Does anyone know the results of the tribunal 13/6

All discussions to do with the SANFL

Does anyone know the results of the tribunal 13/6

Postby Benno » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:17 pm

did matt smith get any games
and cupido did he get any games
Benno
Mini-League
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:54 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Postby JK » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:57 pm

Think Cupido's must have been withdrawn and Smith got off
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37460
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4485 times
Been liked: 3024 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

Postby westcoastpanther » Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:00 pm

Yet we see posts like the following on Footysa.

11-Jun-06, 1:04 AM sturtpeter

How many games will Cupido miss.

I think the SANFL should remain consistent and give him a penalty which will discourage a player from similar conduct in future games.

11-Jun-06, 1:31 AM eddie-eagle

Stupid Smith should go for seven weeks plus. Gutless act to bump a players head whillst his head is over the ball. whilst Potts was lucky not to cop a spinal injury these actions MUST be removed from the game.

Was the equal of picket's sniping bump on begley in the AUWFL, for which he got 7 weeks, and chocko's chokers would have accepted four.
User avatar
westcoastpanther
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5489
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Weipa
Has liked: 66 times
Been liked: 150 times
Grassroots Team: Boston

Postby Aerie » Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:46 pm

If I was Chambers and Sturt, I would be very annoyed. Cupido's was obviously a silly undisciplined thing and fair enough that he got off, but Smith's was disgraceful and extremely dangerous and I can not believe he didn't get at least 3 weeks.

Having been close to both Chambers silly little head butt to Pedler and then Smith's crude charging of Potter front on while his head was over the ball, I wonder what the tribunal were thinking? I really don't like Sturt and I'm not a fan of Chambers at all, but this decision by the SANFL tribunal makes no sense and if I was from Sturt I'd be livid.
User avatar
Aerie
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5747
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:05 am
Has liked: 185 times
Been liked: 587 times

Postby westcoastpanther » Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:02 pm

I'd like to see the footage again, Smith got him high front on, no doubt about that. I would like to see how much of this contact he actually initiated though, the Eagles player seemed to move into Smith playing for the free. Footballers nowadays are doing this, get your head over it and move into the approaching player, is a free everytime!! You could tell by Smiths reaction he had no intent to harm and he himself may not have been aware the Eagles player had actually assisted the collision.
User avatar
westcoastpanther
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5489
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Weipa
Has liked: 66 times
Been liked: 150 times
Grassroots Team: Boston

Postby qwerty » Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:16 pm

smiths incident looked bad at first.

After taping the game and watching it again later the eagles player went to pick the ball up, raised his head and saw smith coming, he then fumbled the ball (took his eyes off it) and then went to pick it up again and this is when the contact from smith came.

Immediately after he raised his hand like it was un intentional and was then thrown to the ground in a tackle, which should have resulted in a reversal of the free kick if you want to be consistant.

A good decision by the tribunal in my opinion, after seeing the replay of the incident.
qwerty
Under 16s
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:00 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 4 times


Board index   Football  SANFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], saintal and 31 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |