SA Footy

bulldogs wrote:Wonder if footy chick will say anything positive about the actions ingle farm has taken. All she seems to wanna do is kick them

Yeah right, I'm pretty sure FC removed all of the allegations surrounding the match to give the tribunal no evidence to use, but you run with your hard luck story, it sounds better.

old fullback wrote:Abusive language happens in all walks of life, to get rubbed out for that seems a bit weak.

Absolutely 100% vehemently agree. We had a guy getting a yellow for saying the F Word and then getting a red for saying get F'ed after getting that yellow. It's an absurd situation. Getting games for abuse - pulease. We're all grown adults, if you cannot cop a little bit of colourful language or a bit of frustrated non-constructive criticism then I'd suggest you build a bubble wrap suit and stay indoors for the rest of your life.

morell wrote:

old fullback wrote:Abusive language happens in all walks of life, to get rubbed out for that seems a bit weak.

Absolutely 100% vehemently agree. We had a guy getting a yellow for saying the F Word and then getting a red for saying get F'ed after getting that yellow. It's an absurd situation. Getting games for abuse - pulease. We're all grown adults, if you cannot cop a little bit of colourful language or a bit of frustrated non-constructive criticism then I'd suggest you build a bubble wrap suit and stay indoors for the rest of your life.

Seems legit, it does depend on how loud it was though IMO.

I usually ask the player to tame it down a bit if they are swearing too loud and too often, it's usually enough.

I swear heaps but there's a time and a place for it, I'd prefer to show some decorum and have pride in my club to be yelling out obscenities on the field.

It was loud, and direct ... and a warning or a scoff would've sufficed. If someone is being a constant knob and disrupting the game, sure give him a yellow, but a bit of frustration should be able to expressed.

Abuse should be a free kick or a 50m penalty or if really bad maybe a yellow, but getting 4 games??? For yelling at someone? Jeepers that's harsh. He would had to have said the most horrific things known to man.

morell wrote:It was loud, and direct ... and a warning or a scoff would've sufficed. If someone is being a constant knob and disrupting the game, sure give him a yellow, but a bit of frustration should be able to expressed.

Abuse should be a free kick or a 50m penalty or if really bad maybe a yellow, but getting 4 games??? For yelling at someone? Jeepers that's harsh. He would had to have said the most horrific things known to man.

Where does a threat of violence towards the umpire fit in your view Morell?

Not very well. No-one should be threatened. Ever.

I guess I see a difference between:

"Ohhh bullshit umpy! He held me ya ****!"
"**** off! He pushed me in the back!"
"You're a disgrace!"

and

"I'm going to kill you after the game with the gun I have in my car".

Im not sure where in that spectrum the Ingle Farm bloke sits.

closer to the latter (allegedly)

Rightio, well then IMO it's forget about the SAAFL and the tribunal and it's call 131 444

Lightning McQueen wrote:

bulldogs wrote:Wonder if footy chick will say anything positive about the actions ingle farm has taken. All she seems to wanna do is kick them

Yeah right, I'm pretty sure FC removed all of the allegations surrounding the match to give the tribunal no evidence to use, but you run with your hard luck story, it sounds better.

Not looking for a hard luck story, individuals that mess up need to be held accountable. Just think the club has handle the situation very well once again.

jo172 wrote:closer to the latter (allegedly)

That makes sense then, no excuse for that.

bulldogs wrote:Not looking for a hard luck story, individuals that mess up need to be held accountable. Just think the club has handle the situation very well once again.

Yep, it's a shame that no matter what clubs do to try and keep out of trouble the occasional brain fart comes from nowhere to tarnish the good work. It takes years of no infringements to lose a negative tag but it takes one isolated incident for all the haters to jump on board and run with it.

Wonder which clubs this is aimed at?

17.2 A player who played in a Division 3, Division 6, Division 3 Reserves or Division 6 Reserves match preceding the stand alone Division 3, Division 6, Division 3 Reserves and Division 6 Reserves 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).

Makes sense.

Pulteney by 225 points over Brahma Lodge. Ouch

After Brahma Lodge forfeited last week against Modbury, will be interesting to see what players they line up this week seeing as their A's & B's have the bye.

giffo wrote:After Brahma Lodge forfeited last week against Modbury, will be interesting to see what players they line up this week seeing as their A's & B's have the bye.

giffo wrote:Wonder which clubs this is aimed at?

17.2 A player who played in a Division 3, Division 6, Division 3 Reserves or Division 6 Reserves match preceding the stand alone Division 3, Division 6, Division 3 Reserves and Division 6 Reserves 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).

I think you answered your own question.

D5?

Footy Chick wrote:D5?

D6? No byes in div 5.

giffo wrote:After Brahma Lodge forfeited last week against Modbury, will be interesting to see what players they line up this week seeing as their A's & B's have the bye.

I noticed that 8 usual A Graders didn't play last week for The Lodge, I wonder how that fits in with the rules?

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:D5?

D6? No byes in div 5.

Fonzie punch your sarcasm detector luv, it's on the blink

If players didn't play last week, can play this week I reckon.

Sorry Lockleys.