SA Footy

Thought it may be worth starting a specific thread where decisions can be discussed, reports discussed and debate about the Tribunal this year can take place, keeping the other thread free for information. Moderators, feel free to delete this if necessary, though.

Young South lad got reported today for what was thought to be 'rough conduct'

Any info on it from those who may have seen it today.

prowling panther wrote:Young South lad got reported today for what was thought to be 'rough conduct'

Any info on it from those who may have seen it today.

Came in late on a mark, trying to make a spoil. Was on the other side of the ground so hard to tell how malicious it was, but it was clearly late. I wasn't too surprised he found himself in the book. Probably will end up being a reprimand. Didn't seem to be too bad, but clearly late. What might make it worse is if he wasn't trying to get the ball or something, but from my vantage point I couldn't tell one way or another whether it was a guy trying to hurt someone or whether he just simply misjudged when he would arrive.

Grahaml wrote:

prowling panther wrote:Young South lad got reported today for what was thought to be 'rough conduct'

Any info on it from those who may have seen it today.

Came in late on a mark, trying to make a spoil. Was on the other side of the ground so hard to tell how malicious it was, but it was clearly late. I wasn't too surprised he found himself in the book. Probably will end up being a reprimand. Didn't seem to be too bad, but clearly late. What might make it worse is if he wasn't trying to get the ball or something, but from my vantage point I couldn't tell one way or another whether it was a guy trying to hurt someone or whether he just simply misjudged when he would arrive.

terrible report. nothing in it. Schiller wasnt hurt in the contest. 25 metre penalty yes, report no.

Joke of the weekend, the umpire should be reported!

When does Chris Gowans face the tribunal, usually its a tuesday night but with it being a monday game has the tribunal been put back a day or two.

whufc wrote:When does Chris Gowans face the tribunal, usually its a tuesday night but with it being a monday game has the tribunal been put back a day or two.

I'd say his hearing will be either tonight or tomorrow night?

May depend on when the Dogs train perhaps, having the Sunday game against the Bays.

What happened with Nick Gill's report. It looked to be very soft, on the ABC the commentators said that the umpire was wasting ink writing the report, but I have seen nothing anywhere about the outcome. The SANFL site mentions the Chris Gowans report but not Gill's, which is strange. even if it was thrown out you would think that they would mention it.

Can anyone tell me about the Gowans incident, what actually happened?

Dogwatcher wrote:Can anyone tell me about the Gowans incident, what actually happened?

gave an redleg player and 'Elizbiff' Kiss..... ofcourse he would do anything anything like that as it not in his usual gentle demeanour

Dogwatcher wrote:Can anyone tell me about the Gowans incident, what actually happened?

Not sure if many, except Chris Gowans, Nathan Eagleton and Tony Dey, actually saw the incident itself DW and further from that I don't think there is any video footage?

Alleged headbutt? I guess that is what was said the 'misconduct' charge is for, we will know more later tonight as the SANFL's twitter update advises Chris's hearing is tonight.

Footy Smart wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Can anyone tell me about the Gowans incident, what actually happened?

gave an redleg player and 'Elizbiff' Kiss..... of course he would do anything anything like that as it not in his usual gentle demeanour

Would or wouldn't FS

he will get 1 game suspension

I think the umpire that reported Gill should have been reported

Constance_Perm wrote:I think the umpire that reported Gill should have been reported

Why? If there's nothing in it nothing will come of it. I'd much rather the umpires take control right then and there and have it withdrawn than go down the AFL path of doing nothing and letting it be handled by someone else.

Grahaml wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:I think the umpire that reported Gill should have been reported

Why? If there's nothing in it nothing will come of it. I'd much rather the umpires take control right then and there and have it withdrawn than go down the AFL path of doing nothing and letting it be handled by someone else.

Because it was a ridiculous report .. I understand what you're saying and would agree if it were an iffy offence, but it wasn't imho.

You could also argue the opposite, that if there was something in it you could report it off the match footage.

Big Phil wrote:

Footy Smart wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Can anyone tell me about the Gowans incident, what actually happened?

gave an redleg player and 'Elizbiff' Kiss..... of course he would do anything anything like that as it not in his usual gentle demeanour

Would or wouldn't FS

It is a bit out of character, isn't it. How many games has he served in 12 seasons of SANFL footy now?

When they take a previous record into account in the SANFL is it only the guilty verdicts they look at? Do players get any credit for games without being found guilty at all? And do the previous incidents carry any different weight depending on how recent they were?

Without seeing the incident at all it's hard to say what happened but it's usually pretty clear if there's been a headbutt or not so you'd think it happened. From there, if what I hear is correct of course, it's just a matter of how long. Given past suspensions 1 week would be what I expect.

Constance_Perm wrote:

Grahaml wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:I think the umpire that reported Gill should have been reported

Why? If there's nothing in it nothing will come of it. I'd much rather the umpires take control right then and there and have it withdrawn than go down the AFL path of doing nothing and letting it be handled by someone else.

Because it was a ridiculous report .. I understand what you're saying and would agree if it were an iffy offence, but it wasn't imho.

You could also argue the opposite, that if there was something in it you could report it off the match footage.

Being reported during a game isn't a penalty, it's a warning to the player and a signal to the opposition that it's being handled. It's when something happens and the umpire doesn't get a book out that things get ugly. In this case it sounds like an umpire saw something, thought it was worth taking control and making sure if there was something untoward in it that it was settled properly. Exactly how it should happen.

Grahaml wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:

Grahaml wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:I think the umpire that reported Gill should have been reported

Why? If there's nothing in it nothing will come of it. I'd much rather the umpires take control right then and there and have it withdrawn than go down the AFL path of doing nothing and letting it be handled by someone else.

Because it was a ridiculous report .. I understand what you're saying and would agree if it were an iffy offence, but it wasn't imho.

You could also argue the opposite, that if there was something in it you could report it off the match footage.

Being reported during a game isn't a penalty, it's a warning to the player and a signal to the opposition that it's being handled. It's when something happens and the umpire doesn't get a book out that things get ugly. In this case it sounds like an umpire saw something, thought it was worth taking control and making sure if there was something untoward in it that it was settled properly. Exactly how it should happen.

Except when a ball player like Gill gets reported it can impact on the rest of his game. He clearly was upset by the report and was beaten pointless for the rest of the game by MacKenzie.

It wasn't anywhere near reportable. Nothing untoward happened. The umpire must have had an hallucination.

Incredibly earlier in the game a North player got hit in the head at a centre bounce. It may or may not have been deliberate, probably an accident but in these AFL days possibly reportable as reckless. The umpire chose not to pay a free, but then checked the North players face for any traces of blood before bouncing the ball!

and what about this scenario, someone is reported, a 50 metre penalty results in the winning goal & the reported player is found not guilty.