by Booney » Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:44 pm
by Dogwatcher » Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:54 pm
by am Bays » Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:59 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:Doesn't mean there's not a problem with the spectator as well.
by Dutchy » Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:42 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:Whether the players should be bigger than that is not the issue.
We agree that they should be.
Doesn't mean there's not a problem with the spectator as well.
by dedja » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:53 pm
Booney wrote:Two people did the wrong thing here, that's the bottom line and only one, at this point, has been punished.
by Second Team » Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:16 pm
dedja wrote:Booney wrote:Two people did the wrong thing here, that's the bottom line and only one, at this point, has been punished.
Disagree Boon ... Hartlett only gets 3 matches, Luke Grant will be a dickhead for the rest of his life.
by Dogwatcher » Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:21 pm
by cennals05 » Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:52 pm
by Dutchy » Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:14 pm
by RustyCage » Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:50 pm
by knowledge » Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:02 pm
Hartlett’s tribunal representative, former assistant SAPOL Commissioner Graeme Barton, told the tribunal Grant’s abuse was over and above what a player should have to receive during a match.
by PatowalongaPirate » Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:13 pm
knowledge wrote:Hartlett’s tribunal representative, former assistant SAPOL Commissioner Graeme Barton, told the tribunal Grant’s abuse was over and above what a player should have to receive during a match.
So, I take it then, Mr. Barton, that repeatedly telling your direct opponent ad nauseum that "ÿou're fuc...ing his fiance", is not over and above what a player should have to receive during a match." Seems that Adam applies one set of rules and standards for others, and another for himself!
by knowledge » Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:34 pm
Are you that player? Hardly threatening physical abuse.
by PatowalongaPirate » Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:53 pm
knowledge wrote:Are you that player? Hardly threatening physical abuse.
No. I'm not. But, I guess the status of the comments depend upon which version of events you want to believe? Version 1 of "You're a dickhead, Hartlett.... an absolute dickhead." Or, Version 2 of Ï'll bash you... you fuc...ing dog." Seems to me that the credentials of both parties are less than desirable. One (Grant), that as a Sturt supporter of long standing, I'm not proud of and consider that his behaviour is something the SFC can do without. Or, two, someone (Hartlett) that makes regular visits to the tribunal (3 in the last four years) and has been charged with assault off the field previously. Both made formal statements to the tribunal. Both markedly different from the other. Guess one is lying or embellishing the truth. As another poster on this topic stated previously, abuse of a racial or sexual nature is something that we've moved on from as a society, one would hope. Are you saying that Hartlett's on field comments are O.K? It's sad if you do. My point is that it's poor form to go to the tribunal saying you're offended by someone's comments, if you're indulging in exactly the same yourself.
by Second Team » Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:56 pm
by knowledge » Fri Jul 25, 2014 7:01 pm
by Wedgie » Fri Jul 25, 2014 8:53 pm
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Dols » Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:20 am
by Dols » Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:55 am
by Bounce of the ball » Sat Jul 26, 2014 10:23 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |