SA Footy

Just wondering if any body had any info about what was going on with these life bans that were handed out last year. Last I heard it got adjourned in court. Any info/Is this correct?

Bigshow82 wrote:Just wondering if any body had any info about what was going on with these life bans that were handed out last year. Last I heard it got adjourned in court. Any info/Is this correct?

Pretty sure "the real number3" from Parolowie had his appeal quashed by the SANFL and his ban still applies. This info is from a post he wrote a couple of months ago.

Sturtman wrote:

Bigshow82 wrote:Just wondering if any body had any info about what was going on with these life bans that were handed out last year. Last I heard it got adjourned in court. Any info/Is this correct?

Pretty sure "the real number3" from Parolowie had his appeal quashed by the SANFL and his ban still applies. This info is from a post he wrote a couple of months ago.

Was his life ban due to a suspension that made him exceed the 12 match limit?

My understanding is that people are trying to get the life ban not to be back dated.

Bigshow, i received 15 games in 1 hit! Im not gonna go into it again but near on everyone here knows my side of the story.

From what I understand Clubs are trying to push through a rule saying 1st time offenders should not be banned for life. Im not 100% sure if thats still the case though. That was the last I heard about the ruling.

Sounds like an umpire was involved............

Jimmy_041 wrote:Sounds like an umpire was involved............

No umpire. Just an Adelaide Uni player

was the report made by everyones favourite umpire? that bloke is a discrace, blatant cheat, rude to players etc

Jimmy_041 wrote:Sounds like an umpire was involved............

Normally they are in reports!

Actually demon - not in this case!!

I am new here - just went back and checked the posts - no umpire saw a thing

Interesting case though - Lots of emotion and talk of conspiracy

A7R - dont they use club umpires?

Jimmy, this is exactly why they need to make the Tribunal transparent.

They're handing out life bans and no-one has a clue what evidence there was or how convincing the evidence was. I can't even find any rules stating a standard(or even a burden, could be guilty until proven innocent) of proof.

I started this topic to find out some info for a friend who fell under the 12 match guidelines for life suspension. Last time he checked somebody was taking it to court because they did not beleive the league could back date it. But the court hearing got postponed.
My mate got 7 games from an infamous GF (Salisbury West V Payneham NU) and then 2 years later got another 6 whilst playing for SW V Walkerville. The 2nd incident was not even paid as a free kick but as Wlakerville taped the game and was viewed by the judiciary and from that was found guilty. I think he paid the price for playing for SW.

Bigshow82 wrote:I started this topic to find out some info for a friend who fell under the 12 match guidelines for life suspension. Last time he checked somebody was taking it to court because they did not beleive the league could back date it. But the court hearing got postponed.
My mate got 7 games from an infamous GF (Salisbury West V Payneham NU) and then 2 years later got another 6 whilst playing for SW V Walkerville. The 2nd incident was not even paid as a free kick but as Wlakerville taped the game and was viewed by the judiciary and from that was found guilty. I think he paid the price for playing for SW.

I think he paid the price for being a scum bag.

mypaddock wrote:

Bigshow82 wrote:I started this topic to find out some info for a friend who fell under the 12 match guidelines for life suspension. Last time he checked somebody was taking it to court because they did not beleive the league could back date it. But the court hearing got postponed.
My mate got 7 games from an infamous GF (Salisbury West V Payneham NU) and then 2 years later got another 6 whilst playing for SW V Walkerville. The 2nd incident was not even paid as a free kick but as Wlakerville taped the game and was viewed by the judiciary and from that was found guilty. I think he paid the price for playing for SW.

I think he paid the price for being a scum bag.

Mypaddock you must be an absolute tool for calling someone a scum bag when you dont even know the bloke. This guy is a very clean and fair player and because of 2 incidents and the fact he played for SW you think he is a scum bag. Your an idiot.

Jimmy_041 wrote: The 2nd incident was not even paid as a free kick but as Wlakerville taped the game and was viewed by the judiciary and from that was found guilty. I think he paid the price for playing for SW."

or not knowing it was being taped - you are kidding aren't you - caught on tape and got stitched up because he played for SW!!

Who is your new coach?

The new coach at SW is OB.

Bigshow82 wrote:I started this topic to find out some info for a friend who fell under the 12 match guidelines for life suspension. Last time he checked somebody was taking it to court because they did not beleive the league could back date it. But the court hearing got postponed.
My mate got 7 games from an infamous GF (Salisbury West V Payneham NU) and then 2 years later got another 6 whilst playing for SW V Walkerville. The 2nd incident was not even paid as a free kick but as Wlakerville taped the game and was viewed by the judiciary and from that was found guilty. I think he paid the price for playing for SW.

Ok, so we've established you're a mate of a Creek...

If they can pay medals retrospectively, then they can also ban retrospectively... why wait for them to belt a few more blokes?

But we've had this discussion before...

Bigshow82 wrote:

mypaddock wrote:

Bigshow82 wrote:I started this topic to find out some info for a friend who fell under the 12 match guidelines for life suspension. Last time he checked somebody was taking it to court because they did not beleive the league could back date it. But the court hearing got postponed.
My mate got 7 games from an infamous GF (Salisbury West V Payneham NU) and then 2 years later got another 6 whilst playing for SW V Walkerville. The 2nd incident was not even paid as a free kick but as Wlakerville taped the game and was viewed by the judiciary and from that was found guilty. I think he paid the price for playing for SW.

I think he paid the price for being a scum bag.

Mypaddock you must be an absolute tool for calling someone a scum bag when you dont even know the bloke. This guy is a very clean and fair player and because of 2 incidents and the fact he played for SW you think he is a scum bag. Your an idiot.

Bigshow, 2 things;

1) Dont call someone a tool and an idiot for having an opinion.

2) I share his opinion... I was the trainer for PNU at that Grand Final. There were earlier incidents in the year as well where he was lucky enough not to get caught.

Too bad he could actually play a bit of footy except for the fact he was a sniper. He and his brothers made their own rep and ruined the rep of the SWFC.

Clean and fair player You're effin kidding me aren't ya?

Wrong Wrong Wrong. I am not talking about a Creek. The guy I am talking about is paying the price for the rep that they gave SW. My apologies for offending anybody but the Creeks did not cross my mind when I started this topic. Silly me.

with the 12 matchs and get life is that just from the saafl or all together, for eg if you were to hae 6 games from a previous league and come to the saafland get another 6 are you gone and also if you were to be done for 12 in the saafl can you they go play in a country league?