Gather Round

[shoe boy]

Mclaren Vale oval a future gather round oval?
I assume this would be a new oval as i cannot see current oval developed to that standard.

[Jim05]

Mclaren Vale oval a future gather round oval?
I assume this would be a new oval as i cannot see current oval developed to that standard.

A stack of money for 1 game per year and Gather round could be canned at any stage

[Booney]

I'd say it will be near McLaren Vale, Willunga my guess.

[wenchbarwer]

Mclaren Vale oval a future gather round oval?
I assume this would be a new oval as i cannot see current oval developed to that standard.

A stack of money for 1 game per year and Gather round could be canned at any stage

What, like Mt Barker?

Mali sure does love his sports

[wenchbarwer]

Butters to get a suspended sentence.

Behind the scenes Foot to get a few bonus bets to not drag the issue on any further into the media. Bet he ends up getting the GF or some bullshit.

FTFY

[Lightning McQueen]

Surely they have to?
Makes Zac look like a liar otherwise

Probably won't want to detract the focus on the big match of the round clash with Hawthorn this week at Marvel.

[Lightning McQueen]

Mclaren Vale oval a future gather round oval?
I assume this would be a new oval as i cannot see current oval developed to that standard.

That's kind of my take on it, I'd assume that they'd develop one oval of one of the merged clubs and get them to play at their other oval while it gets worked on.

[The Bedge]

are PAFC appealing, surely they have to

No effin way,, AFL don't want to be made to look silly, and they're not going to back down - if they appeal, I fear they'll make a statement and the penalty will be increased, they'll come down hard to show Port / Butters whose boss.

[Brodlach]

Just to put an opposing narrative, what if Foot was correct and he did say it. No one will really ever know


IMO I don’t think it matters either way, it’s such a low scale insult and should be brushed off especially by an umpire who has been around for a long time

[Trader]

If they are going to fight it, they need to go hard on the fact that the audio has "you pay", whereas foot is saying it was "paying you", these are clearly different.

They need to push that point that Foot has not heard it correctly.

However, ultimately, it will all be a waste anyway, as the lawyers will fall back to the old "it doesn't matter what was said, what matters was how it was taken. The umpire was offended by your comments, therefore your comments were offensive".

For whatever reason, the legal profession seems to have moved away from how would a 'reasonable person' take what you said, and now simply considers how the individual took it.

Foot was offended, and that's the bottom line.

[gadj1976]

If they are going to fight it, they need to go hard on the fact that the audio has "you pay", whereas foot is saying it was "paying you", these are clearly different.

They need to push that point that Foot has not heard it correctly.

However, ultimately, it will all be a waste anyway, as the lawyers will fall back to the old "it doesn't matter what was said, what matters was how it was taken. The umpire was offended by your comments, therefore your comments were offensive".

For whatever reason, the legal profession seems to have moved away from how would a 'reasonable person' take what you said, and now simply considers how the individual took it.

Foot was offended, and that's the bottom line.

This is the bullschlarken world we live in. I could say 'you're acting like a goose' but if the person hears it as 'I'm calling you a goose' then I'm stuffed. It means in work and in life in general you can't provide feedback to anyone, for fear they are going to take it the wrong way. Society is stuffed.

[Lightning McQueen]

Just to put an opposing narrative, what if Foot was correct and he did say it. No one will really ever know


IMO I don’t think it matters either way, it’s such a low scale insult and should be brushed off especially by an umpire who has been around for a long time

If the shoe was on the other foot?

[dedja]

Just to put an opposing narrative, what if Foot was correct and he did say it. No one will really ever know


IMO I don’t think it matters either way, it’s such a low scale insult and should be brushed off especially by an umpire who has been around for a long time

If the shoe was on the other foot?

Then nick off!

[Booney]

Just to put an opposing narrative, what if Foot was correct and he did say it.

Then $1500 is manifestly inadequate and the AFL have said calling an umpire a cheat isn't that bad a thing to do.

[wenchbarwer]

Just to put an opposing narrative, what if Foot was correct and he did say it.

Then $1500 is manifestly inadequate and the AFL have said calling an umpire a cheat isn't that bad a thing to do.

Has the AFL actually announced what he's been found guilty of?

[Booney]

“On a careful consideration of the whole of the evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied to the requisite standard that Mr Butters made the offending comment. It is implausible that Mr Foot would invent the offending comment and it was not put to him that he had done so. It was put to him that there were several distractions and that he had misheard what Mr Butters said. We also consider that to be implausible.

“It is implausible that Mr Foot misheard the words “Surely that’s not a free kick” as “How much are they paying you?” None of the words that Mr Butters said he spoke are any of the words that Mr Foot believes he heard. Mr Foot was certain as to what he heard, the two men were standing close to one another and Mr Foot responded without hesitation in giving a 50-metre penalty and then shortly thereafter telling Mr Butters that he was being reported.

“We reject Mr Butters evidence that he only made one comment about the free kick against player Sweet (“Surely that’s not a free kick” ) and that his only comment was made after Mr Foot blew his whistle to move the ball on. The evidence as to him only making that one comment is contrary to the evidence of Mr Foot who said that Mr Butters made more than one comment.

“It was also not Mr Wines’ evidence that he only heard Mr Butters comment to Mr Foot on one occasion. Consistent with Mr Foot’s evidence, Mr Wines said that he heard Mr Butters comment on the free kick more than once. We also accept the AFL’s submission that it would be peculiar for Mr Butters to make his only comment about the umpiring decision just before the St Kilda player took his free kick. This is because Mr Butters appears in the vision to be unhappy with the umpiring decision as soon as it was made, he told the Tribunal he was very frustrated with the decision and he stood close to Mr Foot for some time including while Mr Wines was himself complaining about the decision.

“The vision and the effect of the evidence of Mr Foot and Mr Wines was that there was much dissent in relation to Mr Foot’s umpiring decision. It started with Mr Sweet and was continued by Mr Butters and Mr Wines. The crowd also booed the decision. In all these circumstances, it is unlikely that Mr Butters remained silent about the umpiring decision until just before the free kick was taken.

“We find that Mr Butters made more than one comment to Mr Foot about his umpiring decision and that his final comment, made after Mr Foot blew his whistle to direct the St Kilda player to move on with his free kick, was the offending comment. It is not surprising that Mr Wines did not hear the offending comment.

“Mr Foot’s unchallenged evidence was that Mr Butters made the offending comment at a lower volume than his earlier comments. Mr Wines was at least 1.5 metres away from Mr Butters. The distance and positioning made it difficult for Mr Butters himself to hear what Mr Wines was saying to Mr Foot about his umpiring decision.”

The statement finished by stating: “It is also relevant that this is far from the first time that Mr Butters has committed a reportable offence during his career. He has committed well over a dozen reportable offences over the last eight seasons.”

[wenchbarwer]

The last two sentences are only relevant if he has a history of offensive language. Which he does not.

AFL making the Sportsbet maggot out to be some kind of Yellow Jesus...

[Booney]

Has anything united 18 clubs supporters like this before?

[wenchbarwer]

Has anything united 18 clubs supporters like this before?

Please delete this post, you'll give the AFL ideas...

[Trader]

“It is implausible that Mr Foot misheard the words “Surely that’s not a free kick” as “How much are they paying you?” None of the words that Mr Butters said he spoke are any of the words that Mr Foot believes he heard.

So because one sentence isn't like the other, they conclude the umpire didn't mis-hear him.

“We find that Mr Butters made more than one comment to Mr Foot about his umpiring decision and that his final comment, made after Mr Foot blew his whistle to direct the St Kilda player to move on with his free kick, was the offending comment.

But then they go on to say he made more than one comment. In which case, their first point is no longer relevant is it not? As it could have been the second or third thing Mr Butters said that the umpire confused.

For what it's worth (very little), I don't believe Butters only said "surely that's not a free kick".
I am still of the opinion he said "How do you pay that".

Given he has fronted to the tribunal that he said, and only said, "surely that's not a free kick", I am not surprised they found him to be an unreliable witness.