SA Footy

gossipgirl wrote:

stan wrote:

Eagles Nest wrote:Crows and Pear must have lost on the weekend for 5AA (and Dumb and Dumber in particular) to give this incident the air time it has. Even Jane Reilly had her say this morning and I doubt if she has followed the SANFL competition for years. As soon as there is a negative story out there the media jump on board.[/quote,

Well when the power lose they normally have plenty to talk about but since the crows have been nothing short of a disgrace to SA football they have needed something elsr to crap on about.

what a SOOK

Referring to your form rather than anything else. So calm down.

cennals05 wrote:

Eagles Nest wrote:Crows and Pear must have lost on the weekend for 5AA (and Dumb and Dumber in particular) to give this incident the air time it has. Even Jane Reilly had her say this morning and I doubt if she has followed the SANFL competition for years. As soon as there is a negative story out there the media jump on board.

And after finding out Symes and Grocke are friends off the field, Jane suggested maybe the incident was playful.

As for Rowey lets just say he may have received a phone call from one of his mates down at the Eagles, hence his defence of Grocke yesterday.

Penerbethy wanted him banned for life and then for a season! I think 7 is about right. The Eagles should fine him as well. Really dumb act.

Remember he pleaded guilty so a 9-10 game suspension was probably reduced to 7, not often most footy fans agree with a tribunal decision but this seems about as close as it gets

Dutchy wrote:Remember he pleaded guilty so a 9-10 game suspension was probably reduced to 7, not often most footy fans agree with a tribunal decision but this seems about as close as it gets

Because he was referred straight to the tribunal from the Match Review Panel, I don't think he had the chance for any penalty reductions...

Jars458 wrote:

cennals05 wrote:

Eagles Nest wrote:Crows and Pear must have lost on the weekend for 5AA (and Dumb and Dumber in particular) to give this incident the air time it has. Even Jane Reilly had her say this morning and I doubt if she has followed the SANFL competition for years. As soon as there is a negative story out there the media jump on board.

And after finding out Symes and Grocke are friends off the field, Jane suggested maybe the incident was playful.

As for Rowey lets just say he may have received a phone call from one of his mates down at the Eagles, hence his defence of Grocke yesterday.

Penerbethy wanted him banned for life and then for a season! I think 7 is about right. The Eagles should fine him as well. Really dumb act.

Penberthy is poor radio announcer...5AA must be scraping the bottom of the barrel....continually taking pot shots at easy targets to build his non existent profile...what a tool

Big Phil wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Remember he pleaded guilty so a 9-10 game suspension was probably reduced to 7, not often most footy fans agree with a tribunal decision but this seems about as close as it gets

Because he was referred straight to the tribunal from the Match Review Panel, I don't think he had the chance for any penalty reductions...

Like any court room I would think it would come into consideration when discussing penalty

Dutchy wrote:

Big Phil wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Remember he pleaded guilty so a 9-10 game suspension was probably reduced to 7, not often most footy fans agree with a tribunal decision but this seems about as close as it gets

Because he was referred straight to the tribunal from the Match Review Panel, I don't think he had the chance for any penalty reductions...

Like any court room I would think it would come into consideration when discussing penalty

Nup, Big Phil is right if they did it by the book and the explanation suggests he did as he didn't get the 25% for it.

Correct, the 25% for pleading guilty was not applied in this case.

SDK wrote:I think it was a sickening, gutless effort and 7 weeks is slightly lenient but probably around the mark.
As stated previously the Centrals players reaction was very disappointing. Imagine that happening when the Gowans boys were playing Grocke would have joined Simes in hospital. Watch your back when you play Centrals again Grocke.
The next time this player is found guilty of something similar his career should be terminated. Would be no loss to football.

So you would advocate Centrals players sniping him? And you would think it OK to put him in hospital?
You're so 'sickened' by this incident that you would like to see it repeated, but off the play or behind the play?

The hypocrisy in your post doesn't strike you as strange? Bring back the death penalty....

afc9798 wrote:

SDK wrote:I think it was a sickening, gutless effort and 7 weeks is slightly lenient but probably around the mark.
As stated previously the Centrals players reaction was very disappointing. Imagine that happening when the Gowans boys were playing Grocke would have joined Simes in hospital. Watch your back when you play Centrals again Grocke.
The next time this player is found guilty of something similar his career should be terminated. Would be no loss to football.

So you would advocate Centrals players sniping him? And you would think it OK to put him in hospital?
You're so 'sickened' by this incident that you would like to see it repeated, but off the play or behind the play?

The hypocrisy in your post doesn't strike you as strange? Bring back the death penalty....

Agreed, afc, revenge and payback is not the way to go. What we need to do is make sure we beat them next time we play them, hurt them on the scoreboard... for Brad!

Cheers

Central District defender Luke Barmby offered a 3 week ban for his bump on Norwood's Simon Phillips...

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/2444/

Can't comment on it myslef as haven't seen vision of it as yet...

By all reports, it sounds like the club will be defending it...

It happened right in front of where I was standing (standing in our usual spot just left of the canteen, near the scoreboard)
He went past the footy to provide a shepherd.
I think there was someone running boundary side to pick the ball up.
Barmby got Phillips, who was open for the bump - it appeared to me he got him front on and to the chest.
He had his shoulder low, arm and elbow tucked in.
As I said in a previous post, I didn't think there was head high contact and it was possible that Phillips hit his head on the ground.
However, having not seen a replay, I can't be certain.
The cameras wouldn't really have captured it to any great level, I wouldn't think, as Phillips was running towards the boundary and Barmby got him boundary side.
Certainly wasn't malicious. I certainly wouldn't have thought it was worth three games.

He'd also have a clear record, wouldn't he? Don't remember his name in reports in the past.

Does anyone know who is on the Match Review Panel?

Dogwatcher wrote:He'd also have a clear record, wouldn't he? Don't remember his name in reports in the past.

Got 1 match in 2011

Gotta admit at the time and in my post Saturday night I thought he might be ins tad of strife.

I had a pretty good view and the elbow was definatly tucked in until the last millisecond where it could be described as slightly untucked.

In saying that he didnt appear to get him high 3 does seem excessive.

And not being a smart arse but once again Phillips had no idea, absolutely none the bloke was coming, he really seems to struggle for awareness.

From memory, watching on the box on Saturday, it just looked like Barmby was trying to apply a solid bump/shepherd but made contact with the head (not intentionally). Wouldn't have even been considered for a report a few years ago, but the "head is sacrosanct" philosophy would be what's prompted the report. As WHUFC said, Flip appeared to have zero awareness of the incoming contact so left himself open. I certainty didn't think there was any malice or sinister intent in it and if contact was made high it was unintentional.

Agree no real malice and intent was a solid bump but not to hurt or injure the player

It seems that if u choose to bump and the player is injured you will get looked at regardless of whether its high contact with terms such as unduly rough contact etc etc being thrown around

JK wrote: As WHUFC said, Flip appeared to have zero awareness of the incoming contact so left himself open.

I, too, was going to say this but figured some old wounds might be opened so thought better of it.

Eagles were only allowed to argue ONE point at the tribunal.
They sought the incident to be considered negligent rather than deliberate, this point was lost and when they tried to argue why the 25% guilty plea discount wasn't allowed they were told they had had their ONE point to dispute and that was it.
Is this really fair, is this justice. Although I detested the action of Grocke, and thought a 5 game ban would be appropriate, surely there has to be a
right to argue points at the tribunal. Grocke was hung, drawn and quartered well before he went to the tribunal.