BL&G Football League

[Extractor]

Has anyone else got any thoughts on the implementation of the Prescribed Penalties in the BLG for reportable offences?

We have had 2 B-Graders reported in the first 2 matches, both for striking. Under the new Prescribed Penalties rules this is an automatic 2 weeks with the fine waived if the person takes the guilty plea. If they choose to fight it they can cop the 2 weeks plus maybe an extra week or two, plus the fine. Clearly they are hoping for people to cop the 2 weeks and be done with it.

One of our blokes definitely deserved the 2 week holiday but the other one was very borderline. Most umpires would have seen fit to pay a free kick for the second one or maybe a yellow card but a report was laid. This means our bloke is then required to prove his innocence somehow or risk a longer penalty and a financial impost. He took the 2 weeks grudgingly but I'm sure he would have received less than a 2 week penalty in previous years for this offence if it ever made it's way to the tribunal.

I'm all for having a clean competition but I didn't think the BLG was especially dirty. The AFL brought this system in but they have multiple cameras on each game and a seperate panel reviews the footage and assigns the penalties accordingly. Out in the BLG we are forced to rely on something potentially only seen by one umpire in real time. From that situation a player is risking a financial penalty and potentially a longer suspension for trying to prove their innocence.

I will be pretty interested to see the total weeks missed via suspension at the end of this season and compare it to previous seasons. I would be very surprised if we don't have an increase.

For what it's worth I think the umpires are pretty damn good at their jobs and I don't think that needs to be complicated by asking them to weigh up whether an offence is worth 2 weeks or none when deciding to report someone. Leave that up to the tribunal!

[RooShootOhh]

Fair point Extractor...

The first question I would be asking is what was the number of suspensions last year? If it's not a large number, then why bring in the rule?
Secondly, why two weeks instead of one?
Thirdly, with this rule in place, you would hope like hell the umpires coach is instructing his umpiring panel to use cards instead of reporting unless they are absolutely certain a player deserves to miss TWO weeks.

I cant remember too many suspensions over the last few years...

[Pinch Hitter]

Has anyone else got any thoughts on the implementation of the Prescribed Penalties in the BLG for reportable offences?

We have had 2 B-Graders reported in the first 2 matches, both for striking. Under the new Prescribed Penalties rules this is an automatic 2 weeks with the fine waived if the person takes the guilty plea. If they choose to fight it they can cop the 2 weeks plus maybe an extra week or two, plus the fine. Clearly they are hoping for people to cop the 2 weeks and be done with it.

One of our blokes definitely deserved the 2 week holiday but the other one was very borderline. Most umpires would have seen fit to pay a free kick for the second one or maybe a yellow card but a report was laid. This means our bloke is then required to prove his innocence somehow or risk a longer penalty and a financial impost. He took the 2 weeks grudgingly but I'm sure he would have received less than a 2 week penalty in previous years for this offence if it ever made it's way to the tribunal.

I'm all for having a clean competition but I didn't think the BLG was especially dirty. The AFL brought this system in but they have multiple cameras on each game and a seperate panel reviews the footage and assigns the penalties accordingly. Out in the BLG we are forced to rely on something potentially only seen by one umpire in real time. From that situation a player is risking a financial penalty and potentially a longer suspension for trying to prove their innocence.

I will be pretty interested to see the total weeks missed via suspension at the end of this season and compare it to previous seasons. I would be very surprised if we don't have an increase.

For what it's worth I think the umpires are pretty damn good at their jobs and I don't think that needs to be complicated by asking them to weigh up whether an offence is worth 2 weeks or none when deciding to report someone. Leave that up to the tribunal!

I'd rather have the option, at least this way you can choose not to waste a night painting pictures for stevie wonder at the greenock primary school

[Extractor]

If anyone is interested we have a couple of sporting legends at the Dog Track this Saturday Night. There are still a few tickets available and $30 is pretty cheap for what promises to be a very entertaining night...

