Ian 'Nutta' Callinan

[bulldogproud2]

Dutchy, if every action was illegal then every free kick awarded would result in a report and visit to the tribunal. There is a difference between rules and laws. That is why only few actions go before the LEGAL institution, the Tribunal. As they found Wingnut Not Guilty, they stated his action was not illegal. It is as simple as that. As I said before, case closed.

[Dutchy]

Dutchy, if every action was illegal then every free kick awarded would result in a report and visit to the tribunal. There is a difference between rules and laws. That is why only few actions go before the LEGAL institution, the Tribunal. As they found Wingnut Not Guilty, they stated his action was not illegal. It is as simple as that. As I said before, case closed.

I give up

edit - no I dont, so commentators are wrong when they say "illegal tackle" "Illegal handball" ?

In you context someone would go to the tribunal for a throw!!!

[am Bays]

Dutchy, if every action was illegal then every free kick awarded would result in a report and visit to the tribunal. There is a difference between rules and laws. That is why only few actions go before the LEGAL institution, the Tribunal. As they found Wingnut Not Guilty, they stated his action was not illegal. It is as simple as that. As I said before, case closed.

Do me a favour BP2 go read the Laws of Australain football and tell if you see in rules in there. Umpires primarily award free kicks for infractions against Law 15. There are no rules in Australian Football.

[smac]

It was a very solid bump but there was certainly nothing illegal in the action.

Do you have to scalp someone to get a high tackle free kick these days, breaking someones jaw isnt enough?

There is a difference between an infringement from which a free kick should be paid and an illegal action which should result in a suspension. As the tribunal evidenced, there was nothing illegal in the action. Wingnut was found NOT GUILTY of any illegal action. A free kick should have been paid though.

The bump was high, which is illegal in our game. You have contradicted yourself.

So you are now on a self appointed mission about all unpaid free kicks in SANFL? Enjoy yourself.

[bulldogproud2]

Dutchy, if every action was illegal then every free kick awarded would result in a report and visit to the tribunal. There is a difference between rules and laws. That is why only few actions go before the LEGAL institution, the Tribunal. As they found Wingnut Not Guilty, they stated his action was not illegal. It is as simple as that. As I said before, case closed.

Do me a favour BP2 go read the Laws of Australain football and tell if you see in rules in there. Umpires primarily award free kicks for infractions against Law 15. There are no rules in Australian Football.

Ambays, I will concede that the AFL does call them Laws. However, as any student of law could tell you, this is technically incorrect. To be completely strict about the definition of a law, it is something that must be passed by Parliament or by a court. Law passed by Parliament is known as Statute Law whilst law passed by the courts is known as Common Law. However, I will accept that I have been foolish in being too technical and legalistic in my ideas. Wingnut may have infringed a rule, which the AFL calls a Law, and therefore may have acted illegally in the spirit of the game. However, that is still different from doing an illegal action in the pure definition of illegality.
The important thing though is that he was found Not Guilty by the tribunal..
Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

Dutchy, if every action was illegal then every free kick awarded would result in a report and visit to the tribunal. There is a difference between rules and laws. That is why only few actions go before the LEGAL institution, the Tribunal. As they found Wingnut Not Guilty, they stated his action was not illegal. It is as simple as that. As I said before, case closed.

I give up

edit - no I dont, so commentators are wrong when they say "illegal tackle" "Illegal handball" ?

In you context someone would go to the tribunal for a throw!!!

Actually it is using your context that you would need to go to the tribunal for a throw or, in fact, any free kick. A person needs to be provided with access to a fair hearing before a tribunal or court whenever they are accused of doing anything illegal. This is one of the beauties of living in Australia and not the old Soviet Union. Unlike you, I don't consider throws illegal. I only consider reportable offences as being subject to judgement as to whether they were illegal actions or not.
Either way, the key issue is that Wingnut was found NOT GUILTY in the proper forum: the tribunal.

[jim5112]

I think if you talk to the umpires including the reserve umpire they will state if the scenario was played over again they would have at least paid a free kick for high contact and possibly off the ball illegal shepherd. Umpire's observers all noted the mistake which was a error of law by umpire's and they were marked down for this on their after match reviews.
If you get away with it { the contact } good luck, but talk to most umpires they would have paid a free kick.
Callinan goes on and basically wins the match for Centrals and becomes a cult hero, Phillips gets a badly broken jaw and an AFL contract.
Will be an interesting match next season between these clubs which hopefully is under lights at Coopers. " Pay back " time who knows ?

Are you not expecting to play on Anzac day then?

[CedeNullis]

[CENTURION]

I think if you talk to the umpires including the reserve umpire they will state if the scenario was played over again they would have at least paid a free kick for high contact and possibly off the ball illegal shepherd. Umpire's observers all noted the mistake which was a error of law by umpire's and they were marked down for this on their after match reviews.
If you get away with it { the contact } good luck, but talk to most umpires they would have paid a free kick.
Callinan goes on and basically wins the match for Centrals and becomes a cult hero, Phillips gets a badly broken jaw and an AFL contract.
Will be an interesting match next season between these clubs which hopefully is under lights at Coopers. " Pay back " time who knows ?

Unfortunately, due to some of your supporters "thuggish" actions, We are unable to grace the hallowed turf of Norwood Oval once the sun has descended past the horizontal. OH! Hang on.....

[Dutchy]

So you are now on a self appointed mission about all unpaid free kicks in SANFL? Enjoy yourself.

BP and I agreed that the contact was high and a free kick should have been paid, but the argument was about a technicality (whether the action was illegal or not)

I couldnt care less about the umpires paying it or not.

[bulldogproud2]

So you are now on a self appointed mission about all unpaid free kicks in SANFL? Enjoy yourself.

BP and I agreed that the contact was high and a free kick should have been paid, but the argument was about a technicality (whether the action was illegal or not)

I couldnt care less about the umpires paying it or not.

Yes, along with Dutchy, I believe that a free kick should have been awarded, but just a free kick. I don't believe that it warranted a report. The tribunal pretty much decided this too, handing out a Not Guilty verdict. I also do not believe that it was a 'plan' to take Phillips out of the game. Heck, his contribution in nearly three quarters was very minimal. If Central wanted to go after someone, surely it should have been Puopolo.
If Norwood supporters (and thankfully most of them have been gracious and don't) want to continue going on about the loss of Phillips impacting upon the result, surely they need to realise that Boyd played much of the match with a broken bone in his leg, Spurr played much of the match with a broken hand, Sibenaler was concussed in the first quarter, Hayes corked his thigh in the first quarter limiting his run and Jenner injured his hamstring before halftime, forcing him off the ground for much of the last half. Norwood competed very well but I am still amazed at how our guys fought the match out.
My disagreement with Dutchy was purely and simply a technical one on what is 'illegal'. I just studied too much law! Sorry *grins*
M

[CENTURION]

hang on, that's rubbish, after all, Us Central supporters are a bunch of filthy, thong-wearing, Centrelink receiving unemployed scum!!

[bulldogproud2]

I know, how dare I study Law and Accounting!

[fish]

So when Norwood coach Nathan Bassett was found GUILTY of "Using abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene language towards or in relation to an umpire" in Round 2 was he breaking a Law or a Rule?

[CENTURION]

I know, how dare I study Law and Accounting!

AND know what you are talking about!

[Mr Irate]

hang on, that's rubbish, after all, Us Central supporters are a bunch of filthy, thong-wearing, Centrelink receiving unemployed scum!!

Sorry Centurion, wasn't aware my thong wearing was so obvious, will get a looser fitting pair of jeans before the start of next season.....

[bulldogproud2]

*

[bulldogproud2]

I know, how dare I study Law and Accounting!

AND know what you are talking about!

No, no, no. Never confuse me with someone who knows what they are talking about!

[bulldogproud2]

So when Norwood coach Nathan Bassett was found GUILTY of "Using abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene language towards or in relation to an umpire" in Round 2 was he breaking a Law or a Rule?

To be absolutely technical, he was breaking a rule as he was not breaking anything established as law through Parliament (Statute Law) or the Courts (Common Law). However, it had elements of legal principles around it as he was at least given a hearing at a Tribunal, was allowed to present his case and was subject to a penalty imposed by the governing body. If the umpire believed that he was at risk of danger as a result of Bassett's comment, he could have pursued the case through the Courts as a case of Assault. Assault is a perceived risk of danger as the result of someone's words or actions. Battery is the actual use of physical force unlawfully against another.
Cheers

[whufc]

Dutchy, if every action was illegal then every free kick awarded would result in a report and visit to the tribunal. There is a difference between rules and laws. That is why only few actions go before the LEGAL institution, the Tribunal. As they found Wingnut Not Guilty, they stated his action was not illegal. It is as simple as that. As I said before, case closed.

I give up

edit - no I dont, so commentators are wrong when they say "illegal tackle" "Illegal handball" ?

In you context someone would go to the tribunal for a throw!!!

this reminds of my soccer ref at the indoor sports center i work at

"We dont have rules we have laws of the game"