posts with allegations of violence against specific individuals in the text form but not allowing photographs of violence where there is certainly more "proof" of a violent act having taken place.

The league would never follow up on it in any case, they could only use it as evidence, had the player been reported by an ump in the first instance.

That photo only shows the before and not the after. You can all make up stories as to what went on - but would Zed like to actually confirm the "after" of that photo?

Footy Chick wrote:

jo172 wrote:

jo172 wrote:Guys, I've taken off the shot, not because of any potential action but just because it's not the type of shot we want to promote.

Also, had that been a shot of Cox and a raised elbow, others would be jumping up and down whilst others jumped to conclusions. - thx Lisa

Quality shot

Surely when the photo is on the League's Facebook site there are different rules though?

EDIT - I notice it was taken down there as well. Funny oversight in any event

Second EDIT - I think there's substantial hypocrisy in leaving up posts with allegations of violence against specific individuals in the text form but not allowing photographs of violence where there is certainly more "proof" of a violent act having taken place.

The league would never follow up on it in any case, they could only use it as evidence, had the player been reported by an ump in the first instance.

That photo only shows the before and not the after. You can all make up stories as to what went on - but would Zed like to actually confirm the "after" of that photo?

I'm thinking more that there's nothing to stop me making wildly defamatory accusations about Player X for whatever nefarious purposes I have in mind.

ROOBOY18 wrote:

jo172 wrote:Guys, I've taken off the shot, not because of any potential action but just because it's not the type of shot we want to promote.

Also, had that been a shot of Cox and a raised elbow, others would be jumping up and down whilst others jumped to conclusions. - thx Lisa

Quality shot

I also wonder what would have been said if it was the Elizabeth player throwing a punch

It wasn't - so why even mention it

Give it a rest, the "poor us" mentality shits me.

jo172 wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:

jo172 wrote:

jo172 wrote:Guys, I've taken off the shot, not because of any potential action but just because it's not the type of shot we want to promote.

Also, had that been a shot of Cox and a raised elbow, others would be jumping up and down whilst others jumped to conclusions. - thx Lisa

Quality shot

Surely when the photo is on the League's Facebook site there are different rules though?

EDIT - I notice it was taken down there as well. Funny oversight in any event

Second EDIT - I think there's substantial hypocrisy in leaving up posts with allegations of violence against specific individuals in the text form but not allowing photographs of violence where there is certainly more "proof" of a violent act having taken place.

The league would never follow up on it in any case, they could only use it as evidence, had the player been reported by an ump in the first instance.

That photo only shows the before and not the after. You can all make up stories as to what went on - but would Zed like to actually confirm the "after" of that photo?

I'm thinking more that there's nothing to stop me making wildly defamatory accusations about Player X for whatever nefarious purposes I have in mind.

Yep, that too

i thought the tribunal had new powers this year and a report still can be made by the league using this photo at best its attempted striking

If you saw all 3 pics the SAAFL put up originally, it pretty much tells the story.

Pic 1 - CLG player flexed at the Elizabeth player

Pic 2 - Bit of a wrestle

Pic 3 - Another Elizabeth player comes 3rd man in and piggy backs on the CLG player.

Either send the 3rd man in off, as is the rule, or PLAY ON!!!!!

HH3 wrote:If you saw all 3 pics the SAAFL put up originally, it pretty much tells the story.

Pic 1 - CLG player flexed at the Elizabeth player

Pic 2 - Bit of a wrestle

Pic 3 - Another Elizabeth player comes 3rd man in and piggy backs on the CLG player.

Either send the 3rd man in off, as is the rule, or PLAY ON!!!!!

maybe the 3rd man in was getting ready for the bull riding contest they had at the club that night and it was the perfect time to practice

Footy Chick wrote:

jo172 wrote:

jo172 wrote:Guys, I've taken off the shot, not because of any potential action but just because it's not the type of shot we want to promote.

Also, had that been a shot of Cox and a raised elbow, others would be jumping up and down whilst others jumped to conclusions. - thx Lisa

Quality shot

Surely when the photo is on the League's Facebook site there are different rules though?

EDIT - I notice it was taken down there as well. Funny oversight in any event

Second EDIT - I think there's substantial hypocrisy in leaving up posts with allegations of violence against specific individuals in the text form but not allowing photographs of violence where there is certainly more "proof" of a violent act having taken place.

The league would never follow up on it in any case, they could only use it as evidence, had the player been reported by an ump in the first instance.

That photo only shows the before and not the after. You can all make up stories as to what went on - but would Zed like to actually confirm the "after" of that photo?

there is no "proof"..its one image jo172..both myself and the EFC coach saw nothing untoward from either player..they wrestled on the ground..they got up and made out they were 2 angry bears which was when the image was taken..then they wrestled some more ..then they both played some football..there were NO punches thrown by anyone or they would have been reported as the umpire was monitoring them from 20 metres away for the entire scuffle..storm in a tea cup and not fair on the CLG kid to be smeared..move on..

HH3 wrote:If you saw all 3 pics the SAAFL put up originally, it pretty much tells the story.

Pic 1 - CLG player flexed at the Elizabeth player

Pic 2 - Bit of a wrestle

Pic 3 - Another Elizabeth player comes 3rd man in and piggy backs on the CLG player.

Either send the 3rd man in off, as is the rule, or PLAY ON!!!!!

pretty close to spot on HH3..

zedman wrote:there is no "proof"..its one image jo172..both myself and the EFC coach saw nothing untoward from either player..they wrestled on the ground..they got up and made out they were 2 angry bears which was when the image was taken..then they wrestled some more ..then they both played some football..there were NO punches thrown by anyone or they would have been reported as the umpire was monitoring them from 20 metres away for the entire scuffle..storm in a tea cup and not fair on the CLG kid to be smeared..move on..

I don't disagree.

I'm just pointing out that there's a strange double standard that a potentially ambiguous photo isn't allowed to be posted because people may draw the wrong conclusions but if I were to post about something in a game that may or may not have happened which could be particularly damaging to a player or club's relationship with considerably less proof than an ambiguous photo it would be within the rules.

Anything up before the tribunal or as part of an investigation is not allowed to be discussed - this is my long standing rule and everyone knows this.

So again, not sure what you're crying about.

Footy Chick wrote:Anything up before the tribunal or as part of an investigation is not allowed to be discussed - this is my long standing rule and everyone knows this.

So again, not sure what you're crying about.

That the site allows defamation so long as it's not in photographic form and not regarding an investigation or before the Tribunal. It's silly and potentially places posters, site owners and moderators liable.

Footy Chick wrote:Anything up before the tribunal or as part of an investigation is not allowed to be discussed - this is my long standing rule and everyone knows this.

So again, not sure what you're crying about.

Is it up before the tribunal?

nope it's not up before the tribunal.

Has Elizabeth put in an investigation? No.

I can only moderate what I see - and anyone who's been around long enough knows that I won't stand for anything that could hurt another player/ club.

and yes, I normally also get shitcanned for it but I don't care - however I'm not God and I can't see all - this is why we have a report button. If you think something is defamatory, use it - and then I'll see it.

Stop sooking because I took your bloody photo down and don't see something someone wrote 2 weeks ago that might hurt your feelings.

Robb_Stark wrote:i thought the tribunal had new powers this year and a report still can be made by the league using this photo at best its attempted striking

No it's not. I only see a bloke who could be feigning a punch.

Footy Chick wrote:nope it's not up before the tribunal.

Has Elizabeth put in an investigation? No.

I can only moderate what I see - and anyone who's been around long enough knows that I won't stand for anything that could hurt another player/ club.

and yes, I normally also get shitcanned for it but I don't care - however I'm not God and I can't see all - this is why we have a report button. If you think something is defamatory, use it - and then I'll see it.

Stop sooking because I took your bloody photo down and don't see something someone wrote 2 weeks ago that might hurt your feelings.

Just asking. I have no problem with it being taken down. It looked like a non-event anyway. Happens in nearly every game played.

Footy Chick wrote:nope it's not up before the tribunal.

Has Elizabeth put in an investigation? No.

I can only moderate what I see - and anyone who's been around long enough knows that I won't stand for anything that could hurt another player/ club.

and yes, I normally also get shitcanned for it but I don't care - however I'm not God and I can't see all - this is why we have a report button. If you think something is defamatory, use it - and then I'll see it.

Stop sooking because I took your bloody photo down and don't see something someone wrote 2 weeks ago that might hurt your feelings.

I don't understand why you take any criticism of the policies of the site so personally. Particularly where my criticisms are constructive and for the benefit of the community as a whole.

You've offered no explanation nor defence of the double standards, but merely resorted to personal attacks.

It wasn't my photo, it was posted on the Amateur league facebook site and I found it amusing hence I shared it here. I thought you removing it because it was potentially injurious to persons/clubs/the league's reputation is a fair and reasonable point. I just don't understand for the life of me why this wouldn't extend to the exact same thing happening, only instead of a photo a poster describing the same incident.

I'm not sure what double standards you're referring to - give me proof. I can't offer explanation.

I take it personally because I'm the one who cops crap when I take things down, I'm also the one who cops crap when I don't take things down.

I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't - and don't appreciate being told that I accept defamation in certain circumstances when I don't.

I haven't personally attacked you at all and I'm sorry if you feel that way, I need to realise that some are more sensitive than others.

When you get personally attacked on a weekly basis by haters for years like i do, then complain.

You at no time said me taking down the photo was reasonable until your last post, all you did was personally attack me by accusing me of having double standards.

See where this is going?

so nothing will done about it what happens if he goes the knuckle and hurts someone do we refer back to this photo and say what could of been done ?

people who are willing to go the knuckle or even threatin to do it will do it again if this person is not warned i feel sorry for who he does it to next time

Footy Chick wrote: I take it personally because I'm the one who cops crap when I take things down, I'm also the one who cops crap when I don't take things down.

Footy Chick wrote: the "poor us" mentality shits me.