[sunbowler]

I'm not against a prescribed penalty sytem per se, but this one brought in by BLG is not a good one. It should be tied to the send off rule and fining non paid players in Reserves and Juniors up to $200 for frivolous offences is ludicrous. Admittedly the majority of the clubs voted for it, but no other alternatives were presented. It's a direct copy of one the NEFL brought in several years ago when they eliminated send offs. Apparently umpires weren't prepared to travel back to Clare for sittings and there were some significant send offs in a Grand Final. Not sure if they have reintroduced send offs, but don't think so. The exact same proposal was voted out here several seasons ago and has been re presented.
It has some ludicrous scenarios and don't know how it would handle a melee like the Barossa v Willaston last year where 33 of 36 players were involved (and possibly an umpire could have been cited too). No reports and no cards shown (yet one unhurt player didn't come back on??). We have already had an inconsistency this year where a Nuri player got a yellow card and a South player copped a a total penalty of $300 for what seem to be similar offences.
Have done some research on other sports and Leagues and one below from RFL called Discretionary Sentencing seems to be one of the best. Believe it could possibly do with some tinkering but beats BLG/NEFL on accountability, consistency and simplicity.
Minor offences attract a sendoff only (some sports have a warning card for the really trivial), serious offences (especially relevant for juniors) go to the Tribunal where they belong and regular offenders eventually get penalised. BLG's was presented mainly on basis of reducing Tribunal sittings not reducing offences. One of the most disappointing decisions I've seen in football. Interesting also that RFL only have one Commissioner!!!
12) Yellow/Red Card System

A Yellow and Red card system will be administered by the RFL panel and club field umpires for all matches under the direction of the Riverland Football League Inc.

Field umpires are the only officials that may order a player from the playing surface.

Yellow card – Sin Bin

A player will be sent off for 10 minutes for a breach of the following minor offences and can be immediately replaced by another player.

1)
a. Swearing
b. Fighting or wrestling
c. Minor abusive language either directly or indirectly at a player or official
d. Minor abusive language indirectly at an umpire
e. Disputing a decision of an umpire
f. Back chatting an umpire after previously having been cautioned by an umpire

1)
Any player, who is ordered from the playing surface (yellow card) twice during the same game, shall be shown a Red Card on the second occasion and shall be automatically suspended for one (1) game.

Details of players ordered off shall be recorded by the Interchange Steward on the interchange sheet.

Yellow card – Report

Players who have been issued with a yellow card for any offence considered minor by the umpire may also be reported. An offending player who has been reported and issued with a yellow card may be offered a discretionary sentence of (1) game after the match.

A player ordered off must immediately leave the ground through the interchange area and report to the Interchange Steward before returning to the playing surface.

Any player who has been issued with a third yellow card (which has not resulted in the player being reported) during the current season shall be automatically suspended for one (1) game. A player receiving subsequent yellow cards will be referred to the League Tribunal for the remainder of the season.

Discretionary Sentencing

The Secretary of a Club of the offending player has until 12noon on the Monday immediately following the match to advise the RFL if the player accepts or rejects the discretionary sentence offered by the umpire after the conclusion of the match.

Failure by the Club to advise the League by the due time will result in the player being automatically suspended for one (1) game.

If the player accepts the penalty offered, then the player is automatically deemed guilty of the reportable offence. The player’s record is noted and he serves out the suspension (including any additional penalty) in the next sanctioned Riverland Football League match (s).

If the reported player does not accept the discretionary sentence, then the report will be referred to the League Tribunal for determination.

If the reported player refuses a discretionary sentence and is found guilty by the Tribunal, the player will automatically receive an additional penalty of one (1) game.

A player will only be offered two discretionary sentences in a current season, further reports of that player will be referred to the League Tribunal.

The player makes the final decision on whether to accept the discretionary sentence or not.

At no stage will the reporting umpire speak directly to the reported player or will the reported player approach the reporting umpire regarding the proposed discretionary sentence.

