SAAFL Division 4 2013

[MIGHTY BULLS]

:lol:

Now I know why they call you mighty bull

whys that?

[Robb_Stark]

:lol:

Now I know why they call you mighty bull

whys that?

[Footy Chick]

Yeah, that's it

[woodublieve12]

How did Scudds go at the tribunal??

[Robb_Stark]

How did Scudds go at the tribunal??

he is next week

[Hefty]

How did Scudds go at the tribunal??

Umpire couldn't attend this week so league have postponed it til next week.

[moses]

How did Scudds go at the tribunal??

Umpire couldn't attend this week so league have postponed it til next week.

Is he allowed to play this week? I do recall the league stopping someone from playing last season as the hearing couldn't be heard until the following week

[Hefty]

How did Scudds go at the tribunal??

Umpire couldn't attend this week so league have postponed it til next week.

Is he allowed to play this week? I do recall the league stopping someone from playing last season as the hearing couldn't be heard until the following week

Yes, he will be playing this week.

[moses]

How did Scudds go at the tribunal??

Umpire couldn't attend this week so league have postponed it til next week.

Is he allowed to play this week? I do recall the league stopping someone from playing last season as the hearing couldn't be heard until the following week

Yes, he will be playing this week.

Ok no problem, rule must of changed from last season then

[barbs]

Ok no problem, rule must of changed from last season then

It depends on who can't attend if it's the player they can't play if it's the umpire they can.

[Hefty]

Ok no problem, rule must of changed from last season then

It depends on who can't attend if it's the player they can't play if it's the umpire they can.

That's what I thought. Would be fairly harsh to not let a player play because the umpire can't attend tribunal.

[Robb_Stark]

Ok no problem, rule must of changed from last season then

It depends on who can't attend if it's the player they can't play if it's the umpire they can.

That's what I thought. Would be fairly harsh to not let a player play because the umpire can't attend tribunal.

didnt he get red card isnt that auto 1 game banned straight up?

[BurraBoys]

didnt he get red card isnt that auto 1 game banned straight up?

My understanding is that used to be the case. Don't quote any of what i say as 100% correct by logic would suggest that it has played out as follows...

Last year an unprecedented number of tribunal cases were supported by video evidence. People who were originally red card had video evidence to suggest they were not guilty of any offence and were cleared of charges. As was the case with Shane's tribunal hearing after our game against CBOC this year. I won't comment on how i think the hearing will go next week. Im pretty sure we have video though

Definatley wrong to suspend someone until all evidence has been presented. Automatic suspension for a red card would also assume that the umpire got it right and saw it all clearly first time. An umpire getting it right first time...how novel .

Id hate to think of legal ramifications to the league for automatically suspending someone for a game, sitting a tribunal the week later and finding them not guilty. Could be liable for player's match payments just as a start. Character defamation as well? One player rarely determines the result of a game but i'd hate to lose a game that could determined making finals on the back of a key player being suspended automatically, only later too have them cleared. Could a club miss finals as a result? Does that lead to loss of potential income? How good is your lawyer Too risky to suspend without a hearing. Personal opinion is that playing with 17 men as a result of a red card is to severe. Punish the player after a hearing, not the team on the day.

[Robb_Stark]

didnt he get red card isnt that auto 1 game banned straight up?

My understanding is that used to be the case. Don't quote any of what i say as 100% correct by logic would suggest that it has played out as follows...

Last year an unprecedented number of tribunal cases were supported by video evidence. People who were originally red card had video evidence to suggest they were not guilty of any offence and were cleared of charges. As was the case with Shane's tribunal hearing after our game against CBOC this year. I won't comment on how i think the hearing will go next week. Im pretty sure we have video though

Definatley wrong to suspend someone until all evidence has been presented. Automatic suspension for a red card would also assume that the umpire got it right and saw it all clearly first time. An umpire getting it right first time...how novel .

Id hate to think of legal ramifications to the league for automatically suspending someone for a game, sitting a tribunal the week later and finding them not guilty. Could be liable for player's match payments just as a start. Character defamation as well? One player rarely determines the result of a game but i'd hate to lose a game that could determined making finals on the back of a key player being suspended automatically, only later too have them cleared. Could a club miss finals as a result? Does that lead to loss of potential income? How good is your lawyer Too risky to suspend without a hearing. Personal opinion is that playing with 17 men as a result of a red card is to severe. Punish the player after a hearing, not the team on the day.

agree that legal side can work both ways if scuds does damage to a pooraka player this week and is found guilty of other charge from other week then pooraka guy would have a case

shame the umpire and the league couldnt work out another day to have hearing to clear this up seems like one big balls up to me with saafl and umpire in question this umpire could have surely turned up monday-friday or is he starting to realise he made a mistake???

[Footy Chick]

so is the court system a balls up too? I believe they adjourn court cases if one party isn't available.

[Robb_Stark]

so is the court system a balls up too? I believe they adjourn court cases if one party isn't available.

seems if the player can not turn up that week he has to sit out that week or until he shows up yet a umpire seems to have it other way around if he makes the report he should make the time to turn up and not dick people around he gets 35 dollars if scuds is found guilty to cover meal cost

[BurraBoys]

Does the league allow people to teleconference/skype into tribunal hearings?

[Robb_Stark]

on another topic for a minute do brahma lodge have a fine tin for player photos being in the paper seen least 7 in the messenger behind sean ryan hanging on the wall extra few dollars towards end of season trip

[Q.]

Red carded players can and should be replaced on the field, so a team does not play with 17 men. However, the red carded player cannot return to the field.

[Jimmy_041]

Ok no problem, rule must of changed from last season then

It depends on who can't attend if it's the player they can't play if it's the umpire they can.

That's what I thought. Would be fairly harsh to not let a player play because the umpire can't attend tribunal.

didnt he get red card isnt that auto 1 game banned straight up?

There is no rule that a red card is an auto 1 game and, to my knowledge, there never has been, although the umpire can offer a precribed penalty for several reportable offences, but they are mainly minor offences. You may be thinking of 2 yellow cards in the one game which is an auto 1 game suspension.
It is at the Tribunal's / League's discretion as to whether the player can play until the case is heard.
Not every case can be ready for a hearing in the days after a game as there are usually at least 4 people who have to attend.
Anyone, umpire / player / League, can ask for it to be postponed for a good reason.
If the League agree to the request, the player's ability to play the next week is then decided - usually by two people and depends on several factors.