SA Footy

Down the Hill wrote:First game was in the A grade in Round 12. Didn't play Round 13. Broadview C grade received a forfeit in Round 14 and they put him on the Team Sheet which is dodgy as anything but because he didn't play Round 13 then the rules probably can't prevent a club from doing it. Plays A grade Round 15 and cops a 3 game suspension for striking which means he finishes the minor round on 3 games and 1 game short of finals qualification.

Not sure about the rest of you but I'm thinking stiff bikkies. You bring a guy in for the last 7 games to replace a mercenary so you were already rolling the dice with getting 4 games into him. You then pull a swifty with the Round 14 situation so he's really only played 2 games. Broadview's heavy recruiting of high profile players suggests they were very determined to get promoted to Division 1. It seems that determination has now turned to desperation.

Yungmuney wrote:

jo172 wrote::shock:

Just casually scrolling through the days court listings for something to do? Lol

jo172 wrote:Also if you compare the incident to the two other strikes that got 4 weeks and 3 weeks respectively that night at the tribunal seems Jesse got off pretty lightly.

Could be be careful what you wish for, if decision is quashed and remitted to the Tribunal a different tribunal might take the view its a 5-6 weeker

Bluedemon wrote:Technically an A grader can drop down to play C's the following week, there is nothing in the rules that prevents this

Yungmuney wrote:

jo172 wrote::shock:

Just casually scrolling through the days court listings for something to do? Lol

Bluedemon wrote:

Down the Hill wrote:First game was in the A grade in Round 12. Didn't play Round 13. Broadview C grade received a forfeit in Round 14 and they put him on the Team Sheet which is dodgy as anything but because he didn't play Round 13 then the rules probably can't prevent a club from doing it. Plays A grade Round 15 and cops a 3 game suspension for striking which means he finishes the minor round on 3 games and 1 game short of finals qualification.

Not sure about the rest of you but I'm thinking stiff bikkies. You bring a guy in for the last 7 games to replace a mercenary so you were already rolling the dice with getting 4 games into him. You then pull a swifty with the Round 14 situation so he's really only played 2 games. Broadview's heavy recruiting of high profile players suggests they were very determined to get promoted to Division 1. It seems that determination has now turned to desperation.

Technically an A grader can drop down to play C's the following week, there is nothing in the rules that prevents this

Down the Hill wrote: However the terms integrity and moral compass spring to mind.

redyellow&blue wrote:

Down the Hill wrote: However the terms integrity and moral compass spring to mind.

Not the Teams.

The whole clubs integrity.

Some questionable things been going on down at the tigers.

Dutchy wrote:It was a fair tackle to bring him to ground

Footy Chick wrote:

Dutchy wrote:It was a fair tackle to bring him to ground

Its the elbow to the face afterwards that was the issue

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:

Dutchy wrote:It was a fair tackle to bring him to ground

Its the elbow to the face afterwards that was the issue

Exactly the sort of act the league has been striving to stamp out. There have been about 8 players found guilty of offences with a similar grading .... Striking/Intentional/High/Low and most got 3 + (1). So, 3 for White is quite generous I believe.

Armchair expert wrote:Todays Case List
Case 1. Murder
Case 2. Attempted Murder
Case 3. Guy wants to play football
Case 4. Domestic Violence

I mean seriously what a waste of the courts time

Footy Chick wrote:

Dutchy wrote:It was a fair tackle to bring him to ground

Its the elbow to the face afterwards that was the issue

Dutchy wrote:A former AFL player has taken his three match ban for elbowing an opposing player to the Supreme Court in a desperate bid to be eligible for the finals of an amateur football league.

Jesse White was suspended for three games for striking an opposing player while playing for Broadview in the Division Two competition of the SA Amateur Football League.

He has already served sat out two of the games, but if he sits out the third, the final game of the season this Saturday – he will be left ineligible for the finals.

Mr White played 280 games across his 13 year career which included stints with both the AFL and VFL for Collingwood.

Sam Abbott QC, for Mr White, told Supreme Court Auxiliary Justice Sydney Tilmouth his client was applying to have the decision of the league’s disciplinary tribunal quashed.

Mr Abbott said Mr White was denied procedural fairness when the Tribunal took into account a disciplinary history sourced from a website which showed the former Collingwood Magpies and Sydney Swans player had been fined for misconduct.

Mr White had told the tribunal he had no previous disciplinary issues and when shown the new documents said he had no knowledge of the fines.

“These were not allegations which bought him before a tribunal, they were fines which may very well have been paid by the club without Mr White’s knowledge,” Mr Abbott said.

“Put in criminal parlances it is like a record of previous convictions was produced before sentence and the accused did not agree with them but he was sentenced anyway.”

In an affidavit read partially to the court, Mr White adamantly denied paying any fines for misconduct.

Mr Abbott said the tribunal incorrectly concluded that Mr White had been lying about the previous incidents and refused to suspend any of the punishment.

Because of the success of Broadview this season, Mr White is standing to lose at least two match fees if he misses the finals.

Mr Abbott asked the court to overturn the initial ban and remit it back to the tribunal for another decision.

Paul d’Assumpcao, for SAAFL, said asked the court to dismiss the application – saying that even if the previous misconduct had been taken into account, it would not have made a difference to the ban.

“Even if there was a hiccup along the way, it would not have changed the outcome,” he said.

“The decision maker does not need to give a running commentary and the point about the previous misconduct was not taken any further and they did not deliberate on it.”

Justice Tilmouth will hand down his decision on Thursday afternoon.