If the Team Manager fails to report to the umpire’s room after the completion of the match, then the report will be referred to the League Tribunal.

Red card – A player will be sent off for a serious breach of the rules for the rest of the game. The player is automatically reported and is not eligible for a discretionary sentence at the end of the game. The offending team cannot replace the player for 10 minutes which will be administered by the Interchange Steward.

A player who refuses or does not immediately leave the playing surface after being ordered off with either a yellow or red card by the field umpire shall;-

i. be reported for the offence which led the player being ordered off, and
ii. be reported for misconduct.

The match shall immediately end, the offending team shall forfeit the match and both reports will be referred to the league Tribunal for a determination.

[The Patriach]

I'm not against a prescribed penalty sytem per se, but this one brought in by BLG is not a good one. It should be tied to the send off rule and fining non paid players in Reserves and Juniors up to $200 for frivolous offences is ludicrous. Admittedly the majority of the clubs voted for it, but no other alternatives were presented. It's a direct copy of one the NEFL brought in several years ago when they eliminated send offs. Apparently umpires weren't prepared to travel back to Clare for sittings and there were some significant send offs in a Grand Final. Not sure if they have reintroduced send offs, but don't think so. The exact same proposal was voted out here several seasons ago and has been re presented.
It has some ludicrous scenarios and don't know how it would handle a melee like the Barossa v Willaston last year where 33 of 36 players were involved (and possibly an umpire could have been cited too). No reports and no cards shown (yet one unhurt player didn't come back on??). We have already had an inconsistency this year where a Nuri player got a yellow card and a South player copped a a total penalty of $300 for what seem to be similar offences.
Have done some research on other sports and Leagues and one below from RFL called Discretionary Sentencing seems to be one of the best. Believe it could possibly do with some tinkering but beats BLG/NEFL on accountability, consistency and simplicity.
Minor offences attract a sendoff only (some sports have a warning card for the really trivial), serious offences (especially relevant for juniors) go to the Tribunal where they belong and regular offenders eventually get penalised. BLG's was presented mainly on basis of reducing Tribunal sittings not reducing offences. One of the most disappointing decisions I've seen in football. Interesting also that RFL only have one Commissioner!!!

1) Reserves and Juniors up to $200 for frivolous offences
If you don't want to be fined, DON'T BE INVOLVED IN ANY INCIDENTS

2) and possibly an umpire could have been cited too
LUDICROUS statement, watch carefully where you tread here mate

3) South player copped a a total penalty of $300 for what seem to be similar offences
WRONG AGAIN, not similar offences and NOT fined that amount

4) Get your facts straight mate

5) Its pretty simple, if you go the footy you DON'T NEED TO WORRY!!!

[Extractor]

I'm not against a prescribed penalty sytem per se, but this one brought in by BLG is not a good one. It should be tied to the send off rule and fining non paid players in Reserves and Juniors up to $200 for frivolous offences is ludicrous. Admittedly the majority of the clubs voted for it, but no other alternatives were presented. It's a direct copy of one the NEFL brought in several years ago when they eliminated send offs. Apparently umpires weren't prepared to travel back to Clare for sittings and there were some significant send offs in a Grand Final. Not sure if they have reintroduced send offs, but don't think so. The exact same proposal was voted out here several seasons ago and has been re presented.
It has some ludicrous scenarios and don't know how it would handle a melee like the Barossa v Willaston last year where 33 of 36 players were involved (and possibly an umpire could have been cited too). No reports and no cards shown (yet one unhurt player didn't come back on??). We have already had an inconsistency this year where a Nuri player got a yellow card and a South player copped a a total penalty of $300 for what seem to be similar offences.
Have done some research on other sports and Leagues and one below from RFL called Discretionary Sentencing seems to be one of the best. Believe it could possibly do with some tinkering but beats BLG/NEFL on accountability, consistency and simplicity.
Minor offences attract a sendoff only (some sports have a warning card for the really trivial), serious offences (especially relevant for juniors) go to the Tribunal where they belong and regular offenders eventually get penalised. BLG's was presented mainly on basis of reducing Tribunal sittings not reducing offences. One of the most disappointing decisions I've seen in football. Interesting also that RFL only have one Commissioner!!!

