Footy Chick wrote: This rule has it's merits but just like anything else, possibly needs a tweak but also needs to have set boundaries.
Agree. The ban system has merit, but games shouldn't be allowed to accumulate indefinitely. Similar to how our driver's license demerit point accumulate and expire, so should any tribunal penalties.
ie. I get suspended for 6 games for head-butting today - May 26th, 2010. That 6 games supension rolls out of my accumulation total on May 25th, 2013, suggesting that if I have received no further suspensions in that three-year period, I would be back on zero games.
NM Absolutely correct, a f*$#%^@ disgrace that Bruce is deregistered I only found out last Sat night but I hope the club is going to challenge this Club needs to get someone like Jack Clarke or David Black, both Solicitors with a passion for amateur football to take this on.
Bussy wrote:NM Absolutely correct, a f*$#%^@ disgrace that Bruce is deregistered I only found out last Sat night but I hope the club is going to challenge this Club needs to get someone like Jack Clarke or David Black, both Solicitors with a passion for amateur football to take this on.
Once your total games suspended reaches 12 you're gone for life?
IIRC its 12 games in a 3 year period.
From what I have read on here this is the 2nd expulsion and if the facts are reported correctly in both cases the suspensions are a complete joke.
This Investigation panel should only be open to the week preceding the alleged incident. Once the next round commences its done and dusted. If the incident was not dealt with on the day or by the following Monday then the appellants are just clutching at straws looking to make a name for themselves
I was under the impression that it was 12 games in a 3 year period but have since been corrected by someone in the know, it it 12 games period.
it was a defensive action and he has a clean sheet. The instigator was throwing fists and it was as the Salisbury player ducked his head there heads came into contact.
The saafl tribunal is a load of wank and the people on the panel are just idiots with no idea on what amature Footy is about, and reporting people and suspending them weeks after games for incidents people sturggle to recall or remember exact contests in games is bullcrap
RedMagpie wrote:it was a defensive action and he has a clean sheet. The instigator was throwing fists and it was as the Salisbury player ducked his head there heads came into contact.
Nup. Not buying that one sorry RM. Was obviously 'obvious' enough to warrant being reported and found guilty so in my eyes guilty means guilty and 1 game is weak. I'm sure if he was defending himself and it was incidental contact then that would have come out.... but 1 week is lucky and he'd be thankful he got off that lightly...
I love grapes. With grapes, you always get another chance. You know, if you have a crappy apple or a peach, you’re stuck with that crappy piece of fruit. If you have a crappy grape, no problem-just move on to the next. ‘Grapes: The Fruit of Hope.
Road to Glory wrote:The saafl tribunal is a load of wank and the people on the panel are just idiots with no idea on what amature Footy is about, and reporting people and suspending them weeks after games for incidents people sturggle to recall or remember exact contests in games is bullcrap
Not sure that's correct as most of them have played at SAAFL level albeit many moons ago. The issue in my experience is that in many cases, the player/advocate has to prove his innocence rather that the umpire put forward a strong enough case to prove player guilty. There appears on occasions to be the distinct feeling that "guilty" on the night will be the outcome irrespective of what's put forward. Must say that overall it balances itself out.
Footy Chick wrote: This rule has it's merits but just like anything else, possibly needs a tweak but also needs to have set boundaries.
Agree. The ban system has merit, but games shouldn't be allowed to accumulate indefinitely. Similar to how our driver's license demerit point accumulate and expire, so should any tribunal penalties.
ie. I get suspended for 6 games for head-butting today - May 26th, 2010. That 6 games supension rolls out of my accumulation total on May 25th, 2013, suggesting that if I have received no further suspensions in that three-year period, I would be back on zero games.
I think that is a great format. Thugs in our game won't last 3 years without suspension so if they continue to accumulate suspensions within the 3 years period after their 1st offence i say on your bike.
Footy Chick wrote: This rule has it's merits but just like anything else, possibly needs a tweak but also needs to have set boundaries.
Agree. The ban system has merit, but games shouldn't be allowed to accumulate indefinitely. Similar to how our driver's license demerit point accumulate and expire, so should any tribunal penalties.
ie. I get suspended for 6 games for head-butting today - May 26th, 2010. That 6 games supension rolls out of my accumulation total on May 25th, 2013, suggesting that if I have received no further suspensions in that three-year period, I would be back on zero games.
I think that is a great format. Thugs in our game won't last 3 years without suspension so if they continue to accumulate suspensions within the 3 years period after their 1st offence i say on your bike.
NO-MERCY wrote:READ THIS SLOWLY BELOW, THATS WHAT I"M REFERRING TO.
Agree. The ban system has merit, but games shouldn't be allowed to accumulate indefinitely. Similar to how our driver's license demerit point accumulate and expire, so should any tribunal penalties.
ie. I get suspended for 6 games for head-butting today - May 26th, 2010. That 6 games supension rolls out of my accumulation total on May 25th, 2013, suggesting that if I have received no further suspensions in that three-year period, I would be back on zero games.
I think that is a great format. Thugs in our game won't last 3 years without suspension so if they continue to accumulate suspensions within the 3 years period after their 1st offence i say on your bike.[/quote]
Trader wrote:If you are going to make it a rolling period of three years 12 games is too many. Cut it to more like 6 if they get em back every 3 years.
How could you make it less than 12 with the way people get games thrown at them.
Footy Chick wrote: This rule has it's merits but just like anything else, possibly needs a tweak but also needs to have set boundaries.
Agree. The ban system has merit, but games shouldn't be allowed to accumulate indefinitely. Similar to how our driver's license demerit point accumulate and expire, so should any tribunal penalties.
ie. I get suspended for 6 games for head-butting today - May 26th, 2010. That 6 games supension rolls out of my accumulation total on May 25th, 2013, suggesting that if I have received no further suspensions in that three-year period, I would be back on zero games.
Liking the idea that games don't accrue indefinitely but I'd make it at four years - that averages to 3 games per year - like to think that people should be able to avoid doing something that warrants suspension. Then the games accrued in the first year drop off in year 5, those in the second year in year 6 etc
always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them so much
Bussy wrote:NM Absolutely correct, a f*$#%^@ disgrace that Bruce is deregistered I only found out last Sat night but I hope the club is going to challenge this Club needs to get someone like Jack Clarke or David Black, both Solicitors with a passion for amateur football to take this on.
the rule is a must have to rid the league of the thugs but there is a huge grey area for example portland have 2 players that were reported a couple of seasons ago for urinating in a tree away from the ground at a college oval who both recieved 2 games a peice, how would you feel if that 2 game sentance tipped you over the 12 games or even was just part of the reason you got the boot from the league.
Tell him go go buy a lotto ticket! 
