SA Footy

Footy Chick wrote:

lion heart wrote:[
Out of respect to CU we didn't want this to play out on safooty nor hit the papers (sadly people that clearly do not know the facts feel the need to do so). We didn't want their club dragged through the mud because of one d!ckhead's actions.

CU knew what they were getting themselves in for when they accepted his clearance back.

Woody reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Bart gets electrocuted every time he touched the cupcake.

How many times do you get zapped before you think "shit, this can't be good, I better not do this anymore?"

nothing will ever beat the old shit on the umpires door trick

Many thanks to Mitchell Park Reserves for a warm reception and their graciousness on a big day for the club. Special mention to Morrel for flying in from the Fleurieu Peninsula for the day and bobbing up for a couple of Joe the Goose goals and for laying a much unwanted tackle on yours truly.

MP A-grade almost pulled off a miracle victory too. We seem to like a close one in A's this year.

Good luck to whoever is playing golden grove next week. As and Bs had a bye this week and Salisbury North forfeit next week wouldn’t put it past them to drop a few down to the Cs and Ds to get some game time into them. Unless there is a rule against it?

Dropped at least 4 back yesterday and 3 of those were in their best players in D2r the week prior. Not breaking any rules though.

LaughingKookaburra wrote:Dropped at least 4 back yesterday and 3 of those were in their best players in D2r the week prior. Not breaking any rules though.

And they still got pumped by 6 goals

The cgrade are the bgrade's reserves, and the b grade coach can use his "reserves entity" any way he pleases to benefit his quest for success

Never said there was anything wrong with it Marby.

On the flip side if I was the Senior Coach and these blokes were on the borderline of senior selection and I was dealt with the same scenario I would want to use them in div 7 as they get experience in time on conditions prior to the A’s returning.

Not that it matters but you could only guess the players they dropped back have played more Div. 7 than 2R? Unless i'm interpreting this wrong...

29.2 A player who played in a Division 1, Division 1 Reserves, Division C1, Division 2, Division 2 Reserves or Division C2 match preceding the stand alone Division 1, Division 1 Reserves, Division C1, Division 2, Division 2 Reserves or Division C2 bye shall not play in a match in any Division of The League in the following bye round unless the player has played the majority of their matches in the current season in the lower Division (with the exception of Under 18 Divisions).

whufc wrote:

The Bedge wrote:

whufc wrote:Not sure why super quality footballers continue to think playing in the lowest divisions of the amateur league is a good idea.

I have ab$$solutely no idea.. your gue$$ is a$ good a$ mine.

Better ways to earn a buck, surely div 7 clubs don’t pay enough to be worth the drama

I agree, surely there are better ways to earn $0 a game...

Courtney Fish wrote:

alcho-pop wrote:
Absolutely no need for fabrication, there was a king hit on the day just not on Woodward.

Are you talking about the CU lad in the wrong shade of blue shorts and socks that wasn't shy in dishing a few out from behind.

nah the one your bloke hit that sparked all the commotion..

A bit late on all the conversation but i'll add my two cents..

Woody punishment is thoroughly deserved imo, no place in the game or society for it whatsoever so don't disagree with the sanction/penalty etc. Obviously it is a harsher penalty on him as he is now de-registered from the league but he only has himself to blame and like most others have said on here he is remorseful of his actions and accepting of the penalty...

My gripe is the double standards the league seem to have... my understanding is there were two hearings last week and none of the victims showed up for either of them yet the CUFC player gets suspended and the other gets thrown out... Couple this together with the outcome of the Houghton players comments last week and Woody's suspension earlier in the season for the exact same thing and it just seems there is something the league doesn't like about CUFC.. quite laughable really!!

Back on to footy now, move on from all this and concentrate on trying to knick a spot in the top 5 if we're good enough!

cossi11 wrote:

whufc wrote:

The Bedge wrote:

whufc wrote:Not sure why super quality footballers continue to think playing in the lowest divisions of the amateur league is a good idea.

I have ab$$solutely no idea.. your gue$$ is a$ good a$ mine.

Better ways to earn a buck, surely div 7 clubs don’t pay enough to be worth the drama

I agree, surely there are better ways to earn $0 a game...

Quite correct Cossi, it is all about a group of mates having a season of footy together - nothing to do with money that's for sure!

Exactly right there . Wouldn’t expect a cent in division 7 out there for a bit of fun and a laid back kick with good mates

cossi11 wrote: and it just seems there is something the league doesn't like about CUFC.. quite laughable really!!

