SA Footy

9.5 Any player suspended by The League for a total of 12 games or more shall have their registration withdrawn.

interesting thing from the league to attack on field violence - needs to be approved at delegates meeting on monday.
needs to be tightened as it can be read as per year or is it over a career?
is the registration withdrawn for that year or the length of the suspension? does it carry over into the next year?

i think its a good move but needs to thought through properly.

Another bulls**t law the SAAFL are trying to sanction, they need to concentrate on why a player would get suspended for 12 or more games and not allow them to register at all, maybe persuade them to take up kick boxing or something?

Oh, its been thought through and its a bloody great idea. The league on this occasion should be applauded for finally being proactive forcing clubs to get rid of these players.

I mentioned in another thread that the de-registration is over a rolling 3 season span as I understand it, so as it stands, anyone suspended for 12 or more games since season 2005 will not be registered this year.

If a club wants to act as a guarantour for a de-registered player I believe they apply to the league or tribunal and the club will pay a "bond" for the player.It will be at the leagues discretion as to the amount for that bond I believe. (please correct me if Im wrong someone, I only glanced over this at the end of last year.)

If this player is then reported (or suspended, not sure which) the club then loses the bond and that player is obviously then de-registered again.

The only negative I see here is clubs attempting to play these de-registerd players under false names..

Salisbury West will be in strife!

Falcon Chick wrote:Oh, its been thought through and its a bloody great idea. The league on this occasion should be applauded for finally being proactive forcing clubs to get rid of these players.

I mentioned in another thread that the de-registration is over a rolling 3 season span as I understand it, so as it stands, anyone suspended for 12 or more games since season 2005 will not be registered this year.

If a club wants to act as a guarantour for a de-registered player I believe they apply to the league or tribunal and the club will pay a "bond" for the player.It will be at the leagues discretion as to the amount for that bond I believe. (please correct me if Im wrong someone, I only glanced over this at the end of last year.)

If this player is then reported (or suspended, not sure which) the club then loses the bond and that player is obviously then de-registered again.

The only negative I see here is clubs attempting to play these de-registerd players under false names..

Great call, and your bond deal is a great idea, maybe the bond if broken can support something else rather than the SAAFL????

BUZZ wrote:Another bulls**t law the SAAFL are trying to sanction, they need to concentrate on why a player would get suspended for 12 or more games and not allow them to register at all, maybe persuade them to take up kick boxing or something?

Your average player wouldn't get 12 games in one go Buzz and that's not what this is about, this is designed to get rid of repeat offenders.

I doubt you'll find many D1 & 2 players amongst this group (although I could think of a couple that would come close and one of them is at my club unfortunately) but I can guarantee you from Div 3 down, I can probably name a few. Yes, this is about having an excuse NOT to register repeat offenders.

IMO, I'd rather them take up kick boxing elsewhere than continue to engage in thuggery on field.

BUZZ wrote:

Falcon Chick wrote:Oh, its been thought through and its a bloody great idea. The league on this occasion should be applauded for finally being proactive forcing clubs to get rid of these players.

I mentioned in another thread that the de-registration is over a rolling 3 season span as I understand it, so as it stands, anyone suspended for 12 or more games since season 2005 will not be registered this year.

If a club wants to act as a guarantour for a de-registered player I believe they apply to the league or tribunal and the club will pay a "bond" for the player.It will be at the leagues discretion as to the amount for that bond I believe. (please correct me if Im wrong someone, I only glanced over this at the end of last year.)

If this player is then reported (or suspended, not sure which) the club then loses the bond and that player is obviously then de-registered again.

The only negative I see here is clubs attempting to play these de-registerd players under false names..

Great call, and your bond deal is a great idea, maybe the bond if broken can support something else rather than the SAAFL????

I wish it were my idea, I just called it a bond.. it's probably more like setting a bail amount really Where is the money going? Dunno... the FC retirement fund sounds good..

As the Mercy said mate, youd get plenty of coin through them.............

Falcon Chick wrote:Oh, its been thought through and its a bloody great idea. The league on this occasion should be applauded for finally being proactive forcing clubs to get rid of these players.

I mentioned in another thread that the de-registration is over a rolling 3 season span as I understand it, so as it stands, anyone suspended for 12 or more games since season 2005 will not be registered this year.

If a club wants to act as a guarantour for a de-registered player I believe they apply to the league or tribunal and the club will pay a "bond" for the player.It will be at the leagues discretion as to the amount for that bond I believe. (please correct me if Im wrong someone, I only glanced over this at the end of last year.)

If this player is then reported (or suspended, not sure which) the club then loses the bond and that player is obviously then de-registered again.

The only negative I see here is clubs attempting to play these de-registerd players under false names..

The bolded bit may have to be in the regulations and I applaud the saafl for going on the front foot with regards to on field violence. It may also stop people from just going the biff if they know something large is hanging over their heads.

I'd also think that the those who do the high suspension things would have their clubs' matches at least visited by saafl officials to make sure the above didn't occur.

NO-MERCY wrote:Salisbury West will be in strife!

EXACTLY! Which I reckon is the reason this whole thing came about really.

Word had it that after our GF, the feral three were told by Fabian Francis that they weren't welcome at the club the following year (keeping in mind that one was suspended for the season, one had 6 weeks to serve ,can't remember what no.3 got).

Mummy is the secretary of the club, so I didn't see how they were going to impose that ban anyway. At least this way, mummy has no say..

Falcon Chick wrote:

NO-MERCY wrote:Salisbury West will be in strife!

EXACTLY! Which I reckon is the reason this whole thing came about really.

Word had it that after our GF, the feral three were told by Fabian Francis that they weren't welcome at the club the following year (keeping in mind that one was suspended for the season, one had 6 weeks to serve ,can't remember what no.3 got).

Mummy is the secretary of the club, so I didn't see how they were going to impose that ban anyway. At least this way, mummy has no say..

Hopefully the league will stick to their guns then, good for the competition as a whole by the sounds..

i like it..good move

What was the outcome of this from the meeting monday night?

All of the new regulations including the "12 games & you're out"' were unanimously accepted.

That will see a few paddling up S""*t Creek, oops, should I have called that river!!

Was it specified as to whether there was a time period with that, ie; a rolling 3 year period or is it just 12 games and you're out? even if its done over 6 years

Falcon Chick wrote:Was it specified as to whether there was a time period with that, ie; a rolling 3 year period or is it just 12 games and you're out? even if its done over 6 years

it's over a career, 12 in one hit or 12 single game suspensions and your done. the wording does not exactly state that but the question was raised at the meeting and the bloke from kenilworth on the rules and regs committee clarified it.

Hehe I know who that bloke would have been aswell.....

BUZZ wrote:Another bulls**t law the SAAFL are trying to sanction, they need to concentrate on why a player would get suspended for 12 or more games and not allow them to register at all, maybe persuade them to take up kick boxing or something?

Fair call Buzz, gotta agree with you there.

have you seen a5 comp this year/happy as a pig in you no what bout the rule
seen some of the sides playing in a5
will need 12 umpires at all games/blacks only ones going for ball and the rest who knows
think will get martial arts training for these gorillas

magical footy wrote:have you seen a5 comp this year/happy as a pig in you no what bout the rule
seen some of the sides playing in a5
will need 12 umpires at all games/blacks only ones going for ball and the rest who knows
think will get martial arts training for these gorillas

Grow up you fool. you are just enhancing the poeples viewpoint of Blackfriars