SA Footy

S Demon wrote:They put a 7th placed Div 4 side who were actually playing quite good towards the end of the season down to Division 5 because of on field issues (and will no doubt go very well in D5) so don't hold your breath

Yeah but West Croydon are a side that's undefeated in this division apart from a draw, and have won easily across most games - another year down here would see another lopsided division.. and the league don't want that..

FFS, we weren't 7th, we were 8th (ie 2nd to bottom)

Pooraka lost no points, they were just relegated along with the 2 bottom placed sides.

Footy Chick wrote:FFS, we weren't 7th, we were 8th (ie 2nd to bottom)

Pooraka lost no points, they were just relegated along with the 2 bottom placed sides.

I was talking about Pooraka. They finished 7th. They were relegated.

Very emotional lately FC..

Pooraka were already on a warning weren't they? Don't think WC were.

Zartan wrote:

morell wrote:I think we will be in D7 next year.

If you do go down to D7 next year, and PH are in D7 - do you think that would help or hinder your chances to retain the PH lads from this year?

I don't think we will be keeping any of them to be honest. They have their own footy club they're trying to revive. Plus the connection was mostly through Tom - who resigned and Troy Elbourne - likely heading back to help.

Not to say we wouldn't love them all to be at MPFC! Gawd we would do just about anything. They were absolutely fantastic for us this year, taught us so much but we always knew it was a one season only type deal.

As much as it would likely mean it hurts us, we do hope Para Hills get back up and running for their sake. If we do end up playing each-other then so be it. Hope for a hard fought game with no injuries.

The Ash Man wrote:

LaughingKookaburra wrote:Are any clubs involved with this weeks games on any sort of watch list/ good behaviour bond from the league?

Didn't WC get 5 red cards? That would have to put them under some sort of scrutiny

Well if that's the case and they are under some sort of league watch that pretty much gives you a good reason why the final is at Edwardstown. It puts out Woody South by 7 minutes. Why is there a problem?

Arch44 wrote:Pooraka were already on a warning weren't they? Don't think WC were.

Don't think HV were either

S Demon wrote:

Arch44 wrote:Pooraka were already on a warning weren't they? Don't think WC were.

Don't think HV were either

"At the start of season 2016, clubs endorsed a 3 strikes methodology where once a club had incurred 3 reports, the given club was in turn subject to ongoing performance management indicators" - JK email 19/08/2016
How many reports have HV, Pooraka and WC had this year?

Mr Beefy wrote:

S Demon wrote:

Arch44 wrote:Pooraka were already on a warning weren't they? Don't think WC were.

Don't think HV were either

"At the start of season 2016, clubs endorsed a 3 strikes methodology where once a club had incurred 3 reports, the given club was in turn subject to ongoing performance management indicators" - JK email 19/08/2016
How many reports have HV, Pooraka and WC had this year?

3 for HV, not sure about the others. So if WC hit 3 reports (not sure if they have or not) then their could be a possibility of them being kept down due to on field behaviour? The same as Pooraka and HV (HV were destined to go down anyway after finishing 8th, but once Pooraka go the boot there was a slim chance of staying up but the reports sent us packing too)

4 - 2 for mad dog

Footy Chick wrote:4 - 2 for mad dog

I just looked on the tribunal list on the website which has 3. Forgot OB in the last game which isn't on there

S Demon wrote:

Mr Beefy wrote:

S Demon wrote:

Arch44 wrote:Pooraka were already on a warning weren't they? Don't think WC were.

Don't think HV were either

"At the start of season 2016, clubs endorsed a 3 strikes methodology where once a club had incurred 3 reports, the given club was in turn subject to ongoing performance management indicators" - JK email 19/08/2016
How many reports have HV, Pooraka and WC had this year?

3 for HV, not sure about the others. So if WC hit 3 reports (not sure if they have or not) then their could be a possibility of them being kept down due to on field behaviour? The same as Pooraka and HV (HV were destined to go down anyway after finishing 8th, but once Pooraka go the boot there was a slim chance of staying up but the reports sent us packing too)

WC had 2 from the cgrade the other week that got suspended unsure about during the year.

Plus 2 more during the year. Pooraka had 5

Having a quick look at that Tribunal list and very surprised one hearing managed to be kept so quite

Milly wrote:Having a quick look at that Tribunal list and very surprised one hearing managed to be kept so quite

Rumbelow?

Milly wrote:Having a quick look at that Tribunal list and very surprised one hearing managed to be kept so quite

Certain investigation into some incidents in C6?

Looked very unbecoming.

Milly wrote:Having a quick look at that Tribunal list and very surprised one hearing managed to be kept so quite

Adam Rumbelow striking an umpire?

Mr Beefy wrote:

Milly wrote:Having a quick look at that Tribunal list and very surprised one hearing managed to be kept so quite

Rumbelow?

haha beat me to it!

Milly wrote:Having a quick look at that Tribunal list and very surprised one hearing managed to be kept so quite

Chris Motley? 12 games for intentionally making contact with an umpire?