SA Footy

Bluedemon wrote:Sturt need to win this game,

...and South doesn't?

Big Phil wrote:

Bounce of the ball wrote:Can you do something with , your, commas too, Phil.

Yes, sure, no problem, Bounce of the ball, I can assist you there, in your request.

Let's hope Coad uses his not inconsiderable talent to go for the ball this week rather than flinging his arms around like a drunk marionette anytime there's the whiff of a marking contest.

Big Phil wrote:

CUTTERMAN wrote:Fair enough on Bode. Phillips, give me a break.

It was dangerous, though, you'd have to agree CUTTERMAN?

If it was a Sturt player who had been 'tunnelled' would you feel different about it?

Yes, BP it could've been dangerous but a report for it? Come on. The stuff that gets let go every week at the tribunal and this gets pinged?

CUTTERMAN wrote:

Big Phil wrote:

CUTTERMAN wrote:Fair enough on Bode. Phillips, give me a break.

It was dangerous, though, you'd have to agree CUTTERMAN?

If it was a Sturt player who had been 'tunnelled' would you feel different about it?

Yes, BP it could've been dangerous but a report for it? Come on. The stuff that gets let go every week at the tribunal and this gets pinged?

Will reserve judgement til I watch a replay, but from what I saw at the ground he's very lucky to only get offered the 1 game all up. I've not seen enough penalties given out for tunnelling, so I understand you being unhappy with it, but it's an action that needs to be stamped completely from the game such is the risk it poses. Hope next season there's a big focus on eradicating from the game at all levels.

The hit on Bode looked a bit of a cheap shot.

topsywaldron wrote:Let's hope Coad uses his not inconsiderable talent to go for the ball this week rather than flinging his arms around like a drunk marionette anytime there's the whiff of a marking contest.

Depends if McGuiness stop holding his arm. Wasn't these infringes why the 3rd umpire was bought in ?

Bounce of the ball wrote:

topsywaldron wrote:Let's hope Coad uses his not inconsiderable talent to go for the ball this week rather than flinging his arms around like a drunk marionette anytime there's the whiff of a marking contest.

Depends if McGuiness stop holding his arm. Wasn't these infringes why the 3rd umpire was bought in ?

Wasnt holding his arm when Coad did his best Lindsay Thomas impersonation

The Panther wrote:Righto, So we owe em one for 1965 when we were absolutely ripped off

You certainly were. I was only a ten year old but I remember it clearly. To this day I still can't believe that Kantilla wasn't paid a mark in the goal square with about a minute to go. It was the classic two goal turnaround and you lost by 7 points.

If only Des Foster was umpiring back then ...

1965 Soapy operas.
An interesting stat from the South v Sturt games of 1965.

SA 10-6
ST 8-12

ST 13-12
SA 7-18

SA 17-2
ST 10-19

SA 12-15
ST 14-10

The side with the most scoring shots lost 3 of those games.
The other was 25 scoring shots each.
Depending which way you look at it , the side with the most scoring shots did not win a game.

In the 65 prelim final SA led 12-11 to 10-7 at 3/4 time
Was there a breeze that day ?
16 goals were scored to the end Sturt had in the last STANza

dedja wrote:If only Des Foster was umpiring back then ...

It's funny you should mention Des Foster. When I saw his disgraceful decision in1978 my mind immediately flashed back to the 1965 preliminary final. The non-payment of the Kantilla mark was just as bad a decision.

robranisgod wrote:

dedja wrote:If only Des Foster was umpiring back then ...

It's funny you should mention Des Foster. When I saw his disgraceful decision in1978 my mind immediately flashed back to the 1965 preliminary final. The non-payment of the Kantilla mark was just as bad a decision.

South were also robbed the week before in the Second semi final v Port. KG paid a ridiculous free to Ports Peter Mead..60m out from goal, the siren went with South in front by 5 pts. Mead took the kick after the siren, the ball sailed through for a goal just over head height, South players unable to touch it, shepherded through by the Port cheer squad who had invaded the ground.

Sturt already notch up a win in the tribunal room according to twitter.....

Tom Bartlett not guilty on all charges.

Jim05 wrote:

Bounce of the ball wrote:

topsywaldron wrote:Let's hope Coad uses his not inconsiderable talent to go for the ball this week rather than flinging his arms around like a drunk marionette anytime there's the whiff of a marking contest.

Depends if McGuiness stop holding his arm. Wasn't these infringes why the 3rd umpire was bought in ?

Wasnt holding his arm when Coad did his best Lindsay Thomas impersonation

LOL, i was right in front of one where he had his arm clearly grabbed and held back to get to a contest in the northern end with no free kick given, Norwood supporters sitting close by said "stop your whinging" to a few Sturt supporters ironically and something like "you've already had enough free kicks" so at least they kind of acknowledged it...

heater31 wrote:Sturt already notch up a win in the tribunal room according to twitter.....

Tom Bartlett not guilty on all charges.

Sanity prevailed

CUTTERMAN wrote:

heater31 wrote:Sturt already notch up a win in the tribunal room according to twitter.....

Tom Bartlett not guilty on all charges.

Sanity prevailed

Lucky lad

JK wrote:

CUTTERMAN wrote:

heater31 wrote:Sturt already notch up a win in the tribunal room according to twitter.....

Tom Bartlett not guilty on all charges.

Sanity prevailed

Lucky lad

Very !

Big Phil wrote:

LPH wrote:

Big Phil wrote:Sturt unlikely to be without Tom Bartlett, now...

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/2660/

Unlikely to be without???
Wouldn't that mean he plays?

Yes, LPH...

That would be correct, obviously...

It was a typo, on my part, which has now been edited and corrected, accordingly...

Appears it wasn't a typo after all

southee wrote:

JK wrote:

CUTTERMAN wrote:

heater31 wrote:Sturt already notch up a win in the tribunal room according to twitter.....

Tom Bartlett not guilty on all charges.

Sanity prevailed

Lucky lad

Very !

Particularly rare for the tribunal to find you "not guilty" after you have pleaded "guilty" which is how it was reported via SANFL twitter feed. Hope his lawyer didn't try and argue that one too hard. Any explanation of the case?

Pleaded not guilty to rough conduct against Phillips. Tribunal found him not guilty.
Pleaded guilty to rough conduct against Jace Bode. Bartlett argued that the charge be downgraded from Intentional to Reckless.
Tribunal agreed.