Adelaide Footy League Division 1 - 2017

[Gazza's Scalp]

Why is the league so slow in recording tribunal results on their web site?
One hearing from 5/7, still no result.
Let alone yesterday's results.
Carrier pigeon stuff.
This is 2017 not 1967!

Up now. http://www.adelaidefootball.com.au/wp-c ... ebsite.pdf

Now I'm led to believe that this one again followed the process of a pre-tribunal assessment but was determined should go to tribunal. Makes me wonder what the player struck reported back to the league given the strike was deemed high force, yet he went on to kick 5 goals in a BOG performance?

Given 2 weeks earlier a player managed to get a headbutt that dropped a player downgraded to undue rough conduct and low impact based on the player's feedback in the pre-tribunal assessment (and accept a 1 and 1 penalty), I would imagine all players would be a little confused by the inconsistency of these two results... but correct me if I'm wrong regarding there being some pre-tribunal assessment or if the player struck was not approached in the process.

[Jimmy_041]

Earth shattering information
All reports and complaints go through a pre-tribunal assessment
It's been that way for as long as I can remember

[Gazza's Scalp]

By 'pre-tribunal assessment' I meant the new method being trialled by the league to try sort out the issue and agree on a penalty (or not guilty) without having to go to the tribunal on a Wednesday night.

[Jimmy_041]

By 'pre-tribunal assessment' I meant the new method being trialled by the league to try sort out the issue and agree on a penalty (or not guilty) without having to go to the tribunal on a Wednesday night.

It's a new step in the 'pre-tribunal assessment' process and was explained to the clubs including the reasons why

And if you know about it, why are you asking whether there was one?

[Trader]

I would imagine all players would be a little confused by the inconsistency of these two results...

It's not confusing, everyone knows how it works:

The clubs that do the right thing, get penalised in accordance with expectations.
The clubs that refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and try to blame anyone but themselves, get penalised at the upper end of expectations.

[The Big Shrek]

Sorry Trader, I agree with Gazza. The situation seems confusing to me. Having said that of course it's going to be confusing given that we are going off information posted on here rather seeing video like we would if discussing an AFL incident.

The lack of video evidence makes this whole pre-tribunal thing look a bit fishy though. Inevitably people are going to wonder about deals being done with mates etc. Is there any information published on the website re the pre-tribunal process? Who makes the call re how many weeks or if it will be determined pre-tribunal?

Another thing that I've wondered about for a while, is what assistance does the league offer clubs like Salisbury North regarding controlling on field behaviour?

On a final note, Trader, the last post makes you look like a latte drinking twat.

[morell]

On a final note, Trader, the last post makes you look like a latte drinking twat.

More your can of coke type character.

[jo172]

Another thing that I've wondered about for a while, is what assistance does the league offer clubs like Salisbury North regarding controlling on field behaviour?

What assistance would you propose? It's not immediately obvious to me how the League could assist a member club in that kind of thing?

[Senor Moto Gadili]

Another thing that I've wondered about for a while, is what assistance does the league offer clubs like Salisbury North regarding controlling on field behaviour?

What assistance would you propose? It's not immediately obvious to me how the League could assist a member club in that kind of thing?

Before the season commenced, a video was released to illustrate how the Adelaide Football League would be umpired differently to the AFL. Included in the video were 3 examples of when a red card would be warranted. Where video footage exists, is there merit in showing more examples of instances where players have been suspended? Maybe a broader catalogue will help some of the slow learners understand what is right from wrong?

[Trader]

On a final note, Trader, the last post makes you look like a latte drinking twat.

Make it a soy latte and I'm in.

[jo172]

Another thing that I've wondered about for a while, is what assistance does the league offer clubs like Salisbury North regarding controlling on field behaviour?

What assistance would you propose? It's not immediately obvious to me how the League could assist a member club in that kind of thing?

Before the season commenced, a video was released to illustrate how the Adelaide Football League would be umpired differently to the AFL. Included in the video were 3 examples of when a red card would be warranted. Where video footage exists, is there merit in showing more examples of instances where players have been suspended? Maybe a broader catalogue will help some of the slow learners understand what is right from wrong?

You'd have to be a bloody slow learner.

Vast majority of Clubs in the League would be on one report or less for the year I'd suggest?

[The Big Shrek]

Another thing that I've wondered about for a while, is what assistance does the league offer clubs like Salisbury North regarding controlling on field behaviour?

What assistance would you propose? It's not immediately obvious to me how the League could assist a member club in that kind of thing?

