SAAFL Div 5 & Div 5R (2011)

[S Demon]

Don't know about that Zed. No Stubberfield helped- he's the one that messes with the Lockleys boys heads and until they realise he's just flesh and bone AND is under the same rules as everyone else, he will continue to mess with their heads.

I'm sure the big fella can handle himself on and off the field, but I have only ever seen him play at the ball. Granted he runs straight at it or thru the player with it, but I have never seen him do anything that is outside the rules. He's a big guy who plays the game the way it should be played. And he adds some theatre to go with it - Good on him! He gives A5 a bit of colour and entertainment, personally I think he's good for the comp. Time for the Lockleys Boys to get over him and last Saturday was the 1st step in doing so, hopefully they get to play against the Big Fella later in the year.

Now that would be worth talking about.

How do you mean? If he didn't play, then they haven't taken any steps to "get over him" as you put it...

[Browny25]

You could easily assume that if 30+ saw it that SOMEONE would say something!!?

[Jabber]

You could easily assume that if 30+ saw it that SOMEONE would say something!!?

You should never assume browny, do u know why that is?

[Darth Demon]

Don't know about that Zed. No Stubberfield helped- he's the one that messes with the Lockleys boys heads and until they realise he's just flesh and bone AND is under the same rules as everyone else, he will continue to mess with their heads.

I'm sure the big fella can handle himself on and off the field, but I have only ever seen him play at the ball. Granted he runs straight at it or thru the player with it, but I have never seen him do anything that is outside the rules. He's a big guy who plays the game the way it should be played. And he adds some theatre to go with it - Good on him! He gives A5 a bit of colour and entertainment, personally I think he's good for the comp. Time for the Lockleys Boys to get over him and last Saturday was the 1st step in doing so, hopefully they get to play against the Big Fella later in the year.

Now that would be worth talking about.

How do you mean? If he didn't play, then they haven't taken any steps to "get over him" as you put it...

What I am saying is - "Don't know about that Zed." IMO beating that opponent is something of a 1st step considering they had not beaten WC for some time in answer to Zed's "hoodoo" comment. AND if they get to play against Stubberfield later in the year that would be a bonus. Let's call it heading in the right direction....

[hawkseye]

Don't know about that Zed. No Stubberfield helped- he's the one that messes with the Lockleys boys heads and until they realise he's just flesh and bone AND is under the same rules as everyone else, he will continue to mess with their heads.

I'm sure the big fella can handle himself on and off the field, but I have only ever seen him play at the ball. Granted he runs straight at it or thru the player with it, but I have never seen him do anything that is outside the rules. He's a big guy who plays the game the way it should be played. And he adds some theatre to go with it - Good on him! He gives A5 a bit of colour and entertainment, personally I think he's good for the comp. Time for the Lockleys Boys to get over him and last Saturday was the 1st step in doing so, hopefully they get to play against the Big Fella later in the year.

Now that would be worth talking about.

How do you mean? If he didn't play, then they haven't taken any steps to "get over him" as you put it...

What I am saying is - "Don't know about that Zed." IMO beating that opponent is something of a 1st step considering they had not beaten WC for some time in answer to Zed's "hoodoo" comment. AND if they get to play against Stubberfield later in the year that would be a bonus. Let's call it heading in the right direction....

Did Bryant play on the weekend?

[S Demon]

Yep. Kicked 3

[Masha]

You could easily assume that if 30+ saw it that SOMEONE would say something!!?

I agree, usually if it is that obvious that 30 or so people see it, then a fuss would have been made of it at the time, especially when they are on the sauce. Supporters are usually more vocal and react to those sorta incidents.

Jabber, your rose coloured glasses are making you think irrational.

Either way, we'll find out what the SAAFL makes of it on Wednesday.

[Mr Beefy]

Gonna be a busy night on Wednesday. I think there were 2 x Plympton and 2 x Rosewater players reported.

[THE FUZZ]

You could easily assume that if 30+ saw it that SOMEONE would say something!!?

You should never assume browny, do u know why that is?

I FIND AFEW THINGS WITH THIS IVESSTIGATION BAFFLING..
1- I CAN SAY I WAS THERE AND THE BRAHMA LODGE PLAYER DONE NOTHING WRONG, WAS A FAIR BUMP - THAT IS WHAT THE UMPIRE SAID ASWELL. (I KNEW PEOPLE WILL SAY U CANT BRAKE UR JAW IN A FAIR BUMP BUT WHEN 1 PLAYER IS SMALLER THAN THE OTHER AND HE TRIES TO BUMP HIM, HIS HEAD CAN HIT THE TALLER PLAYERS SHOULDER RESULTING IN AN INJURY.
2- IF IT DID HAPPEN, WHY DIDNT PLAYERS COME RUNNING OVER OR UMPS SEE ANYTHING. (UR CROWD GAVE ME SH#T ALL DAY ON A TACKLE I DID BUT YET NEVER SAID NOTHING TO NUMBER 8 WHEN HE GOT THE BALL).....STRANGE.
3- I WORK WITH AFEW BLOKES FROM PLYMPTON FOOTBALL CLUB THAT ILL HAPPILY SAY WHO THEY ARE THAT SAID HE GOT HIT WITH A FAIR BUMP.......
THINK THE SAAFL WILL REALISE THIS IS A JOKE AND TRIBUNAL WILL BE OVER IN MINUTES..

[Q.]

Couple of years ago we had a player suspended for five games for a similar sounding incident. Umpire stated it was a fair bump, however, because the contact was high and the other player sustained facial injuries, the tribunal ruled that the contact was negligent and handed down the suspension.

[The Informer]

Couple of years ago we had a player suspended for five games for a similar sounding incident. Umpire stated it was a fair bump, however, because the contact was high and the other player sustained facial injuries, the tribunal ruled that the contact was negligent and handed down the suspension.

I think a club out north had a player suspended for life in the same situation. No evidence

[Jabber]

You could easily assume that if 30+ saw it that SOMEONE would say something!!?

I agree, usually if it is that obvious that 30 or so people see it, then a fuss would have been made of it at the time, especially when they are on the sauce. Supporters are usually more vocal and react to those sorta incidents.

Jabber, your rose coloured glasses are making you think irrational.

Either way, we'll find out what the SAAFL makes of it on Wednesday.

The way suspensions are going now at all levels, intent is no longer (or is on the way toward no longer being) the deciding factor, so whether he (or anyone) deliberately did it or not is becoming less and less an issue. But it is a hell of a lot harder to police unless the victim's club advises what the outcome is.

Tribunals now are moving more on outcomes than intent, so while the intent was a fair bump/hip and shoulder it has created an outcome of a broken jaw. This investigation is centered around the outcome. People might say 'thats just the afl that is suspending that way', but it seems to be that it is becoming more and more on outcomes.

For the record, do I like investigations, no i don't. Because it will create a precedent where whenever a player gets injured an investigation will be called. In some cases this will be a waste of SAAFLs time and money, and the SAAFL don't need any help wasting any of either, they do a good enough job themselves. My personal opinion is that investigations for on field incidents should only occur for behind play incidents. Now i don't even know if this bump was in play or not, so if it was behind play then investigate onwards.

[lovetotalkfooty]

You could easily assume that if 30+ saw it that SOMEONE would say something!!?

I agree, usually if it is that obvious that 30 or so people see it, then a fuss would have been made of it at the time, especially when they are on the sauce. Supporters are usually more vocal and react to those sorta incidents.

Jabber, your rose coloured glasses are making you think irrational.

Either way, we'll find out what the SAAFL makes of it on Wednesday.

The way suspensions are going now at all levels, intent is no longer (or is on the way toward no longer being) the deciding factor, so whether he (or anyone) deliberately did it or not is becoming less and less an issue. But it is a hell of a lot harder to police unless the victim's club advises what the outcome is.

Tribunals now are moving more on outcomes than intent, so while the intent was a fair bump/hip and shoulder it has created an outcome of a broken jaw. This investigation is centered around the outcome. People might say 'thats just the afl that is suspending that way', but it seems to be that it is becoming more and more on outcomes.

For the record, do I like investigations, no i don't. Because it will create a precedent where whenever a player gets injured an investigation will be called. In some cases this will be a waste of SAAFLs time and money, and the SAAFL don't need any help wasting any of either, they do a good enough job themselves. My personal opinion is that investigations for on field incidents should only occur for behind play incidents. Now i don't even know if this bump was in play or not, so if it was behind play then investigate onwards.

Jabber this is easily the most sensible post I have ever read on the div 5 forum (Unknown Source excluded). Nobody ever goes out to hurt another player let alone break somebodys jaw. The incident was one that both parties would have liked never to happen. Anybody who knows the guy being investigated will know that he is a ball player and a ball player only. Yes he is hard at the ball. Yes he only runs in straigh line but I have never ever seen him do anything that is not within the rules.

Just a quick question. Is this investigation been driven by the player or by the club? If it is by the club (As i am lead to believe) and not the player then I find that pretty poor form.

[Jabber]

I wouldnt say no-body does, because there are snipers out there. I would say that 99.5% of players go hard at the ball without the intent to injure a player.

I don't know the answer to your second question.

[zedman]

Don't know about that Zed. No Stubberfield helped- he's the one that messes with the Lockleys boys heads and until they realise he's just flesh and bone AND is under the same rules as everyone else, he will continue to mess with their heads.

I'm sure the big fella can handle himself on and off the field, but I have only ever seen him play at the ball. Granted he runs straight at it or thru the player with it, but I have never seen him do anything that is outside the rules. He's a big guy who plays the game the way it should be played. And he adds some theatre to go with it - Good on him! He gives A5 a bit of colour and entertainment, personally I think he's good for the comp. Time for the Lockleys Boys to get over him and last Saturday was the 1st step in doing so, hopefully they get to play against the Big Fella later in the year.

Now that would be worth talking about.

How do you mean? If he didn't play, then they haven't taken any steps to "get over him" as you put it...

What I am saying is - "Don't know about that Zed." IMO beating that opponent is something of a 1st step considering they had not beaten WC for some time in answer to Zed's "hoodoo" comment. AND if they get to play against Stubberfield later in the year that would be a bonus. Let's call it heading in the right direction....

my comment was more to do with you beating WCFC..thats all

[The Ash Man]

Gonna be a busy night on Wednesday. I think there were 2 x Plympton and 2 x Rosewater players reported.

Rumbelow is down as being reported twice....typo??

[The Dark Knight]

Very impressive ladder. In just 1 win the bottom team can jump to 3rd. Not too often you see that!

Very impreesive indeed. We're equal 5th and then equal bottom at the same time! Anything can happen in the next 8 games, it's going to be extremely tight once we get to the pointy end of the season heading into finals. From our point of view we can't afford to have any slip ups.

[Mr Beefy]

Gonna be a busy night on Wednesday. I think there were 2 x Plympton and 2 x Rosewater players reported.

Rumbelow is down as being reported twice....typo??

Nope, reported twice. One of the Plympton reserve blokes can consider himself lucky to have his charge not heard due to an error with the paper work.

[lovetotalkfooty]

Gonna be a busy night on Wednesday. I think there were 2 x Plympton and 2 x Rosewater players reported.

Rumbelow is down as being reported twice....typo??

Nope, reported twice. One of the Plympton reserve blokes can consider himself lucky to have his charge not heard due to an error with the paper work.

Has he got any games previously?

[Mr Beefy]

Gonna be a busy night on Wednesday. I think there were 2 x Plympton and 2 x Rosewater players reported.

Rumbelow is down as being reported twice....typo??

Nope, reported twice. One of the Plympton reserve blokes can consider himself lucky to have his charge not heard due to an error with the paper work.

Has he got any games previously?

Nope