SAAFL Div 7 2008

[Rotter]

You know my thoughts are with ya Boxhead, can't fathom what you'd be feeling right now. Obviously grown up in the same sort of environment, being around footy clubs in the north since we could walk, with parents involved and all that crap, and I know not being able to play would be killing ya mate. Hopefully the right decision gets made at some point and you can pull the gurnsey back on.

I hear they had copies of some remarks from some of your team mates on this thread that at the time was probably in jest though when one of them referred to you with your kung fu attack it didn't help your cause. Mate, I'm a Uni bloke and whilst I certainly don't condone your behaviour that day this whole process has plenty of wholes in it. I know that doesn't help you right now

[mypaddock]

How is it possible that this guy Shaun can be reported when the umpires field/goal or boundary saw absolutely nothing wrong with the incident??? Since when can a supporter or witness make a report?
And why did it take two weeks for the report to be made. Sounds to me like these "witnesses" were just making sure they all had their stories straight. And who is to say they actually saw the incident??
If the recipient of the injury did in fact not actually get seriously injured during the incident would we be sitting here having this discussion? I think not. Sounds to me like Uni again getting everything their way with no real evidence to back up their accusations.

[Keepitreal]

How is it possible that this guy Shaun can be reported when the umpires field/goal or boundary saw absolutely nothing wrong with the incident??? Since when can a supporter or witness make a report?
And why did it take two weeks for the report to be made. Sounds to me like these "witnesses" were just making sure they all had their stories straight. And who is to say they actually saw the incident??
If the recipient of the injury did in fact not actually get seriously injured during the incident would we be sitting here having this discussion? I think not. Sounds to me like Uni again getting everything their way with no real evidence to back up their accusations.

[Dogwatcher]

Hey Boxy,

I'm not going to comment on the incident. It's unfair to do so, from this distance (time and space).
But I know you're a genuine bloke who loves his footy. Best of luck from here on and hopefully you can recover from this whole process which must have been quite traumatic for you and ALL involved.

DW.

[zedman]

well said DW..i also am not in a state to comment or accuse as i didnt see it and dont know the full story from both sides.. so everyone who is shouting out stuff just calm down..you all couldnt have been there and seen it and as such should not be saying who is right and who is wrong and who did what to who, so take a big deep breath and chill..

you are obviously a true paralowie man boxhead and it would be hurting you hard..you would still be able to do other things at the club but that will never equate to playing..gl as you work thru the process

[finn]

How is it possible that this guy Shaun can be reported when the umpires field/goal or boundary saw absolutely nothing wrong with the incident??? Since when can a supporter or witness make a report?
And why did it take two weeks for the report to be made. Sounds to me like these "witnesses" were just making sure they all had their stories straight. And who is to say they actually saw the incident??
If the recipient of the injury did in fact not actually get seriously injured during the incident would we be sitting here having this discussion? I think not. Sounds to me like Uni again getting everything their way with no real evidence to back up their accusations.

yes, uni have the amateur league in their pocket . have a look at the make up of the tribunals. this is not about club politics.

the rhetorical questions asked above eg "And who is to say they actually saw the incident??" can easily be asked the other way - who is to say that they did not?
the fact is that a serious injury did occur and i'd expect any team in the same position to investigate the circumstances.

but time to put this one to bed - perhaps enough club delegates can be convinvced to rescind the 12 game rule brought in to stop deliberate acts of onfield violence which most seem to believe was a positive step.

ps - i'm not saying this was, i'm not saying it wasn't - i can only go on what i've been told and the decision of the respective tribunals and avenues of appeal.

pps - what i'm unsure about is whether deregistration only affects the amateur league? pretty sure it does.

[The Big Shrek]

You're right zed, no-one here saw what happened but unless there is another story about the procedure it's fair enough to criticise that. Waiting weeks to report something does severely undermine the credibility of the witness' evidence.

[Keepitreal]

How is it possible that this guy Shaun can be reported when the umpires field/goal or boundary saw absolutely nothing wrong with the incident??? Since when can a supporter or witness make a report?
And why did it take two weeks for the report to be made. Sounds to me like these "witnesses" were just making sure they all had their stories straight. And who is to say they actually saw the incident??
If the recipient of the injury did in fact not actually get seriously injured during the incident would we be sitting here having this discussion? I think not. Sounds to me like Uni again getting everything their way with no real evidence to back up their accusations.

yes, uni have the amateur league in their pocket . have a look at the make up of the tribunals. this is not about club politics.

the rhetorical questions asked above eg "And who is to say they actually saw the incident??" can easily be asked the other way - who is to say that they did not?
the fact is that a serious injury did occur and i'd expect any team in the same position to investigate the circumstances.

but time to put this one to bed - perhaps enough club delegates can be convinvced to rescind the 12 game rule brought in to stop deliberate acts of onfield violence which most seem to believe was a positive step.

ps - i'm not saying this was, i'm not saying it wasn't - i can only go on what i've been told and the decision of the respective tribunals and avenues of appeal.

pps - what i'm unsure about is whether deregistration only affects the amateur league? pretty sure it does.

Seems to be only uni that pursue on field incidents that were never reported by umpires weeks later!

[The Riddler]

sorry to hear this boxhead you know you got the full support of me and st paul's....any chance of another appeal?

i look at this in amazement especially when a certain CLG player last year drove his knees into our captains back in a premeditated incident puncturing his lung and putting him in hospital for days and the kangaroo court only gave him 4 weeks....saafl is a mockery!

[Keepitreal]

Maybe Boxhead is also responsible for global warming.......how ridiculous action taken weeks later.

[MW]

.... and was given 15 games, which is a life barring from SAAFL.

why is that a life barring?

[Keepitreal]

.... and was given 15 games, which is a life barring from SAAFL.

why is that a life barring?

New saafl rule accumulate 12 suspension or all in one hit and banned from league for good.

[The Riddler]

.... and was given 15 games, which is a life barring from SAAFL.

why is that a life barring?

new rule come in this year if you get suspended for 12 weeks or more it is an automatic life ban. weeks can be accumulative also ie. if you get 3 weeks, another 9 more in your career and you get life.

[MW]

thats ridiculous.

[Lightning McQueen]

thats ridiculous.

Like it or not, the club delegates endorsed it.

[heater31]

.... and was given 15 games, which is a life barring from SAAFL.

why is that a life barring?

new rule come in this year if you get suspended for 12 weeks or more it is an automatic life ban. weeks can be accumulative also ie. if you get 3 weeks, another 9 more in your career and you get life.

Also if you exceed that 12 game limit the club can put up some money as a bond to register the player in question? No idea how much the SAAFL would ask for though.......probably some ridiculous amount knowing that lot

[Lightning McQueen]

.... and was given 15 games, which is a life barring from SAAFL.

why is that a life barring?

new rule come in this year if you get suspended for 12 weeks or more it is an automatic life ban. weeks can be accumulative also ie. if you get 3 weeks, another 9 more in your career and you get life.

Also if you exceed that 12 game limit the club can put up some money as a bond to register the player in question? No idea how much the SAAFL would ask for though.......probably some ridiculous amount knowing that lot

I'm pretty sure that is incorrect, unless anyone has any proof, they were not going to review any cases apparently in 2008, maybe in 2009.

[turk186]

LM..I believe you are correct.. SAAFL letter to us this year confirmed they would not review any of these 'life' bans until 2009 when they would once again review this particular law they put in place.

The thing about the SAAFL and their tribunal system that concerns me is the consistancy (or lack of) the penalties that they hand down, even the AFL have a guide for a particular type of report that if found guilty then the penalty will be X, or Y. Sounds to easy for SAAFL to introduce such a system.

[Q.]

I don't understand the logic behind the number of games. Why 15? Why not just 12 games, the result is the same. It is my understanding that the life-ban targets repeat offenders. Are you a repeat offender Boxhead?

[hawkseye]

Tough call Boxhead without knowing unis side of it. I feel for the lad you bumped aswell. Obviously a bad injury and not being able to play again would be harder to take from his point of you. If you still want to play footy im pretty sure you can still play in another league so at least you still have that option.