Tribunal discussion/views/debate

[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.

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

I didn't say whether he should be rubbed out or not, I am saying he deliberately targeted the player & made no attempt to target the ball, therefore should have been reported.

[HOORAY PUNT]

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.

Excluding jumping I agree , he can't just stop in his tracks. It's amazinng how the game has changed , 10 - 20 years ago this wouldn't be discussed.

[prowling panther]

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.

Have to agree with CENTURION, the way I see it, a charge is when you go in with both feet off the ground with no intention of minimizing contact, no matter to what part of the body you hit the opponent, going in a late as he did can give you no grounds for a not guilty plea.

Once it gets before the tribunal then that is where the arguments go back and forth and a decision can be made.

My own personal decision after watching both normal vision and slow motion vision:- Guilty, with a reprimand to be aware of how not to force yourself upon a opposing player.

Play next Saturday.

[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.

Have to agree with CENTURION, the way I see it, a charge is when you go in with both feet off the ground with no intention of minimizing contact, no matter to what part of the body you hit the opponent, going in a late as he did can give you no grounds for a not guilty plea.

Once it gets before the tribunal then that is where the arguments go back and forth and a decision can be made.

My own personal decision after watching both normal vision and slow motion vision:- Guilty, with a reprimand to be aware of how not to force yourself upon a opposing player.

Play next Saturday.

but first, make him eat a rubbery steak from the bbq on the hill at Noarlunga.

[HOORAY PUNT]

Bit harsh , the bloke didn't commit a criminal offence !. Ease up it's only agame after all.

[prowling panther]

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.

Have to agree with CENTURION, the way I see it, a charge is when you go in with both feet off the ground with no intention of minimizing contact, no matter to what part of the body you hit the opponent, going in a late as he did can give you no grounds for a not guilty plea.

Once it gets before the tribunal then that is where the arguments go back and forth and a decision can be made.

My own personal decision after watching both normal vision and slow motion vision:- Guilty, with a reprimand to be aware of how not to force yourself upon a opposing player.

Play next Saturday.

but first, make him eat a rubbery steak from the bbq on the hill at Noarlunga.

Thats why the port player bounced back up again.

[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.

Have to agree with CENTURION, the way I see it, a charge is when you go in with both feet off the ground with no intention of minimizing contact, no matter to what part of the body you hit the opponent, going in a late as he did can give you no grounds for a not guilty plea.

Once it gets before the tribunal then that is where the arguments go back and forth and a decision can be made.

My own personal decision after watching both normal vision and slow motion vision:- Guilty, with a reprimand to be aware of how not to force yourself upon a opposing player.

Play next Saturday.

Can you find me the rule where you are not allowed to jump in the air?
He was within 5 metres and hit him with his hip.

[Grahaml]

Where has this in the air nonsense come from? I think it's stupid to jump in the air at a contest where you give up control of your movement, but it doesn't suddenly make you move faster or make you heavier. Should be judged on the impact, regardless of whether the player was in the air or not.

Not sure what this 5 metres nonsense is either. The 5 metre part doesn't apply when it comes to bumping blokes who take marks. You can't knock a bloke down after he's taken a mark. If it's high or particularly forceful then it turns into a suspension. March the bloke down the field, take his number then look at it after the weekend. Once you see the footage you realise there wasn't as much in it as there might have been to warrant a suspension and we all celebrate a situation well handled.

[CedeNullis]

"Contact, Wing Defence"

[HeartBeatsTrue]

The 5 metre part doesn't apply when it comes to bumping blokes who take marks. You can't knock a bloke down after he's taken a mark.

The Port bloke didnt mark the ball.

[doggies4eva]

When I was training in Karate I was taught to keep my feet anchored to the ground.

Jumping actually lessens the impact.

[D14]

The way I see it is that Walker did not change his lead to try and hit the oncoming player he only braced himself for the hit. If you take the port player out of the equation then Walker would have jumped at the same time and taken a chest mark In the same position as where the contact occured. The Port player knew contact was coming, thats what usually happens when you run back with the flight of the ball, so I think the correct decision was made.

[Apachebulldog]

Hey boys this is the SANFL where real football is played and not the AFL/VFL the other soft TV Foofball should of never been reported !!

[donny c]

Where is our game going??? Where is the synchronicity between our umpires and the tribunal??

Last week, we saw Taylor Walker reported for charging in the Redlegs' match against Norwood, yet walk free with a Not Guilty verdict.

Mind you, he had every chance to rethink his plea and resubmit such in a case that boggled my mind.

In the spirit of the game, Walkers attack on a Port Adelaide opponent - who showed great courage and eyes only for the ball - was to my mind, clearly reckless and should have been dealt with accordingly. Inevitable contact??? Please!!!!!!!!

The umpires are charged with protecting the ball player as their number one responsibility...but the Tribunal don't seem to be singing from the same hymn book. Nobody can convince me Walker was going for a chest mark...if he had have been his body position would have been completely different and his eyes would have been on the ball!!

And as soon as you leave the groud to bump a player, your intent is to hit the player high. The head gets brought into play and who knows what can happen from there.

But alas, that's ok say the Tuesday night panel down at West Lakes.

Really???!!! I'm now convinced that the whole system is heading south and in a day and age where we want to be sending the message of how great our game can be...this is just a mockery!!

Keep doing the right thing umps and reporting these types of incidents.

You may just get some support ONE day!!

[nwdfanparade]

So Tex changed his plea. SO WHAT?

Your car hits another car and the case goes to court and you immediately think ok shyte Im a goner here. You then find out later that the other driver is blind in one eye and blew .08. Would you keep your original plea?

Did you see video clip in slowmo or normal speed? Was the beginning of the clip just a second before the collision of Tex and the PA player? Did you see the ball coming off the boot of the player who kick the ball to the contest and determine how much time each player had to react to the ball coming in? Did kicked ball reach the player's intended target area or did it fall short?

The tribunal is a amalgam of testemonies from umpire/s, players, club representatives and video evidence.

Don't make judgements just on what the media reports before the tribunal as no-one outside know what was discussed inside.


The changes that the SANFL tribunal will be making is the AFL situation where a group of officials will view video clips of reported incidences and then decide whether that the charge doesn't go to tribunal or if it does, will offer the player a match/s ban for a guilty plea or the chance to plead not guilty. The changes will not be about or due to Tex changing his plea.

[OnSong]

So Tex changed his plea. SO WHAT?

Your car hits another car and the case goes to court and you immediately think ok shyte Im a goner here. You then find out later that the other driver is blind in one eye and blew .08. Would you keep your original plea?

Did you see video clip in slowmo or normal speed? Was the beginning of the clip just a second before the collision of Tex and the PA player? Did you see the ball coming off the boot of the player who kick the ball to the contest and determine how much time each player had to react to the ball coming in? Did kicked ball reach the player's intended target area or did it fall short?

The tribunal is a amalgam of testemonies from umpire/s, players, club representatives and video evidence.

Don't make judgements just on what the media reports before the tribunal as no-one outside know what was discussed inside.


The changes that the SANFL tribunal will be making is the AFL situation where a group of officials will view video clips of reported incidences and then decide whether that the charge doesn't go to tribunal or if it does, will offer the player a match/s ban for a guilty plea or the chance to plead not guilty. The changes will not be about or due to Tex changing his plea.

This is clearly how you saw the incident through your eye

[nwdfanparade]

So Tex changed his plea. SO WHAT?

Your car hits another car and the case goes to court and you immediately think ok shyte Im a goner here. You then find out later that the other driver is blind in one eye and blew .08. Would you keep your original plea?

Did you see video clip in slowmo or normal speed? Was the beginning of the clip just a second before the collision of Tex and the PA player? Did you see the ball coming off the boot of the player who kick the ball to the contest and determine how much time each player had to react to the ball coming in? Did kicked ball reach the player's intended target area or did it fall short?

The tribunal is a amalgam of testemonies from umpire/s, players, club representatives and video evidence.

Don't make judgements just on what the media reports before the tribunal as no-one outside know what was discussed inside.
The changes that the SANFL tribunal will be making is the AFL situation where a group of officials will view video clips of reported incidences and then decide whether that the charge doesn't go to tribunal or if it does, will offer the player a match/s ban for a guilty plea or the chance to plead not guilty. The changes will not be about or due to Tex changing his plea.

This is clearly how you saw the incident through your eye

4 eyes actually (i wear glasses). My post was based on what a person who actually attended the tribunal said to me since then. I'm no less unbiased than any other person who has posted on this thread

[mickey]

So Tex changed his plea. SO WHAT?

Your car hits another car and the case goes to court and you immediately think ok shyte Im a goner here. You then find out later that the other driver is blind in one eye and blew .08. Would you keep your original plea?

Did you see video clip in slowmo or normal speed? Was the beginning of the clip just a second before the collision of Tex and the PA player? Did you see the ball coming off the boot of the player who kick the ball to the contest and determine how much time each player had to react to the ball coming in? Did kicked ball reach the player's intended target area or did it fall short?

The tribunal is a amalgam of testemonies from umpire/s, players, club representatives and video evidence.

Don't make judgements just on what the media reports before the tribunal as no-one outside know what was discussed inside.


The changes that the SANFL tribunal will be making is the AFL situation where a group of officials will view video clips of reported incidences and then decide whether that the charge doesn't go to tribunal or if it does, will offer the player a match/s ban for a guilty plea or the chance to plead not guilty. The changes will not be about or due to Tex changing his plea.

Walker knew 5-10m from the contest that he was no chance at all to mark the ball, he then made the decision to deliberately line up the player and blindside him..

[The Sleeping Giant]

Don't really care if the player cleared, happens to be Taylor Walker or not. What worries me is the handling of this affair has an odour to it. Charging everyday of the week. Deserved a reprimand. End of the story. Those that disagree all have a common theme.

nwdfanparade your example using a car accident is silly. Surely you would of obtained the services of a lawyer, who would have prepared a defence using all available evidence. You would have thought Norwood and Crows officials would of looked at the footage and advised him how to plea.

[donny c]

Started my own topic on this but am happy to post my thoughts here and continue to open the can of worms...he's lucky i wasn't sitting on the panel.

Not that they would probably welcome an ex umpire on the scene anyway!!!

So here it is!!!

Where is our game going??? Where is the synchronicity between our umpires and the tribunal??

Last week, we saw Taylor Walker reported for charging in the Redlegs' match against Norwood, yet walk free with a Not Guilty verdict.

Mind you, he had every chance to rethink his plea and resubmit such in a case that boggled my mind.

In the spirit of the game, Walkers attack on a Port Adelaide opponent - who showed great courage and eyes only for the ball - was to my mind, clearly reckless and should have been dealt with accordingly. Inevitable contact??? Please!!!!!!!!

The umpires are charged with protecting the ball player as their number one responsibility...but the Tribunal don't seem to be singing from the same hymn book. Nobody can convince me Walker was going for a chest mark...if he had have been his body position would have been completely different and his eyes would have been on the ball!!

And as soon as you leave the groud to bump a player, your intent is to hit the player high. The head gets brought into play and who knows what can happen from there.

But alas, that's ok say the Tuesday night panel down at West Lakes.

Really???!!! I'm now convinced that the whole system is heading south and in a day and age where we want to be sending the message of how great our game can be...this is just a mockery!!

Keep doing the right thing umps and reporting these types of incidents.

You may just get some support ONE day!!