Ian 'Nutta' Callinan

All discussions to do with the SANFL

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby sjt » Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:25 am

OnSong wrote:
Royal City wrote:
ca wrote:
- I do believe that if Phillips had stayed out there we would have won which is why it was such a good bump.


You honestly believe that. hahahahahaha!!!!!

two weeks on and you Norwood fans are still making me laugh, thanks.


Bear in mind that the Dogs only won by one straight kick and Phillips is known for his goal-scoring talents.
It's not out of the realms of possibility and a fair thought.


Perhaps the word "may" should replace the word "would". He "may" also have not touched the ball in the last quarter replicating his performace of one of his quarters, and 18 minutes of the third. Ifs and maybes.
sjt
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 2295
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:26 pm
Has liked: 118 times
Been liked: 59 times

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby topsywaldron » Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:32 am

whufc wrote:Proved correct mate


How do you figure that out pal?
'People are not stupid. They know when they are being conned. And two reserves teams operating in a League competition will reduce it to a farce, a competition without a soul.'

Dion Hayman 24th July 2013
User avatar
topsywaldron
Veteran
 
Posts: 3512
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 5:16 pm
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 218 times

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby topsywaldron » Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:34 am

sjt wrote:Perhaps the word "may" should replace the word "would". He "may" also have not touched the ball in the last quarter replicating his performace of one of his quarters, and 18 minutes of the third. Ifs and maybes.


Callinan doesn't take Phillips out and Norwood might have won the game, Phillips takes Callinan out and Norwood would have won.

Callinan was the difference between the two teams on the day, he probably had direct involvement in about two thirds of Central's goals.
'People are not stupid. They know when they are being conned. And two reserves teams operating in a League competition will reduce it to a farce, a competition without a soul.'

Dion Hayman 24th July 2013
User avatar
topsywaldron
Veteran
 
Posts: 3512
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 5:16 pm
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 218 times

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby Go Legs » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:17 am

topsywaldron wrote:
sjt wrote:Perhaps the word "may" should replace the word "would". He "may" also have not touched the ball in the last quarter replicating his performace of one of his quarters, and 18 minutes of the third. Ifs and maybes.


Callinan doesn't take Phillips out and Norwood might have won the game, Phillips takes Callinan out and Norwood would have won.

Callinan was the difference between the two teams on the day, he probably had direct involvement in about two thirds of Central's goals.


Now that is good constructive comment oops, sorry I have moved on.

Cheers
User avatar
Go Legs
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:22 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time
Grassroots Team: Seaton Ramblers

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby Dogwatcher » Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:15 pm

Yeah, you're right, Phillips might have got ONE more kick to score a goal.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby whufc » Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:40 pm

topsywaldron wrote:
whufc wrote:Proved correct mate


How do you figure that out pal?


Like i said if Norwood were our nearest rival we would win the premiership.

Norwood came second so i would say that is our nearest rival.

We won the premiership so my statement was FACT.
RIP PH408 63notoutforever
User avatar
whufc
Coach
 
 
Posts: 28645
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:56 am
Location: Blakeview
Has liked: 5931 times
Been liked: 2839 times
Grassroots Team: BSR

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby staritski » Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:09 pm

watch out next year Callinan- your ears might not only be the thing protruding from your head!
waca waca
staritski
Member
 
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:28 am
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby Dutchy » Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:47 pm

bulldogproud2 wrote: It was a very solid bump but there was certainly nothing illegal in the action.


:shock:

Do you have to scalp someone to get a high tackle free kick these days, breaking someones jaw isnt enough?
User avatar
Dutchy
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 46064
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Location, Location
Has liked: 2598 times
Been liked: 4236 times

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby jim5112 » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:10 am

topsywaldron wrote:
sjt wrote:Perhaps the word "may" should replace the word "would". He "may" also have not touched the ball in the last quarter replicating his performace of one of his quarters, and 18 minutes of the third. Ifs and maybes.


Callinan doesn't take Phillips out and Norwood might have won the game, Phillips takes Callinan out and Norwood would have won.

Callinan was the difference between the two teams on the day, he probably had direct involvement in about two thirds of Central's goals.



If Callinan wasn't playing, another player would have come in and the teams would have different match ups ... and if Todd Grima had come to Centrals instead of Glenelg he could have let us down instead of them and we could have bombed out in straight sets ... and if the SACA was not so unyielding towards the SANFL we would have played the match at Adelaide Oval and the match would not have been played in such windy conditions and who knows what effect that would have had .... and if the Japanese had invaded we might be watching weird game shows instead of footy ....
jim5112
Rookie
 
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:53 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby Grahaml » Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:03 am

jim5112 wrote:
topsywaldron wrote:
sjt wrote:Perhaps the word "may" should replace the word "would". He "may" also have not touched the ball in the last quarter replicating his performace of one of his quarters, and 18 minutes of the third. Ifs and maybes.


