SA Footy

coman wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:Not sure if Smiffies still are

No we ain't no more,but all players have been advised that we still are though.

Smithfield are definitely still on conditions, no change there and don't foresee a change in that anytime soon.

Interesting points about baiting. it would happen but some of the offenders do them selves no favours and still push boundaries even under watch.

Seen one recently up close and it's only time before they get done again.

Mr Beefy wrote:So what did you get when Multa exploded? I don't recall you losing points

He got 12 games and deregistered.
The club got:
$4, 250 fine
Six premiership points deducted form all senior teams (suspended)
All C4 matches re-scheduled to 10:15
Two C4 matches rescheduled from home to away games

Then we had the ongoing affiliation conditions added on top of that which I listed earlier.

Although may not be as severe as Rosewaters incidents, it affected the club an incredible amount, also apart from that incident there was only one other incident from the club which was around our U18's the year before vs Salisbury - (they were deducted 8 points as well at that time), apart from that our previous few years had been reasonably well behaved I think without actually looking into it.

Ingle Farms Sanctions were a result of the Anthony Multa incident and it didn't help when he didn't turn up to the tribunal. This resulted in an extra $2500 fine. Our record previous to this at the tribunal was not too bad, however our player have been excellent since and you will find we have not had a yellow or red card in all three grades since this incident.
As much as this leaves you sitting on a knifes edge week to week and you have no way of controlling individuals, as we learn't on the weekend, It has made every player at our club take responsibility for their actions and look at the bigger picture, which is the consequences it would have on our club as a whole. I only recently addressed all three teams before a triple header just to reinforce where we sit and the damage it could do to our A Grades chances of promotion this year.
We will be glad to see the end of these sanctions, but i do think they have made our club and players realise how much damage individual actions can do to the club as a whole and your 80 odd team mates.

I think the system works well. Won't be a popular opinion, but to an extent I think there's merit in all clubs starting the season with something like this hanging over their head.

It's honestly not hard to play a game of football without belting blokes. If the sword of Damocles hanging over everyone's head accomplishes that, so much the better.

jo172 wrote:I think the system works well. Won't be a popular opinion, but to an extent I think there's merit in all clubs starting the season with something like this hanging over their head.

It's honestly not hard to play a game of football without belting blokes. If the sword of Damocles hanging over everyone's head accomplishes that, so much the better.

I would say it wouldnt be popular but I see merit to it as well. Some clubs always have a player thats a big of a thug, and they cant play the game without throwing one behind play. In short they haev no ability to control themselves.

Zartan wrote:

Mr Beefy wrote:Obviously Salisbury North are on amended affiliation agreements, which other clubs are?

Pretty sure: Smithfield, Ingle Farm, Salisbury(?), Eastern Park, Central United

and they won't let Hackham in, why not spread the love down south also!!!

Zartan wrote:

Mr Beefy wrote:Obviously Salisbury North are on amended affiliation agreements, which other clubs are?

Pretty sure: Smithfield, Ingle Farm, Salisbury(?), Eastern Park, Central United

Eastern Park are not on any sanctions or modified affiliation agreements. It was only for the latter part of last season and ended there.

Wish some of you guys could get your facts straight. Perhaps ask someone in the know before being "pretty sure".

Wazz17 wrote:

Zartan wrote:

Mr Beefy wrote:Obviously Salisbury North are on amended affiliation agreements, which other clubs are?

Pretty sure: Smithfield, Ingle Farm, Salisbury(?), Eastern Park, Central United

Eastern Park are not on any sanctions or modified affiliation agreements. It was only for the latter part of last season and ended there.

Wish some of you guys could get your facts straight. Perhaps ask someone in the know before being "pretty sure".

Either way you still sorted it. Not a big deal really.

Wazz17 wrote:

Zartan wrote:

Mr Beefy wrote:Obviously Salisbury North are on amended affiliation agreements, which other clubs are?

Pretty sure: Smithfield, Ingle Farm, Salisbury(?), Eastern Park, Central United

Eastern Park are not on any sanctions or modified affiliation agreements. It was only for the latter part of last season and ended there.

Wish some of you guys could get your facts straight. Perhaps ask someone in the know before being "pretty sure".

Looking forward to seeing the new clubrooms for the first time tomorrow Wazz, unfortunately I hear the funding didn't spread to the changerooms though

Footy Chick wrote:

Wazz17 wrote:

Zartan wrote:

Mr Beefy wrote:Obviously Salisbury North are on amended affiliation agreements, which other clubs are?

