SA Footy

As of last nights delegates meeting players who have been rubbed out by the league and looking for reinstatement will be subject to strictest of conditions as well as the club.

Any player reinstated who is reported and found guilty will automatically deregistered and for how games he is rubbed out for his club in all grades will be deducted two premiership per game

Eg: 3 games suspension

A Grade lose 6 premiership points
B Grade lose 6 premiership points
C Grade lose 6 premiership points
D Grade lose 6 premiership points
etc , etc

Three players applied for reinstatement this week and only one was approved.

Heavy penalty for the club to pay if rubbed out again.

Believe the player reinstated also had to pay up front a $2000 surety. Offends again money goes to the league, When the player retires he will be deregistered by the league again and money returned to the player/club.

What happens if the player comes back and plays for a different club.

|Do the same penalties apply

No club in their right mind would let a player actually play for them under these circumstances. Too much of a risk. I think it would be quite an easy club decision to say - sorry mate, go play somewhere else...

Imagine if all 4 sides missed finals because in the last game of the year the player got reported and rubbed out for 2-3 weeks and cost them all premiership points and a chance to win a flag

You would have to have faith in the tribunal system, which many, many don't, and one of the people who sit on it. Much, much, much more on this subject over the next few months both written & verbal

Based on not trusting the system or some of the people who run it, then you would have little choice, but to not allow the player to play, as it could well cost clubs a premiership as S. Demon suggested.

Video reporting using $50 cam corders, ridiculous penalties for guys doing very little, with some having unblemished records and over 200 games, and a whole lot more, make the tribunal a Kangaroo Court in its present format. There seemingly is more of a need to appease sponsors by not losing funding, and appease life members as opposed to giving an honest system and one beyond reproach.

If you have been deregistered 99 times out of 100 you deserved it, and the rules for being let back are applied because you are dangerous.

Only 99 times? Said it before I have never come across a bloke on of off a footy field that has been suspended for 12 games @ once or combined during his career and not deserved it. Amateur level you can get away with a heck of a lot.

Personally if it were me and I un intentially hurt a bloke bad enough to warrant a suspension of that magnitude I would then question myself if I was infact safe to play the sport. Now I'm not saying that if that were the case that I would be a threat to the game or be a bad person. I just wouldn't want to put myself or another person in such a difficult situation again....

Boosh wrote:If you have been deregistered 99 times out of 100 you deserved it, and the rules for being let back are applied because you are dangerous.

Then why be let back in at all? Makes a bit of a mockery of the initial rule in the first place doesn't it?

Get 12 games suspension - we'll kick you out of the league
Appeal - we might let you back in, but stuff up and we'll punish the WHOLE entire club you're playing for!

I really don't understand the logic behind it?

league will be treading a fine line with this one if something does go wrong i expect to see SAAFL in court.....

I love the occasional attitude around here that there are innocent victims going around getting deregistered.

Anyone who gets deregistered deserves it. The League is better off without them. Personally, I'm astonished that the League is even considering letting them back in.

Gatt_Weasel wrote:league will be treading a fine line with this one if something does go wrong i expect to see SAAFL in court.....

I think you'll find that your Supreme Court filing fee well and truly eats up any $2,000 you hope to get back.

Also, the Court would be incredibly reluctant to interfere with a domestic disciplinary tribunal.

jo172 wrote:I love the occasional attitude around here that there are innocent victims going around getting deregistered.

Anyone who gets deregistered deserves it. The League is better off without them. Personally, I'm astonished that the League is even considering letting them back in.

Gatt_Weasel wrote:league will be treading a fine line with this one if something does go wrong i expect to see SAAFL in court.....

I think you'll find that your Supreme Court filing fee well and truly eats up any $2,000 you hope to get back.

Also, the Court would be incredibly reluctant to interfere with a domestic disciplinary tribunal.

some of the players in question have kicked people in the head while on the ground cause eye injuries resulting in surgery king hits resulted in broken jaws etc etc
this is the cream of the crop the knuckle heads of the sport.......personally if im hit or hurt that requires me to miss actual work due to a thug or scum bag reinstated by the league shit im on a one way ticket to court with my lawyer at the end of the day the league by letting them in is providing me with a unsafe environment let them play against these players then and then see if they change attitude towards this

Gatt_Weasel wrote:

jo172 wrote:I love the occasional attitude around here that there are innocent victims going around getting deregistered.

