SA Footy

Look Good In Leather wrote:What was consensus on that North Haven King Hit?

Q. wrote:

Look Good In Leather wrote:What was consensus on that North Haven King Hit?

Was more of a Queen hit.

The Old Fellow wrote:OKC "That is 100% king hit. Sometimes it can be out of character for the person to do, but in the end, has to be penalised. Mind you the tribunal system is so laughable, surprised they got this one right in relation to penalty."

The tribunal system needs to be looked at seriously. They are so inconsistant. I wouldn't say they got this one about right as they someone else 6 matches for spitting.

6 for spitting and only one more for a king kit (didn't see it - only going by what I have heard and read). Neither act has any place in any sport.

Other thing I don't understand is how some get a reduced penalty for being a good boy at the tribunal. If two people are found guilty of the same offence in similar situations they should get the same penalty. If one co-operates with the tribunal and one pays up at the tribunal the later should get an extra penalty, not reduce the first's penalty.

Look Good In Leather wrote:

The Old Fellow wrote:OKC "That is 100% king hit. Sometimes it can be out of character for the person to do, but in the end, has to be penalised. Mind you the tribunal system is so laughable, surprised they got this one right in relation to penalty."

The tribunal system needs to be looked at seriously. They are so inconsistant. I wouldn't say they got this one about right as they someone else 6 matches for spitting.

6 for spitting and only one more for a king kit (didn't see it - only going by what I have heard and read). Neither act has any place in any sport.

Other thing I don't understand is how some get a reduced penalty for being a good boy at the tribunal. If two people are found guilty of the same offence in similar situations they should get the same penalty. If one co-operates with the tribunal and one pays up at the tribunal the later should get an extra penalty, not reduce the first's penalty.

Seems to be the case in most leagues, tribunals are inconsistent.

twobob wrote:

Q. wrote:

Look Good In Leather wrote:What was consensus on that North Haven King Hit?

Was more of a Queen hit.

Hasn't this been gone over enough

Q. wrote:

twobob wrote:

Q. wrote:

Look Good In Leather wrote:What was consensus on that North Haven King Hit?

Was more of a Queen hit.

Hasn't this been gone over enough

I just want to break free.

superboot7 wrote:NH player who got 7 games got a good result for him I'd say....mate of mine got 8 games and there was no video, no report from any umpire, but got 8 games on a supporters statement who said he saw the alleged hit!! Personally I think a king hit and spitting on a player is deservant of similar games...whilst a hit can be deadly and thatnk god it's unlikely a lot of the time....to spit on someone is the lowest form of human filth. Just my 2 cents

The Old Fellow wrote:Thanks for your support Dogwatcher. At least someone read my post and understood what I was referring to. It seems that the ones from NH don't believe it was a king hit or they are too close to it. If the disputed "king hit" doesn't make my comments legit maybe I should have substituted it with "an unprovoked ( by any prior immediate act) targeted ASSAULT on a player off the ball and out of play".

holdy2323 wrote:HI

scottroo wrote:Colonel Light Gardens would like to welcome Mark Donovan as A grade Assistant coach under Matthew Dent. Mark played 116 games for Glenelg including the 1986 Premiership