Back on to footy now, move on from all this and concentrate on trying to knick a spot in the top 5 if we're good enough!

Your club hasn't annoyed the league with any form of report for at least a couple of years, why would they hate you?

Someone who has prior form with abuse and who clearly hasn't learned his lesson from previous holidays...then there's a fair chance they'll be less lenient.

As soon as I saw the transfer, I messaged Jars and said good pick up but I hope you don't live to regret it because the club had such a good record.

Now I'm not one to say I told you so, but.....

cossi11 wrote:...my understanding is there were two hearings last week and none of the victims showed up...

Since when does a "victim" have to attend a tribunal hearing?

I would still adhere to the code: "I don't remember anyone hitting me..."

Look Good In Leather wrote:

cossi11 wrote:...my understanding is there were two hearings last week and none of the victims showed up...

Since when does a "victim" have to attend a tribunal hearing?

I would still adhere to the code: "I don't remember anyone hitting me..."

Not quite sure how it all works myself but I thought you would need to have both parties there to determine what actually happened (hear both sides of the story) and then apply/determine the sanction if necessary?

Main point being is that the tribunal applied a sanction on one of the hearings and threw the other one out (presumably because the victim didn't show up, at least this is what I was told).

Footy Chick wrote:

cossi11 wrote: and it just seems there is something the league doesn't like about CUFC.. quite laughable really!!

Back on to footy now, move on from all this and concentrate on trying to knick a spot in the top 5 if we're good enough!

Your club hasn't annoyed the league with any form of report for at least a couple of years, why would they hate you?

Someone who has prior form with abuse and who clearly hasn't learned his lesson from previous holidays...then there's a fair chance they'll be less lenient.

As soon as I saw the transfer, I messaged Jars and said good pick up but I hope you don't live to regret it because the club had such a good record.

Now I'm not one to say I told you so, but.....

Why does it appear as though the treatment of a club varies depending on which club you are... I've noted a couple of incidents above that show a clear inconsistency and I have no idea what else to put it down too?

Don't agree with the less leniency call either, I thought it was all about protecting the umpires? Who cares if you have or haven't said something before and been sanctioned. If you say something abusive/threatening to an umpire you should be treated the exact same way everyone else is treated..

Moving on now anyway, things aren't going to change.. time to focus on Mitchell Park this week and pushing for that top 5 spot where I think we deserve to be!

Cossi mate, i have always thought you were better than this, you keep on going on and on about it and half your posts say, this is what i was told, if you are so highly strung about it, give the League a call and ask the questions yourself instead of listening to what others tell you.

The_Informer wrote:Cossi mate, i have always thought you were better than this, you keep on going on and on about it and half your posts say, this is what i was told, if you are so highly strung about it, give the League a call and ask the questions yourself instead of listening to what others tell you.

Better than what? I'm just expressing my opinion on these matters like a lot of others have done so, people respond and I will respond back.. that's how a forum works I thought?

I haven't been demanding answers anywhere so no need to go down that path..

cossi11 wrote:Not quite sure how it all works myself but I thought you would need to have both parties there to determine what actually happened (hear both sides of the story) and then apply/determine the sanction if necessary?

Main point being is that the tribunal applied a sanction on one of the hearings and threw the other one out (presumably because the victim didn't show up, at least this is what I was told).

Why should a victim have to take time out of his personal life to wait and attend a tribunal hearing that could take up to 4 hours to be heard.

The reporting umpire needs to attend along with the reported player, the player or the umpire can request a statement from the "victim" if he feels a need to.

Very rarely it's a victim vs offender case, that's generally if there has been a club induced investigation.

As you said in another post, time to move on and concentrate on making the 5, although you'd rather have Woody out there too, Garner is a fair replacement to have back in his original colours, done a full circle the lad, he must like blue as apart from Paskeville he has played for Smithfield, Eastern Park, South Gawler and now the Units, best of luck to him after a nasty injury last season.

Did he play for Gumeracha in between Central United and Smithfield?

The ‘victim’ doesn’t necessarily need to attend the tribunal, but the person lodging the report does.

However one of the first questions asked at the tribunal is if you’re entering a plea and if so what.

Case 1 - not guilty, reporter no show, can’t deal with the case, dismissed.
Case 2 - guilty, reporter no show, player has already admitted guilt so must be dealt with.

Don’t blame the system, blame the misrepresentation from your club.