No but they always talk about working with clubs, what does that mean? Also what are Salisbury North meant to do? For example how were they meant to stop Drainer and the late spoil?

[jo172]

Another thing that I've wondered about for a while, is what assistance does the league offer clubs like Salisbury North regarding controlling on field behaviour?

What assistance would you propose? It's not immediately obvious to me how the League could assist a member club in that kind of thing?

No but they always talk about working with clubs, what does that mean? Also what are Salisbury North meant to do? For example how were they meant to stop Drainer and the late spoil?

* recklessly high strike with a high impact?

I still find it to be a very curious anomaly that Club's on AAAs (aside from SN) appear to be able to avoid suspensions, but the second they get off they appear to find themselves back in trouble. Consider North Pines, Smithfield, Salisbury West and Ingle Farm as recent graduates off AAAs, with impeccable behaviour during the AAA, all of whom have spent more time at the Tribunal this year than they would have cared for.

Now I acknowledge it's a small sample size, but it would suggest that when the mind is properly applied Clubs are entirely capable of controlling the discipline of their playing group.

[Jimmy_041]

The lack of video evidence makes this whole pre-tribunal thing look a bit fishy though. Inevitably people are going to wonder about deals being done with mates etc. Is there any information published on the website re the pre-tribunal process? Who makes the call re how many weeks or if it will be determined pre-tribunal?

Just some points TBS, and, as a lawyer, you should appreciate this:
1. The new system is conditional on all parties agreeing on the principle circumstances of the "event"
2. The player wishes to plead Guilty
The player is then offered a penalty and its then their choice as to whether to agree to it or, alternatively, go to tribunal
I'm no expert on the AFL system but think they do the same thing

The whole idea behind it is to avoid a group of 8-10 people sitting around Thebarton until 2am on a Thursday morning just to ultimately plead guilty

The process was explained to league delegates and, as far as I know, no-one has any qualms with it. If they did, then they can just ask to go to the tribunal.
I don't know who makes the call on how many weeks are offered but there is a very descriptive manual with penalty ranges to start with

So, if Drainer didn't agree with 1 or 2; it would have gone to the tribunal

And I'm a Coopers Pale Ale drinking sort of bloke

[Trader]

Vast majority of Clubs in the League would be on one report or less for the year I'd suggest?

7 Portland
6 Modbury
6 North Pines
6 Port District
4 Brighton Bombers
4 Tea Tree Gully
3 Brahma Lodge
3 Flinders Park
3 Gaza
3 Golden Grove
3 Greenacres
3 Lockleys
3 Salisbury North
3 Seaton Ramblers
3 Smithfield
3 St Peter's OC
2 Athelstone
2 Edwardstown
2 Elizabeth
2 Fitzroy
2 Gepps Cross
2 Ingle Farm
2 North Haven
2 PAOC
2 Sacred Heart OC
2 Salisbury West
2 SMOSH West Lakes
2 Unley
1 Central United
1 Goodwood Saints
1 Henley
1 Mitcham
1 Mitchell Park
1 Morphettville Park
1 Para Hills
1 PHOS Camden
1 Plympton
1 Pooraka
1 Rostrevor OC
1 Salisbury
1 Trinity OS
1 Westminster OS
1 Woodville South

[The Bedge]

Just some points TBS, and, as a lawyer, you should appreciate this:
1. The new system is conditional on all parties agreeing on the principle circumstances of the "event"
2. The player wishes to plead Guilty
The player is then offered a penalty and its then their choice as to whether to agree to it or, alternatively, go to tribunal
I'm no expert on the AFL system but think they do the same thing

The whole idea behind it is to avoid a group of 8-10 people sitting around Thebarton until 2am on a Thursday morning just to ultimately plead guilty

The process was explained to league delegates and, as far as I know, no-one has any qualms with it. If they did, then they can just ask to go to the tribunal.
I don't know who makes the call on how many weeks are offered but there is a very descriptive manual with penalty ranges to start with

So, if Drainer didn't agree with 1 or 2; it would have gone to the tribunal

Who decides whether that "pre-tribunal" occurs though? For instance Ingle Farm had 3x reports over the past couple weeks, all incidents were always going to plead guilty to, but wasn't offered an opportunity to accept an early penalty and avoid spending the night at Thebby.

Wednesday just gone there were plenty there as well, which i'm guessing they didn't get the chance to accept an early penalty either?

[Jimmy_041]

Just some points TBS, and, as a lawyer, you should appreciate this:
1. The new system is conditional on all parties agreeing on the principle circumstances of the "event"
2. The player wishes to plead Guilty
The player is then offered a penalty and its then their choice as to whether to agree to it or, alternatively, go to tribunal
I'm no expert on the AFL system but think they do the same thing

The whole idea behind it is to avoid a group of 8-10 people sitting around Thebarton until 2am on a Thursday morning just to ultimately plead guilty

The process was explained to league delegates and, as far as I know, no-one has any qualms with it. If they did, then they can just ask to go to the tribunal.
I don't know who makes the call on how many weeks are offered but there is a very descriptive manual with penalty ranges to start with

So, if Drainer didn't agree with 1 or 2; it would have gone to the tribunal

Who decides whether that "pre-tribunal" occurs though? For instance Ingle Farm had 3x reports over the past 3x weeks, all incidents were always going to plead guilty to, but wasn't offered an opportunity to accept an early penalty and avoid spending the night at Thebby.

Wednesday just gone there were plenty there as well, which i'm guessing they didn't get the chance to accept an early penalty either?

Not sure mate. I'm only parroting what I remember from the delegates meeting (some time ago)
I would hazard a guess that it has to be down the scale, but best ring the office and get some guidance

And "pre-tribunal" begins on the Saturday. The umpires can offer a prescribed penalty

[The Bedge]

I still find it to be a very curious anomaly that Club's on AAAs (aside from SN) appear to be able to avoid suspensions, but the second they get off they appear to find themselves back in trouble. Consider North Pines, Smithfield, Salisbury West and Ingle Farm as recent graduates off AAAs, with impeccable behaviour during the AAA, all of whom have spent more time at the Tribunal this year than they would have cared for.

Now I acknowledge it's a small sample size, but it would suggest that when the mind is properly applied Clubs are entirely capable of controlling the discipline of their playing group.

I appreciate it's a poor look, coming off and suddenly re-offending, but it's definitely not a deliberate act or that (in our case) a relaxing of our standards and expectations.

We (Ingle Farm) didn't even inform our members they were off the AAA when it was lifted, even after our first report we told the players we were still on it and it was still being discussed, so that hopefully they'd remain focused on football, and not get complacent in their behavior.

Complacency has definitely crept in though, when i reflect back over the previous few years, there was a constant drive/emphasis on behavior and the repercussions for the club as a whole - mostly driven from the playing group during games - players would pull players out of hazardous situations, or moving away/bringing themselves off from retaliating to incidents.

Go without incident for an extended period of time, and rightly or wrongly that seems to slip a little bit from the mind - you become comfortable and assume people are going to continue to do the right things.

That's not to say we still don't stress the importance of discipline and behavior as a club.

Also FWIW the two reports we had this year are both recruits for 2017

[jo172]

Vast majority of Clubs in the League would be on one report or less for the year I'd suggest?

7 Portland
6 Modbury
6 North Pines
6 Port District
4 Brighton Bombers
4 Tea Tree Gully
3 Brahma Lodge
3 Flinders Park
3 Gaza
3 Golden Grove
3 Greenacres
3 Lockleys
3 Salisbury North
3 Seaton Ramblers
3 Smithfield
3 St Peter's OC
2 Athelstone
2 Edwardstown
2 Elizabeth
2 Fitzroy
2 Gepps Cross
2 Ingle Farm
2 North Haven
2 PAOC
2 Sacred Heart OC
2 Salisbury West
2 SMOSH West Lakes
2 Unley
1 Central United
1 Goodwood Saints
1 Henley
1 Mitcham
1 Mitchell Park
1 Morphettville Park
1 Para Hills
1 PHOS Camden
1 Plympton
1 Pooraka
1 Rostrevor OC
1 Salisbury
1 Trinity OS
1 Westminster OS
1 Woodville South

List doesn't include the zeros (PNU, Uni and Walkerville all immediately come to mind from that list)

[jo172]

Complacency has definitely crept in though, when i reflect back over the previous few years, there was a constant drive/emphasis on behavior and the repercussions for the club as a whole - mostly driven from the playing group during games - players would pull players out of hazardous situations, or moving away/bringing themselves off from retaliating to incidents.

My suspicion is that this is more the case than anyone consciously thinking "no more aaa, time to belt someone" and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

An interesting example is Rosewater. Prior to their AAA they had a relatively poor record. Haven't heard a peep from them this year. The Clubs who manage to maintain constant vigilance (which is bloody difficult) seem to manage best.