SA Footy

What do you consider to be behind the play. To me it looked like the guy that got hit was coming in to shephard the hitter from going for a spoil.
Having said that, a king hit is as low as you can get

cracka wrote:What do you consider to be behind the play. To me it looked like the guy that got hit was coming in to shephard the hitter from going for a spoil.
Having said that, a king hit is as low as you can get

I define precisely what occurred as being behind play.

Realistically, it's hard to contemplate a King Hit being within play

The Bedge wrote:I've also heard plenty of comments like "If he was from Salisbury West or North he would've got double..."

Let's review the last suspension from SW:

Jones received three suspensions for striking, one for 10 weeks (by knee), a second for six weeks (by knee) and a third for an elbow. He also received three games for attempting to trip, while a stomping charge was dismissed.

10 weeks for a knee to the face of the TOS player which broke his jaw.. same same if you ask me.. might even use the word consistent.

The league has been consistent I don't think you can pose an argument any other way.

My argument is that 8-10 games suspension for a blatant king hit is not being seen as a deterrent and continues to happen on far to many occasions.

You go out on a football field you expect you may cop a high hip and shoulder, you know you might accidently cop a knee in the back in a marking contest, you know occasionally you might get a kick in danger to the hands, you may accidently knock heads.

I don't think anyone should have expect to be belted behind play whilst looking at the footy.

whufc wrote:

The Bedge wrote:I've also heard plenty of comments like "If he was from Salisbury West or North he would've got double..."

Let's review the last suspension from SW:

Jones received three suspensions for striking, one for 10 weeks (by knee), a second for six weeks (by knee) and a third for an elbow. He also received three games for attempting to trip, while a stomping charge was dismissed.

10 weeks for a knee to the face of the TOS player which broke his jaw.. same same if you ask me.. might even use the word consistent.

The league has been consistent I don't think you can pose an argument any other way.

My argument is that 8-10 games suspension for a blatant king hit is not being seen as a deterrent and continues to happen on far to many occasions.

You go out on a football field you expect you may cop a high hip and shoulder, you know you might accidently cop a knee in the back in a marking contest, you know occasionally you might get a kick in danger to the hands, you may accidently knock heads.

I don't think anyone should have expect to be belted behind play whilst looking at the footy.

Coming from left field maybe the tribunal should consider a penalty of so many games to be served after the injured player resumes playing (plus being suspended while the injured player is unable to play) depending on the severity of the offence and the injury. This way the offender can not start playing before the injured player recommences.

The Old Fellow wrote:
Coming from left field maybe the tribunal should consider a penalty of so many games to be served after the injured player resumes playing (plus being suspended while the injured player is unable to play) depending on the severity of the offence and the injury. This way the offender can not start playing before the injured player recommences.

That has always been my view, especially in the AFL, you sit out how long of an injury you caused, then two more weeks.

Too many variables. What if the victim decides to retire due to age or just not bothering playing again after several weeks out of the game. What if the victim is just a part-timer or fill-in or is about head off overseas and miss the rest of the season anyway. What if the incident happens in Round 17 or Round 18 and the victim is ready to go from Round 1 next year regardless of the extent of the injury. And what if the victim picks up a different injury at work, home or training and has to miss more footy than the original injury. Sounds good in theory to run with the eye for an eye penalty but it's just not feasible.

Certainly been an interesting week.. one thing is for sure though, if I were involved at a club in the AdFL I would be strongly advising my members to be very careful what they post and comment on social media.. can't end well.

The Bedge wrote:Certainly been an interesting week.. one thing is for sure though, if I were involved at a club in the AdFL I would be strongly advising my members to be very careful what they post and comment on social media.. can't end well.

If?

The Bedge wrote:Certainly been an interesting week.. one thing is for sure though, if I were involved at a club in the AdFL I would be strongly advising my members to be very careful what they post and comment on social media.. can't end well.

LOL.

Obviously there are some still out there who cant help themselves.

I saw your little facebook exchange last night.

whufc wrote:I saw your little facebook exchange last night.

Speaking of people who cant help themselves...

The Bedge wrote:

whufc wrote:I saw your little facebook exchange last night.

Speaking of people who cant help themselves...

Very Jaiden Stephenson like I would think.

My two cents…

The concern I have is that the league is sending the wrong message out. To me, allowing the player to return after they have clearly seen the incident and know the damage it has caused, is sending a message that you can throw a punch on a Saturday and break someone’s jaw, put them out of work etc. and you will get a second chance to play in our league. Is it just me who is thinking about it like this?

Whether it is out of character for this person or not, whether it was a brain fade or whatever, allowing the player to play again provides an element of risk of them doing it again, you know another brain fade or out of character moment, it just doesn’t seem right to me.

So based on this, I would expect to see incidents like this continue to occur if that is the message the league is sending. If punching someone in the face off the ball, while he isn’t looking and breaking their jaw doesn’t warrant a life ban, then what action does one have to carry out and what damage do they have to cause to cop a life ban?

cossi11 wrote:I would expect to see incidents like this continue to occur if that is the message the league is sending.

It'd be a brave person to test that theory i'd suspect..

The Bedge wrote:

cossi11 wrote:I would expect to see incidents like this continue to occur if that is the message the league is sending.

It'd be a brave person to test that theory i'd suspect..

But it was an accident... it was out of character... i'm very sorry for my actions etc.

Precedent is set, this action and the damage caused doesn't result in a life ban...

Great message to the rest of the league!

cossi11 wrote:My two cents…

The concern I have is that the league is sending the wrong message out. To me, allowing the player to return after they have clearly seen the incident and know the damage it has caused, is sending a message that you can throw a punch on a Saturday and break someone’s jaw, put them out of work etc. and you will get a second chance to play in our league. Is it just me who is thinking about it like this?

I'm not completely adverse to perpetrators in some circumstances getting second chances. Just in circumstances like this one the second chance occurring automatically.

It seems fundamentally wrong that the perpetrator will be available to play finals.

I'd be very open to the idea of a 12 week suspension, de-registration from the Adelaide Footy League, with the opportunity for the perpetrator to apply for re-registration down the road after showing a record of good deeds/payment of a suitable bond.

cossi11 wrote:Precedent is set, this action and the damage caused doesn't result in a life ban...!

Fenwicks fault for having a glass jaw

The Bedge wrote:

cossi11 wrote:Precedent is set, this action and the damage caused doesn't result in a life ban...!

Fenwicks fault for having a glass jaw

Irrespective of the victim having a glass jaw or it being out of character for the perpetrator, it is not a great message the league is sending by not life banning someone for these actions.

How much can a player get away with before being banned? I would have thought these actions are not something the league would want to condone, however the message they have sent in my eyes is that it is effectively ok to go around throwing punches behind play.

Don't have to be brave The Bedge, just a good bloke who had a brain fade, which was out of character.

**** was being facetious lol

Backintheday wrote:Don't have to be brave The Bedge, just a good bloke who had a brain fade, which was out of character.

So that makes it ok? I’ll be sure to let Fenwick know that’s it ok he’s a ‘good bloke’

Sitting in hospital for 4 days awaiting plates and screws in your jaw is a small price to pay because he’s a ‘good bloke’ it’s ok.

What a crock of shit, good bloke or not he broke a great blokes jaw in an unprovoked attack. Someone go to the front bar and do the same and play the good bloke card be interesting to see how that holds up.