Pretty sure: Smithfield, Ingle Farm, Salisbury(?), Eastern Park, Central United

Eastern Park are not on any sanctions or modified affiliation agreements. It was only for the latter part of last season and ended there.

Wish some of you guys could get your facts straight. Perhaps ask someone in the know before being "pretty sure".

Looking forward to seeing the new clubrooms for the first time tomorrow Wazz, unfortunately I hear the funding didn't spread to the changerooms though

Yes we are very happy with what the council has been able to do for us so I hope you will be suitably impressed.

I could say we wanted to maintain the change-rooms in the historical 70's look that has a cosy feel to it but unfortunately the funding was not allocated into this area. We are however in discussions with council and federal members to see what we can do down the track.

Wazz17 wrote:I could say we wanted to maintain the change-rooms in the historical 70's look that has a cosy feel to it .

In the hope that consentinas may come back into fashion one day

I've seen some photos and the club looks really nice in any case.

Footy Chick wrote:

Wazz17 wrote:I could say we wanted to maintain the change-rooms in the historical 70's look that has a cosy feel to it .

In the hope that consentinas may come back into fashion one day

I've seen some photos and the club looks really nice in any case.

Excuse me guys, but this thread is for slagging off other clubs. Keep on topic thanks.

Dutchy wrote:

Zartan wrote:

Mr Beefy wrote:Obviously Salisbury North are on amended affiliation agreements, which other clubs are?

Pretty sure: Smithfield, Ingle Farm, Salisbury(?), Eastern Park, Central United

and they won't let Hackham in, why not spread the love down south also!!!

Glasshouse Dutchy. Some of the things that have transpired in SFL would get a club on an amended agreement in a heart beat in Amos. SFL tribunal, has and us today a toothless tiger. SAAFL should be lauded for taking these events seriously

Esteban Vihaio wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Zartan wrote:

Mr Beefy wrote:Obviously Salisbury North are on amended affiliation agreements, which other clubs are?

Pretty sure: Smithfield, Ingle Farm, Salisbury(?), Eastern Park, Central United

and they won't let Hackham in, why not spread the love down south also!!!

Glasshouse Dutchy. Some of the things that have transpired in SFL would get a club on an amended agreement in a heart beat in Amos. SFL tribunal, has and us today a toothless tiger. SAAFL should be lauded for taking these events seriously

Surprised not much has been made of the Salisbury West U14 player copping 14 weeks suspension [emoji47]

Jim05 wrote:Surprised not much has been made of the Salisbury West U14 player copping 14 weeks suspension [emoji47]

What's emoji47?

Jim05 wrote:Surprised not much has been made of the Salisbury West U14 player copping 14 weeks suspension [emoji47]

Yikes! What did he do?

Was it against Payneham?

Tony Clifton wrote:

Jim05 wrote:Surprised not much has been made of the Salisbury West U14 player copping 14 weeks suspension [emoji47]

Yikes! What did he do?

Was it against Payneham?

Broadview according to the article.
When you have a 13yo kid repeatedly punching and kicking a kid you know things aren't right. Surprised the ban wasn't longer

I have decided I'm against the banning of Rosewater.

Not many people have mentioned that this decision is punishing 60 odd entirely innocent players and officials.

The justification for punishing innocent people seems to be either based on some notion that they have a collective responsibility for the actions of other players, or that the end(protecting umpires) justifies the means.

Sometimes bad things happen. You can't prevent everything. How Rosewater could have reasonably foreseen this or prevented it is beyond me. How far is the concept of collective responsibility to go? Should we sack the CEO of the league for not preventing it?

Given how rarely umpires are assaulted is the club ban going to deter others anymore than the 20 year individual ban? We must remember that the vast majority of people wouldn't assault umpires anyway. They don't need a deterrent to prevent them assaulting them. Is a club ban going to deter the very small subset of people who would contemplate hitting an umpire. Are they thinking rationally at the time of hitting an umpire such that a deterrent might work or have they lost the plot?

My concern is that punishing the entire club does not achieve anything in this instance. It won't protect umpires any more than punishing the individual. I am concerned that the penalty was driven by the desire to appear tough rather than to actually achieve anything.

It's also important to distinguish between putting a club on a good behaviour bond and punishing them after the fact. The former is far more likely to have some prev