Tribunal discussion/views/debate

All discussions to do with the SANFL

Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby CK » Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:11 pm

Thought it may be worth starting a specific thread where decisions can be discussed, reports discussed and debate about the Tribunal this year can take place, keeping the other thread free for information. Moderators, feel free to delete this if necessary, though.
Can you guess where I'm calling from, the Las Vegas Hilton...
CK
Veteran
 
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:10 am
Location: At an SANFL game near you.
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby prowling panther » Sat Apr 16, 2011 11:40 pm

Young South lad got reported today for what was thought to be 'rough conduct'

Any info on it from those who may have seen it today.
I wish my remembering was as good as my forgetting
User avatar
prowling panther
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:04 am
Has liked: 90 times
Been liked: 28 times
Grassroots Team: Hectorville

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby Grahaml » Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:29 am

prowling panther wrote:Young South lad got reported today for what was thought to be 'rough conduct'

Any info on it from those who may have seen it today.


Came in late on a mark, trying to make a spoil. Was on the other side of the ground so hard to tell how malicious it was, but it was clearly late. I wasn't too surprised he found himself in the book. Probably will end up being a reprimand. Didn't seem to be too bad, but clearly late. What might make it worse is if he wasn't trying to get the ball or something, but from my vantage point I couldn't tell one way or another whether it was a guy trying to hurt someone or whether he just simply misjudged when he would arrive.
Grahaml
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:59 am
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 169 times

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby bulldog2004 » Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:29 am

Grahaml wrote:
prowling panther wrote:Young South lad got reported today for what was thought to be 'rough conduct'

Any info on it from those who may have seen it today.


Came in late on a mark, trying to make a spoil. Was on the other side of the ground so hard to tell how malicious it was, but it was clearly late. I wasn't too surprised he found himself in the book. Probably will end up being a reprimand. Didn't seem to be too bad, but clearly late. What might make it worse is if he wasn't trying to get the ball or something, but from my vantage point I couldn't tell one way or another whether it was a guy trying to hurt someone or whether he just simply misjudged when he would arrive.

terrible report. nothing in it. Schiller wasnt hurt in the contest. 25 metre penalty yes, report no.
bulldog2004
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:58 pm
Has liked: 45 times
Been liked: 12 times

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby CENTURION » Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:56 am

Joke of the weekend, the umpire should be reported!
Member No. 988 & PROUD to sponsor The CDFC!!
User avatar
CENTURION
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11101
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:11 am
Location: Campbelltown, 5074
Has liked: 204 times
Been liked: 112 times
Grassroots Team: Salisbury

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby whufc » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:32 am

When does Chris Gowans face the tribunal, usually its a tuesday night but with it being a monday game has the tribunal been put back a day or two.
RIP PH408 63notoutforever
User avatar
whufc
Coach
 
 
Posts: 28764
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:56 am
Location: Blakeview
Has liked: 5962 times
Been liked: 2846 times
Grassroots Team: BSR

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby Big Phil » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:52 am

whufc wrote:When does Chris Gowans face the tribunal, usually its a tuesday night but with it being a monday game has the tribunal been put back a day or two.


I'd say his hearing will be either tonight or tomorrow night?

May depend on when the Dogs train perhaps, having the Sunday game against the Bays.
User avatar
Big Phil
Coach
 
Posts: 20299
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:56 pm
Has liked: 121 times
Been liked: 284 times

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby robranisgod » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:22 pm

What happened with Nick Gill's report. It looked to be very soft, on the ABC the commentators said that the umpire was wasting ink writing the report, but I have seen nothing anywhere about the outcome. The SANFL site mentions the Chris Gowans report but not Gill's, which is strange. even if it was thrown out you would think that they would mention it.
robranisgod
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:36 pm
Has liked: 94 times
Been liked: 275 times
Grassroots Team: Flinders University

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby Dogwatcher » Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:06 pm

Can anyone tell me about the Gowans incident, what actually happened?
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby Footy Smart » Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:14 pm

Dogwatcher wrote:Can anyone tell me about the Gowans incident, what actually happened?



gave an redleg player and 'Elizbiff' Kiss..... ofcourse he would do anything anything like that as it not in his usual gentle demeanour
User avatar
Footy Smart
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5088
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 1:16 pm
Has liked: 54 times
Been liked: 118 times
Grassroots Team: Modbury

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby Big Phil » Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:16 pm

Dogwatcher wrote:Can anyone tell me about the Gowans incident, what actually happened?


Not sure if many, except Chris Gowans, Nathan Eagleton and Tony Dey, actually saw the incident itself DW and further from that I don't think there is any video footage?

