SA Footy

morell wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:

morell wrote:
Of course, and as I said, I am assuming this ruling for Ingle Farm is related to their official club social media accounts, not private individuals.

Actually, this ruling is for all clubs on any social media platforms, like this one for instance.

Including Mitchell Park

Geddit?

Oh for goodness sake. I can't believe this is even an argument or that people are trying to defend it.

The SAAFL cannot punish a club for the content of an individual's social media. It's that simple.

Just like my employer and football club has no responsibility if I get a speeding fine, or punch someone, or break any other number of innumerate policies, rules and laws in my own time - UNLESS I am acting on behalf of my employer or organisation.

Think about it for second - they're effectively saying the Football Club is responsible for their players private lives, at all times, under all circumstances.

What they should have said:

1. Any registered Ingle Farm player which brings the SAAFL into disrepute by posting on Social Media will be deregistered by the Executive Committee at their discretion.

2. Any Social Media content which is administered by the club that brings the SAAFL into disrepute will result in a loss of points for all teams.

Anyway. back to footy. As clearly that's more interesting.

human_torpedo wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

human_torpedo wrote:I think all games this weekend are interesting in their own way..

ML v BL. Brahma on the up, Mawsons have played patches of good footy, Brahma should win but no certainty

Fitzroy v CU. Fitzroy ravaged by injury, CU could sniff an upset

Smitty v WC. 2 sides who run hard forward, very damaging sides, who wins control of the footy in the middle probably wins this

Trinity v IF. Zartan's boy Cotter on fire with 17 from 3 games, im sure they will put a lot of time into him, but can he be stopped in this form? Both sides need the win so should be a cracker.. Also a chance that Fraser back in, and we know what that means for Trinity thus far this season..

LOL

not sure that's worth a capital letter lol but thanks anyway

Look Good In Leather wrote:
There are a lot of (older) league officials across a number of leagues in SA who have a very negative opinion of this site. I have heard a number openly declare their disgust that their decisions are questioned on the various forums here.

They do not realise the gift they have been given in this era. All the heresay and rumour that used to be discussed and spread at the bar, or workplaces is now communicated here, and often corrected promptly. The officials have a method to monitor what is being said, what is the perception out in the community, and act or respond accordingly.

Instead it (social media) is being viewed as an evil that must be restrained.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

human_torpedo wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

human_torpedo wrote:I think all games this weekend are interesting in their own way..

ML v BL. Brahma on the up, Mawsons have played patches of good footy, Brahma should win but no certainty

Fitzroy v CU. Fitzroy ravaged by injury, CU could sniff an upset

Smitty v WC. 2 sides who run hard forward, very damaging sides, who wins control of the footy in the middle probably wins this

Trinity v IF. Zartan's boy Cotter on fire with 17 from 3 games, im sure they will put a lot of time into him, but can he be stopped in this form? Both sides need the win so should be a cracker.. Also a chance that Fraser back in, and we know what that means for Trinity thus far this season..

LOL

not sure that's worth a capital letter lol but thanks anyway

Soz, you wrote pretty much the exact same thing as I did at the same time.

Zartan wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:The Lodge have the long trek down Main North Road passing through 4 sets of traffic lights to take on the winless but competitive Mawson Lakes.

Did anyone else just count the sets of traffic lights in their head when reading this?

Footy Chick wrote:I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

What would you all do if I said that you couldn't post anything derogatory about anything and that al posts had to be about butterflies and sunshine?

Hmm?

morell wrote:Far out marbles, that's about three times in a row we've been in agreement.

marbles wrote:

morell wrote:Far out marbles, that's about three times in a row we've been in agreement.

best friends forever!!!

human_torpedo wrote:A. Cotter with a Lockleys logo.. Say it isn't so!

Footy Chick wrote:

Look Good In Leather wrote:
There are a lot of (older) league officials across a number of leagues in SA who have a very negative opinion of this site. I have heard a number openly declare their disgust that their decisions are questioned on the various forums here.

They do not realise the gift they have been given in this era. All the heresay and rumour that used to be discussed and spread at the bar, or workplaces is now communicated here, and often corrected promptly. The officials have a method to monitor what is being said, what is the perception out in the community, and act or respond accordingly.

Instead it (social media) is being viewed as an evil that must be restrained.

Well said - a forum is a place where these things should be able to be discussed - however, as we're all aware, there are always those keyboard warriors (like LGIL) that will take any opportunity to have a pot shot or will post crap to try and get another club into trouble which is when I have to step in to, if nothing else, protect the clubs from the crap.

I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

What would you all do if I said that you couldn't post anything derogatory about anything and that al posts had to be about butterflies and sunshine?

Hmm?

Footy Chick wrote:Yeah but you do love a general crack at the league though. Cant deny that...