Drugs, umps and other ammo's news

[Footy Chick]

pretty much the same thing, not towards umps that I can recall but there were several previous discepencies and then there one incident saw them not allowed to play footy. My memory is scratchy at best so if someone can fill in the blanks that'd be great.

I think it may have been an U18's game which was the straw that broke the camels back in this case that comes to mind here and I think the ban might have been for a couple of weeks - the way it's been blown out by the media in this instance though, is that it's happened at the end of the season and not part way through. " The rest of the season" is only 3 games FFS. If this happened in round 3 and they got banned for 3 weeks we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.

PS: If someone from Smiffies can recall the actual turn of events, this would probably be better in terms of comparison rather than relying on my goldfish brain

[The Bedge]

My recollection of the Smithfield situation - and I may be well off.. But there was an U18 incident (Coach sacked, team pulled from comp), then they had an incident in a night game and a couple of on field questionable incidents.. Then I think if memory serves, they played Flinders Pk who lodged a complaint after the game (video footage provided perhaps), and the league decided enough was enough..

[Dangeroos]

Has been interesting to read people's 'recollections' of the Smithfield club ban in 2013, most of it correct, some utter rubbish. People who are interested in the whole subject regarding rosewater, smithfield etc should check out the 'Smithfield club banned' thread if it's still available.
Overall, Smithfield had some incidents and issues that needed to be addressed, fair enough. It's forced them to better manage, supervise and hopefully prevent any future problems. However I don't think any club can guarantee any individuals behavior all the time. Football clubs are made up of the whole range of different types of people from within local communities, they are a reflection of what's good and bad. What must be remembered, sporting clubs play a vital role in their local area. Some will have to deal with issues that other clubs will never have to.
Yes, clubs need to operate to a certain standard and be accountable. But sport should be inclusive, not exclusive.

[BigB]

You don't need to look at the papers too often to understand we need to send a message to young men that violent and other generally antisocial behaviour is not acceptable. The League is simply reflecting community expectations. Clubs are part of our community and should by now understand they are not immune to consequences of actions at odds with those expectations. It must be hard for the guys who just want a game of footy, but they then need to be exemplars of acceptible behavious to their peers and have the word with those who might be less inclined.

[thejuddernaught]

I have decided I'm against the banning of Rosewater.

Not many people have mentioned that this decision is punishing 60 odd entirely innocent players and officials.

The justification for punishing innocent people seems to be either based on some notion that they have a collective responsibility for the actions of other players, or that the end(protecting umpires) justifies the means.

Sometimes bad things happen. You can't prevent everything. How Rosewater could have reasonably foreseen this or prevented it is beyond me. How far is the concept of collective responsibility to go? Should we sack the CEO of the league for not preventing it?

Given how rarely umpires are assaulted is the club ban going to deter others anymore than the 20 year individual ban? We must remember that the vast majority of people wouldn't assault umpires anyway. They don't need a deterrent to prevent them assaulting them. Is a club ban going to deter the very small subset of people who would contemplate hitting an umpire. Are they thinking rationally at the time of hitting an umpire such that a deterrent might work or have they lost the plot?

My concern is that punishing the entire club does not achieve anything in this instance. It won't protect umpires any more than punishing the individual. I am concerned that the penalty was driven by the desire to appear tough rather than to actually achieve anything.

It's also important to distinguish between putting a club on a good behaviour bond and punishing them after the fact. The former is far more likely to have some prev

Do you think the League is liking the limelight a bit too much? Seems any opportunity to grab a headline they take with both hands. I totally agree with you regarding punishing the club in this case and any other club that loses points etc etc because of the behaviour of an individual.

The bar has been set now by the SAAFL. It'd be interesting to see what sort of punishment is handed out if a Division 1 club player were to strike an umpire?

[Dogwatcher]

I think the question needs to be asked, how long can the SAAFL hold on to a club's record before dropping the hammer like this?
The club's record appears appears bad when highlighted as it has been, but was it warned it was on its last chance?

[thejuddernaught]

I take it all back after the latest happenings. Rosewater not doing themselves any favours.

Posting a photo like that is honestly a braindead move. 3 days after their ban?? Pls!
You'd be letting the dust settle for a little bit longer atleast and not posting it on social media.

[thejuddernaught]

If Rosewater aren't fair dinkum about getting their house in order, which starts with acknowledging there's an endemic problem then I would have thought the League needs to seriously consider any application for affiliation next year

Come off it! A stupid photo and post when they're all on the piss is not worth too much punishment.

Their record, whilst not the best is hardly evidence of an endemic problem.

But after all the media attention the club and certain players had copped within that 3 days. Was it the brightest thing to do?
You can't tell me that atleast one of the blokes in that photo knew it wasn't going to put the spotlight back on the club?
My names Billy not Silly.

[The Bedge]

Given the settings on the Facebook account were set to "friends only" I would be pretty filthy if I was some of those Rosewater lads that someone they consider a friend has leaked out the photo to the news!

[oldman]

I find it interesting that people are against the punishment handed down to Rosewater. Has this club has incidents in the past which are relevant....... Striking an umpire is a disgrace, striking an opposition player behind the ball is only marginally less of a disgrace. The abuse that this club has hurled at female volunteers over the last 2 years is also an embarrassment to the club.

They are simply lucky they weren't stripped of their points for this season as well and made to come back next year in Div6. This should have been the punishment absolutely no doubt. Football is a team sport so the team should be punished for this not just the individual, if you don't want to abide by team ethics and rules go play golf or tennis when you are only responsible to yourself!!!

Clearly Rosewater respect and acknowledge they have a culture issue, only they can change it

[jo172]

I have decided I'm against the banning of Rosewater.

Not many people have mentioned that this decision is punishing 60 odd entirely innocent players and officials.

The justification for punishing innocent people seems to be either based on some notion that they have a collective responsibility for the actions of other players, or that the end(protecting umpires) justifies the means.

Sometimes bad things happen. You can't prevent everything. How Rosewater could have reasonably foreseen this or prevented it is beyond me. How far is the concept of collective responsibility to go? Should we sack the CEO of the league for not preventing it?

Given how rarely umpires are assaulted is the club ban going to deter others anymore than the 20 year individual ban? We must remember that the vast majority of people wouldn't assault umpires anyway. They don't need a deterrent to prevent them assaulting them. Is a club ban going to deter the very small subset of people who would contemplate hitting an umpire. Are they thinking rationally at the time of hitting an umpire such that a deterrent might work or have they lost the plot?

My concern is that punishing the entire club does not achieve anything in this instance. It won't protect umpires any more than punishing the individual. I am concerned that the penalty was driven by the desire to appear tough rather than to actually achieve anything.

It's also important to distinguish between putting a club on a good behaviour bond and punishing them after the fact. The former is far more likely to have some prev

Do you think the League is liking the limelight a bit too much? Seems any opportunity to grab a headline they take with both hands. I totally agree with you regarding punishing the club in this case and any other club that loses points etc etc because of the behaviour of an individual.

The bar has been set now by the SAAFL. It'd be interesting to see what sort of punishment is handed out if a Division 1 club player were to strike an umpire?

I'd be amazed if it wasn't 20 years.

If you think there's any conceivable situation where the Tribunal isn't going to ban someone effectively for life for assaulting an umpire I'd like to hear it.

[thejuddernaught]

I have decided I'm against the banning of Rosewater.

Not many people have mentioned that this decision is punishing 60 odd entirely innocent players and officials.

The justification for punishing innocent people seems to be either based on some notion that they have a collective responsibility for the actions of other players, or that the end(protecting umpires) justifies the means.

Sometimes bad things happen. You can't prevent everything. How Rosewater could have reasonably foreseen this or prevented it is beyond me. How far is the concept of collective responsibility to go? Should we sack the CEO of the league for not preventing it?

Given how rarely umpires are assaulted is the club ban going to deter others anymore than the 20 year individual ban? We must remember that the vast majority of people wouldn't assault umpires anyway. They don't need a deterrent to prevent them assaulting them. Is a club ban going to deter the very small subset of people who would contemplate hitting an umpire. Are they thinking rationally at the time of hitting an umpire such that a deterrent might work or have they lost the plot?

My concern is that punishing the entire club does not achieve anything in this instance. It won't protect umpires any more than punishing the individual. I am concerned that the penalty was driven by the desire to appear tough rather than to actually achieve anything.

It's also important to distinguish between putting a club on a good behaviour bond and punishing them after the fact. The former is far more likely to have some prev

Do you think the League is liking the limelight a bit too much? Seems any opportunity to grab a headline they take with both hands. I totally agree with you regarding punishing the club in this case and any other club that loses points etc etc because of the behaviour of an individual.