Alleged headbutt? I guess that is what was said the 'misconduct' charge is for, we will know more later tonight as the SANFL's twitter update advises Chris's hearing is tonight.
User avatar
Big Phil
Coach
 
Posts: 20299
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:56 pm
Has liked: 121 times
Been liked: 284 times

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby Big Phil » Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:16 pm

Footy Smart wrote:
Dogwatcher wrote:Can anyone tell me about the Gowans incident, what actually happened?



gave an redleg player and 'Elizbiff' Kiss..... of course he would do anything anything like that as it not in his usual gentle demeanour


Would or wouldn't FS ;)
User avatar
Big Phil
Coach
 
Posts: 20299
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:56 pm
Has liked: 121 times
Been liked: 284 times

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby mighty_tiger_79 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:27 pm

he will get 1 game suspension
Matty Wade is a star and deserves more respect from the forum family!
User avatar
mighty_tiger_79
Coach
 
Posts: 60979
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:29 pm
Location: at the TAB
Has liked: 13450 times
Been liked: 4650 times

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby JK » Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:55 pm

I think the umpire that reported Gill should have been reported
FUSC
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37460
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4485 times
Been liked: 3024 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby Grahaml » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:22 pm

Constance_Perm wrote:I think the umpire that reported Gill should have been reported


Why? If there's nothing in it nothing will come of it. I'd much rather the umpires take control right then and there and have it withdrawn than go down the AFL path of doing nothing and letting it be handled by someone else.
Grahaml
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:59 am
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 169 times

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby JK » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:25 pm

Grahaml wrote:
Constance_Perm wrote:I think the umpire that reported Gill should have been reported


Why? If there's nothing in it nothing will come of it. I'd much rather the umpires take control right then and there and have it withdrawn than go down the AFL path of doing nothing and letting it be handled by someone else.


Because it was a ridiculous report .. I understand what you're saying and would agree if it were an iffy offence, but it wasn't imho.

You could also argue the opposite, that if there was something in it you could report it off the match footage.
FUSC
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37460
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4485 times
Been liked: 3024 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby Grahaml » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:28 pm

Big Phil wrote:
Footy Smart wrote:
Dogwatcher wrote:Can anyone tell me about the Gowans incident, what actually happened?



gave an redleg player and 'Elizbiff' Kiss..... of course he would do anything anything like that as it not in his usual gentle demeanour


Would or wouldn't FS ;)


It is a bit out of character, isn't it. How many games has he served in 12 seasons of SANFL footy now?

When they take a previous record into account in the SANFL is it only the guilty verdicts they look at? Do players get any credit for games without being found guilty at all? And do the previous incidents carry any different weight depending on how recent they were?

Without seeing the incident at all it's hard to say what happened but it's usually pretty clear if there's been a headbutt or not so you'd think it happened. From there, if what I hear is correct of course, it's just a matter of how long. Given past suspensions 1 week would be what I expect.
Grahaml
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:59 am
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 169 times

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby Grahaml » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:32 pm

Constance_Perm wrote:
Grahaml wrote:
Constance_Perm wrote:I think the umpire that reported Gill should have been reported


Why? If there's nothing in it nothing will come of it. I'd much rather the umpires take control right then and there and have it withdrawn than go down the AFL path of doing nothing and letting it be handled by someone else.


Because it was a ridiculous report .. I understand what you're saying and would agree if it were an iffy offence, but it wasn't imho.

You could also argue the opposite, that if there was something in it you could report it off the match footage.


Being reported during a game isn't a penalty, it's a warning to the player and a signal to the opposition that it's being handled. It's when something happens and the umpire doesn't get a book out that things get ugly. In this case it sounds like an umpire saw something, thought it was worth taking control and making sure if there was something untoward in it that it was settled properly. Exactly how it should happen.
Grahaml
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:59 am
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 169 times

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby robranisgod » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:38 pm

Grahaml wrote:
Constance_Perm wrote:
Grahaml wrote:
Constance_Perm wrote:I think the umpire that reported Gill should have been reported


Why? If there's nothing in it nothing will come of it. I'd much rather the umpires take control right then and there and have it withdrawn than go down the AFL path of doing nothing and letting it be handled by someone else.


Because it was a ridiculous report .. I understand what you're saying and would agree if it were an iffy offence, but it wasn't imho.

You could also argue the opposite, that if there was something in it you could report it off the match footage.


Being reported during a game isn't a penalty, it's a warning to the player and a signal to the opposition that it's being handled. It's when something happens and the umpire doesn't get a book out that things get ugly. In this case it sounds like an umpire saw something, thought it was worth taking control and making sure if there was something untoward in it that it was settled properly. Exactly how it should happen.


Except when a ball player like Gill gets reported it can impact on the rest of his game. He clearly was upset by the report and was beaten pointless for the rest of the game by MacKenzie.

It wasn't anywhere near reportable. Nothing untoward happened. The umpire must have had an hallucination.

Incredibly earlier in the game a North player got hit in the head at a centre bounce. It may or may not have been deliberate, probably an accident but in these AFL days possibly reportable as reckless. The umpire chose not to pay a free, but then checked the North players face for any traces of blood before bouncing the ball!
robranisgod
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:36 pm
Has liked: 94 times
Been liked: 275 times
Grassroots Team: Flinders University

Re: Tribunal discussion/views/debate

Postby CENTURION » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:40 pm

and what about this scenario, someone is reported, a 50 metre penalty results in the winning goal & the reported player is found not guilty.
Member No. 988 & PROUD to sponsor The CDFC!!
User avatar
CENTURION
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11101
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:11 am
Location: Campbelltown, 5074
Has liked: 204 times
Been liked: 112 times
Grassroots Team: Salisbury

Next

Board index   Football  SANFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |