SA Footy

DOC wrote:Dismissed.

Shortest appeal hearing on record.

Not sure trying to have the “severe” category downgraded after you’ve just broken a blokes neck was ever likely to be successful

Should have been smart enough to just cop the 6, trying to defend the action due to the guy going for the ball having a fumble (in the wet mind you) is just incredible.

Hindsight is wonderful, we should've plead guilty on Tuesday and taken the 5.

Club tried to back the player but the reality was it was going to be hard to argue against Severe with the current SANFL tribunal guidelines with reports that Saunders was transferred to hospital.

The Glg player had time to #1 not make contact until the Nwd player had stood up and then gave the Nwd player a hip and shoulder bump or #2 the Glg player crouched down himself and gave a shoulder bump at the same level as the Nwd player.

am Bays wrote:Hindsight is wonderful, we should've plead guilty on Tuesday and taken the 5.

I’m not sure 5 was on the table for an early plea, Mods, I reckon it was 6 - period. Either way, I’m as one eyed as they come and I didn’t like the club appealing.

Spargo wrote:

am Bays wrote:Hindsight is wonderful, we should've plead guilty on Tuesday and taken the 5.

I’m not sure 5 was on the table for an early plea, Mods, I reckon it was 6 - period. Either way, I’m as one eyed as they come and I didn’t like the club appealing.

You may be right my understanding is a guilty plea generally gives you a week off the penalty however the "not guilty" plea on Tuesday may have been indication that six weeks was going to be the minimum for a "severe impact".

Any way its done now, Club tried its best to get it down to "High" impact against insurmountable odds. Just got to support Brady over the next 8 weeks before he can play again (bye and state game) and most importantly hopefully Saunders has a full recovery and is playing again sooner rather than later.

stampy wrote:

heater31 wrote:

Booney wrote:

Bluedemon wrote:Searle has been suspended for 6 matches

Rightly so.

Byron Pickett got 6 weeks years ago for something similar well before the crackdown on high contact. Should have been given 8 for being stupid in today's environment!

yes it was an unfortunate incident but if the norwood lad hadnt fumbled the ball prior to contact it would have been a completely different outcome.

the decision is being appealed btw

Wishing Saunders a swift recovery and hope he returns to playing soon.

Not victim blaming here, but agree with Stampy in terms of there being some contribution by Saunders to the scale of the disaster. As Searle closes in the guy is coming up, and I don't think there is time to recalibrate when Saunders dips again because of the fumble, where he also backs off to the side leaving just his head in the collision zone. If they'd called it as 8, but discount by 2 for the circumstances it would seem a fairer description, but the outcome is the same and 6 seems fair.

Certainly fairer than Billy McCormack getting 2 for a bump that didn't warrant a free kick in round 1, and then McAdam getting a reprimand in round 3 for rough conduct (dangerous tackle) in his first week back from 4 weeks off for rough conduct.

am Bays wrote:

Spargo wrote:

am Bays wrote:Hindsight is wonderful, we should've plead guilty on Tuesday and taken the 5.

I’m not sure 5 was on the table for an early plea, Mods, I reckon it was 6 - period. Either way, I’m as one eyed as they come and I didn’t like the club appealing.

You may be right my understanding is a guilty plea generally gives you a week off the penalty however the "not guilty" plea on Tuesday may have been indication that six weeks was going to be the minimum for a "severe impact".

Any way its done now, Club tried its best to get it down to "High" impact against insurmountable odds. Just got to support Brady over the next 8 weeks before he can play again (bye and state game) and most importantly hopefully Saunders has a full recovery and is playing again sooner rather than later.

The week discount is only for offences that are classified pre tribunal. so 5 was never an official offer (it may have been nudge nudge wink wink offered, who knows).

No idea why the club tried to downgrade impact, but maybe they should've had the Norwood doctor as their star witness given he made Saunders get up and jog off.

Realistically though once Saunders lost control of the ball high contact was inevitable, this should've been the only thing they focused on, as tackling wasnt an option,

Best wishes to Saunders with his recovery

Poor blokes had a shocking start to his SANFL career. Knocked out in his first trial match and needed an ambulance to assist him off the ground safely.

Now this latest injury. Hopefully his luck with injuries turns around soon

Saunders fumbling the ball makes it understandable, but changes nothing in terms of culpability. Every person following the code would be well aware of that these days. All/any players, from any club, that I’ve ever met in the last 20 years or so have always been high quality, respectful individuals. I’m sure Searle is the same, he’s made a blue but I’m confident no player sets out to inflict significant injury on an opponent (last millennium might be a different story). He’s made a blue, cops his whack and hopefully both boys get back to enjoy some footy with their respective clubs before the seasons over.