SAAFL Div 5 & Div 5R (2011)

[Phantom Gossiper]

he's never got games before...
he pleaded guilty apparently. also the 2 umpires couldnt give a clear account of what happened thats why he got just 4 instead of the 8 they were goin to give him...

i've heard a rumor the player who was attacked is sending the guilty instigator his medical bills etc... could turn out to be quite the costly mistake for the Plympton lad!

[hollywood7477]

he's never got games before...
he pleaded guilty apparently. also the 2 umpires couldnt give a clear account of what happened thats why he got just 4 instead of the 8 they were goin to give him...

i've heard a rumor the player who was attacked is sending the guilty instigator his medical bills etc... could turn out to be quite the costly mistake for the Plympton lad!

A few years ago a bloke got taken to court over an assault on the footy field. I was a witness to it all and had to front court. Cbcoc lied through their teeth, woody south could go dwn that path if they aren't happy with the outcome. The bloke got 10 games from the saafl cos they said he wldnt play footy again. He has since gone to another league and still plays footy.

[superboot7]

was the incident as bad as everyone is claiming? 4 weeks seems to be fairly light if the SAAFL are meant to be consistent to a strike charge. Ive heard players have recieved more!

[superlative steve]

was the incident as bad as everyone is claiming? 4 weeks seems to be fairly light if the SAAFL are meant to be consistent to a strike charge. Ive heard players have recieved more!

I used to play with some hack that got 8 weeks for a behind the play incident with the report coming from the rival club. 4 weeks seems very light for a incident like that.

[Mr Beefy]

was the incident as bad as everyone is claiming? 4 weeks seems to be fairly light if the SAAFL are meant to be consistent to a strike charge. Ive heard players have recieved more!

The SAAFL have more important things to worry about, like getting water boys to wear plain dark shorts or long pants.

[The Chump is here...]

was the incident as bad as everyone is claiming? 4 weeks seems to be fairly light if the SAAFL are meant to be consistent to a strike charge. Ive heard players have recieved more!

I used to play with some hack that got 8 weeks for a behind the play incident with the report coming from the rival club. 4 weeks seems very light for a incident like that.

I think he was ivestigated due to two letters received at SAAFL House, no umpire report what so ever (Goal, Boundry or Field) I believe he was given the penalty due to the seriouness of the injury to the player (broken jaw). Like so many issues with SAAFL its the consistency or lack of, that leaves everyone bemused/frustrated/angry. Not seeing the incident but knowing the damaged caused, punishment does not fit the crime.

[The Informer]

So you king hit someone and break there jaw and only get 4 weeks? No wonder so many people on here have had enough of this inconsistent league. Stop worrying about looking at fining water boys and trainers because they don't have the right slacks or shorts on and worry about these thugs in the game and making a example of them.

No wonder people are turning away from the game and people wont put there hand up to help.

[Wild Thing]

he's never got games before...
he pleaded guilty apparently. also the 2 umpires couldnt give a clear account of what happened thats why he got just 4 instead of the 8 they were goin to give him...

i've heard a rumor the player who was attacked is sending the guilty instigator his medical bills etc... could turn out to be quite the costly mistake for the Plympton lad!

A few years ago a bloke got taken to court over an assault on the footy field. I was a witness to it all and had to front court. Cbcoc lied through their teeth, woody south could go dwn that path if they aren't happy with the outcome. The bloke got 10 games from the saafl cos they said he wldnt play footy again. He has since gone to another league and still plays footy.

I also witnessed it and had to clean up the blood in the changerooms after the ambos left- he got ten games because he king hit the bloke with such force that we thought his two front bottom teeth were missing - what had actually happened was his jaw had seperated. Not sure what you think CBC lied about - who gives a frig if he played footy again or not - if you are defending this bloke (who I believe was captain at Plympton) for his actions you are a bigger muppett than the gutless wanker who did it...did I mention it was a king hit and during a stop in play - he should have got life ban IMO

[Lance's brother]

That is worse than terrible as a result from the tribunal. That is dispicable.

How can the bloke that infringed end up missing less games than the victim?

I don't know the Plympton bloke and I'm just talking generally here, but I would think it should be victim's projected games missed plus 25% for behind play.

[hollywood7477]

he's never got games before...
he pleaded guilty apparently. also the 2 umpires couldnt give a clear account of what happened thats why he got just 4 instead of the 8 they were goin to give him...

i've heard a rumor the player who was attacked is sending the guilty instigator his medical bills etc... could turn out to be quite the costly mistake for the Plympton lad!

A few years ago a bloke got taken to court over an assault on the footy field. I was a witness to it all and had to front court. Cbcoc lied through their teeth, woody south could go dwn that path if they aren't happy with the outcome. The bloke got 10 games from the saafl cos they said he wldnt play footy again. He has since gone to another league and still plays footy.

I also witnessed it and had to clean up the blood in the changerooms after the ambos left- he got ten games because he king hit the bloke with such force that we thought his two front bottom teeth were missing - what had actually happened was his jaw had seperated. Not sure what you think CBC lied about - who gives a frig if he played footy again or not - if you are defending this bloke (who I believe was captain at Plympton) for his actions you are a bigger muppett than the gutless wanker who did it...did I mention it was a king hit and during a stop in play - he should have got life ban IMO

CBC said he ran from 50m awaynand hit him from behind and he would never play footy again. He would not have punched him if the bloke hadn't been punching blokes in the balls all game. When he punched another of our players in the stoppage he took two steps and hit him. He was sticking up for his team mate. Noone deserves to be punched but if you are doin it all game expect something in return. I'm against violence on the field as there is no place for it that's why I can't understand players that go out on the field looking to
Knock someones head off

[mypaddock]

That is worse than terrible as a result from the tribunal. That is dispicable.

How can the bloke that infringed end up missing less games than the victim?

I don't know the Plympton bloke and I'm just talking generally here, but I would think it should be victim's projected games missed plus 25% for behind play.

Plus a further 5 games for sporting such a sh*t tattoo!

[Jabber]

That is worse than terrible as a result from the tribunal. That is dispicable.

How can the bloke that infringed end up missing less games than the victim?

I don't know the Plympton bloke and I'm just talking generally here, but I would think it should be victim's projected games missed plus 25% for behind play.

Plus a further 5 games for sporting such a sh*t tattoo!

Who's word to you take for the victims projected games? The club trainer? An impartial doctor? An SAAFL assigned doctor? Won't work. Plus there are plenty of reportable and suspendable offences that players get straight back up and keep playing. Does that mean that the reported player gets 0 weeks?

Idealogically it sounds good but you need to take the emotion out of it, and after an incident like this it does get people very emotional. On the other hand if you get too scientific and clinical about it you get the disgraceful tribunal system that the AFL have where a bloke can tackle another bloke perfectly and get more weeks than a bloke that elbows another in the head!

Tribunals are never going to be perfect, but the evidence based system where the ump or reporting officer gives his evidence and then the player refutes the claims leading to a judgement, is still the best system going around.

[nicole]

chump is here would never hurt anyone ,i hear he is too slow , but gets the odd goal here and there

[Lightning McQueen]

Who's word to you take for the victims projected games? The club trainer? An impartial doctor? An SAAFL assigned doctor? Won't work. Plus there are plenty of reportable and suspendable offences that players get straight back up and keep playing. Does that mean that the reported player gets 0 weeks?

Idealogically it sounds good but you need to take the emotion out of it, and after an incident like this it does get people very emotional. On the other hand if you get too scientific and clinical about it you get the disgraceful tribunal system that the AFL have where a bloke can tackle another bloke perfectly and get more weeks than a bloke that elbows another in the head!

Tribunals are never going to be perfect, but the evidence based system where the ump or reporting officer gives his evidence and then the player refutes the claims leading to a judgement, is still the best system going around.

