Tribunal discussion/views/debate

[Pseudo]

The SANFL tribunal proces is open and as fair as possible, with (I think) a sensible view as CP says, to not stopping a player playing unless they really deserve it.

Hence the capacity to reprimand, rather than suspend, a player. Which has the added bonus that should that player transgress later in the season, the black mark on the record will contribute to a penalty, discouraging said player from re-offending.

To say Walker did not deserve a suspension is one issue.

To say that he was not guilty of the offence - and therefore gets away without a blemish on the record - is another.

[redandblack]

Yes, I'm not commenting on this particular case, just what I know of the process.

[whufc]

Yes, I'm not commenting on this particular case, just what I know of the process.

I agree that Walker should be free to play and that the current systems is starting to stop the tick tack games being missed for very little incidents.

BUT i definatly see where people are frustrated as the tribunal systems seen to be as inconsistant as ever.

[redandblack]

Yes, whufc, I suppose as long as a system has to be judgemental, inconsistencies will occur.

[whufc]

Yes, whufc, I suppose as long as a system has to be judgemental, inconsistencies will occur.

Serious question! do you think the current system we have in place is the best possible solution? if not what changes would you make?

I wasnt a major fan of it at the start of the year but as the year has gone on im definatly warming to it. I think the Walker case may just be a blimp in the system which had a heavy AFL influence.

[redandblack]

I don't think there's such a thing as a perfedct tribunal system, to answer your question, whufc. Wherever a result depends on an opinion, there will be differences of opinion and there will always be some dissatisfaction. However, as I said earlier in this thread, I think the new system is a step in the direction of reducing opinion and making it easier toi quantify a penalty.

I think the new system leads to many cases where the tribunal and the player's advocate probably agree about the severity of the charge and it's often not such an 'all or nothing' argument.

Time will tell and there may need to be more 'tinkering' with the rules, but that was always going to be the case in its first year of operation.

So I think I agree with you in general.

[JK]

I agree with your reasoning CP but on precedent, he should have got weeks for that. I thought it looked very ugly.

Reckon I've seen a couple against our boys in recent seasons (Parry when at South and I think maybe Hayes) that were both reported and thrown out .. Granted that was under the previous tribunal system, but on both occasions again I wouldn't have liked to see those players miss any games over those incidents which were pretty similar to this one.

[whufc]

I agree with your reasoning CP but on precedent, he should have got weeks for that. I thought it looked very ugly.

Reckon I've seen a couple against our boys in recent seasons (Parry when at South and I think maybe Hayes) that were both reported and thrown out .. Granted that was under the previous tribunal system, but on both occasions again I wouldn't have liked to see those players miss any games over those incidents which were pretty similar to this one.

I remember the Hayes one, that was at the Parade right. It looked very ugly live surprised he got off that one, i think that was heading into the finals one year IIRC

[JK]

I agree with your reasoning CP but on precedent, he should have got weeks for that. I thought it looked very ugly.

Reckon I've seen a couple against our boys in recent seasons (Parry when at South and I think maybe Hayes) that were both reported and thrown out .. Granted that was under the previous tribunal system, but on both occasions again I wouldn't have liked to see those players miss any games over those incidents which were pretty similar to this one.

I remember the Hayes one, that was at the Parade right. It looked very ugly live surprised he got off that one, i think that was heading into the finals one year IIRC

Yeah that's the one mate ... Must admit at the time I thought it looked terrible - worse than the Walker one, but that could well be a biased opinion (plus I never saw it on a replay)

[OnSong]

I agree with your reasoning CP but on precedent, he should have got weeks for that. I thought it looked very ugly.

Reckon I've seen a couple against our boys in recent seasons (Parry when at South and I think maybe Hayes) that were both reported and thrown out .. Granted that was under the previous tribunal system, but on both occasions again I wouldn't have liked to see those players miss any games over those incidents which were pretty similar to this one.

I remember the Hayes one, that was at the Parade right. It looked very ugly live surprised he got off that one, i think that was heading into the finals one year IIRC

Yeah that's the one mate ... Must admit at the time I thought it looked terrible - worse than the Walker one, but that could well be a biased opinion (plus I never saw it on a replay)

There goes my precedent argument

[Grahaml]

I didn't see the Cockshell one to compare, but the replay from what I could see looked like Walker didn't get him all that hard and more in the shoulder than anything else.

It sounds like Walker wanted to say he didn't do anything wrong but was pleading guilty anyway for the discount to be able to play this week. I don't blame them for telling him it was either guilty and admit doing wrong or not guilty and fight on that basis.

The tribunal in the SANFL is pretty good overall. Especially compared to the debacle that is the amatuer league tribunal at times anyway.

[whufc]

I agree with your reasoning CP but on precedent, he should have got weeks for that. I thought it looked very ugly.

Reckon I've seen a couple against our boys in recent seasons (Parry when at South and I think maybe Hayes) that were both reported and thrown out .. Granted that was under the previous tribunal system, but on both occasions again I wouldn't have liked to see those players miss any games over those incidents which were pretty similar to this one.

I remember the Hayes one, that was at the Parade right. It looked very ugly live surprised he got off that one, i think that was heading into the finals one year IIRC

Yeah that's the one mate ... Must admit at the time I thought it looked terrible - worse than the Walker one, but that could well be a biased opinion (plus I never saw it on a replay)

Was definatly ugly and very late, worse than the Walker one as well imho.

[Dogmatic]

I don't think anyone should be rubbed out (or reported) for that type of bump.
Yes it was late, but looking at the footage it didn't appear to be high.
Give the player a free kick and get on with the game.
It is a contact sport after all.

[HOORAY PUNT]

Late bump ,free plus 50 metres.......simple.Reportable if crude.

[SDK]

From what I have heard after Tex explained what happened the explanation was accepted and on that basis he was advised that, based on that explanation would he like to change his plea from guilty to not guilty.
Really was just a miss timed leap turning the body away to make soft contact with minimal impact.
I know I am the president of the Taylor Walker fan club but if we are going to suspend players for that type of thing we should all stop watching our great local football and switch to the basketball game that is AFL. I love the bump and grunt of local footy !

[Dogmatic]

Late bump ,free plus 50 metres.......simple.Reportable if crude.

Agreed as he had taken the mark.

[JK]

Late bump ,free plus 50 metres.......simple.Reportable if crude.

Well said

[CENTURION]

Late bump ,free plus 50 metres.......simple.Reportable if crude.

Agreed as he had taken the mark.

BUT he jumped in the air as well, can be MUCH more damaging and therefore is a charge. report. his sole object was to hit the player, not to punch the ball away, nor to try to mark it.

[southee]

Late bump ,free plus 50 metres.......simple.Reportable if crude.

Agreed as he had taken the mark.

BUT he jumped in the air as well, can be MUCH more damaging and therefore is a charge. report. his sole object was to hit the player, not to punch the ball away, nor to try to mark it.

Made no attempt to spoil...his hands were down.

[Dogmatic]

Late bump ,free plus 50 metres.......simple.Reportable if crude.

Agreed as he had taken the mark.

BUT he jumped in the air as well, can be MUCH more damaging and therefore is a charge. report. his sole object was to hit the player, not to punch the ball away, nor to try to mark it.

You would be very disappointed if a Central's player got rubbed out for that.