by Footy Chick » Sun Jul 24, 2016 10:52 pm
Gatt_Weasel wrote:if they (Walkerville) dont win the flag ill run around the block of my street naked :) you can grab a chair and enjoy the view
by The Bedge » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:16 pm
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
by Dangeroos » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:00 am
by BigB » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:45 am
by thejuddernaught » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:31 am
daysofourlives wrote:The Big Shrek wrote: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.
by Dogwatcher » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:34 am
by thejuddernaught » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:39 am
Wedgie wrote:I take it all back after the latest happenings. Rosewater not doing themselves any favours.
by thejuddernaught » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:43 am
The Big Shrek wrote:jo172 wrote: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.
by The Bedge » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:45 am
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
by oldman » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:45 am
by jo172 » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:47 am
thejuddernaught wrote:daysofourlives wrote:The Big Shrek wrote: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?
by thejuddernaught » Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:01 am
jo172 wrote:thejuddernaught wrote:daysofourlives wrote:The Big Shrek wrote: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.
by S Demon » Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:01 am
Zartan wrote: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!
by Arch44 » Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:04 am
S Demon wrote:Zartan wrote: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!!!!
by thejuddernaught » Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:04 am
Zartan wrote: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!
by marbles » Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:23 am
by Dutchy » Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:24 am
by Dogwatcher » Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:24 am
marbles wrote:"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
by Dutchy » Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:26 am
marbles wrote:"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
by human_torpedo » Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:35 am
Dutchy wrote:marbles wrote:"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.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |