by The Big Shrek » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:13 pm
by mickey » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:14 pm
The Big Shrek wrote:So essentially people who play for northern suburbs teams should be punished more than college types.
Red card for Saints= send off
Red card for Eastern Park = kicked out the club
Once a club does the dirty work for the league it's ok.
Call me old fashioned but I believe in equal punishment for equal offending no matter where you are from.
This is SN's first suspension this year. It's from a bloke who played state footy and won a div 1 medal. He has been reported before but in 2005 and at a league club. In my opinion calling the club recalcitrant based on that, or even in combination with the one incident that happened the year before is a bit rich.
Saying the club is to blame to justify the suspension of the club is wrong. I don't see the league putting in place there own administrator at SN which they could do and the reason is they know they couldn't do any better. Sometimes these things happen and there's nothing you can do to prevent it.
This outcome is unfair to Salisbury North. If it's justified for some other reason like safety of players the league should say so but unless they have refused assistance don't call the club recalcitrant.
by Lightning McQueen » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:26 pm
carey wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:carey wrote:
The answer to that is, clearly not.
Going tonight?
yes.... But the Mrs will be with so, Behaving.
This time i am
by JesseWhite » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:27 pm
The Big Shrek wrote:I wasn't talking about tribunal outcomes but rather the idea that certain clubs should punish their own players more severely to justify their inclusion in the league.
by carey » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:29 pm
the joker wrote:Gawler South I thinkLightning McQueen wrote:The Bedge wrote:It has begun..
Salisbury North Hills Football League SA Bingos, Dylan Pending 2018-06-21
Salisbury North Barossa Light and Gawler Football Association Cochrane, Joel Pending 2018-06-21
Salisbury North River Murray Football League Haseldine, Toby Pending 2018-06-21
Salisbury North Barossa Light and Gawler Football Association Hay, Callum Pending 2018-06-21
Salisbury North Barossa Light and Gawler Football Association Hay, Joseph Pending 2018-06-21
Salisbury North Hills Football League SA Miller, Daniel Pending 2018-06-21
Salisbury North Kilburn Owen, Jharien Pending 2018-06-21
Salisbury North West Croydon Wiles, Ben Pending 2018-06-21
Anyone know where Callum is heading? Willaston perhaps? Thought he may end up at Virginia, they could use him right now.
by jo172 » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:34 pm
by WingerFC » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:35 pm
carey wrote:the joker wrote:Gawler South I thinkLightning McQueen wrote:The Bedge wrote:It has begun..
Salisbury North Hills Football League SA Bingos, Dylan Pending 2018-06-21
Salisbury North Barossa Light and Gawler Football Association Cochrane, Joel Pending 2018-06-21
Salisbury North River Murray Football League Haseldine, Toby Pending 2018-06-21
Salisbury North Barossa Light and Gawler Football Association Hay, Callum Pending 2018-06-21
Salisbury North Barossa Light and Gawler Football Association Hay, Joseph Pending 2018-06-21
Salisbury North Hills Football League SA Miller, Daniel Pending 2018-06-21
Salisbury North Kilburn Owen, Jharien Pending 2018-06-21
Salisbury North West Croydon Wiles, Ben Pending 2018-06-21
Anyone know where Callum is heading? Willaston perhaps? Thought he may end up at Virginia, they could use him right now.
No clearances will be processed for this week. All will be processed from Monday.
by whufc » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:38 pm
The Big Shrek wrote:So essentially people who play for northern suburbs teams should be punished more than college types.
Red card for Saints= send off
Red card for Eastern Park = kicked out the club
Once a club does the dirty work for the league it's ok.
Call me old fashioned but I believe in equal punishment for equal offending no matter where you are from.
This is SN's first suspension this year. It's from a bloke who played state footy and won a div 1 medal. He has been reported before but in 2005 and at a league club. In my opinion calling the club recalcitrant based on that, or even in combination with the one incident that happened the year before is a bit rich.
Saying the club is to blame to justify the suspension of the club is wrong. I don't see the league putting in place there own administrator at SN which they could do and the reason is they know they couldn't do any better. Sometimes these things happen and there's nothing you can do to prevent it.
This outcome is unfair to Salisbury North. If it's justified for some other reason like safety of players the league should say so but unless they have refused assistance don't call the club recalcitrant.
by Lightning McQueen » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:48 pm
WingerFC wrote:
That is crap - their reasoning is that they don't want a heap of players collectively going to a single club this weekend within the SAAFL. Looking at the list above there are only 2 players who have applied within the SAAFL. I think the real reason is they think there is a chance they will overturn the club imposed sanction and know the mess it will cause clearing everyone if there is a game to play the following week.. honestly what a mess.
by footys the winner » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:51 pm
whufc wrote:The Big Shrek wrote:So essentially people who play for northern suburbs teams should be punished more than college types.
Red card for Saints= send off
Red card for Eastern Park = kicked out the club
Once a club does the dirty work for the league it's ok.
Call me old fashioned but I believe in equal punishment for equal offending no matter where you are from.
This is SN's first suspension this year. It's from a bloke who played state footy and won a div 1 medal. He has been reported before but in 2005 and at a league club. In my opinion calling the club recalcitrant based on that, or even in combination with the one incident that happened the year before is a bit rich.
Saying the club is to blame to justify the suspension of the club is wrong. I don't see the league putting in place there own administrator at SN which they could do and the reason is they know they couldn't do any better. Sometimes these things happen and there's nothing you can do to prevent it.
This outcome is unfair to Salisbury North. If it's justified for some other reason like safety of players the league should say so but unless they have refused assistance don't call the club recalcitrant.
While I agree with a lot your sentiment I think the league would be taking the view of the extreme.
If the injured player had sadly passed away from the injury sustained there would be no doubt there would be a prosecution against the league as well as the club and players involved.
No doubt lines such as ‘what did the league do to ensure the safety of players against a club with a repeated history of violence’ would be thrown around etc
IMHO all the league is doing is protecting themselves from the inevitable that will happen one day. Answering questions from a guy in your position question what they have done
by Arch44 » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:53 pm
footys the winner wrote:That is an extreme hypothetical whufc.
Here is one for you that isn't too extreme.
What about the mental health of Stengle who now has a life ban for 2 suspensions over a (roughly) 15 year senior football career? Who does that fall back on?whufc wrote:The Big Shrek wrote:So essentially people who play for northern suburbs teams should be punished more than college types.
Red card for Saints= send off
Red card for Eastern Park = kicked out the club
Once a club does the dirty work for the league it's ok.
Call me old fashioned but I believe in equal punishment for equal offending no matter where you are from.
This is SN's first suspension this year. It's from a bloke who played state footy and won a div 1 medal. He has been reported before but in 2005 and at a league club. In my opinion calling the club recalcitrant based on that, or even in combination with the one incident that happened the year before is a bit rich.
Saying the club is to blame to justify the suspension of the club is wrong. I don't see the league putting in place there own administrator at SN which they could do and the reason is they know they couldn't do any better. Sometimes these things happen and there's nothing you can do to prevent it.
This outcome is unfair to Salisbury North. If it's justified for some other reason like safety of players the league should say so but unless they have refused assistance don't call the club recalcitrant.
While I agree with a lot your sentiment I think the league would be taking the view of the extreme.
If the injured player had sadly passed away from the injury sustained there would be no doubt there would be a prosecution against the league as well as the club and players involved.
No doubt lines such as ‘what did the league do to ensure the safety of players against a club with a repeated history of violence’ would be thrown around etc
IMHO all the league is doing is protecting themselves from the inevitable that will happen one day. Answering questions from a guy in your position question what they have done
by whufc » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:55 pm
footys the winner wrote:That is an extreme hypothetical whufc.
Here is one for you that isn't too extreme.
What about the mental health of Stengle who now has a life ban for 2 suspensions over a (roughly) 15 year senior football career? Who does that fall back on?whufc wrote:The Big Shrek wrote:So essentially people who play for northern suburbs teams should be punished more than college types.
Red card for Saints= send off
Red card for Eastern Park = kicked out the club
Once a club does the dirty work for the league it's ok.
Call me old fashioned but I believe in equal punishment for equal offending no matter where you are from.
This is SN's first suspension this year. It's from a bloke who played state footy and won a div 1 medal. He has been reported before but in 2005 and at a league club. In my opinion calling the club recalcitrant based on that, or even in combination with the one incident that happened the year before is a bit rich.
Saying the club is to blame to justify the suspension of the club is wrong. I don't see the league putting in place there own administrator at SN which they could do and the reason is they know they couldn't do any better. Sometimes these things happen and there's nothing you can do to prevent it.
This outcome is unfair to Salisbury North. If it's justified for some other reason like safety of players the league should say so but unless they have refused assistance don't call the club recalcitrant.
While I agree with a lot your sentiment I think the league would be taking the view of the extreme.
If the injured player had sadly passed away from the injury sustained there would be no doubt there would be a prosecution against the league as well as the club and players involved.
No doubt lines such as ‘what did the league do to ensure the safety of players against a club with a repeated history of violence’ would be thrown around etc
IMHO all the league is doing is protecting themselves from the inevitable that will happen one day. Answering questions from a guy in your position question what they have done
by Lightning McQueen » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:55 pm
footys the winner wrote:That is an extreme hypothetical whufc.
Here is one for you that isn't too extreme.
What about the mental health of Stengle who now has a life ban for 2 suspensions over a (roughly) 15 year senior football career? Who does that fall back on?
by footys the winner » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:57 pm
whufc wrote:footys the winner wrote:That is an extreme hypothetical whufc.
Here is one for you that isn't too extreme.
What about the mental health of Stengle who now has a life ban for 2 suspensions over a (roughly) 15 year senior football career? Who does that fall back on?whufc wrote:The Big Shrek wrote:So essentially people who play for northern suburbs teams should be punished more than college types.
Red card for Saints= send off
Red card for Eastern Park = kicked out the club
Once a club does the dirty work for the league it's ok.
Call me old fashioned but I believe in equal punishment for equal offending no matter where you are from.
This is SN's first suspension this year. It's from a bloke who played state footy and won a div 1 medal. He has been reported before but in 2005 and at a league club. In my opinion calling the club recalcitrant based on that, or even in combination with the one incident that happened the year before is a bit rich.
Saying the club is to blame to justify the suspension of the club is wrong. I don't see the league putting in place there own administrator at SN which they could do and the reason is they know they couldn't do any better. Sometimes these things happen and there's nothing you can do to prevent it.
This outcome is unfair to Salisbury North. If it's justified for some other reason like safety of players the league should say so but unless they have refused assistance don't call the club recalcitrant.
While I agree with a lot your sentiment I think the league would be taking the view of the extreme.
If the injured player had sadly passed away from the injury sustained there would be no doubt there would be a prosecution against the league as well as the club and players involved.
No doubt lines such as ‘what did the league do to ensure the safety of players against a club with a repeated history of violence’ would be thrown around etc
IMHO all the league is doing is protecting themselves from the inevitable that will happen one day. Answering questions from a guy in your position question what they have done
I don’t agree with it but the world we live in off risk assessments and WH&S mean we live in the extremes.
If we can’t suspend because of fear of mental health we won’t be able to suspend a single player. The league may need to supply mental health and anger management support for the player.
by whufc » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:58 pm
Lightning McQueen wrote:footys the winner wrote:That is an extreme hypothetical whufc.
Here is one for you that isn't too extreme.
What about the mental health of Stengle who now has a life ban for 2 suspensions over a (roughly) 15 year senior football career? Who does that fall back on?
Not to mention that he was the straw that broke the camel's back, his mental state was in my thoughts when this all unfolded, I hope he's alright.
by The Bedge » Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:11 pm
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
by footys the winner » Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:12 pm
whufc wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:footys the winner wrote:That is an extreme hypothetical whufc.
Here is one for you that isn't too extreme.
What about the mental health of Stengle who now has a life ban for 2 suspensions over a (roughly) 15 year senior football career? Who does that fall back on?
Not to mention that he was the straw that broke the camel's back, his mental state was in my thoughts when this all unfolded, I hope he's alright.
The league should still provide mental health and anger management support.
Literally every industry in life have the ability to ban for life whether it be a resteraunt, criminal conviction, gym membership.
You suspend as you deem fit and then provide the support required to the guilty
You can’t not suspend the bloke for whacking people because he might suffer from that. Good luck with that as a defence if he went on to cause someone harm
The players are lucky they don’t face criminal convictions
by The Big Shrek » Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:16 pm
footys the winner wrote:whufc wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:footys the winner wrote:That is an extreme hypothetical whufc.
Here is one for you that isn't too extreme.
What about the mental health of Stengle who now has a life ban for 2 suspensions over a (roughly) 15 year senior football career? Who does that fall back on?
Not to mention that he was the straw that broke the camel's back, his mental state was in my thoughts when this all unfolded, I hope he's alright.
The league should still provide mental health and anger management support.
Literally every industry in life have the ability to ban for life whether it be a resteraunt, criminal conviction, gym membership.
You suspend as you deem fit and then provide the support required to the guilty
You can’t not suspend the bloke for whacking people because he might suffer from that. Good luck with that as a defence if he went on to cause someone harm
The players are lucky they don’t face criminal convictions
I don't think anyone is arguing the suspension.
First suspension since 2005 or something which has resulted in a life ban is my issue and I can't be the only one who thinks that?
13 years without a report carries no merit?
by footys the winner » Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:17 pm
The Bedge wrote:http://www.adelaidefootball.com.au/player-welfare/
Direct from the website, these are services available to all players in the AdFL in regards to their personal welfare.
by The Bedge » Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:18 pm
footys the winner wrote:First suspension since 2005 or something which has resulted in a life ban is my issue and I can't be the only one who thinks that?
13 years without a report carries no merit?
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |