SAAFL division 5 2014

[HH3]

You seen it?

[great catch]

Yep it's official webber to head to Elizabeth big blow for us but would like to wish him all the best great pick up

[OKC!]

You seen it?

Na mate not at all! Which is why i wanna see it!

[The Old Fellow]

OKC "That is 100% king hit. Sometimes it can be out of character for the person to do, but in the end, has to be penalised. Mind you the tribunal system is so laughable, surprised they got this one right in relation to penalty."

The tribunal system needs to be looked at seriously. They are so inconsistant. I wouldn't say they got this one about right as they someone else 6 matches for spitting.

6 for spitting and only one more for a king kit (didn't see it - only going by what I have heard and read). Neither act has any place in any sport.

Other thing I don't understand is how some get a reduced penalty for being a good boy at the tribunal. If two people are found guilty of the same offence in similar situations they should get the same penalty. If one co-operates with the tribunal and one pays up at the tribunal the later should get an extra penalty, not reduce the first's penalty.

[The Old Fellow]

OKC "That is 100% king hit. Sometimes it can be out of character for the person to do, but in the end, has to be penalised. Mind you the tribunal system is so laughable, surprised they got this one right in relation to penalty."

The tribunal system needs to be looked at seriously. They are so inconsistant. I wouldn't say they got this one about right as they someone else 6 matches for spitting.

6 for spitting and only one more for a king kit (didn't see it - only going by what I have heard and read). Neither act has any place in any sport.

Other thing I don't understand is how some get a reduced penalty for being a good boy at the tribunal. If two people are found guilty of the same offence in similar situations they should get the same penalty. If one co-operates with the tribunal and one pays up at the tribunal the later should get an extra penalty, not reduce the first's penalty.

[Boosh]

OKC "That is 100% king hit. Sometimes it can be out of character for the person to do, but in the end, has to be penalised. Mind you the tribunal system is so laughable, surprised they got this one right in relation to penalty."

The tribunal system needs to be looked at seriously. They are so inconsistant. I wouldn't say they got this one about right as they someone else 6 matches for spitting.

6 for spitting and only one more for a king kit (didn't see it - only going by what I have heard and read). Neither act has any place in any sport.

Other thing I don't understand is how some get a reduced penalty for being a good boy at the tribunal. If two people are found guilty of the same offence in similar situations they should get the same penalty. If one co-operates with the tribunal and one pays up at the tribunal the later should get an extra penalty, not reduce the first's penalty.

Cool story bro

[Dogwatcher]

Did you read what he said?

[Boosh]

Did you read what he said?

I did, he hasn't seen the incident so it's a story based on nothing. Lovely story though.

[Dogwatcher]

Read it again, then, as you clearly didn't get his point.
He wasn't buying into the did-he or didn't-he king hit his opponent argument, or the severity of the incident.
He is saying that the tribunal seems to have its penalties out of balance.
According to him, seven games for a king hit, of which the player was found guilty (with supporting video evidence), seems to be a bit light, considering someone who spat received six games, just one less.
He is saying there's a problem with the tribunal's penalty. He's not commenting on the actual incident itself.
Cool story.

Considering the response of some NH posters on here regarding the offence, are you appealing?

[HH3]

Read it again, then, as you clearly didn't get his point.
He wasn't buying into the did-he or didn't-he king hit his opponent argument, or the severity of the incident.
He is saying that the tribunal seems to have its penalties out of balance.
According to him, seven games for a king hit, of which the player was found guilty (with supporting video evidence), seems to be a bit light, considering someone who spat received six games, just one less.
He is saying there's a problem with the tribunal's penalty. He's not commenting on the actual incident itself.
Cool story.

Considering the response of some NH posters on here regarding the offence, are you appealing?

The highlighted part is the bit thats redundant.

How would he know the tribunal thought it was a king hit? And if they didn't give him the penalty that a king hit warranted, maybe it wasn't one. They've seen it.

The tribunal could be spot on for all he knows, because he hasn't seen it.

[Dogwatcher]

Fair point.
But given the fact WOS took the whole thing to the tribunal, as the winning side, it would seem it was a malevolent act and very serious.
It's rare a grand-final winning side makes the effort to take something to a tribunal, which also suggests it was pretty serious.
Given the tribunal deemed a behind the play hit (whether provoked or unprovoked, opponent unaware or not), worth seven games, it would seem a pretty serious offence.
I'm not making a judgement on the incident, nor was Old Fella, more the response to the post by others who felt he was attacking their club/player, rather than expressing concern about the consistency of the tribunal.

[HH3]

So you're saying 7 games means it was a serious offense, but 7 games is not enough for an offense that is serious?

[Boosh]

Fair point.
But given the fact WOS took the whole thing to the tribunal, as the winning side, it would seem it was a malevolent act and very serious.
It's rare a grand-final winning side makes the effort to take something to a tribunal, which also suggests it was pretty serious.
Given the tribunal deemed a behind the play hit (whether provoked or unprovoked, opponent unaware or not), worth seven games, it would seem a pretty serious offence.
I'm not making a judgement on the incident, nor was Old Fella, more the response to the post by others who felt he was attacking their club/player, rather than expressing concern about the consistency of the tribunal.

His whole argument is based on an assumption that it was a king hit something I disagree with and at the very least is up for debate.
Therefore his argument is null and void.

No one from our club is disputing the fact it was brought to the tribunal or the severity of the punishment, so no one is getting offended by remarks about that part.

[Dogwatcher]

No. I'm explaining what OF was trying to get at.
Six games for spitting, which is disgusting but not likely to injure anyone, as compared to seven games for what was regarded as a behind-the-play incident and has much potential for serious injury, seems a little off the mark to him.
He could be wrong - but naysaying his post with "cool story, bro" suggests his post was not understood by the respondent, who merely took a partisan view of what he was trying to say.

[Dogwatcher]

Fair point.
But given the fact WOS took the whole thing to the tribunal, as the winning side, it would seem it was a malevolent act and very serious.
It's rare a grand-final winning side makes the effort to take something to a tribunal, which also suggests it was pretty serious.
Given the tribunal deemed a behind the play hit (whether provoked or unprovoked, opponent unaware or not), worth seven games, it would seem a pretty serious offence.
I'm not making a judgement on the incident, nor was Old Fella, more the response to the post by others who felt he was attacking their club/player, rather than expressing concern about the consistency of the tribunal.

His whole argument is based on an assumption that it was a king hit something I disagree with and at the very least is up for debate.
Therefore his argument is null and void.

No one from our club is disputing the fact it was brought to the tribunal or the severity of the punishment, so no one is getting offended by remarks about that part.

Fine, you're disputing it was a king hit. A behind the play incident is still pretty serious - and my club is no angel on that front, I am aware of that.
Anyway, I'll stop trying to clarify OF's point, as it's getting none of us anywhere.

[Robb_Stark]

is a king hit when they sucker punch from behind and he doesnt see it coming

or can it also be face to face and the player knows a fist is coming his way

[Boosh]

No. I'm explaining what OF was trying to get at.
Six games for spitting, which is disgusting but not likely to injure anyone, as compared to seven games for what was regarded as a behind-the-play incident and has much potential for serious injury, seems a little off the mark to him.
He could be wrong - but naysaying his post with "cool story, bro" suggests his post was not understood by the respondent, who merely took a partisan view of what he was trying to say.

It was acknowledging that is was a nice story, a story based on half truths and his own imagination so it couldn't be considered as legitimate post relevant to anything.

I thought is was positive feedback as I didn't want to stand in the way of any dreams he has of getting into creative writing.