Wasim1 wrote:Depends on who is sitting around the table by the looks of it. Six should have been minimum but maybe they felt sorry for him
Maybe some credit should be given to whoever was representing him at the Tribunal, clearly they were able to prove that the impact was medium and the penalty guidelines do indicate that's a guideline match penalty of 4-6wks.
If he was to punch once instead of 3 times would he have only received 2 weeks? Genuine question
Would've probably been graded the same, so no.
Perhaps they charged the 3 punches as one striking charge? I dont know, I didn't sit in there.
Interestingly though, had he punched him in the gut and winded him instead, he probabyl would've got more games.
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
Is it ok to get up off your couch walk down the street and punch some random stranger in the guts
What penalty should you deserve?
But throw on a footy jumper run out on an oval and fling a ball around a park with 43 other guys and decide hey might punch one of these random dudes in the guts
Whats the penalty?.... "well u cant come back and play with us for 3 weeks. Bad thug u are go to naughty corner."
Tribunal outcomes can sometimes promote a level of debate which are based on the subjective, albeit no less valid opinions than any other from a wide range of parties involved in our League.
The League Tribunal is a staunchly independent body. Indeed there are times where the findings of a matter before it do not appear to be in sync with that of our member’s ideologies. What the Tribunal do have is a task to assess all evidence before it that is beyond what can be seen or discussed around the water coolers.
To have the tribunal process presented transparently and consistently is a discussion point at all scheduled meetings between the League Executive and Tribunal Members.
But the independence of the tribunal is paramount to transparency. No two offences are the same regardless of how it has been graded so consistency is always tested. Our Tribunal system serves us well and it’s a tough gig to administer and at scheduled reviews continue to strive for consistency.
Tribunal outcomes can sometimes promote a level of debate which are based on the subjective, albeit no less valid opinions than any other from a wide range of parties involved in our League.
The League Tribunal is a staunchly independent body. Indeed there are times where the findings of a matter before it do not appear to be in sync with that of our member’s ideologies. What the Tribunal do have is a task to assess all evidence before it that is beyond what can be seen or discussed around the water coolers.
To have the tribunal process presented transparently and consistently is a discussion point at all scheduled meetings between the League Executive and Tribunal Members.
But the independence of the tribunal is paramount to transparency. No two offences are the same regardless of how it has been graded so consistency is always tested. Our Tribunal system serves us well and it’s a tough gig to administer and at scheduled reviews continue to strive for consistency.
My read of the fact that Kernahs felt the need to specifically comment and provide an explanation this time round shows that even he was uneasy with the outcome.
footys the winner wrote:Punch once might as well get a couple extra in for free is what I take from the result
Agree, buy one get two more for free, just need the steak knives to finish off the deal!
Danny Southern telling Plugga he's fat, I'd like to see that!
One also wonders if the tribunal members received emails saying that while they’re independent that they ****** it? I’ll be out of phone range the other side of Port Augura lol.
Seriously though you don’t multiply the penalty per number of punches because it doesn’t affect the overall seriousness of the offence by an equivalent amount. Taking the harm caused into account is a legitimate approach although I would have said his culpability was higher because of laying into the bloke.
We also must remember we didn’t hear what the tribunal did.
At the end of the day the penalty wasn’t so low that it shakes my confidence in the tribunal even though I would have given a couple more weeks myself. I also note the quality of the discussion about these incidents is much better when we can all see the video. Taping each game seems to be a great initiative and I can also count how many possies I get (32 last week) and I’m sure we can all agree that watching Harris faceplant was worth rewinding a couple of times. Also ironic that video footage saved Callum Hay a red card and Salisbury North a penalty!
Watched sals north and scotch yesterday, sals north are a very good side will be hard to beat, did notice how different scotch’s team was to last years , Giles not playing there anymore? Also they had a gun ruckman last year I can’t remember his name off the top of my head but noticed he wasn’t playing either
The Big Shrek wrote:https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=AAWEB_MRE170_a&dest=https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger/sport/seaton-ramblers-player-darren-tremaine-suffers-fractured-vertebra-after-incident-against-scotch-old-collegians/news-story/18a600f299de05123da4d7a15898b629&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21suffix=51-b&is_silent_authentication=true&error=login_required
Player avoids suspension. I can’t read the article but I’m guessing he plays for a college team.
Apparently Seaton player received a broken back out of it. Scotch player 0 games
The Big Shrek wrote:Player avoids suspension. I can’t read the article but I’m guessing he plays for a college team.
The Advertiser wrote: Seaton Ramblers footballer Darren Tremaine has been left with a fractured vertebra and temporarily in a wheelchair from a front-on hit.
His opponent avoided suspension for the incident.
Tremaine spent five nights in hospital last week with a fractured T12 vertebra and does not know if he will ever be able to play football again.
The 25-year-old suffered the injury in Seaton’s division two Adelaide Footy League match against Scotch Old Collegians on Saturday, May 4.
Scotch’s Peter Rolfe collected Tremaine with a bump in the second quarter which caused the injury.
Rolfe was not reported on the day but Seaton referred the incident to the league after viewing the vision, which shows Tremaine bending down to pick the ball up before being bumped front-on by Rolfe.
After an investigation, the tribunal determined Rolfe did not have a case to answer for allegations of front-on contact or undue rough play.
Seaton football director Terry Annett said the club was very disappointed with the outcome of the investigation.
“You need to protect the player going for the ball,” Annett said.
“The player coming front-on has a responsibility when approaching the contest.
“He (Rolfe) chose to brace himself in a bumping position and our view is the player was negligent in his approach and made high and severe contact, which under the league’s rankings should have been a (suspension) penalty.
“There was also suggestions made that Darren “contributed” to the incident with his technique. He did not duck – he bent over to pick the ball up.”
Tremaine was stretchered from the ground at Scotch College and taken to hospital, where he spent five nights.
He will be off work for six weeks and will need to undergo extensive rehabilitation.
He has begun walking small distances.
Doctors expect his condition to progressively improve.
Annett said Tremaine wanted to eventually play again but it was something which would not be considered until his rehabilitation was complete.
Adelaide Footy chief executive John Kernahan said the league did not question the process of the independent tribunal.
He also said players needed to acknowledge and accept the “elements of risk in playing Australian rules”.
“The league doesn’t need to justify the position we take with respect to the welfare of its members,” Kernahan said.
“We’re often targeted as being overtly uncompromising in our duty of care in ensuring a safe environment.
“Anecdotal discussion around a range of similar type incidents over the course of the last few weeks is players also have a duty of care to protect themselves from injury.
“Australian rules is a physically challenging game and awareness of what is going on around you is as an important skill as kicking and marking the ball.”
Scotch president Rob Coulls said the incident was cleared by league umpiring manager Colin Rowston after the game.
“A subsequent investigation by the league again cleared all players of any wrongdoing and no report or charges have been issued,” Coulls said.
Coulls thanked the Seaton and Scotch medical staff and the ambulance personnel who provided prompt and appropriate medical attention at the time.
“SOCFC wish the player a speedy recovery and hope to see him on the field again soon,” he said.
Seaton won the game 9.14 (68) to 8.12 (60). The fixture was a rematch of last season’s division three grand final, where Scotch prevailed in.
The ball was bouncing along the ground between two players who were running towards each other. The Scotch guy turned side on, Seaton guy stayed front on. Took the full brunt of it. Hope it's not as bad as it's sounding and he recovers.
Did the Scotch guy get his hands on the ball? I've only seen it once. Hard to see how he would have escaped penalty otherwise.
This is Tony Clifton! A name to respect! A name to fear!
The ball was bouncing along the ground between two players who were running towards each other. The Scotch guy turned side on, Seaton guy stayed front on. Took the full brunt of it. Hope it's not as bad as it's sounding and he recovers.
Did the Scotch guy get his hands on the ball? I've only seen it once. Hard to see how he would have escaped penalty otherwise.
Hows the comment of the CEO? Sure it's a contact sport and bad injuries can happen but when someone is head over the ball and the other decides to bump illegally instead of tackle it contributes to the bad injury? If the player in question decides to tackle or attempts to pick up the ball the seaton player doesn't break his back? Players are getting 4 games for gut punches, 6 games for laying punches yet and bloke lays and illegal bump and breaks someone back and receives 0 games. What a disgrace.
If I was Seaton I'd be getting a complex about the tribunal given the slap on the wrists the tribunal gave the Broadview bloke.
Re-watching it this morning it seems perfectly clear, Rolfe went to bump a bloke bending over for the ball. At best you can accept he wasn't aiming to get him high, but as the AFL has relentless drilled in recently, you go to bump, you wear the consequences.
jo172 wrote:If I was Seaton I'd be getting a complex about the tribunal given the slap on the wrists the tribunal gave the Broadview bloke.
Re-watching it this morning it seems perfectly clear, Rolfe went to bump a bloke bending over for the ball. At best you can accept he wasn't aiming to get him high, but as the AFL has relentless drilled in recently, you go to bump, you wear the consequences.
Hypothetically of course but in all honesty what do you think the outcome would have been for Eastern Park, Smithfield, Brahma Lodge or Salisbury West based on previous issues. Not a hope in hell would it have been "play on"