Callinan doesn't take Phillips out and Norwood might have won the game, Phillips takes Callinan out and Norwood would have won.

Callinan was the difference between the two teams on the day, he probably had direct involvement in about two thirds of Central's goals.



If Callinan wasn't playing, another player would have come in and the teams would have different match ups ... and if Todd Grima had come to Centrals instead of Glenelg he could have let us down instead of them and we could have bombed out in straight sets ... and if the SACA was not so unyielding towards the SANFL we would have played the match at Adelaide Oval and the match would not have been played in such windy conditions and who knows what effect that would have had .... and if the Japanese had invaded we might be watching weird game shows instead of footy ....


And if there weren't so many paranoid opposition fans we'd have nothing to talk about either. Lol.
Grahaml
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:59 am
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 169 times

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby The Apostle » Sat Oct 16, 2010 9:54 am

Saturday the 16th of October 2010 and they're still bitching about that hip-and-shoulder and lack of suspension on talkback radio...:shock:
The Apostle
League - Best 21
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:40 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 16 times

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby CENTURION » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:01 pm

oh well, I'm off to a winery.
Member No. 988 & PROUD to sponsor The CDFC!!
User avatar
CENTURION
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11101
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:11 am
Location: Campbelltown, 5074
Has liked: 204 times
Been liked: 112 times
Grassroots Team: Salisbury

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby Booney » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:03 pm

Stay here mate. Plenty of whineing going on (still) in here. ;)
If you want to go quickly, go alone.

If you want to go far, go together.
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 61168
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 8101 times
Been liked: 11800 times

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby CENTURION » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:04 pm

away from this whinery! ;)
Member No. 988 & PROUD to sponsor The CDFC!!
User avatar
CENTURION
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11101
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:11 am
Location: Campbelltown, 5074
Has liked: 204 times
Been liked: 112 times
Grassroots Team: Salisbury

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby johna » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:54 pm

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 ?
johna
Mini-League
 
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:57 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time
Grassroots Team: Kersbrook

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby bulldogproud2 » Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:03 pm

Dutchy wrote:
bulldogproud2 wrote: It was a very solid bump but there was certainly nothing illegal in the action.


:shock:

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.
:shock:
bulldogproud2
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:24 pm
Location: West Beach or Henley Oval
Has liked: 52 times
Been liked: 51 times
Grassroots Team: Imperials

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby Dutchy » Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:13 pm

bulldogproud2 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
bulldogproud2 wrote: It was a very solid bump but there was certainly nothing illegal in the action.


:shock:

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.
:shock:


The bump was high, which is illegal in our game. You have contradicted yourself.
User avatar
Dutchy
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 46064
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Location, Location
Has liked: 2598 times
Been liked: 4236 times

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby bulldogproud2 » Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:04 pm

It was an infringement but was certainly not illegal. Illegal actions are those which result in a Guilty verdict from a tribunal. Wingnut was found NOT GUILTY of any illegal action. I think someone needs to learn the difference between rules and laws. Case closed. ;)
bulldogproud2
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:24 pm
Location: West Beach or Henley Oval
Has liked: 52 times
Been liked: 51 times
Grassroots Team: Imperials

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby topsywaldron » Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:27 pm

whufc wrote:We won the premiership so my statement was FACT.


Incorrect but I'll let you continue to spout your normal gibberish. Sunshine.
'People are not stupid. They know when they are being conned. And two reserves teams operating in a League competition will reduce it to a farce, a competition without a soul.'

Dion Hayman 24th July 2013
User avatar
topsywaldron
Veteran
 
Posts: 3512
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 5:16 pm
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 218 times

Re: Ian Callinan found NOT GUILTY for GF bump on Phillips

Postby Dutchy » Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:49 pm

bulldogproud2 wrote:It was an infringement but was certainly not illegal. Illegal actions are those which result in a Guilty verdict from a tribunal. Wingnut was found NOT GUILTY of any illegal action. I think someone needs to learn the difference between rules and laws. Case closed. ;)


Im not sure why Im arguing this but seriously.

Laws of the game include high contact, surely if you break a law of the game its illegal?
User avatar
Dutchy
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 46064
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Location, Location
Has liked: 2598 times
Been liked: 4236 times

PreviousNext

Board index   Football  SANFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 12 guests

Around the place

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