SA Footy

Q. wrote:People more often than not deserve a second chance. He's been playing for three years in another league with a clean record, so let him play D1 under a good behaviour bond.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

I understand where you are coming from mate but if you lift it then it sets a precidence. All it takes is just one person on one of these good behaviour bonds to cause harm to another individual and then a potential massive legal shitstorm is opened up!

Since the league has taken a no nonsence approach to reportable conduct the amount of absolute shit that has been cleaned up in the league has been fantastic. When I first started playing senior footy in 2000 as a 15 year old some of the rubbish that used to go on was a disgrace. Tightening up on all incidents no matter how harsh it may seem at times is the best thing the league has ever done.

heater31 wrote:

tigerpie wrote:The punishment no way fits the crime. I'd like to see the lead up!

Didn't this happen in the GF replay? Salisbury North thought they would assert their 'toughness' it didn't work....

This has nothing to do with the hawks asserting their toughness, the major joke is this melee started from a rocs player sling tackling a hawks player and knocking him unconscious and recieving 0 weeks but callums so called massive sling tackle to the rocs player who did the 1st tackle (getting straight back up might i add) and getting 6 games. If one bloke gets 6 why doesnt the other?
Sounds like the league has something against the poor bloke.

Great comment laughingkookaburra.
I go back further to the 70/80's,
these firm penalties have certainly improved our competition,
no question.
Just play the game we love within the rules.

Yep the umpire fails to make a call and the response is to start an all in brawl

Great comment laughingkookaburra.
I go back further to the 70/80's,
these firm penalties have certainly improved our competition,
no question.
Remember a player's career can also be ended with an injury caused by a rash action.
Just play the game we love within the rules.

jo172 wrote:Out of curiosity why didn't he appeal it at the time?

I'm with you on the 15 weeks being a bit tough.

My recollection is that he did appeal it and it was reduced to 13.

So you wouldnt remonstrate with a bloke after hes knocked out one of your best mates?

Im all for umpire protection so 9 games i dont mind but its the 6 for a sling tackle that doesnt hurt someone is absolutely ridiculous.

heater31 wrote:

tigerpie wrote:The punishment no way fits the crime. I'd like to see the lead up!

Didn't this happen in the GF replay? Salisbury North thought they would assert their 'toughness' it didn't work....

Still, a life ban for that, nah!
And didn't the blue start because a ROCS player knocked a SN player out?

Zartan wrote:I think deregistration and life bans are over the top in general - no second chances, no opportunity for rehabilitation etc.. even the criminal justice system has more leniency and empathy.

Ingle Farm had a kid cop 12 games the other year at 21yo, first ever offence, never even sent off prior and one stuff up has stuffed his whole football "life" forever.

By all means hand out hefty suspensions and penalties, but life bans are just stupid.

The player you are talking about would not have got 12 games if he had of turned up and not made our club look stupid and cost us $2500, plus 2 years on sanctions. Very lucky the league left the door open for him to play country football. Made it hard for himself. No sympathy here.

old farmer wrote:

Zartan wrote:I think deregistration and life bans are over the top in general - no second chances, no opportunity for rehabilitation etc.. even the criminal justice system has more leniency and empathy.

Ingle Farm had a kid cop 12 games the other year at 21yo, first ever offence, never even sent off prior and one stuff up has stuffed his whole football "life" forever.

By all means hand out hefty suspensions and penalties, but life bans are just stupid.

The player you are talking about would not have got 12 games if he had of turned up and not made our club look stupid and cost us $2500, plus 2 years on sanctions. Very lucky the league left the door open for him to play country football. Made it hard for himself. No sympathy here.

Please.. this is safooty.. don't let facts get involved in the discussion

Pine Warmer wrote:

heater31 wrote:

tigerpie wrote:The punishment no way fits the crime. I'd like to see the lead up!

Didn't this happen in the GF replay? Salisbury North thought they would assert their 'toughness' it didn't work....

This has nothing to do with the hawks asserting their toughness, the major joke is this melee started from a rocs player sling tackling a hawks player and knocking him unconscious and recieving 0 weeks but callums so called massive sling tackle to the rocs player who did the 1st tackle (getting straight back up might i add) and getting 6 games. If one bloke gets 6 why doesnt the other?
Sounds like the league has something against the poor bloke.

Please!
The sooner SN get over their "the world is against us" mentality the better.

Is there any footage of the entire incident?

Pine Warmer wrote:So you wouldnt remonstrate with a bloke after hes knocked out one of your best mates?

If he was knocked out in play, no, probably not. People get hurt in tackles sometimes, it's footy.

Definitely wouldn't throw someone who wasn't fighting back to the ground with enough force that it could have very seriously hurt him quite a while after the incident. Definitely wouldn't do it whilst there was a minor melee going on. And definitely wouldn't re-enter that melee and push an umpire.

Flying the flag to me means shepherds, support, voice, backing up, blocking out - not faux tough guy WWE wrestling moves.

morell wrote:

Pine Warmer wrote:So you wouldnt remonstrate with a bloke after hes knocked out one of your best mates?

If he was knocked out in play, no, probably not. People get hurt in tackles sometimes, it's footy.

Definitely wouldn't throw someone who wasn't fighting back to the ground with enough force that it could have very seriously hurt him. Definitely wouldn't do it whilst there was a minor melee going on. And definitely wouldn't re-enter that melee and push an umpire.