Anyone who gets deregistered deserves it. The League is better off without them. Personally, I'm astonished that the League is even considering letting them back in.

Gatt_Weasel wrote:league will be treading a fine line with this one if something does go wrong i expect to see SAAFL in court.....

I think you'll find that your Supreme Court filing fee well and truly eats up any $2,000 you hope to get back.

Also, the Court would be incredibly reluctant to interfere with a domestic disciplinary tribunal.

some of the players in question have kicked people in the head while on the ground cause eye injuries resulting in surgery king hits resulted in broken jaws etc etc
this is the cream of the crop the knuckle heads of the sport.......personally if im hit or hurt that requires me to miss actual work due to a thug or scum bag reinstated by the league shit im on a one way ticket to court with my lawyer at the end of the day the league by letting them in is providing me with a unsafe environment let them play against these players then and then see if they change attitude towards this

Oh sorry, I interpreted your comment as being the deregistered players challenging the league.

Good point.

some of the players in question have kicked people in the head while on the ground cause eye injuries resulting in surgery king hits resulted in broken jaws etc etc
this is the cream of the crop the knuckle heads of the sport.......personally if im hit or hurt that requires me to miss actual work due to a thug or scum bag reinstated by the league shit im on a one way ticket to court with my lawyer at the end of the day the league by letting them in is providing me with a unsafe environment let them play against these players then and then see if they change attitude towards this[/quote]

Coaches and Captains attended a meeting held by the League earlier this year and one of the issues discussed was king hits and other such behaviour. The League (not sure of the guy's name who was speaking) stated that it will not be tolerated and nor should it be so the idea of players being reinstated is beyond me.

Didn’t Salisbury West have a player reinstated last year only for him to get suspended for about 6 weeks and get deregistered again? Apparently cost the club a lot of money with the security payment.

I dont mind the rule as it makes clubs have a really good think about whether or not the risk of losing premiership points across all grades is worth reinstating a player - even if that player is a gun.

I'm not sure of the exact reason either but when the 12 game rule was first brought in, everyone complained because there was no right of appeal.

So the league listens to the clubsa and now there's a right of appeal and everyone is still whinging.

Footy Chick wrote:I'm not sure of the exact reason either but when the 12 game rule was first brought in, everyone complained because there was no right of appeal.

So the league listens to the clubsa and now there's a right of appeal and everyone is still whinging.

um footy chick people complained because over 2-5 years they were rubbed out for total of 12 games etc the players we are talking about have been rubbed out for 5-10 weeks for one offense then done another offense of equal value to be rubbed out for life

yes people with minor offenses have every right to appeal but the others should not be allowed to appeal full stop

I see - but you can't have one rule for some and one rule for others...

Gatt_Weasel wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:I'm not sure of the exact reason either but when the 12 game rule was first brought in, everyone complained because there was no right of appeal.

So the league listens to the clubsa and now there's a right of appeal and everyone is still whinging.

um footy chick people complained because over 2-5 years they were rubbed out for total of 12 games etc the players we are talking about have been rubbed out for 5-10 weeks for one offense then done another offense of equal value to be rubbed out for life

yes people with minor offenses have every right to appeal but the others should not be allowed to appeal full stop

I think it should be like demerit points. Over a 3-5 year period you get a 12 game allowance. After 3-5 years you start to get your points back. I love the idea of penalising the club though if a player is reinstated and offends again. Makes the clubs take more responsability of who they are putting on the park.

THe thing is, the AFL have a 15 game rule (or it might be 16) and if a player goes over that, they can't play anywhere in Australia, let alone the SAAFL.

I don't even know if there is an appeals process for that.

Footy Chick wrote:I'm not sure of the exact reason either but when the 12 game rule was first brought in, everyone complained because there was no right of appeal.

So the league listens to the clubsa and now there's a right of appeal and everyone is still whinging.

Not everyone FC........

Cohiba wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:I'm not sure of the exact reason either but when the 12 game rule was first brought in, everyone complained because there was no right of appeal.

So the league listens to the clubsa and now there's a right of appeal and everyone is still whinging.

Not everyone FC........

Ok the people from the clubs who had people banned complained then

I didn't know you went to delegates meeting Cohiba

So SMOSH would be happy if one of their players was de-registered and wasn't allowed to have an appeal held?