I've always been a firm believer that if a player maliciously causes an injury to an opponent and is found guilty, they shouldn't be allowed to play until a week or two after the player they injured returns. Why should he be allowed to play when an innocent party isn't able to.

[Jabber]

Who's word to you take for the victims projected games? The club trainer? An impartial doctor? An SAAFL assigned doctor? Won't work. Plus there are plenty of reportable and suspendable offences that players get straight back up and keep playing. Does that mean that the reported player gets 0 weeks?

Idealogically it sounds good but you need to take the emotion out of it, and after an incident like this it does get people very emotional. On the other hand if you get too scientific and clinical about it you get the disgraceful tribunal system that the AFL have where a bloke can tackle another bloke perfectly and get more weeks than a bloke that elbows another in the head!

Tribunals are never going to be perfect, but the evidence based system where the ump or reporting officer gives his evidence and then the player refutes the claims leading to a judgement, is still the best system going around.

I've always been a firm believer that if a player maliciously causes an injury to an opponent and is found guilty, they shouldn't be allowed to play until a week or two after the player they injured returns. Why should he be allowed to play when an innocent party isn't able to.

That can work - but what if the player decides not to play again, or his work circumstances change while he's injured, or he gets a woman and is told to stay home on saturdays etc etc, what if the player was at the end of his playing days and decides to retire? What if he gets run over by a bus during the week? What if he goes off and plays in a different league?

Too many what ifs to make that work.

[Lance's brother]

Who's word to you take for the victims projected games? The club trainer? An impartial doctor? An SAAFL assigned doctor? Won't work. Plus there are plenty of reportable and suspendable offences that players get straight back up and keep playing. Does that mean that the reported player gets 0 weeks?

Idealogically it sounds good but you need to take the emotion out of it, and after an incident like this it does get people very emotional. On the other hand if you get too scientific and clinical about it you get the disgraceful tribunal system that the AFL have where a bloke can tackle another bloke perfectly and get more weeks than a bloke that elbows another in the head!

Tribunals are never going to be perfect, but the evidence based system where the ump or reporting officer gives his evidence and then the player refutes the claims leading to a judgement, is still the best system going around.

I've always been a firm believer that if a player maliciously causes an injury to an opponent and is found guilty, they shouldn't be allowed to play until a week or two after the player they injured returns. Why should he be allowed to play when an innocent party isn't able to.

That can work - but what if the player decides not to play again, or his work circumstances change while he's injured, or he gets a woman and is told to stay home on saturdays etc etc, what if the player was at the end of his playing days and decides to retire? What if he gets run over by a bus during the week? What if he goes off and plays in a different league?

Too many what ifs to make that work.

I think LM and I are referring to incidents where you can easily ascertain the period to be missed, like ones that cause breaks.

Pretty easy to prove by supplying the xray. 6 weeks is pretty standard for a break - bloke that caused it gets 7 or 8. I'd say 8.

Bloke needs surgery to put in plates from break, probably add to that. That's what I think the general standard should be anyway.

[hollywood7477]

Have Plympton suspended him for any games. Surely they have banned him from playing for them this year or longer. By the posts from a few plympton people and jabber and wub disgraced by his actions the club would have to had moved quickly and given him the boot???
Jabber any word on a club suspension to go with his saafl suspension

[Jabber]

Have Plympton suspended him for any games. Surely they have banned him from playing for them this year or longer. By the posts from a few plympton people and jabber and wub disgraced by his actions the club would have to had moved quickly and given him the boot???
Jabber any wordnon a club suspension to go with his saafl suspension

I haven't been down there since Saturday morning C Grade so I'm not sure.

PFC wouldn't be moving with any great gusto on anything based on how Jabber's feeling about an issue, surely you know that!

[woodublieve12]

Have Plympton suspended him for any games. Surely they have banned him from playing for them this year or longer. By the posts from a few plympton people and jabber and wub disgraced by his actions the club would have to had moved quickly and given him the boot???
Jabber any word on a club suspension to go with his saafl suspension

i honestly have no idea if the club has done anything or will do anything.

[White Line Fever]

.