by vics01 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:39 pm
by RFC 2010 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:46 pm
vics01 wrote:RFC
Did you really expect anything different from the kangaroo court called the SFL Tribunal??..
Oops do not mention it in a public forum!! They are unprofessional at the very least, when considering they are playing with income of clubs..
Sadly the management do not want to move forward and improve the board.. Arrogance and ignorance are the key words..
by vics01 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:54 pm
by RFC 2010 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:26 pm
vics01 wrote:Unfortunately there is no procedural fairness at the SFL tribunal.. Am aware of other times video has been offered as evidence and the tribunal has said we have seen it but we ignore it.. Even though it exonerated the alleged offender.. Amateur hour, kangaroo court at it's best. Simple as it sounds if in fact the video footage existed. player is suspended until it is produced.. investigation committee to follow.. I am sure shoe boy has some answers??
by Boof » Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:56 pm
by Oldman Munga » Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:15 pm
RFC 2010 wrote:vics01 wrote:Unfortunately there is no procedural fairness at the SFL tribunal.. Am aware of other times video has been offered as evidence and the tribunal has said we have seen it but we ignore it.. Even though it exonerated the alleged offender.. Amateur hour, kangaroo court at it's best. Simple as it sounds if in fact the video footage existed. player is suspended until it is produced.. investigation committee to follow.. I am sure shoe boy has some answers??
Shoe Boy? Old Man Munga?
by RFC 2010 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 9:01 am
by pantherman » Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:05 am
RFC 2010 wrote:Never called him a dog. Said it was a dog act. Two different things. The fact that he rang the RFC coach after the game shows he's not a bad guy when he's not told what to do and say by the club
by RFC 2010 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:45 am
pantherman wrote:RFC 2010 wrote:Never called him a dog. Said it was a dog act. Two different things. The fact that he rang the RFC coach after the game shows he's not a bad guy when he's not told what to do and say by the club
You seem to know quite a lot about what he was "told to say". It's almost like you were there RFC 2010!
by Wedgie » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:22 am
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Oldman Munga » Thu Sep 08, 2016 2:14 pm
pantherman wrote:RFC 2010 wrote:Never called him a dog. Said it was a dog act. Two different things. The fact that he rang the RFC coach after the game shows he's not a bad guy when he's not told what to do and say by the club
You seem to know quite a lot about what he was "told to say". It's almost like you were there RFC 2010!
by RFC 2010 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 2:25 pm
Oldman Munga wrote:pantherman wrote:RFC 2010 wrote:Never called him a dog. Said it was a dog act. Two different things. The fact that he rang the RFC coach after the game shows he's not a bad guy when he's not told what to do and say by the club
You seem to know quite a lot about what he was "told to say". It's almost like you were there RFC 2010!
#flyonthwall ?
by Look Good In Leather » Thu Sep 08, 2016 3:10 pm
RFC 2010 wrote:pantherman wrote:RFC 2010 wrote:Never called him a dog. Said it was a dog act. Two different things. The fact that he rang the RFC coach after the game shows he's not a bad guy when he's not told what to do and say by the club
You seem to know quite a lot about what he was "told to say". It's almost like you were there RFC 2010!
It's not hard to work out the flow of events. The lad rang Gianni straight after the game and openly felt shite about what had happened. He then turns around and claims at the tribunal that he was not guilty and that hitting Bradwell with an elbow and smashing his jaw was an unintended football collision. I wonder what happened between the phone call and the tribunal hearing? Be a man, admit what you did and take the consequences on the chin (or maybe the jaw)
by RFC 2010 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:29 pm
Look Good In Leather wrote:RFC 2010 wrote:pantherman wrote:RFC 2010 wrote:Never called him a dog. Said it was a dog act. Two different things. The fact that he rang the RFC coach after the game shows he's not a bad guy when he's not told what to do and say by the club
You seem to know quite a lot about what he was "told to say". It's almost like you were there RFC 2010!
It's not hard to work out the flow of events. The lad rang Gianni straight after the game and openly felt shite about what had happened. He then turns around and claims at the tribunal that he was not guilty and that hitting Bradwell with an elbow and smashing his jaw was an unintended football collision. I wonder what happened between the phone call and the tribunal hearing? Be a man, admit what you did and take the consequences on the chin (or maybe the jaw)
There is a lot of hysterical discussion here. I did not see the incident and have heard conflicting accounts so am not going to form an opinion either way.
However, to suggest that Mott contacting Petrucci to check on the health of the injured player is somewhat proof of his guilt is a step way too far.
I assume that the majority here have played enough football to understand it is an aggressive game, and yes you do at times intend to hurt your opponent. I doubt there are many who would deliberately attempt to injure an opponent though. If this incident was intentional, deliberate, reckless, negligent or accidental is not able to be determined by whether the accused holds any sympathy towards the injured player. Few of us gain joy from seeing another player with a serious injury.
All it does is reinforces Noarlunga's claims that he is a decent lad and the incident is either accidental (reckless or negligent) or out of character.
by Look Good In Leather » Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:15 pm
RFC 2010 wrote:Look Good In Leather wrote:RFC 2010 wrote:pantherman wrote:[quote="RFC 2010"]Never called him a dog. Said it was a dog act. Two different things. The fact that he rang the RFC coach after the game shows he's not a bad guy when he's not told what to do and say by the club
You seem to know quite a lot about what he was "told to say". It's almost like you were there RFC 2010!
It's not hard to work out the flow of events. The lad rang Gianni straight after the game and openly felt shite about what had happened. He then turns around and claims at the tribunal that he was not guilty and that hitting Bradwell with an elbow and smashing his jaw was an unintended football collision. I wonder what happened between the phone call and the tribunal hearing? Be a man, admit what you did and take the consequences on the chin (or maybe the jaw)
There is a lot of hysterical discussion here. I did not see the incident and have heard conflicting accounts so am not going to form an opinion either way.
However, to suggest that Mott contacting Petrucci to check on the health of the injured player is somewhat proof of his guilt is a step way too far.
I assume that the majority here have played enough football to understand it is an aggressive game, and yes you do at times intend to hurt your opponent. I doubt there are many who would deliberately attempt to injure an opponent though. If this incident was intentional, deliberate, reckless, negligent or accidental is not able to be determined by whether the accused holds any sympathy towards the injured player. Few of us gain joy from seeing another player with a serious injury.
All it does is reinforces Noarlunga's claims that he is a decent lad and the incident is either accidental (reckless or negligent) or out of character.
by RFC 2010 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:23 pm
by Look Good In Leather » Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:37 pm
RFC 2010 wrote:It doesn't matter if the incident occurred in round one, in the prelim or in any other final. Chris' jaw will take the same amount of time to heal irrespective of when it was broken
by RFC 2010 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:46 pm
by mighty hounds » Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:46 pm
Look Good In Leather wrote:RFC 2010 wrote:It doesn't matter if the incident occurred in round one, in the prelim or in any other final. Chris' jaw will take the same amount of time to heal irrespective of when it was broken
Yes, but 6 games from round 1 is completely different to 2 games from Prelim Final weeks. 6 weeks healing time is also less relevant as Chris is not missing any football. I am not sure how 4 or 5 games next year is going to make Chris heal any quicker, particularly as he will likely be back playing by then. Meanwhile the guilty party has potentially missed a grand final - a far greater penalty.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
by tigerpie » Thu Sep 08, 2016 7:15 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |