HFL Division 1 (Central)

[GetTheSherrin]

tex, had there been issues with TM and battams all day or was this the one and only altercation they had? was battams given a free against him or something to piss him off? the whole thing seems a little bizzare without having seen it..

what an interesting round of footy...... NOT

onkas- in the only tough game for the rnd
uris- to step up getting close to finals and giving the drofers a tough reality check- 20gls atleast
barker- will get ready for finals aswell claiming the 5th spot this week with a healthy win
lofty- at home, lookout bridgy, a big loss is coming your way
IB- well, theyre playing BWood so 20+ win to the thunderers..

[O'KNOWLEDGABLE ONE]

Good Luck this weekend to a young very small & bald primodial footballer making his return to the Ironbank B grade. Very much a contreversial call from B grade coach, I guess all his butt kissing during the year when he has been injured has paid off. Hope he gets a kick (just one). Please can all the Birdwood B grade reading this take it easy on the little fella. Again he is bald and wheres little white boots, you should be able to distinguish on size alone. Come on Onka Valley!!!

[Cougar]

Can anyone tell me if this is right. If I run into the umpire tomorrow which knocks him to the ground and leaves him with a Black eye, he can report me for Negligent Contact. Then when I go to the HFL tribunal I plead GUILTY and the HFL tribunal finds me guilty I recieve a suspension. But if I take the matter to the SANFL with a QC, I can have my suspension cleared. Is this right??

[Yoda]

that appears to be the case cougar, i feel sorry for the umpires now. they are not protected against sh** like that. battams your a disgrace i dont care how you look at it, short ass elbowing someone that six foot yeah thats an accident for sure NOT

[Banker]

Cougar- with a QC?

[Cougar]

Cougar- with a QC?

How else could he be playing this week?? And I'm sure HE forked the money out for one of those!?!? GH 1 HFL Nil.

[Tanka]

Cougar- with a QC?

How else could he be playing this week?? And I'm sure HE forked the money out for one of those!?!? GH 1 HFL Nil.

Cougar and Yoda...... dry your eyes and get on with it!!!

The SANFL tribunal is there so if a player is unhappy with the outcome of the HFL tribunal they have an option to appeal. Battams pleaded guilty and was given about 30 weeks for negligent contact. He was unhappy with the severity of this penalty so he appealed as was his right. The UNBIASED SANFL tribunal heard the evidence both for and against and watched the video provided by MEADOWS and decided without predjudice that he was not guilty of even negligent contact. Thus he is free to play. He did not go down there expecting to play this week he went to appeal his penalty.

The fact that he was let off altogether tells me that the HFL tribunal was not impartial or did not listen to or watch all the evidence without already having an opinion. It seems they took the point of view of TM ( who is the best umpire and fairest we have ) over the Battams version because of who they were not because of the evidence. The fact that the SANFL tribunal were also unhappy with the way the Hills handled the situation also suggests that. End of Rant.

[Cougar]

So Tanka tell me, if he was found Not Guilty of Negligent Contact, how did TM get a black eye from the incident?? Did TM in fact make it up, or did he sustain it from one of those wild Umpire Partys?? Either way, accidental or not, if I run into an umpire and give him a black eye and only get 2 weeks for it, I'll buy a lotto ticket!!

[bookie]

raider the 17s have been going very well the last few weeks how do u think they will fair against the defending premiers lofty this week? who will play on pistola? i reckon he could be in for another bag this week and could make a very late charge for leading goalkicker!

[Shanty Lad]

I honestly think our u17's will give lofty a fair game this weekend. Don't worry about pistola we have big benny pohl up forward for us. It'll be a shoot out of the star forwards with the raiders taking the cake

[footy_pie]

Cougar- with a QC?

How else could he be playing this week?? And I'm sure HE forked the money out for one of those!?!? GH 1 HFL Nil.

Cougar and Yoda...... dry your eyes and get on with it!!!

The SANFL tribunal is there so if a player is unhappy with the outcome of the HFL tribunal they have an option to appeal. Battams pleaded guilty and was given about 30 weeks for negligent contact. He was unhappy with the severity of this penalty so he appealed as was his right. The UNBIASED SANFL tribunal heard the evidence both for and against and watched the video provided by MEADOWS and decided without predjudice that he was not guilty of even negligent contact. Thus he is free to play. He did not go down there expecting to play this week he went to appeal his penalty.

The fact that he was let off altogether tells me that the HFL tribunal was not impartial or did not listen to or watch all the evidence without already having an opinion. It seems they took the point of view of TM ( who is the best umpire and fairest we have ) over the Battams version because of who they were not because of the evidence. The fact that the SANFL tribunal were also unhappy with the way the Hills handled the situation also suggests that. End of Rant.

Good work Tanka, its about time someone with half a brain made a comment on this. I agree its about time Cougar stops whinging about it and understands that even if Battams did make intentional contact with TM, clearly the evidence was not strong enough to stand at the SANFL tribunal. As Tanka eluded to the SANFL tribunal would have given a fair hearing without considering the reputation that Battams or TM have within the hills.

I believe that TV tried taking Battams' previous suspension to the SANFL tribunal a couple years ago and it was upheld. Bout time Cougar builds a bridge and gets over it!

[Justquietly]

[quote="magpie in the 80's"]this week's games:

CENTRAL August 11th-Round 16
Onka Valley v Blackwood
Uraidla Dist v Hahndorf
Mt Barker v Lobethal
Mt Lofty v Bridgewater
Birdwood v Ironbank

Onkas...11pts
Uris...13 goals
Mt Ronnie...63pts
Lofty...18 goals
Ironbank...jeez...27 goals.

[Yoda]

well once again we have people on here talking about stuff that they did not see, tanka & footy pie do you think it was an accident. give me a break you two must play for them or go watch there games or does hughes pay you to watch there games. gee he must have forked out some money to the sanfl to get him off. hope there or no umpires at tv games or they might use there brains as a club and suspend him themselves for a bit longer

[Cougar]

FootyPie you just confirmed what I suspected. Either you're one of Gary's Boys or indeed a Spastic. Perhaps you FootyPie can tell me how TM ended up with a Black Eye?? You claim there was clear evidence that it didn't happen and the SANFL bought it. So how did he get it?? Or are you suggesting that yes Battams accidently ran into TM with a fair bit of impact, and got a 30 match suspension reduced down to 2?? If so, that's a big win for TV.

[shake'n'bake]

Im backing the raider boys on this one there U/17's in a tight one!!!

[Tanka]

FootyPie you just confirmed what I suspected. Either you're one of Gary's Boys or indeed a Spastic. Perhaps you FootyPie can tell me how TM ended up with a Black Eye?? You claim there was clear evidence that it didn't happen and the SANFL bought it. So how did he get it?? Or are you suggesting that yes Battams accidently ran into TM with a fair bit of impact, and got a 30 match suspension reduced down to 2?? If so, that's a big win for TV.

Cougar/ Yoda....... just in case you didnt realise ( unless of course you are TM ) you were not there either!!!!!! Battams has always said and according to the SANFL the video shows that he was attempting to smother the kick from the Meadows player.... when a collision occurs who knows how TM recieved a black eye but the evidence obviously showed that it was not through a deliberate act... just because you dont like him does not mean you can sprout off about all the s**t you have been saying. How about realising that through an unbiased appeals process it was deemed to be an accidental act!!

And to say that Gary has "paid for" a favourable verdict just goes to show what a wanker you are.....Do you honestly think the SANFL would be bribed to make the decision......WANKER!!

[BRaG]

the Battams case is a complete balls up, the bloke should be banned, I dont care what anyone says, an umpire cannot be hit. the guy has to be penalised.

I have not delt with the umpire but from reading here and speaking to others he is a well respected umpire, if he says he was deliberatly hit well that should be enough.

how can a SANFL panel think otherwise? what sort of precedent is this setting? I hope the HFL dont supply umpires, why should they? they have no protection.

[devilsadvocate]

I think the Battams issue needs to be clarified, I didn't see the incident, so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the HFL decision overturned because of the inconsistency of the suspension? By that I mean it's a 'nothing' sort of suspension by the HFL.

If Battams deliberately hit an umpire, he should be banned for life.
If his contact was negligent, he should have copped a few weeks at most.

The point is, by handing a 1.5 season ban, the HFL seems to be hedging its bets. It had to be one or the other, it can't be a bit of both or halfway.

I know it's a real grey area, and IMO, the SANFL should have either reduced or increased the suspension based on the evidence produced. The ban should not have been overturned, but I think the HFL needs to look at it's initial decision before laying the blame elsewhere. IMO they set themselves up for the decision to be protested by the ban they handed down in the first place.

I don't think a precedent has been set. I think it just tells the leagues that when they are handing down a punishment, they need to be totally clear about their decision.

[Tanka]

I think the Battams issue needs to be clarified, I didn't see the incident, so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the HFL decision overturned because of the inconsistency of the suspension? By that I mean it's a 'nothing' sort of suspension by the HFL.

If Battams deliberately hit an umpire, he should be banned for life.
If his contact was negligent, he should have copped a few weeks at most.

The point is, by handing a 1.5 season ban, the HFL seems to be hedging its bets. It had to be one or the other, it can't be a bit of both or halfway.

I know it's a real grey area, and IMO, the SANFL should have either reduced or increased the suspension based on the evidence produced. The ban should not have been overturned, but I think the HFL needs to look at it's initial decision before laying the blame elsewhere. IMO they set themselves up for the decision to be protested by the ban they handed down in the first place.

I don't think a precedent has been set. I think it just tells the leagues that when they are handing down a punishment, they need to be totally clear about their decision.

Well Done DA.....probably your best post and I totally agree

[choppy]

meadows A grade beat kersbrook by about 6 goals today should make a real interesting finals in country div.