SAAFL Division 4 & D4R (2012)

[Alan]

and exactly my point, and I refer you back to my original comment

So where's the bond money go Jimmy?

If that is your only concern then you have bigger issues that this Creek bloke.

[Yardy Lard]

With a player suffering a broken jaw could there now be legal action pending against All parties concerned. There could be a lot explaining to do after this one.

Also think the league and Salisbury west could hear a lot more about this. Have definitely failed their duty of care.

Absolute Idiot. You are retarded Dols. How has either the SAAFL or Salisbury West been negligent in a duty of care. Who can predict that any player will do anything on a given Saturday. A judgement call. Even when there, and just twenty metres from a player who has no history at all, you can give clear instruction and still a brain fade kicks in. Clearly, you have not been involved with football or players for long. To suggest this has any legal ramifications on the SAAFL or SW, is even sillier.

[Mr Beefy]

But i'm asking you old wise one??!!!

and I've told you to go and seek some local advice AND I don't care whether you like that response or not

Hefty, perhaps your club was one of the clubs who supported his application for re-instatement?

[TEX07]

But i'm asking you old wise one??!!!

and I've told you to go and seek some local advice AND I don't care whether you like that response or not

Hefty, perhaps your club was one of the clubs who supported his application for re-instatement?

Not saying we did or didnt, I wasnt even aware the clubs had a say, but why would we? He would be playing against us and as he can play wouldnt we want him not there?

[On The Chest]

I hope the SAAFL board or whoever allowed this thug back into the SAAFL hang their heads in shame. As to the bond money, that's up to them what they do with it. There are more important issues here than a $3000 bond.
We have a lad that requires some pretty serious operations and will be unable to work for a while. All of this because officials allowed a known thug back to play. Why did he get suspended for life the first time? I don't believe it was for just one incident. The points kept mounting up. To me that shows a bit of consistency in his actions. Once suspended from the league he went to Wallaroo to play. Not sure if he got reported there, but I saw a few games he played and yes, same thing. Liked taking cheap shots behind play, usually at the younger players of the opposition.
Some people on here earlier thought that he was a gun. In my opinion, anyone who has a history of this violence on the field, and this bloke has, should not be put in the category of a gun. Downgrades the real good honest players out there who can play. If I was a gun footballer (and i'm certainly not) I would not want to be put in the same category as this thug.
Hopefully this should be the last the league sees of him. All the best to the lad with the unnecessary injury.

[Sturtman]

[Old Dog New Tricks]

With a player suffering a broken jaw could there now be legal action pending against All parties concerned. There could be a lot explaining to do after this one.

Also think the league and Salisbury west could hear a lot more about this. Have definitely failed their duty of care.

Absolute Idiot. You are retarded Dols. How has either the SAAFL or Salisbury West been negligent in a duty of care. Who can predict that any player will do anything on a given Saturday. A judgement call. Even when there, and just twenty metres from a player who has no history at all, you can give clear instruction and still a brain fade kicks in. Clearly, you have not been involved with football or players for long. To suggest this has any legal ramifications on the SAAFL or SW, is even sillier.

The SAAFL has been negligent by letting a player who had previously been suspended for "life", for similar incidents play back in their league. If someone has a history of this sort of thing then the league can predict that there is a fair chance he will offend again. Its like employing a a paedophile in a kindergarten and telling him its his last warning so dont touch anyone. And Dols has been involved in footy for a long time as a player and pretty sure he has his head around the legal system aswell

**** me. If what Dols has suggested is knowing his way around the legal system then I reckon it's fair to suggest he wouldn't know his ar5e from his elbow and you Sturtman are guilty of the same by association.

I'm certainly not pro-Creek infact I agree with all that he should never have been allowed back in given he's a proven thug but to suggest there is the potential for legal action to either the league or SWFC is absolutely absurd. Get a bit of perspective on it ffs.

Also from what I understand of the rules, he wasn't banned for life, he was de-registered indefinately to which there is an appeal system in place for application to be re-registered. The other thing he and the league have done is made it all the more harder for legitimate appeals to be heard successfully.

[Yardy Lard]

The SAAFL has been negligent by letting a player who had previously been suspended for "life", for similar incidents play back in their league. If someone has a history of this sort of thing then the league can predict that there is a fair chance he will offend again. Its like employing a a paedophile in a kindergarten and telling him its his last warning so dont touch anyone. And Dols has been involved in footy for a long time as a player and pretty sure he has his head around the legal system aswell[/quote]**** me. If what Dols has suggested is knowing his way around the legal system then I reckon it's fair to suggest he wouldn't know his ar5e from his elbow and you Sturtman are guilty of the same by association.

I'm certainly not pro-Creek infact I agree with all that he should never have been allowed back in given he's a proven thug but to suggest there is the potential for legal action to either the league or SWFC is absolutely absurd. Get a bit of perspective on it ffs.

Also from what I understand of the rules, he wasn't banned for life, he was de-registered indefinately to which there is an appeal system in place for application to be re-registered. The other thing he and the league have done is made it all the more harder for legitimate appeals to be heard successfully.[/quote]

Best post so far ODNT. Can give many, many, many instances of the SAAFL making an absolute balls up of something and people should, and have jumped up and down. Can also give the same instances when they have got it absolutely spot on. IMO they have got this right by allowing the to play by the rules set out at the time and continue to be there. He was purely de-registered and then was allowed back in by a judgement call. Sure the judgement call was proven wrong, but who can ever see that coming and unless everyone had a crystal ball, no-one would know. The SAAFL should be left alone on this one. Smash them over the head when they get something wrong, but this is not one of those times. Imagine the squeals and howls from the many clubs and players, if he was not allowed back to play? - they would have been screaming that he was hard done by. and victimised by his circumstances. It is a shame for the Scotch OC lad who has been hurt so badly and is not good for T. Creek either. Time to just move on as it is over with and hope two lads can move on with their lives.

The only thing I think is wrong - is that he was originally charged with striking. I see he was found guilty of charging. Can not see and never have been able to see how a charge can be changed during a tribunal. That is more of a tribunal thing as a SAAFL, as these blokes want to be independent of the SAAFL. To be able change a charge from one thing to another is IMO just ridiculous.

[heater31]

Well said Yardy, they deregistered him from the SAAFL, he went and played elsewhere for a couple of seasons then wanted back in. SAAFL obviously looked at his case and set some conditions and now he has failed those that did show some faith in him and should not play football again anywhere.

[Dragons]

I think you will find that all of the charges that were before the tribunal on Wednesday were listed (incorrectly) as striking.
Once they published the outcomes yesterday, several of the charges changed not just T Creek.
Time to move on with the rest of the footy season, thankfully without this rascal!

[On The Chest]

Well said Yardy, they deregistered him from the SAAFL, he went and played elsewhere for a couple of seasons then wanted back in. SAAFL obviously looked at his case and set some conditions and now he has failed those that did show some faith in him and should not play football again anywhere.

Believe his brother just got the boot from Hills Country. I wonder if the SAAFL will have a closer look at his appeal if he applies to come back to amateurs? I think they will.

[Lightning McQueen]

Well said Yardy, they deregistered him from the SAAFL, he went and played elsewhere for a couple of seasons then wanted back in. SAAFL obviously looked at his case and set some conditions and now he has failed those that did show some faith in him and should not play football again anywhere.

Believe his brother just got the boot from Hills Country. I wonder if the SAAFL will have a closer look at his appeal if he applies to come back to amateurs? I think they will.

There will be no application.

[On The Chest]

Well said Yardy, they deregistered him from the SAAFL, he went and played elsewhere for a couple of seasons then wanted back in. SAAFL obviously looked at his case and set some conditions and now he has failed those that did show some faith in him and should not play football again anywhere.

Believe his brother just got the boot from Hills Country. I wonder if the SAAFL will have a closer look at his appeal if he applies to come back to amateurs? I think they will.

There will be no application.

Fair enough

[aussi rulz]

Well said Yardy, they deregistered him from the SAAFL, he went and played elsewhere for a couple of seasons then wanted back in. SAAFL obviously looked at his case and set some conditions and now he has failed those that did show some faith in him and should not play football again anywhere.

Believe his brother just got the boot from Hills Country. I wonder if the SAAFL will have a closer look at his appeal if he applies to come back to amateurs? I think they will.

There will be no application.

Fair enough

I have heard that the lad with the smashed jaw has received legal advice, and there could be a date in court

[woodublieve12]

I have heard that the lad with the smashed jaw has received legal advice, and there could be a date in court

fair enough

[Latte Lad]

I have heard that the lad with the smashed jaw has received legal advice, and there could be a date in court

fair enough

The PNU boys should join in a class action with the Scotch lad!

[human blanket #3]

Wasn't there a story a few years ago in Victoria amateur footy where a player got punched behind play and the assaulter had charges placed on him? Player ended up getting sentenced to jail for a few days as the incident didn't occur in a football related incident. The league only suspended him for a few games
So would be interesting to see how the incident occurred...wonder if there are a few lawyers within the scotch community?

[Yank Man]

Wasn't there a story a few years ago in Victoria amateur footy where a player got punched behind play and the assaulter had charges placed on him? Player ended up getting sentenced to jail for a few days as the incident didn't occur in a football related incident. The league only suspended him for a few games
So would be interesting to see how the incident occurred...wonder if there are a few lawyers within the scotch community?

You would suggest so, that's what a lot do after they graduate. It is Scotch College.

[Hazel]

Is anyone in the know if Scott Burnett has moved back to Sailsbury West after he was cut from the Magpies??

[Dogwatcher]

Player ended up getting sentenced to jail for a few days as the incident didn't occur in a football related incident.

So...what you're saying is:

Scenario A) Player tackles another hard. Tackled player doesn't like treatment. Scuffle starts, errupting into a few fists getting thrown by both sides. A jaw gets broken. There's no civil recourse as it happened in a football related incident.

Scenario B) Two players share words. Ball is at other end of field. One decides to take matters into his hands, hits the other player and breaks his jaw. Civil recourse can happen, as it was behind play and not in a football related incident.

Is that what you're suggesting?