Tribunal Consistency

All discussions to do with the SANFL

Tribunal Consistency

Postby whufc » Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:48 pm

Will be intersting to see the tribunal this week.

In the Central vs Sturt reserves game a Central player took the ball a metre to a metre and a half over the boundary line in the north western pocket. He was then pushed by the Sturt player which forced the Central player to jump the boundary fence onto the concrete to save himself from smashing into the fence.

I wonder whether the Sturt player will be given a one match suspension similar to Jason Sutherland who recieved the same punishment for an indetical incident last week replacing fence for brick wall.

I will be interested to see the outcome!
RIP PH408 63notoutforever
User avatar
whufc
Coach
 
 
Posts: 28553
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:56 am
Location: Blakeview
Has liked: 5907 times
Been liked: 2820 times
Grassroots Team: BSR

Re: Tribunal Consistency

Postby The Sleeping Giant » Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:50 pm

Who was the Sturt player? Does he have a bad record as far as suspensions go?
Cannabis is safer than alcohol
User avatar
The Sleeping Giant
Coach
 
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Not dying alone
Has liked: 69 times
Been liked: 193 times

Re: Tribunal Consistency

Postby Dutchy » Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:17 pm

Would rather hit a fence than a brick wall personally
User avatar
Dutchy
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 45965
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Location, Location
Has liked: 2578 times
Been liked: 4193 times

Re: Tribunal Consistency

Postby whufc » Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:34 pm

Dutchy wrote:Would rather hit a fence than a brick wall personally


Would almost rather hit a brick wall then another players elbow or knee. Whats happens if you push another player into a player knees and an injury occures like James Hird recieved.

Surely pushing a bloke over the boundary line is the same whether there is a fence/brick wall/ concrete/grass there.
RIP PH408 63notoutforever
User avatar
whufc
Coach
 
 
Posts: 28553
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:56 am
Location: Blakeview
Has liked: 5907 times
Been liked: 2820 times
Grassroots Team: BSR

Tribunal Consistency

Postby Jase » Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:42 pm

Dutchy wrote:Would rather hit a fence than a brick wall personally


I reckon a fence did more damage at the Parade last week than the brick wall...
User avatar
Jase
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:26 pm
Location: Valley Parade
Has liked: 1611 times
Been liked: 593 times

Re: Tribunal Consistency

Postby Jimmy » Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:55 pm

Poor act..fine or game(s)
Carn the blues!!!!!
Jimmy
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6348
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:02 pm
Has liked: 125 times
Been liked: 44 times

Re: Tribunal Consistency

Postby Grahaml » Sun Jul 15, 2012 1:20 am

Without seeing either incident terribly well (the Sturt one not at all, Sutherland's from the other side of the ground) you'd think it would be viewed similarly if they are indeed both so similar. But then again, I thought jumping at a bloke from front on without looking at the ball was suspension type stuff.
Grahaml
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:59 am
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 169 times

Re: Tribunal Consistency

Postby therisingblues » Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:16 pm

whufc wrote:
Dutchy wrote:Would rather hit a fence than a brick wall personally



Surely pushing a bloke over the boundary line is the same whether there is a fence/brick wall/ concrete/grass there.

Hammers, have you not noticed how much softer grass is than bricks?
I'm gonna sit back, crack the top off a Pale Ale, and watch the Double Blues prevail
1915, 1919, 1926, 1932, 1940, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1974, 1976, 2002, 2016, 2017
User avatar
therisingblues
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6190
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:50 am
Location: Fukuoka
Has liked: 369 times
Been liked: 514 times
Grassroots Team: Hope Valley

Re: Tribunal Consistency

Postby whufc » Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:23 pm

therisingblues wrote:
whufc wrote:
Dutchy wrote:Would rather hit a fence than a brick wall personally



Surely pushing a bloke over the boundary line is the same whether there is a fence/brick wall/ concrete/grass there.

Hammers, have you not noticed how much softer grass is than bricks?


My point more is what rule says pushing a player who then has to jump over the fence and land on the concrete is lesser than pushing someone when there is a brick wall over the boundary line.

Further if the Norwood player wasnt injured from the brick wall but the Central player slipped when jumping the concrete and smashed his head open would that change the punishment.
RIP PH408 63notoutforever
User avatar
whufc
Coach
 
 
Posts: 28553
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:56 am
Location: Blakeview
Has liked: 5907 times
Been liked: 2820 times
Grassroots Team: BSR

Re: Tribunal Consistency

Postby therisingblues » Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:40 pm

whufc wrote:
therisingblues wrote:
whufc wrote:
Dutchy wrote:Would rather hit a fence than a brick wall personally



Surely pushing a bloke over the boundary line is the same whether there is a fence/brick wall/ concrete/grass there.

Hammers, have you not noticed how much softer grass is than bricks?


My point more is what rule says pushing a player who then has to jump over the fence and land on the concrete is lesser than pushing someone when there is a brick wall over the boundary line.

Further if the Norwood player wasnt injured from the brick wall but the Central player slipped when jumping the concrete and smashed his head open would that change the punishment.

I guess an impartial judge would go on intent, potential danger and actual result. If a player was pushed into a fence with so much force that (had he not jumped) the momentum would have caused him to flip over the top of it, pivoting on his guts and then fall on top of his head before finally landing flat on his back, the aggressor would be penalised for actual and intended injuries. If the player hurdles the fence, escaping those injuries, then the penalty would be less but still severe owing to the potential damages and the reckless intent, the fact that the player escaped injury should be a factor IMO. If the player was pushed with the same amount of force into a brick wall, he'd be unable to hurdle it, this would add to intent IMO, he would also be unable to spend momentum flipping over it, which would buffet the potential injuries. If he were to be pushed with such force into a brick wall and he couldn't get his hands up in time he'd suffer some sort of concussion.
But to be fair to your argument, there'd be cases where a player was pushed with just enough force to tip him over the fence, I've seen players who weren't pushed that were sometimes unable to pull up in time and didn't quite have the balance to prevent tipping over, if that were a brick wall I imagine they'd be able to fend it off with their hands pretty easily.
There's too many circumstances to consider to be able to generalize and say one is worse than the other. Definitely case by case. A player could be crouched over with no hope of getting his balance and then receives a push into either a wall or fence, without being privy to the details I couldn't say which is worse.
I'm gonna sit back, crack the top off a Pale Ale, and watch the Double Blues prevail
1915, 1919, 1926, 1932, 1940, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1974, 1976, 2002, 2016, 2017
User avatar
therisingblues
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6190
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:50 am
Location: Fukuoka
Has liked: 369 times
Been liked: 514 times
Grassroots Team: Hope Valley


Board index   Football  SANFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |

cron