SA Footy

Wazz17 wrote:

jo172 wrote:If I was Seaton I'd be getting a complex about the tribunal given the slap on the wrists the tribunal gave the Broadview bloke.

Re-watching it this morning it seems perfectly clear, Rolfe went to bump a bloke bending over for the ball. At best you can accept he wasn't aiming to get him high, but as the AFL has relentless drilled in recently, you go to bump, you wear the consequences.

Hypothetically of course but in all honesty what do you think the outcome would have been for Eastern Park, Smithfield, Brahma Lodge or Salisbury West based on previous issues. Not a hope in hell would it have been "play on"

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that.

Realistically, a Henley bloke got a reasonable penalty for the same thing on the same night and you'd hardly have Henley thrown in with those clubs.

mighty hounds wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:A tricky one to adjudicate

The ball was bouncing along the ground between two players who were running towards each other. The Scotch guy turned side on, Seaton guy stayed front on. Took the full brunt of it. Hope it's not as bad as it's sounding and he recovers.

Did the Scotch guy get his hands on the ball? I've only seen it once. Hard to see how he would have escaped penalty otherwise.

Hows the comment of the CEO? Sure it's a contact sport and bad injuries can happen but when someone is head over the ball and the other decides to bump illegally instead of tackle it contributes to the bad injury? If the player in question decides to tackle or attempts to pick up the ball the seaton player doesn't break his back? Players are getting 4 games for gut punches, 6 games for laying punches yet and bloke lays and illegal bump and breaks someone back and receives 0 games. What a disgrace.

Awful!

Not the time to be blaming the victim. Sounds terrible.

Sure say that it was an unfortunate, accidental football collision if that's what you believe but a bit of sensitivity and tact wouldn't go astray.

The Scotch #4 is a bit of a hard nut, finds the smallest bloke out there to harass once it's all simmered down. These guys have gotta realize a lot of games are getting recorded.

Tony Clifton wrote:

mighty hounds wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:A tricky one to adjudicate

The ball was bouncing along the ground between two players who were running towards each other. The Scotch guy turned side on, Seaton guy stayed front on. Took the full brunt of it. Hope it's not as bad as it's sounding and he recovers.

Did the Scotch guy get his hands on the ball? I've only seen it once. Hard to see how he would have escaped penalty otherwise.

Hows the comment of the CEO? Sure it's a contact sport and bad injuries can happen but when someone is head over the ball and the other decides to bump illegally instead of tackle it contributes to the bad injury? If the player in question decides to tackle or attempts to pick up the ball the seaton player doesn't break his back? Players are getting 4 games for gut punches, 6 games for laying punches yet and bloke lays and illegal bump and breaks someone back and receives 0 games. What a disgrace.

Awful!

Not the time to be blaming the victim. Sounds terrible.

Sure say that it was an unfortunate, accidental football collision if that's what you believe but a bit of sensitivity and tact wouldn't go astray.

Probably a bit unfair to assume that the quote is put in the correct context. He is on record saying that the AFL have toyed with the rules of the game enough that leads players into a false sense of security that the rules will protect them. The rules don't protect them, they simply penalise those who don't stick to the rules.

They’ve got this one wrong. He’s chosen to bump him and broken his back. Should of got 6-8.

What would happen if this was Salisbury north?

jake the snake wrote:They’ve got this one wrong. He’s chosen to bump him and broken his back. Should of got 6-8.

What would happen if this was Salisbury north?

I can think (off the top of my head) of 2 examples of no case to answer for Dangerous Tackles with one being from Callum Hay.

I also remember that Eastern Park have a had a No case to answer after a complaint from another club. And then almost as if the stars have lined up, the league charged a Scotch player for striking AGAINST a Salisbury North player.

So you can put your violin away now....

Lightning McQueen wrote:The Scotch #4 is a bit of a hard nut, finds the smallest bloke out there to harass once it's all simmered down. These guys have gotta realize a lot of games are getting recorded.

Peter Rolfe would be well aware of playing in matches with video....he's played over 100 league games of SANFL!

Footy Chick wrote:

jake the snake wrote:They’ve got this one wrong. He’s chosen to bump him and broken his back. Should of got 6-8.

What would happen if this was Salisbury north?

I can think (off the top of my head) of 2 examples of no case to answer for Dangerous Tackles with one being from Callum Hay.

I also remember that Eastern Park have a had a No case to answer after a complaint from another club. And then almost as if the stars have lined up, the league charged a Scotch player for striking AGAINST a Salisbury North player.

So you can put your violin away now....

Does our tribunal system take into account the outcome/ injury sustained? if the Seaton player gets up and plays on, the argument is there that it probably isnt worthy of suspension, but when the outcome is someone being in a wheelchair, its genuinely baffling to see no case to answer. Especially when the lad from Henley got 4 weeks for an incident with similarities (e.g. one bloke puts his head over it and fumbles, the other expects him to come up but he doesnt and bumps him in the head/ neck).

Interesting comparison is that Steven Motlop "preserved himself" in the showdown on the weekend and didnt bend down for a ball when he should have and looked incredibly soft in the process. He has subsequently been battered from pillar to post in the media for looking like he pulled out of a contest. Its easy to say preserve yourself but how far do you go before you just stop winning any contested ball?

heater31 wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:The Scotch #4 is a bit of a hard nut, finds the smallest bloke out there to harass once it's all simmered down. These guys have gotta realize a lot of games are getting recorded.

Peter Rolfe would be well aware of playing in matches with video....he's played over 100 league games of SANFL!

But he used to hit blokes off the ball to avoid being on camera.

I think LM may be referring to another player PP and other incidents rather than the bump on the Seaton player by Rolfe who clearly wears number 5 in the video and a quick check of team sheets on SportsTG.

Down the Hill wrote:I think LM may be referring to another player PP and other incidents rather than the bump on the Seaton player by Rolfe who clearly wears number 5 in the video and a quick check of team sheets on SportsTG.

Yeah, I was more responding to Heater.

jo172 wrote:If I was Seaton I'd be getting a complex about the tribunal given the slap on the wrists the tribunal gave the Broadview bloke.

Re-watching it this morning it seems perfectly clear, Rolfe went to bump a bloke bending over for the ball. At best you can accept he wasn't aiming to get him high, but as the AFL has relentless drilled in recently, you go to bump, you wear the consequences.

Only just seen the incident and am staggered. Thought the four game penalty for Henley player was spot on, so this had to get 6-8 games.

To think the Tribunal heard both cases on the same night and came up with such different outcomes beggars belief!

Scotch must have had one of the best advocates/ legal person in the State, and probably could afford it.

Always stick up for the League, but they have made a huge error of judgement here!!

I’m not saying I necessarily agree with the decision but there are some things going in Rolfe’s favour over the Henley one.

It’s difficult to tell how far the ball is in front of Rolfe but it looks like he’s actually going for it then turned at the last moment. The Henley bloke seems like he was always going the bump when the Uni guy was in a vulnerable position.

I understand the umpire in the Scotch game gave evidence that he saw it and didn’t think it reportable. You can see in the footage he is side on to the incident and in a better vantage position than the camera.

The Henley incident has the complication of him being pushed by the other Uni bloke, who by the way had down the worst job of shepherding ever. Very difficult to factor that in.

It seems Rolfe got the benefit of the doubt. I’m sceptical that the same benefit would be extended to a Salisbury North player.

At the end of the day suspending Rolfe doesn’t make the Seaton bloke’s injuries any better. Hopefully everyone is getting around him, that’s more important in my view than dishing out punishment.

Where is the video? I reckon I’m the only person in Adelaide that hasn’t seen it yet.

The Big Shrek wrote:I’m not saying I necessarily agree with the decision but there are some things going in Rolfe’s favour over the Henley one.

It’s difficult to tell how far the ball is in front of Rolfe but it looks like he’s actually going for it then turned at the last moment. The Henley bloke seems like he was always going the bump when the Uni guy was in a vulnerable position.

I understand the umpire in the Scotch game gave evidence that he saw it and didn’t think it reportable. You can see in the footage he is side on to the incident and in a better vantage position than the camera.

The Henley incident has the complication of him being pushed by the other Uni bloke, who by the way had down the worst job of shepherding ever. Very difficult to factor that in.

It seems Rolfe got the benefit of the doubt. I’m sceptical that the same benefit would be extended to a Salisbury North player.

At the end of the day suspending Rolfe doesn’t make the Seaton bloke’s injuries any better. Hopefully everyone is getting around him, that’s more important in my view than dishing out punishment.

You’re right, suspending Rolfe doesn’t change the injury but At the end of the day Rolfe caused the injury by bumping someone front on who had his head over the ball and broke his back. An illegal bump that causes such an injury should be punished.

LaughingKookaburra wrote:Where is the video? I reckon I’m the only person in Adelaide that hasn’t seen it yet.

Scotch vs Seaton about 20mins into the first quarter

Whats the go with Scotch? C Grade forfeited as well?

meanderman wrote:Whats the go with Scotch? C Grade forfeited as well?

Yep, we got notified on Friday afternoon that they couldnt round up the numbers for a C Grade (only had about 14 or so available apparently). Bit of a kick in the pants to your mob as you would have had a few extra mouths to feed and water if it was a triple header.

Your new clubrooms look brilliant by the way, all seems to be coming together well.

mighty hounds wrote:Hows the comment of the CEO? Sure it's a contact sport and bad injuries can happen but when someone is head over the ball and the other decides to bump illegally instead of tackle it contributes to the bad injury? If the player in question decides to tackle or attempts to pick up the ball the seaton player doesn't break his back? Players are getting 4 games for gut punches, 6 games for laying punches yet and bloke lays and illegal bump and breaks someone back and receives 0 games. What a disgrace.

Hang about... talk about twisting things to suit your argument.. if the incident you're referring to was at the 41:17 min mark of the below game i would hardly call it just a gut punch... he's a good 10+ metres off the ball and turns, looks at the opponent who only has eyes for the ball and whacks him one!

I would say 4 games is getting off lightly.

https://www.dartfish.tv/Player?CR=p1320 ... 05m4770845

How many more suspensions are Henley from being kicked out the league?
It happens to the northern clubs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk