Tribunal discussion/views/debate

[Big Phil]

SANFL Tribunal page updated to show breakdown of points and resulting suspensions.

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

Doesn't show the frivolous reports that have been made and then thrown out prior to them getting to the tribunal. I can immediately think of three with North this eyar and I am sure that most other clubs have a similar number. I think that the umpires have been "trigger" happy this year.

Didn't realise being reported itself was any penalty. I think it's long overdue that umpires put everything they think needs to be looked at in the book to keep the game under control.

With the new tibunal format and amended appeals system, it is better to err on the side of caution and if, as has been the case, the report is reviewed and deemed not necessary in the match review process, then it is thrown out accordingly and more importantly, the club, player and officials don't waste time attending the tribunal in person to only have it found not guilty.

A better system overall for mine and yes, it may result in a few more players going in the book than normal but at least the processes surrounding the whole system work and are better than the previous system.

[robranisgod]

SANFL Tribunal page updated to show breakdown of points and resulting suspensions.

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

Doesn't show the frivolous reports that have been made and then thrown out prior to them getting to the tribunal. I can immediately think of three with North this eyar and I am sure that most other clubs have a similar number. I think that the umpires have been "trigger" happy this year.

Didn't realise being reported itself was any penalty. I think it's long overdue that umpires put everything they think needs to be looked at in the book to keep the game under control.

With the new tibunal format and amended appeals system, it is better to err on the side of caution and if, as has been the case, the report is reviewed and deemed not necessary in the match review process, then it is thrown out accordingly and more importantly, the club, player and officials don't waste time attending the tribunal in person to only have it found not guilty.

A better system overall for mine and yes, it may result in a few more players going in the book than normal but at least the processes surrounding the whole system work and are better than the previous system.

Depends on the makeup of the player. I've known of league players to be distraught and their game suffered markedly just because they have been reported

[Wedgie]

With the new tibunal format and amended appeals system, it is better to err on the side of caution and if, as has been the case, the report is reviewed and deemed not necessary in the match review process, then it is thrown out accordingly and more importantly, the club, player and officials don't waste time attending the tribunal in person to only have it found not guilty.

Disagree, usually the report results in a free kick which more often than not costs a side a goal. Some of these umpires are dead set guessing and the video replays and resultant throwing out of the deicision shows that. They waste time, they disrupt the play and only draw attention to themselves for trivial matters, we don't want to see umpires, we want to see footy!
Also makes that player change his game as a 2nd report for a 2nd non or trivial offence will result in a team playing short.
I'd rather them let things flow and err the other way and pick it up on the video since the video evidence is being used as the be all and end all anyway.
Some of the stuff I've seen reported this year is comical, it doesn't paint a pretty picture for the competence of the umpires.

[robranisgod]

Tiller (Eagles) reprimand. McIntyre (Sturt) - one game.

Bad luck for McIntyre he had a couple of outstanding games in recent times. Unfortunately his season is now over.

[Grahaml]

SANFL web site lists only two players up for appearances at the tribunal this week. Stribling for tripping and Backwell for forceful front on contact.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Thomas report thrown out?

[Big Phil]

SANFL web site lists only two players up for appearances at the tribunal this week. Stribling for tripping and Backwell for forceful front on contact.

Both of which can be viewed in this video...

http://video.adelaidenow.com.au/2117740 ... ideoindex1

The Backwell one doesn't look great, reckon he might get a week for that but Stribling should get a reprimand.

I believe the Paul Thomas report has been thrown out, yes.

[Grahaml]

Thomas report thrown out?

That would be my guess. Not sure how that page is updated, whether players get added at various times but you'd think all the reports would be listed at the same time. Having seen the footage I see why he was reported, but he threw the player down in a way his head didn't hit the ground (from what I could see) so it being thrown out would be consistent with what I've seen.

[Grahaml]

SANFL web site lists only two players up for appearances at the tribunal this week. Stribling for tripping and Backwell for forceful front on contact.

Both of which can be viewed in this video...

http://video.adelaidenow.com.au/2117740 ... ideoindex1

The Backwell one doesn't look great, reckon he might get a week for that but Stribling should get a reprimand.

I believe the Paul Thomas report has been thrown out, yes.

I got the same feeling with Backwell. Can't see that one ending in anything but a forced holiday. The Stribling one looks odd, it looks like nothing more than a tangling of legs, but why a guy would be close enough to tangle legs but not try to tackle is really odd. In the end, unless they are happy to say he did it deliberately I think he'll be ok.

[Brucetiki]

Thomas report thrown out?

Michael Maney summed up the report perfectly - a waste of ink.

[Choaty]

Stribling : not guilty
Backwell: one match

[southee]

Stribling : not guilty
Backwell: one match

Yep....thought thats what would happen.

[HOORAY PUNT]

Ironically I thought the South guy ducked a bit .

[Big Phil]

Ironically I thought the South guy ducked a bit .

HP but I don't think Cross was ducking at all, he had his head over the footy, Mouse was clumbsy.

[southee]

Ironically I thought the South guy ducked a bit .

Had his head over the ball at all times.....it happened right in front of me.

[HOORAY PUNT]

Ironically I thought the South guy ducked a bit .

HP but I don't think Cross was ducking at all, he had his head over the footy, Mouse was clumbsy.

The players know the rule about head high and he ducked right at the last second to ensure he got the free.

[Big Phil]

Ironically I thought the South guy ducked a bit .

HP but I don't think Cross was ducking at all, he had his head over the footy, Mouse was clumbsy.

The players know the rule about head high and he ducked right at the last second to ensure he got the free.

So he ducked to ensure he got a free kick but risked being seriously hurt with a head or neck injury? I don't think so HP

Have you actually watched the footage?

[HOORAY PUNT]

Yep thats what I am posting my thoughts on. Have you watched it Phil ?? Have you not seen a player deliberately ducked his head to get a free ? Tell me your not serious now , I reckon it happens weekly as they know any contact to the head results in a free.

Anyway as I said , I thought he ducked his head .

[Jim05]

Backwell is a thug pure and simple, ask TSG he is on his list

[Big Phil]

Yes, players do duck but if this is the case and it is obvious to all (as you are suggesting), the umpire generally calls 'play on - you ducked your head' which is accepted.

In the Backwell and Joel Cross scenario, the umpire was pretty much in perfect position to not only make the correct decision for high contact but also put Mouse in the book.

If the 'alleged duck' was as obvious as you are eluding to HP, surely the umpire would have called play on like I mentioned above, surely? Again, we'll have to agree to disagree