Flying the flag to me means shepherds, support, voice, backing up, blocking out - not faux tough guy WWE wresting moves.

Also add in, definitely not in a Grand Final. Ultimate time for discipline over faux bravado.

and just quietly...

That Facebook post (now removed) typified the exact sort of bogan, testosterone fueled, neanderthal bullshit that the video ensconced.

There were people calling out women with sexual oriented abuse for having an opinion
There was threats of violence and retribution
There was homophobic slurs
There was libelous accusations directed towards the league

and worst of all most of it was misspelled.

If this Callum bloke wants to get reinstated, posting that was probably the bottom of the list of decisions he could've made to get back in. Clearly, to me anyway, he hasn't learned that his decisions and actions have ramifications.

My suggestion would be - Mitchell Park need a regular B grade Umpire this year, we also need someone to help out with Juniors. Come out and do that for 12 months - rather than whinging on Facebook to your knuckle dragging horde to satisfy your own sense of misplaced disgruntlement.

Watch this with interest.

Zartan wrote:

jo172 wrote:Would you let Adam Rumbleow back in the League?

Surely there's a line somewhere where they're appropriate

Well looking at his age anyway, giving the bloke a really hefty penalty would likely force him into retirement anyway, and then you'd think the footy club would internally deal with the matter as well - so hard to see him playing again.

Also think there is a difference between headbutting an umpire and shoving one like Hay did in the video.

So there are times where you think a life ban is an effective tool, it's just a matter of degree?

What about that young bloke who brought a weapon onto the field a few years back? Does that justify a life ban?

morell wrote:and just quietly...

That Facebook post (now removed) typified the exact sort of bogan, testosterone fueled, neanderthal bullshit that the video ensconced.

There were people calling out women with sexual oriented abuse for having an opinion
There was threats of violence and retribution
There was homophobic slurs
There was libelous accusations directed towards the league

and worst of all most of it was misspelled.

If this Callum bloke wants to get reinstated, posting that was probably the bottom of the list of decisions he could've made to get back in. Clearly, to me anyway, he hasn't learned that his decisions and actions have ramifications.

My suggestion would be - Mitchell Park need a regular B grade Umpire this year, we also need someone to help out with Juniors. Come out and do that for 12 months - rather than whinging on Facebook to your knuckle dragging horde to satisfy your own sense of misplaced disgruntlement.

Your post typifies the judgmental view of so many people that have no idea about Salisbury north.

The umpire contact why completely deserved 9 weeks should not be compared to the Adam rumbleow incident as many have been doing.

He has since played in another league for 3 years with no incident,

Ive played against Salisbury north for the last 5 years and had no issues at all and would have no issue him being allowed to return to play.

Cash 123 wrote:

morell wrote:and just quietly...

That Facebook post (now removed) typified the exact sort of bogan, testosterone fueled, neanderthal bullshit that the video ensconced.

There were people calling out women with sexual oriented abuse for having an opinion
There was threats of violence and retribution
There was homophobic slurs
There was libelous accusations directed towards the league

and worst of all most of it was misspelled.

If this Callum bloke wants to get reinstated, posting that was probably the bottom of the list of decisions he could've made to get back in. Clearly, to me anyway, he hasn't learned that his decisions and actions have ramifications.

My suggestion would be - Mitchell Park need a regular B grade Umpire this year, we also need someone to help out with Juniors. Come out and do that for 12 months - rather than whinging on Facebook to your knuckle dragging horde to satisfy your own sense of misplaced disgruntlement.

Your post typifies the judgmental view of so many people that have no idea about Salisbury north.

The umpire contact why completely deserved 9 weeks should not be compared to the Adam rumbleow incident as many have been doing.

He has since played in another league for 3 years with no incident,

Ive played against Salisbury north for the last 5 years and had no issues at all and would have no issue him being allowed to return to play.

No, I have no idea who any of those people on Facebook were, I'd suggest most of them weren't SN people but were randoms who were attracted to the violence. And mate, I've played for Mitchell Park for 15 years, I've got a fair idea about judging a book by its cover.

And so what, hes played for 3 years without incident. He doesn't get "credit" for that, its the norm. I actually support giving him a second chance - if he does the right thing. That Facebook post indicates to me that he hasn't learned.

A couple of things to note here;

The footage on the FB post didnt show the fact that he bolted all the way from full back, to the wing in front of the grandstand to remonstrate, That's a good 80-100m. if that's not intent, I'm not sure what is.

After some sleuthing, he actually got 4 (not 6) games for "intentionally or carelessly - engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable"

I know it's all hindsight now, however had he not left his appeal so late, He MAY have been a screaming chance. Given that The league has just come off a year where a player punched out an umpire that was spread all over the papers nationally and internationally., What sort of look would it be if at the first opportunity after that alone, if they reinstated a player who was de-registered for pushing an umpire.

Plus, Salisbury North had 2 reports for umpire abuse last year, as well as 4 other reports, whilst being on a AAA -so perhaps it's a blessing in disguise that Callum isn't released (for want of a better word) back to the Hawks. For him and for the club.

Maybe, just maybe, there's concern that the umpires might strike if they let him back in? This is purely hypothetical of course.