Meticulous as ever Jo.. Could sense the research had been done this whole convo haha

FWIW, the de-registration was a harsh outcome, but the league have been steadfast in the treatment of umpires. As they should be. The 6 down to 4 for a 'sling tackle' was the contentious one. Especially considering the player wasn't hurt and the SN player who copped one earlier in the game was KO'd.. While at the game in no way did I walk away thinking Callum would get 13 weeks for that, but its happened and by the sounds of it he has learnt from it.. But unfortunately the damage has been done

My suspicion is not being forthcoming with other disciplinary issues however far in the past when it's easily accessible by the League does not reflect well on the applicant.

The Real Number 3 has identified what does reflect well on an applicant, a genuine commitment to the game. Umpiring, coaching, waterboying etc.

Wow, there really wasn't much in the initial "sling tackle" at all. Furthermore looking at the whole video he did well not to get charged with being the instigator of the melee.

I'm also not sure that pointing to good deeds done before the de-registration is going to carry as much weight as deeds done after the de-registration.

Great signs for Havens and for footy

+ labour costs
+ admin overheads (WHS/Finance/HR)

Paying a bunch of blokes $25/hr to maintain green areas adds up and adds up quickly.

I am obviously bias , but there have been a bunch of studies done recently in regards to efficacy with public money spending. Local Government provide comparatively good value for money.

Come on mate, you're better than that

Zartan wrote:Can't believe a coach walks after 2x rounds in D6 and no one bats an eye.. but mention Kane Cornes in D5 and everyone loses their minds!

Klaebs is a good bloke though, much more fun calling Kornes a flog.

Given the chat about A1 tribunal reports and red cards can't find any on the leagues site.
Can anyone show me where they appear given it is 5 days after the round.
Maybe there were none.

Go to http://www.adelaidefootball.com.au/tribunals-investigations/ then click on Tribunal List 2017. The tribunal hearings for reports from last Saturday's games aren't listed yet. There is usually a few days delay.
2 games for attempting to strike?

Would that be like throwing a haymaker but missing?

What do the numbers in brackets mean in the matches column eg 2 (1) or 0 (1) etc? is that a sentence and then a suspended sentence?

Correct.

Must admit I'm over the stuff that gets posted on here about Greenacres Must admit I am over the sanctimony in regards to Greenacres!

Nothing was said about Greenies that hasn't been said about a dozen clubs a dozen times. Most of it was polite.

Harden up FFS.

Really? I'm surprised at you - if individuals kept implying that Mitchell Park was shutting the doors and you were losing sponsors and potential players as a result of these false allegations, I'm guessing you'd be pretty pissed off too.

Didn't that basically happen two years ago?

Luke Schweinberg (Salisbury West) Striking/Intentional/Severe/High Guilty 8 Games
Well that's gonna hurt them bad!

Am I the only one who thinks Callum Hay gets the rough end of the pineapple a bit with results like that?

If something is truly intentional/severe/high that should be enough to do them for 12 and out of the Adelaide Footy League in my view.

Bloody hell, don't often see 4 of 5 games decided by a collective 8 points.

Amazing round.

I've always liked the idea in principle as every year you pretty quickly get some extreme outliers at each end.

Would be a nightmare with fixturing though.

Good on them too. If 95% of Clubs can manage to pay on time it's unreasonable to expect the League's resources (which is realistically the 95%s resources) to chase up the extreme minority.

Bet it doesn't happen again and some club Treasurers got some angry phone calls last night!

SANFL club get the $, should be some scheme where a portion of it then goes back to the grassroots club.

If you don't chase your SANFL club to the ends of the earth (and even then some) they won't hand it over.

We have a major sponsor's worth of funds sitting in the coffers of a couple of League Clubs.

The sooner the SANFL falls over the better.

There are many many better avenues for having an umpire performance managed than what has happened in this thread

Did anyone try and call Rowston etc al first?

As an example of what Morell was talking about I vividly remember one day out at Henley in our first foray into D1 where we had quite strict rules about showing up to games in black slacks, leather shoes and club polo. That year we had a series of off-field issues (and some plain old bad luck/unpreparedness for the step up to D1) and ended up winning 2 games.

Henley meanwhile lead the ladder at the end of the minor round and ultimately won a flag.

Didn't stop some old timers from Henley, remarking in front of me, "look how professional Payneham look when they rock up, why can't we do that?".

Classic failure to prioritise outcome over process by both camps in this story.

https://twitter.com/1997bulldogs?lang=en

Morrell, can you set up one of these for 2002 Mitchell Park?

morell wrote:hahahah I miss that Phantom Gossiper dude, he was a funny poster

Went to coach Kilburn's reserves and was never heard from again!

The point above would be a bit stronger if it wasn't the 4th incident in 14 months.

Modbury would have to be the unluckiest Club in the Country to have so many significant incidents in such a short period of time, all of which dealing with people outside their control.

In any event, with the amended affiliation agreement model the League's been pretty clear that it's working towards a model of collective responsibility for club disciplinary breaches for a long time and it would appear to be clearly working.

If you think that four individual incidents by 4 indivduals (1 with absolutely nothing to do with our club) over the space of 1 and a half seasons fits into the cataegory of "so many" then you are ignorant. When you regularly get a couple of thousand people to your home games, i t is impossible for our club members and officials to ensrue that not one person steps out of line for a single moment, despite an enormous effort by our committee to do so.

Oh its certainly possible

The point above would be a bit stronger if it wasn't the 4th incident in 14 months.

Modbury would have to be the unluckiest Club in the Country to have so many significant incidents in such a short period of time, all of which dealing with people outside their control.

In any event, with the amended affiliation agreement model the League's been pretty clear that it's working towards a model of collective responsibility for club disciplinary breaches for a long time and it would appear to be clearly working.

If you think that four individual incidents by 4 indivduals (1 with absolutely nothing to do with our club) over the space of 1 and a half seasons fits into the cataegory of "so many" then you are ignorant. When you regularly get a couple of thousand people to your home games, i t is impossible for our club members and officials to ensrue that not one person steps out of line for a single moment, despite an enormous effort by our committee to do so.

Oh its certainly possible

Fantastic achievement Jo, youve made an incredibly valid point.. you are correct, Modbury are an ultra-vilonet club that encourages unrest and completely ignores the fact that it relies heavily on a vibrant and postive culture to keep Juniors around so they can make their way up the divisions and be sustainable there. Its a dangerous place to be and you should avoid it all costs, stay safe in your glass house mate and have a great day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

To add to Morrell's views you'll find a substantial portion of the grassroots football community who is of the view that the SANFL actively works to Community Football's detriment. It has a very narrow focus and it certainly isn't the broader interests of the sport in the state.

Lucky the AFL isnt run by the amateur league, Port would be playing every home game in China and the Crows could move to Tassie. How any club can be held responsible for the actions of spectators is beyond me. Whats to stop anyone getting hold of a bit of Modbury merchandise and abusing umpires/opposition etc
Mate, metro footy is a completely different kettle of fish to what you are used of, the spectators have to pay to get in where you go whereas in the metro any drongo and a few mates can pull their car up with a boot full of piss and cause chaos.

It's unfortunate for Modbury in this instance as it only takes a 5 second outburst to lose years of credibility and 95% of the time it's from someone who has no link to the club.

As for one of your comments above, I used to wait for my team to get a free and let loose on the ump pretending I'm from the opposition.

I had forgotten about that rule, another ridiculous rule unique to the amateurs. Its almost as though its run by schools.....
Pretty sure you sort of backed up what i was saying. "Any drongo can rock up and cause chaos" and "95% of the time has no link to the club" In that case how is the club responsible???

Home Club has the responsibility to provide a safe venue for the playing of Australian Rules Football. This includes the safety of visiting sides and Umpires.

That 95% of Clubs seem to manage this without a problem suggests that Clubs are capable of undertaking this responsibility and controlling the "drunk drongo causing chaos with no link to the Club".

From personal experience peer pressure in these scenarios does wonders.

Nothing of the sort has been said, it was someone speculating what might be said.
Yeah I realise that, but it's a fair speculation given everytime something is reported the Rosewater incident always seems to find it's way into the article - look at the Modbury report the other day, right at the top a link to the Rosewater story :roll:
That is exactly why I thought it would come up

My suspicion is that The Advertiser would just have a logarithm that links like articles. The like articles in this sense being club's getting imposed discipline as a whole by the League. I wouldn't necessarily interpret malicious intent.

While we're at it, a person can be biased not bias. A person may have a bias, but cannot be bias in the human form.

Simply bias is a noun, biased is an adjective. I get this one wrong sometimes.

The other one is affect or effect. ****** if I know which one to use most of the time.

01Dn53H2ZLw

You can smell the pre-determined conclusions coming a mile away

The fundamental suggestion that the pay gap is the result of a sexist in human resources is deciding to pay men and women differently (which is actionable) is laughable.

If one is going to try and defend that pay gap a far better argument is to suggest that it's a reflection of what society values, supply and demand.

I'm told this is a real picture of the last Executive meeting

Impressive recruiting by the Rams, but 100+ point losses in C6 to almost every team with higher or lower senior teams suggests there's not much going on development-wise no matter how much they posture.
I wouldn't use my C Grade to develop young players, more likely to deter them from the game.

A quick perusal of the SANFL juniors ladders would suggest the Rams are doing plenty development-wise too.

Presumably they'd be looking to field an U18 team in the next year or two

morell wrote:Surely we could all just come to a gentleman's agreement that its too ******* cold and wet and none of us train tonight?

Just join the rest of the Adelaide Footy League with a newly developed cold and/or suddenly be required to work late

to put it in very general terms..2017 doesnt count..its 2016 and 2015 only..as per CFL rules..2015 was spent in PNU reserves..its an anomaly but technically correct..

So a player could go from being zero points in season 2017 to being worth 2 points in 2018 despite playing at the same club in 2017 and 2018?

One suspects that this interpretation of the rules results in absurdities and as a basic rule of construction is incorrect.

Apparently the FP player didn't or wouldn't attend tribunal and has now been suspended until he fronts the tribunal

So will FP receive any sanctions because of this. Surely if he doesn't attend then the club should receive some sort of punishment for it

They already are. He cant play until he attends.

They have 2 sides so not sure they are. Plenty to replace him

FP deserve more credit for being able to field two Under 18 sides. Pretty remarkable effort in my view

Fairly reliable source that Matt is playing tomorrow and will go through the usual league processes next week. Fair result

Massive game at Payneham this weekend between PNU and Goodwood. Loser will find it very hard to make the 5. Past players day and a quadruple header with all senior grades playing on one day to top it off!

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.
Do you think that clubs that have been under scrutiny the most, or have been on AAA in the past seem to be noticed more when they offend/re offend than clubs that generally have a good reputation?

e.g. Broadview Cat 'A's - i wouldn't think anyone would consider them a poor side with offending, but they consistently each year get their couple of reports (as do most clubs), but nothing is heard... Salis West (1x U18) and Ingle Farm (2x new recruits) have two reports and there are fears of relapse.

2017 - 0
2016 - 3
2015 - 2
2014 - 3
2013 - 4

Undoubtedly.

However, I don't think its appropriate to downplay an incident on the basis of a player being an u18 or new recruit.

The Club is responsible for everyone who represents it from the President to the wors t player in the D-Grade (at one stage I was both)

Corrected for accuracy

*literacy

Complacency has definitely crept in thou gh, 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.
Do you think that clubs that have been under scrutiny the most, or have been on AAA in the past seem to be noticed more when they offend/re offend than clubs that generally have a good reputation?

e.g. Broadview Cat 'A's - i wouldn't think anyone would consider them a poor side with offending, but they consistently each year get their couple of reports (as do most clubs), but nothing is heard... Salis West (1x U18) and Ingle Farm (2x new recruits) have two reports and there are fears of relapse.

2017 - 0
2016 - 3
2015 - 2
2014 - 3
2013 - 4

Undoubtedly.

However, I don't think its appropriate to downplay an incident on the basis of a player being an u18 or new recruit.

The Club is responsible for everyone who represents it from the President to the worse player in the D-Grade (at one stage I was both)

Which club and which player?


Jesse Landers sorry played as 0 point player on weekend but coming from country to play football for glenunga each week would have to be 2 points ?

Unless he played all his juniors at Glenunga

And if he's only played juniors in the Hills he wouldn't be worth points anyway?

If this is all accurate we must be getting to the point where SW's ongoing position in the league is questioned. This nonsense has been happening for far too long

wonder_kid wrote:Banning the whole club from finals for an Incident involving 1 idiot is just outrageous lol pull your head in mate

15 years of incidents from multiple idiots.

interesting that the suspensions are from northern clubs!!!!! :roll:
That old chestnut..

What about Week 15 - Edwardstone, PHOS, Mitcham..

Week 14 - Flinders Pk, Plympton, Unley, SHOC, Lockleys

Clubs in ALL areas offend at some point.

Hell, look at just the Salisbury area clubs. Northies, Westies and North Pines deplorable. Salisbury themselves clean as a whistle.

Not about your geography it's about your management.

wonder_kid wrote:Because umpires would never lie to save face.....

As opposed to guilty players/coach advocates?

Serious thought should be given to suspending clubs for a season + for repeat, serious violent offences

Question:
In terms of the Amended Affiliation Agreement's (AAA) that clubs are placed on, what is the process for defining the need for applying them?

e.g.
#Total Number of reported offences in a season for club
#Total Number of matches suspended reached in a season
#Club Incident Rating over a season
#Ratings / Reports / Suspensions over a 2 or more year period

Trying to work out what you can get away with in finals? :lol:

So two years out and every club in South Australia clean.

How many people are working to enforce this? Would seem to be getting paid well for very little results

In awe of what TTG did today re MND and the professionalism and empathy in which it was conducted.

Superb football club.

You want to elaborate for the 99.9% of people who weren't there?

Will do when there's enough sobriety to do them justice

https://www.facebook.com/9NewsAdelaide/videos/1742729326031029/?hc_ref=ARRGrhoCPE2yFeT23SVBTuiiq8whNZclCODerz1P1G8PlSzYb3TJR5TqIxznBG6BxNo

Old Iggies getting the rough end of the final fixturing stick this week, 3 different venues, two games happening at once across their C6, C2 and 2R teams.

What Morell said, take out the grand final revenue and all clubs calls increase substantially.

Increased calls will either kill off clubs or cause subs to increase losing players.

Gate takings at GFs are the better option

S Demon wrote:So is it also $15 for the C5 game at Payneham before the Div 7 GF's?

Yep

Think im right in saying there isnt any Finals at Salisbury, Heccies or Kilburn this year, any reasons for that??

Because Edwardstown and St Mary's is much more convenient for the 2 Northern clubs playing there. :lol:

Given the unfortunate events at the Angle Vale/Ingle Farm GF a few years back I suspect putting it far away might actually be a deliberate act (not pointing fingers)

Another one with no idea. Can't argue with the poor record, that's fact, but the rest is utter rubbish. No harm saying whatever you like though unfortunately.


I dare suggest that the more Magareys you own, the more limited your coaching abilities.

Russell Ebert -GOAT - terrible coaching record

I only say this with the upmost respect that Jimmy should heed this warning :lol: ;)

Barrie Robran and Lindsay Head hardly had fantastic coaching careers either. You're onto something here.

Q, leave Rexy alone. He needs to concentrate

Atmosphere at Petaringa today was as good as you'll see in the Adelaide Footy League. Huge crowd and fantastic atmosphere.

One way or another at 6. pm Saturday 16 PNU juniors will be D1 premiership players, only question is whether they will be wearing red or white.

I really want to emphasize our views on the TTGFC. We aim to emulate them. We have spent the best part of 5 years learning and following. My view is they're the best Community Football Club in the state.

Between the crows on Friday and the Falcs on Saturday **** me it's going to be a 24 hours