new saafl tribunal regulations

[Pag]

have you seen a5 comp this year/happy as a pig in you no what bout the rule
seen some of the sides playing in a5
will need 12 umpires at all games/blacks only ones going for ball and the rest who knows
think will get martial arts training for these gorillas

You are an idiot.

[mighty hounds]

have you seen a5 comp this year/happy as a pig in you no what bout the rule
seen some of the sides playing in a5
will need 12 umpires at all games/blacks only ones going for ball and the rest who knows
think will get martial arts training for these gorillas

You are an idiot.

just to let people know magical footy isn't a blackfriars player, i do know who he is but im not gona reveal it but seeing his experience around footy clubs we would expect better of him not to bag other A5 clubs as we dotn want to give out a abd image, that is all

[LaughingKookaburra]

What a clown. You do know now you are going to be seen as a 'soft' side now.People will rough you up.I wouldnt be hiding his identidy,who is MF associated with?

[mighty hounds]

What a clown. You do know now you are going to be seen as a 'soft' side now.People will rough you up.I wouldnt be hiding his identidy,who is MF associated with?

u think im actually gona tell u that LK? being seen as soft haha uve got to be kididng, ur telling me kenilworth get all therre motivation from the div 5 forum? lol. after coming form div 7 and 6 u think were not used ot the rough sid eor somehting? seeing as ur game starts at 12.15 i prob wouldnt be seieng u anyway as my games start at 2.15 enjoy

[LaughingKookaburra]

What a clown. You do know now you are going to be seen as a 'soft' side now.People will rough you up.I wouldnt be hiding his identidy,who is MF associated with?

u think im actually gona tell u that LK? being seen as soft haha uve got to be kididng, ur telling me kenilworth get all therre motivation from the div 5 forum? lol. after coming form div 7 and 6 u think were not used ot the rough sid eor somehting? seeing as ur game starts at 12.15 i prob wouldnt be seieng u anyway as my games start at 2.15 enjoy

Never implied that. Was more so attacking the other bloke for talking shite. look forward to watching ya

[BUZZ]

have you seen a5 comp this year/happy as a pig in you no what bout the rule
seen some of the sides playing in a5
will need 12 umpires at all games/blacks only ones going for ball and the rest who knows
think will get martial arts training for these gorillas

You are an idiot.

Thats a stupid call MF, not sure who you play for or associated with but i hope your head dosnt go anywhere the ball this year, someone may be inclined to 'gorrilla' punch it off.

[Grahaml]

I'm not a Salisbury West Footballer, but I do play cricket there. I therefore know some people from the footy side of things, and one of them is a player who, due to these new regulations, has been told he can never play amateur footy again. This means he can no longer play for Salisbury West and since he has no interest playing elsewhere has effectively been retired.

I understand the thugs need to be kicked out of the game, and having never seen this guy play cannot comment on how he goes about things. I do know he isn't entirely content to not even be affiliated with the senior side on match days in any aspect. I think this idea is good in principal, but would have rathered a slightly different system. Rather than a simply 12 games and you're out rule, I would have rathered a system where after 12 games you are out for the remainder of that season and then the following season. Perhaps at 20 games then make it a lifetime ban. And it seems harsh to now bring in the rule and make it retrospective. Would the tribunal now give different penalties in light of this? The tribunal dished out those penalties thinking that would be the entire penalty, and not thinking it would retire a bloke forever. And the play played his career expecting to do the time for the acts he made, not do that time, plus another penalty after a while.

I wouldn't be happy if the government brought in a new law saying that anyone caught speeding 3 times in their life could no longer drive and make it retrospective. By all means bring in new, tougher laws, but it seems mighty cruel to make that penalty apply when nobody had knowledge of the rule when the offence was committed.

[Footy Chick]

Graham, if this bloke you refer has a last name that resembles a water system, then he has no right to be having a whinge about it IMO.

and so it should be made retrospectively, the whole idea is to get rid of the blokes that cause trouble and make the game unsafe for others to play, rather than giving them more opportunity to reek havoc before finally being banned again. In the case of this particular family, A 1 and a bit year ban will do absolutely nothing to rehab these blokes and this has already been proven.

Why give them the chance to keep offending? Our competition doesn't need players like that running around and I believe the the SWFC will benefit from this in the long term.

[stan]

Graham, if this bloke you refer has a last name that resembles a water system, then he has no right to be having a whinge about it IMO.

and so it should be made retrospectively, the whole idea is to get rid of the blokes that cause trouble and make the game unsafe for others to play, rather than giving them more opportunity to reek havoc before finally being banned again. In the case of this particular family, A 1 and a bit year ban will do absolutely nothing to rehab these blokes and this has already been proven.

Why give them the chance to keep offending? Our competition doesn't need players like that running around and I believe the the SWFC will benefit from this in the long term.

Although the idea seems harsh its showing that the SAAFL is getting tough on thugs. Which I must say is a good thing.

[The Ash Man]

I agree that it is a harsh system
I would like to see it run as a demerit points type system as is done with drivers licences
If you are rubbed out for 12 weeks over a period of 3 years you miss a year
It would be a rolling system so 3 years after your first offence lets say 6 weeks you go back to having 12 points left..
Any thoughts?

[Footy Chick]

I agree that it is a harsh system
I would like to see it run as a demerit points type system as is done with drivers licences
If you are rubbed out for 12 weeks over a period of 3 years you miss a year
It would be a rolling system so 3 years after your first offence lets say 6 weeks you go back to having 12 points left..
Any thoughts?

If someone is rubbed out for more than 12 weeks over a 3 year period, it's not usually because theyre unlucky.

The past 3 seasons is the premise on which they have excluded players this year. If you have been suspended for more than 12 weeks since 2005 you are not eligible to register as a player.

I believe it should be a rolling 3 years. eg: a player misses 6 weeks in year 1, 4 years in year 2 and none in year 3, in year 4 he is suspended for another 6 weeks but is still eligible to play as he has only been suspended for 10 weeks over the LAST 3 years. But once you hit that 12 games...bad luck.

The main offender got a 1 season ban as a result of our GF in 2005. He didnt play in 2006. He played 5 games in 2007 and was back before the tribunal for another 10 or 12 game suspension. Do you really want to let blokes like that back into the game? This is my argument against a measley 1 year ban and then letting them back into the system.. it doesnt work.

[Grahaml]

I have no doubt that the playeres in question aren't the saints of the comp. And a player getting a full season and then copping another 3 months soon after playing again probably does deserve something like a lifetime ban.

I do believe the SWFC should have taken action years ago. I also believe the SWFC will benefit by this action now being forced on them by the league. However, it still seems unfair. They were given a penalty, which the tribunal deemed fair for their actions. To bring in another penalty on top of that one, which at the time was apparently enough, is just not in the spirit of the entire game IMHO.

I don't think you can, in hindsight, decide that an offence is now more serious than it was 3 years ago. Would it be seen as fair if they decided to alter the scoring system of games from 3 years ago because one team deserved more than 6 points for their goals? The tribunal may also have not suspended these guys for as long knowing that the extra game would result in a lifetime ban. Why is 2005 the magic date? What would be the harm in telling the comp "this is the rule from now on, so make sure your players don't get done for 12 weeks from here on". A 12 game ban is a long time, and adding 12 months to that penalty means a lot of time to think about how they go about their footy in the future if another lengthy suspension means the end of their footballing days. Bear in mind that a drug cheat gets 1-2 years in most sports.

And I am NOT sticking up for an individual in particular. I have merely been given that side of the story and come to the conclusion that there is an enormous amount of room for this system to do the wrong thing by individuals. Perhaps this guy does indeed deserve what he got. However, that is not my point.

I think the idea is fantastic. I'd have a larger number of weeks for a life ban (20 perhaps) and a trigger point of 12 games an automatic full season ban. And I would not backdate it.

[Footy Chick]

I do believe the SWFC should have taken action years ago. I also believe the SWFC will benefit by this action now being forced on them by the league. However, it still seems unfair. They were given a penalty, which the tribunal deemed fair for their actions. To bring in another penalty on top of that one, which at the time was apparently enough, is just not in the spirit of the entire game IMHO.

A 12 game ban is a long time, and adding 12 months to that penalty means a lot of time to think about how they go about their footy in the future if another lengthy suspension means the end of their footballing days. Bear in mind that a drug cheat gets 1-2 years in most sports.

As I mentioned in my previous post, these blokes have had PLENTY of time to think about what they've done and at the end of the day,they have proven time and time again that the suspensions just dont work. What makes you think they're going to clean up their act because another years suspension is the penalty if they play up again? It means nothing to blokes like that..

Why should some poor innocent bloke who just wants to play footy, have to suffer at the hands of these blokes that can't do anything but headbutt and king hit? Do you think that is in the spirit of the game? These blokes have been given a heap of punishments that have been deemed fit for their crime, and it doesnt stop them re-offending, so IMO its very fair..

[zedman]

if they got 12 in a single hit, or 12 over time..who cares..we dont need scum like that in the competition, if your bad enough to get 12 from 4 separate events then pi$$ off..no excuses, no leeway, no second chances..the thugs can go to hell..i cant believe your trying to back one up grahaml..maybe if you had a son felled by one of these cowards you would think differently..i played 400 games in saafl and never once was reported or sent off and majority played in a2 and a1's, its about self control,respect for people in authority and controlling your emotions and if they cant do that then football is not the game for them to play..tell them to go street fighting or do some kick boxing..end of rant

[heater31]

Agree with FC here entirely. Why should blokes who want to play the game by the rules be made to suffer for the rest of their lives from the stupid actions of some meat head who doesn't want to.

SW would have to be treading a very fine line with the SAAFL for the actions over recent years and yes I too have come off second best from a run in with an opposition player from this club. Thankfully it was just a little bit of claret about the place and some pride to go with it

[Q.]

Agreed on the physical violence aspect of the ban, but what if a player had copped a ten match ban for getting mouthy with the umps and then picked up a couple more games along the way for minor indiscretions. Should they be banned for life?

[S Demon]

Agreed on the physical violence aspect of the ban, but what if a player had copped a ten match ban for getting mouthy with the umps and then picked up a couple more games along the way for minor indiscretions. Should they be banned for life?

Dillon could be in some strife

[bandar]

I would be very suprised as to how many clubs this will affect wouldn't have thought it would be to many. As far as copping a long ban for something other than hitting someone it would be very unusual. Mouthing off is a send off and you need three of those in a year to get a 2 match ban it would take one mouthy bastard to get 12 games.

[Footy Chick]

Agreed on the physical violence aspect of the ban, but what if a player had copped a ten match ban for getting mouthy with the umps and then picked up a couple more games along the way for minor indiscretions. Should they be banned for life?

Mouthiness at worst will only cop you a couple of games, unless you make physical contact with an ump.

If you cant abide by the rules of the game, don't play. Simple.

[Q.]

He'll be alright, he didn't get as many games as I used in my scenario. He probably shows a little more maturity these days.

FC, I had previously looked over the records and I reckon I saw someone had copped ten for abuse. I used worst case scenario.