The bar has been set now by the SAAFL. It'd be interesting to see what sort of punishment is handed out if a Division 1 club player were to strike an umpire?

I'd be amazed if it wasn't 20 years.

If you think there's any conceivable situation where the Tribunal isn't going to ban someone effectively for life for assaulting an umpire I'd like to hear it.

Yeah i agree with 20 years for belting an umpy if that's where the league is setting the bar now.

[S Demon]

Given the settings on the Facebook account were set to "friends only" I would be pretty filthy if I was some of those Rosewater lads that someone they consider a friend has leaked out the photo to the news!

If whoever posted it tagged some of the other players in the photo, the number of people who could actually see the post would easily be in the thousands.

Most people would have facebook friends they wouldn't consider real friends and probably wouldn't know what they do for a living either. I can't see why they would be filthy about it getting to the media - they posted it on a form of media!!!!

[Arch44]

Given the settings on the Facebook account were set to "friends only" I would be pretty filthy if I was some of those Rosewater lads that someone they consider a friend has leaked out the photo to the news!

If whoever posted it tagged some of the other players in the photo, the number of people who could actually see the post would easily be in the thousands.

Most people would have facebook friends they wouldn't consider real friends and probably wouldn't know what they do for a living either. I can't see why they would be filthy about it getting to the media - they posted it on a form of media!!!!

Agreed SD. They were silly enough to do it in the 1st place, cant blame any one else but themselves.

[thejuddernaught]

Given the settings on the Facebook account were set to "friends only" I would be pretty filthy if I was some of those Rosewater lads that someone they consider a friend has leaked out the photo to the news!

Nowadays it only takes 1 of his friends to screen shot that photo and show it to a person who's looking for more fuel to add to the fire and report it to the media. Social media is dangerous.

[marbles]

"They" didnt do it

"They" only posed for a photo of the boys having fun at the pub

1 person uploaded it to fb

1 person wrote the words f u to the league

Do u reckon they all sat around first saying lets all pose and give a big f u photo to league. Most such as the coach would certainly not have participated

Was it posted on rosewater fc fb wall?

1 kids actions again and whole club is being burnt to the ground again

[Dutchy]

Got to feel for the committee of the RFC, they are no doubt trying to put in place actions to rebuild the club and then the players go do something like that just when the original story was becoming old news, wouldn't surprise me if some of those volunteers have had a gutful.

[Dogwatcher]

"They" didnt do it

"They" only posed for a photo of the boys having fun at the pub

1 person uploaded it to fb

1 person wrote the words f u to the league

Do u reckon they all sat around first saying lets all pose and give a big f u photo to league. Most such as the coach would certainly not have participated

Was it posted on rosewater fc fb wall?

1 kids actions again and whole club is burnt to the ground again

Who were they sticking their fingers up at then?

[Dutchy]

"They" didnt do it

"They" only posed for a photo of the boys having fun at the pub

1 person uploaded it to fb

1 person wrote the words f u to the league

Do u reckon they all sat around first saying lets all pose and give a big f u photo to league. Most such as the coach would certainly not have participated

Was it posted on rosewater fc fb wall?

1 kids actions again and whole club is being burnt to the ground again

Its not one kids action, if he had posted the photo without all of them holding the finger up you could put the blame on one person, but them all flipping the bird confirms that they all knew what was happening and they were all compliant in it. Stupid and you can't defend it.

[human_torpedo]

"They" didnt do it

"They" only posed for a photo of the boys having fun at the pub

1 person uploaded it to fb

1 person wrote the words f u to the league

Do u reckon they all sat around first saying lets all pose and give a big f u photo to league. Most such as the coach would certainly not have participated

Was it posted on rosewater fc fb wall?

1 kids actions again and whole club is being burnt to the ground again

Its not one kids action, if he had posted the photo without all of them holding the finger up you could put the blame on one person, but them all flipping the bird confirms that they all knew what was happening and they were all compliant in it. Stupid and you can't defend it.

Stupid indeed.. But if that's the lead story on the news then Christ almighty it must have been a slow news day..

But, those present in the photo haven't been suspended or found guilty of any offence yet are stuck unable to play footy because of the actions of a few. They have been punished without individually having done anything wrong. One bloke posts the silly photo and whether they all knew he would a.) Post it and b.) Add that caption, is open to speculation. I doubt Ricky would have sanctioned it had he knew he would caption it like that.

*I don't know 2 of the people in the photo, so one of them could be a bloke who got suspended this season, but I can account for the rest of them*