2012 Reports & Tribunal Discussion

[holden78]

Thiel

[JK]

Thiel

Great player who belted his fair share of blokes .. Copped his fair share of belts too, as was the day back then.

[SDK]

dont you mean Teal ? Quack quack.

[SDK]

All of those Norwood players mentioned are legends of the game who played it hard and got as good as they gave.
We all know that Norwood players can do NO wrong

[Big Phil]

North's James Bennett facing the tribunal tonight, facing a rough conduct charge.

[on the rails]

Could not have happened in the first 2 and half quarters where North spent all their time memorising the South players numbers.

Seriously - I didn't see anything that looked remotely like it would be looked at from both sides to be honest.

[prowling panther]

Could not have happened in the first 2 and half quarters where North spent all their time memorising the South players numbers.

Seriously - I didn't see anything that looked remotely like it would be looked at from both sides to be honest.

Should be tossed out and umpires should be fined for creating a nuisance to the tribunal

[Big Phil]

Could not have happened in the first 2 and half quarters where North spent all their time memorising the South players numbers.

Seriously - I didn't see anything that looked remotely like it would be looked at from both sides to be honest.

Should be tossed out and umpires should be fined for creating a nuisance to the tribunal

If he was not reported at the time for the incident (not sure if this was the case or not?) then it has nothing to do with the umpires. It must have been spotted by the Incident Review Panel...

Do you know what Bennett did, prowling panther?

[prowling panther]

Could not have happened in the first 2 and half quarters where North spent all their time memorising the South players numbers.

Seriously - I didn't see anything that looked remotely like it would be looked at from both sides to be honest.

Should be tossed out and umpires should be fined for creating a nuisance to the tribunal

If he was not reported at the time for the incident (not sure if this was the case or not?) then it has nothing to do with the umpires. It must have been spotted by the Incident Review Panel...

Do you know what Bennett did, prowling panther?

Cant help you with that one BP, did not see it.

[on the rails]

Apparently a tackle (sling like) in the first quarter but the good news is he was cleared a short time ago.

[saintal]

Apparently a tackle (sling like) in the first quarter but the good news is he was cleared a short time ago.

I didn't notice anything of concern/interest either. Glad he got off then.

[on the rails]

Apparently a tackle (sling like) in the first quarter but the good news is he was cleared a short time ago.

I didn't notice anything of concern/interest either. Glad he got off then.

I can vagely recall the tackle now. A free was paid - not sure what for as the tackle was hard but fair and as if the umpire had an issue then surely he should have reported him as well as pay the free. A similar tackle on a North player in the third quarter wasn't paid and a few of us commented that it was identical to the Bennett tackle not that it should have been paid or even looked remortely reportable.

I sometimes wonder what the umpires see - difficult job with them having to make split second decision. The match review panel was supposed to assist with ensuring players who transgressed the laws of the game would be punished given it was hard for the umpires on the day to see everything and also make an informed assessment. However I am not sure this has worked as the league would like it to have this season.

By my reckoning 9 players have been found not guilty this year after charges imposed by the match review panel - the bulk for rough conduct.

[heater31]

Think the umpires directive is to report anything they have any doubt over. You can always withdraw the report or if you argue successfully be found not guilty.

[robranisgod]

Think the umpires directive is to report anything they have any doubt over. You can always withdraw the report or if you argue successfully be found not guilty.

But as pointed out by OTR, there have been 9 occasions this year where the umpire has not made a report yet the review panel has reported the incident only for the report to be thrown out by the tribunal. What is the review panel seeing that they deem to be reportable yet the tribunal doesn't?

[Big Phil]

Both North Adelaide's Michael Clinch and Central's James Gowans will face the tribunal this evening, both on striking charges...

I assume it stems from the incident that saw James left with some teeth missing?

http://www.sanfl.com.au/league/reports/ ... _reports_/

James already has a reprimand handed to him earlier in the year, when facing a striking charge also, say he may have carry over points that could see him suspended and miss the West game?

Glenelg's Lachy Button was handed a 2 week suspension, I assume for the 'dumping' tackle that saw South's Tim Houlihan knocked out?

[smac]

Gowans not guilty.

[Big Phil]

Gowans not guilty.

Clinch got 2 weeks

[CENTURION]

James found not guilty because He didn't do anything. The facts are...Clinch belted James full-on in the face, behind play. Luckily James was wearing a mouth guard...if he wasn't, He would have lost a couple of teeth. He still sustained some injuries around the mouth & nose & the upper gum. No wonder the twins were angry.

[Big Phil]

From Localfootysa...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6472130896

[Jim05]

Please let North meet Centrals in the finals, cant wait for the rematch, could be a few square ups.