Southern Football League

[Look Good In Leather]

just thought i'd inform everyone about the incident that happened at port noarlunga 2 weeks ago.. Our player has been handed an 8 match ban... the SFL is an absolute joke, how can you give 8 weeks for an unseen incident, where the only witnesses were port noarlunga supporters, and the port noarlunga walked away from the incident with nothing but concussion.. Absolute disgrace, looks like next year every time there is a bit of roughness, all a club has to do is report it and the player will be out for several weeks

Porties getting a bit of a record for this!!! The old saying" people in glass houses"!

Detective ELLIOT involved??? did the same supporters not see ALL THE INCIDENTS or just what THEY wanted to see!!!!!!!!

Port Noarlunga have been putting in club reports all season long - they seem to have turned it into some kind of consolation competition

[Down the Hill]

Club reports are a tough one. I am personally against it believing "what goes around comes around".

Everyones favourite Porties player did his knee (full reco from memory) against us a few years ago so that was karma in our eyes for years of unpunished acts of thuggery. With what gets reported on this forum it appears he's due for another unfortunate injury.

In recent years we have been on the end of 5 or 6 club reports and only lodged the 1 which we thought long and hard about and that was our player who got barrelled by a Reynella player in last years Prelim when our player was leaving the ground with a broken collarbone.

It wasn't sour grapes for losing a Prelim because we knew Reynella could take the option of having the hearing deferred by a week (thats what the SFL rules say) allowing the player to play in a GF. When the matter was heard he received 1 week and thats because we presented clear and credible evidence.

Flaggies people need to remember that they have been quite active in lodging club reports in recent years. I am sympathetic because the mob who reported your player need to have a long hard look in the mirror at the actions of some their players over many years.

[reppoh_eht]

Club reports are a tough one. I am personally against it believing "what goes around comes around".

Everyones favourite Porties player did his knee (full reco from memory) against us a few years ago so that was karma in our eyes for years of unpunished acts of thuggery. With what gets reported on this forum it appears he's due for another unfortunate injury.

In recent years we have been on the end of 5 or 6 club reports and only lodged the 1 which we thought long and hard about and that was our player who got barrelled by a Reynella player in last years Prelim when our player was leaving the ground with a broken collarbone.

It wasn't sour grapes for losing a Prelim because we knew Reynella could take the option of having the hearing deferred by a week (thats what the SFL rules say) allowing the player to play in a GF. When the matter was heard he received 1 week and thats because we presented clear and credible evidence.

Flaggies people need to remember that they have been quite active in lodging club reports in recent years. I am sympathetic because the mob who reported your player need to have a long hard look in the mirror at the actions of some their players over many years.

I don't think anyone from Flaggy is whinging that there was a club report lodged... More the fact that they did lodge the report, then not show up to the hearing.

And the way that the SFL handled it, but I guess that's a different issue to the one about lodging club reports!

[Pommy Git]

Club reports are a tough one. I am personally against it believing "what goes around comes around".

Everyones favourite Porties player did his knee (full reco from memory) against us a few years ago so that was karma in our eyes for years of unpunished acts of thuggery. With what gets reported on this forum it appears he's due for another unfortunate injury.

In recent years we have been on the end of 5 or 6 club reports and only lodged the 1 which we thought long and hard about and that was our player who got barrelled by a Reynella player in last years Prelim when our player was leaving the ground with a broken collarbone.

It wasn't sour grapes for losing a Prelim because we knew Reynella could take the option of having the hearing deferred by a week (thats what the SFL rules say) allowing the player to play in a GF. When the matter was heard he received 1 week and thats because we presented clear and credible evidence.

Flaggies people need to remember that they have been quite active in lodging club reports in recent years. I am sympathetic because the mob who reported your player need to have a long hard look in the mirror at the actions of some their players over many years.

I don't think anyone from Flaggy is whinging that there was a club report lodged... More the fact that they did lodge the report, then not show up to the hearing.

And the way that the SFL handled it, but I guess that's a different issue to the one about lodging club reports!

Port weren't there due to a SFL stuff up.

[recruiter 10]

Club reports are a tough one. I am personally against it believing "what goes around comes around".

Everyones favourite Porties player did his knee (full reco from memory) against us a few years ago so that was karma in our eyes for years of unpunished acts of thuggery. With what gets reported on this forum it appears he's due for another unfortunate injury.

In recent years we have been on the end of 5 or 6 club reports and only lodged the 1 which we thought long and hard about and that was our player who got barrelled by a Reynella player in last years Prelim when our player was leaving the ground with a broken collarbone.

It wasn't sour grapes for losing a Prelim because we knew Reynella could take the option of having the hearing deferred by a week (thats what the SFL rules say) allowing the player to play in a GF. When the matter was heard he received 1 week and thats because we presented clear and credible evidence.

Flaggies people need to remember that they have been quite active in lodging club reports in recent years. I am sympathetic because the mob who reported your player need to have a long hard look in the mirror at the actions of some their players over many years.

I don't think anyone from Flaggy is whinging that there was a club report lodged... More the fact that they did lodge the report, then not show up to the hearing.

And the way that the SFL handled it, but I guess that's a different issue to the one about lodging club reports!

Port weren't there due to a SFL stuff up.

BUT Flagstaff were ???????? is this correct maybe they were to busy

[poohbear]

As an outsider i'm interested in the process of the sfl. Not sure about the particulars of the incident but
a couple of things from previous posts seem interesting. I'm interested as to know whether the SFL does
in fact use the statements of crowd members at the tribunal and also how a player can play the game
imediately after the game of the incident (i presume he played) and then be reported. Firstly, i struggle to
see how the SFL can use statements of crowd members, there is going to be an obvious bias depending on
the supporter and the team they are alligned to eg. port norlunga supporters are obviously going to say it
was a disgusting act, while flagstaff hill supporters are obviously going to say it wasnt, i struggle to see how
any outcome could be reached through the use of supporters (if this is in fact what the sfl do). The issue of
the player not being imediately suspended is one i cannot understand...

[Dazza44]

What is really mystifying about the whole issue of this particular club report by Pt Noarlunga (apart from the massive penalty imposed ) is the fact that the SFL and the reporting club have completely ignored the procedure set out in both the SFL Constitution and the 2010 SFL Handbook !! The procedures and process to be followed are clearly set out, yet it seems that NONE of the procedures have been followed in this case ...

SFL CONSTITUTION
16.6.2 Concerning Players charged by Member Clubs
The procedure for the bringing of a charge by a Member Club against a Player for a breach of the Laws of the Game shall be:
i) The Member Club making such charge shall write such report on its club letterhead, recording only the name of the Player (or if t he name cannot be obtained, the number of the Guernsey of such player), the details of the match during which the alleged incident occurred and the particulars of the charge. Such letter shall be signed by both the President and Secretary of the Member Club, or in their absence, two Executive Members of the Club.
iii) The Secretary/ Manager of the League shall forward a copy of the said letter to the Member
Club of the charged player together with advice of the date and time fixed for the hearing. Such
date is to be set so that the player against whom the charge has been made shall have at least seven (7) days notice thereof. The Secretary/ Manager shall also notify the Member Club that submitted the report of the time and date fixed for the hearing.

2010 SFL HANDBOOK
12 PROTESTS AND DISPUTES
All protests or disputes arising out of any match must be made in writing to the Secretary/Manager for reference to the Investigations Committee within four (4) days of each match and shall be accompanied by a fee of $50, such fee to be forfeited (at the discretion of the Committee) if the protest is dismissed.
All protests or disputes shall be submitted on an official club letterhead and signed by the current Club President and Secretary , or in their absence, two (2) executive Members of the Club’s Management Committee.

The report was submitted on an "Umpires Report" form, with the word 'Umpire' crossed out . It was signed by only one person who I believe was neither the Pt Noarlunga President nor Secretary.

Given the words in the Constitution, it seems that the report was not even a valid report and the League should have rejected it. On top of that, the Handbook seems to indicate that the report should have been referred to the Investigations Committee, not the Tribunal as it was.

If the SFL Board and Secretary /Manager cannot follow the SFL rules, how can they expect clubs to ????

So it seems the new procedure is that if any person feels angry about any incident in the SFL they just need to scrawl it on any old piece of loo paper and send it in. The league will apparently refer it to the tribunal and they will take it seriously !!

ABSOLUTE JOKE

[White Line Fever]

Massive can of worms have been opened.
That constitution is very interesting.

This will p!ss off alot of people.

SFL better act quick to sort this out...

[Big Knight]

The REAL effect is: the player on the end of the incident, still can't go to work due to dizzi spells and is costing him money. Any long term damage, who knows yet??

8 weeks(a bit harsh) But if you play with the devil you may get burnt!

The report was lodged by a assistant coach with the umpire.

[Dazza44]

The REAL effect is: the player on the end of the incident, still can't go to work due to dizzi spells and is costing him money. Any long term damage, who knows yet??

8 weeks(a bit harsh) But if you play with the devil you may get burnt!

The report was lodged by a assistant coach with the umpire.

Hence, it was not a valid report under the SFL Constitution ....

[85 WAS A GOOD YEAR]

The SFL response to Dazza44's enquiry was to quote that the tribunal hearing could still go ahead under the following section of the constitution (if you can make sense of it).

16.6.4 Concerning Officials and Servants

A Charge may be laid by an Umpire or by an Executive Officer of the League or by any Official or Servant of a Member against any Executive of the League or against any Official, Servant or player of another Member, and to the extent to which it is practicable, the procedure in respect of charges against persons mentioned in this sub-paragraph shall, as near as may be practicable, follow the that hereinbefore provided for the charging of a Member save where the charge is laid by an umpire. The charge shall nevertheless be heard and determined if made in accordance with either of the provisions for charging a Player or Member.

So any Joe Blow can lodge a report it seems

The SFL Constitution can be found on the SFL website if anyone wishes to have a look. http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page ... 6133&pID=1

[Dazza44]

The SFL response to Dazza44's enquiry was to quote that the tribunal hearing could still go ahead under the following section of the constitution (if you can make sense of it).

16.6.4 Concerning Officials and Servants

A Charge may be laid by an Umpire or by an Executive Officer of the League or by any Official or Servant of a Member against any Executive of the League or against any Official, Servant or player of another Member, and to the extent to which it is practicable, the procedure in respect of charges against persons mentioned in this sub-paragraph shall, as near as may be practicable, follow the that hereinbefore provided for the charging of a Member save where the charge is laid by an umpire. The charge shall nevertheless be heard and determined if made in accordance with either of the provisions for charging a Player or Member.

So any Joe Blow can lodge a report it seems

The SFL Constitution can be found on the SFL website if anyone wishes to have a look. http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page ... 6133&pID=1

That still says that you are supposed to follow the procedure - if anyone takes any notice of the Constitution:
"the procedure in respect of charges against persons mentioned in this sub-paragraph shall, as near as may be practicable, follow that hereinbefore provided for the charging of a Member ".

[Snaparazzi]

SFL tribunal is a joke, couldnt agree more. A MV player earlier in the year made a valid attempt at spoiling the football, a mark was taken by the opposition in front of his eyes, the attempted spoil copped the opposition from his left side with a left fist to the side of the head, probably 4 inches away from the ball (just estimating, but ball was very close). Officiating umpire saw no reason to send off/report and was heard by numerous players (me included) in the area that the ball was the players object, the other field umpire came down and 30 sec's later the player was sent off for the game and reported, this happened early in the 2nd term. At the tribunal the non-officiating umprie had somehow convinced the controlling umpire what had happened, evidence was offered from the boundary umpire of what the officiating umpire said in relation to the ball being the object, this evidence was dismissed. The case got turned around on the player to the point that he was suspended for 2 games for striking the opposition player with his right hand when in fact it was his left that contacted the player, so the facts presented by the umpires was 100% incorrect. Conspiring and blatantly lying to have someone proven guilty is the lowest act imaginable from an umpire.

[Look Good In Leather]

What is really mystifying about the whole issue of this particular club report by Pt Noarlunga (apart from the massive penalty imposed ) is the fact that the SFL and the reporting club have completely ignored the procedure set out in both the SFL Constitution and the 2010 SFL Handbook !! The procedures and process to be followed are clearly set out, yet it seems that NONE of the procedures have been followed in this case ...

SFL CONSTITUTION
16.6.2 Concerning Players charged by Member Clubs
The procedure for the bringing of a charge by a Member Club against a Player for a breach of the Laws of the Game shall be:
i) The Member Club making such charge shall write such report on its club letterhead, recording only the name of the Player (or if t he name cannot be obtained, the number of the Guernsey of such player), the details of the match during which the alleged incident occurred and the particulars of the charge. Such letter shall be signed by both the President and Secretary of the Member Club, or in their absence, two Executive Members of the Club.
iii) The Secretary/ Manager of the League shall forward a copy of the said letter to the Member
Club of the charged player together with advice of the date and time fixed for the hearing. Such
date is to be set so that the player against whom the charge has been made shall have at least seven (7) days notice thereof. The Secretary/ Manager shall also notify the Member Club that submitted the report of the time and date fixed for the hearing.

2010 SFL HANDBOOK
12 PROTESTS AND DISPUTES
All protests or disputes arising out of any match must be made in writing to the Secretary/Manager for reference to the Investigations Committee within four (4) days of each match and shall be accompanied by a fee of $50, such fee to be forfeited (at the discretion of the Committee) if the protest is dismissed.
All protests or disputes shall be submitted on an official club letterhead and signed by the current Club President and Secretary , or in their absence, two (2) executive Members of the Club’s Management Committee.

The report was submitted on an "Umpires Report" form, with the word 'Umpire' crossed out . It was signed by only one person who I believe was neither the Pt Noarlunga President nor Secretary.

Given the words in the Constitution, it seems that the report was not even a valid report and the League should have rejected it. On top of that, the Handbook seems to indicate that the report should have been referred to the Investigations Committee, not the Tribunal as it was.

If the SFL Board and Secretary /Manager cannot follow the SFL rules, how can they expect clubs to ????

So it seems the new procedure is that if any person feels angry about any incident in the SFL they just need to scrawl it on any old piece of loo paper and send it in. The league will apparently refer it to the tribunal and they will take it seriously !!

ABSOLUTE JOKE

Have tried the technicality thing in the past and was told "We can choose to hear any case that we wish"

[The Hound]

It would be fair to say that FHFC have a legitimate case for appeal as the SFL did not follow their own due diligence

[Zelezny Chucks]

It would be fair to say that FHFC have a legitimate case for appeal as the SFL did not follow their own due diligence

yes but who handles the appeal...

[The Yetti]

Not sure about the real nuts and bolts about club or officials reporting.

Surely if a player HAS hit someone and that someone is severely injured (concussion is severe)
AND
the incident is seen by an official of any club and they are prepared to face a tribunual by reporting the player,
THE RIGHT THING HAS BEEN DONE.

Thuggery has no place in our great game.

If the reported player has done the deed and is found guilty by the tribunual and suspended....
THAT IS THE RIGHT DECISION

If you drink and drive and get caught....suffer the consequence of your actions
If you belt a bloke and get caught...same thing

[shoe boy]

Last minor round games.

Aldinga V Flaggies Nothing to play for but pride Flaggies will flog the Sharks.

Brighton V H/Valley

C/Beach V Cove

Hackham V Lonsdale

Marion V M/Park

M/Vale V Townies

Noarlunga V Reynella An opportunity to grab 5th spot with Reynella only getting a 6 day break and with a few injuries to rest b4 finals the lads playing with the spirit they have shown in recent weeks could grab this. Also congrats to Peachy playing his 300 game! could he kick another goal like last weeks BEST EVER

Some last ditch efforts to get into final contention this week with Porties 8th and Marion 9th in the 14's playing each to keep their season going. Also in the 16's Porties 9th playing Marion to take Christies 8th spot.
GOOD LUCK TO ALL.

[Bag The Points]

Thanks Shoe Boy, I nearly missed that one.
A quick check of the Table shows you are right ---- Porties are probably going to get their Sixteens in as well.

[Cheese Twisties]

Anyone know the venues for the first round of finals in a weeks time?