1) Reserves and Juniors up to $200 for frivolous offences
If you don't want to be fined, DON'T BE INVOLVED IN ANY INCIDENTS

2) and possibly an umpire could have been cited too
LUDICROUS statement, watch carefully where you tread here mate

3) South player copped a a total penalty of $300 for what seem to be similar offences
WRONG AGAIN, not similar offences and NOT fined that amount

4) Get your facts straight mate

5) Its pretty simple, if you go the footy you DON'T NEED TO WORRY!!!

My original point is not so much about specific incidents although I still reckon 1 of the South blokes didn't deserve a trip to Greenock and a fine!

I just don't think the situation was that bad in the BLG that a new system needed to be introduced? I've played a fair bit of footy now and I don't think there has ever been an issue with rough play in this comp...

I guess I was a bit concerned about the fact that I had witnessed 4 reports in 2 weeks with only 2 of the players electing to fight the charge with 1 of them getting off. I am pretty certain that at least 1 of the incidents would not have resulted in a 2 week suspension in previous seasons and that the player in question accepted the penalty because of the impression (right or wrong) that it's not worth fighting a report because they want you to take the prescribed penalty...

[Texas Rattlesnake]

I'm not against a prescribed penalty sytem per se, but this one brought in by BLG is not a good one. It should be tied to the send off rule and fining non paid players in Reserves and Juniors up to $200 for frivolous offences is ludicrous. Admittedly the majority of the clubs voted for it, but no other alternatives were presented. It's a direct copy of one the NEFL brought in several years ago when they eliminated send offs. Apparently umpires weren't prepared to travel back to Clare for sittings and there were some significant send offs in a Grand Final. Not sure if they have reintroduced send offs, but don't think so. The exact same proposal was voted out here several seasons ago and has been re presented.
It has some ludicrous scenarios and don't know how it would handle a melee like the Barossa v Willaston last year where 33 of 36 players were involved (and possibly an umpire could have been cited too). No reports and no cards shown (yet one unhurt player didn't come back on??). We have already had an inconsistency this year where a Nuri player got a yellow card and a South player copped a a total penalty of $300 for what seem to be similar offences.
Have done some research on other sports and Leagues and one below from RFL called Discretionary Sentencing seems to be one of the best. Believe it could possibly do with some tinkering but beats BLG/NEFL on accountability, consistency and simplicity.
Minor offences attract a sendoff only (some sports have a warning card for the really trivial), serious offences (especially relevant for juniors) go to the Tribunal where they belong and regular offenders eventually get penalised. BLG's was presented mainly on basis of reducing Tribunal sittings not reducing offences. One of the most disappointing decisions I've seen in football. Interesting also that RFL only have one Commissioner!!!

1) Reserves and Juniors up to $200 for frivolous offences
If you don't want to be fined, DON'T BE INVOLVED IN ANY INCIDENTS

2) and possibly an umpire could have been cited too
LUDICROUS statement, watch carefully where you tread here mate

3) South player copped a a total penalty of $300 for what seem to be similar offences
WRONG AGAIN, not similar offences and NOT fined that amount
4) Get your facts straight mate

5) Its pretty simple, if you go the footy you DON'T NEED TO WORRY!!!

I can assure you the total payment for the South player was $300.

[The Patriach]

I'm not against a prescribed penalty sytem per se, but this one brought in by BLG is not a good one. It should be tied to the send off rule and fining non paid players in Reserves and Juniors up to $200 for frivolous offences is ludicrous. Admittedly the majority of the clubs voted for it, but no other alternatives were presented. It's a direct copy of one the NEFL brought in several years ago when they eliminated send offs. Apparently umpires weren't prepared to travel back to Clare for sittings and there were some significant send offs in a Grand Final. Not sure if they have reintroduced send offs, but don't think so. The exact same proposal was voted out here several seasons ago and has been re presented.
It has some ludicrous scenarios and don't know how it would handle a melee like the Barossa v Willaston last year where 33 of 36 players were involved (and possibly an umpire could have been cited too). No reports and no cards shown (yet one unhurt player didn't come back on??). We have already had an inconsistency this year where a Nuri player got a yellow card and a South player copped a a total penalty of $300 for what seem to be similar offences.
Have done some research on other sports and Leagues and one below from RFL called Discretionary Sentencing seems to be one of the best. Believe it could possibly do with some tinkering but beats BLG/NEFL on accountability, consistency and simplicity.
Minor offences attract a sendoff only (some sports have a warning card for the really trivial), serious offences (especially relevant for juniors) go to the Tribunal where they belong and regular offenders eventually get penalised. BLG's was presented mainly on basis of reducing Tribunal sittings not reducing offences. One of the most disappointing decisions I've seen in football. Interesting also that RFL only have one Commissioner!!!

1) Reserves and Juniors up to $200 for frivolous offences
If you don't want to be fined, DON'T BE INVOLVED IN ANY INCIDENTS

2) and possibly an umpire could have been cited too
LUDICROUS statement, watch carefully where you tread here mate

3) South player copped a a total penalty of $300 for what seem to be similar offences
WRONG AGAIN, not similar offences and NOT fined that amount
4) Get your facts straight mate

5) Its pretty simple, if you go the footy you DON'T NEED TO WORRY!!!

I can assure you the total payment for the South player was $300.

Not going to argue, but I can assure you, that you're wrong - it was $200

[The Patriach]

I'm not against a prescribed penalty sytem per se, but this one brought in by BLG is not a good one. It should be tied to the send off rule and fining non paid players in Reserves and Juniors up to $200 for frivolous offences is ludicrous. Admittedly the majority of the clubs voted for it, but no other alternatives were presented. It's a direct copy of one the NEFL brought in several years ago when they eliminated send offs. Apparently umpires weren't prepared to travel back to Clare for sittings and there were some significant send offs in a Grand Final. Not sure if they have reintroduced send offs, but don't think so. The exact same proposal was voted out here several seasons ago and has been re presented.
It has some ludicrous scenarios and don't know how it would handle a melee like the Barossa v Willaston last year where 33 of 36 players were involved (and possibly an umpire could have been cited too). No reports and no cards shown (yet one unhurt player didn't come back on??). We have already had an inconsistency this year where a Nuri player got a yellow card and a South player copped a a total penalty of $300 for what seem to be similar offences.
Have done some research on other sports and Leagues and one below from RFL called Discretionary Sentencing seems to be one of the best. Believe it could possibly do with some tinkering but beats BLG/NEFL on accountability, consistency and simplicity.
Minor offences attract a sendoff only (some sports have a warning card for the really trivial), serious offences (especially relevant for juniors) go to the Tribunal where they belong and regular offenders eventually get penalised. BLG's was presented mainly on basis of reducing Tribunal sittings not reducing offences. One of the most disappointing decisions I've seen in football. Interesting also that RFL only have one Commissioner!!!

1) Reserves and Juniors up to $200 for frivolous offences
If you don't want to be fined, DON'T BE INVOLVED IN ANY INCIDENTS

2) and possibly an umpire could have been cited too
LUDICROUS statement, watch carefully where you tread here mate

3) South player copped a a total penalty of $300 for what seem to be similar offences
WRONG AGAIN, not similar offences and NOT fined that amount

4) Get your facts straight mate

5) Its pretty simple, if you go the footy you DON'T NEED TO WORRY!!!

My original point is not so much about specific incidents although I still reckon 1 of the South blokes didn't deserve a trip to Greenock and a fine!

I just don't think the situation was that bad in the BLG that a new system needed to be introduced? I've played a fair bit of footy now and I don't think there has ever been an issue with rough play in this comp...

I guess I was a bit concerned about the fact that I had witnessed 4 reports in 2 weeks with only 2 of the players electing to fight the charge with 1 of them getting off. I am pretty certain that at least 1 of the incidents would not have resulted in a 2 week suspension in previous seasons and that the player in question accepted the penalty because of the impression (right or wrong) that it's not worth fighting a report because they want you to take the prescribed penalty...

Did you play with your eyes closed in the 1990s? Mate, i've played a fair bit of footy in my lifetime too, and BL&G was the only league in the state without a from of prescribed penalty system.

And no players were found to be not guilty, so none of the players reported have 'got off'

[Red Rocket]

I think you are correct Patriach, the fine was $200 but there was a $100 fee for going to the tribunal if im not mistaken so it was a total of $300.
From what ive heard the club/players have all chipped in anyway to pay it

[The Patriach]

Pretty much, if you play the ball and don't get any scuffles and kick as many goals as I did in the U15s, you'll be right

You only have probelms if you do the wrong thing, pretty simple

[Dogwatcher]

Not simple as that. There are plenty of grey areas in footy.

[Extractor]

I didn't play senior footy in the 90s Mr Patriarch but it is 2013 if I'm not mistaken? I think the horse has well and truly bolted if this rule is in response to poor behaviour in the 90s!

The South bloke didn't 'get off' entirely but he certainly wasn't found guilty of the offence that he was reported for. Am I correct there?

You have slightly missed my point though - it is the anticipated reluctance of players to challenge a report because of the feeling that the tribunal will want to enfore some sort of punishment. The South example just points this out. The player was reported for striking, was clearly not guilty of that but still copped something. If what he did was worth a $200 or $300 fine then there should have been more than 3 players up fronting up to the tribunal....

I could understand how an outside observer could draw the conlcusion (possibly incorrectly) that the tribunal will want to make it 'worth their while' to sit on a Wednesday night at Greenock in the middle of winter. You will find that players will be very reluctant to challenge if they feel they are going to cop something anyway and potentially a worse penalty. This is no problem with the majority of reports where the bloke clearly does the wrong thing but it does cause issues when it is not that simple...

Clearly this rule doesn't affect the majority of players who don't ever get their number taken but there are going to be errors made by umpires (I feel the South report was one) and then the player is fighting their way back from a penalty which should not have been assigned.

If the umpire feels that a player has committed an offence worthy of a report then take the number and let the tribunal decide the penalty!

[The Patriach]

Not simple as that. There are plenty of grey areas in footy.

Especially in the Bunyip match reviews

[The Patriach]

I didn't play senior footy in the 90s Mr Patriarch but it is 2013 if I'm not mistaken? I think the horse has well and truly bolted if this rule is in response to poor behaviour in the 90s!

The South bloke didn't 'get off' entirely but he certainly wasn't found guilty of the offence that he was reported for. Am I correct there?

You have slightly missed my point though - it is the anticipated reluctance of players to challenge a report because of the feeling that the tribunal will want to enfore some sort of punishment. The South example just points this out. The player was reported for striking, was clearly not guilty of that but still copped something. If what he did was worth a $200 or $300 fine then there should have been more than 3 players up fronting up to the tribunal....

I could understand how an outside observer could draw the conlcusion (possibly incorrectly) that the tribunal will want to make it 'worth their while' to sit on a Wednesday night at Greenock in the middle of winter. You will find that players will be very reluctant to challenge if they feel they are going to cop something anyway and potentially a worse penalty. This is no problem with the majority of reports where the bloke clearly does the wrong thing but it does cause issues when it is not that simple...

Clearly this rule doesn't affect the majority of players who don't ever get their number taken but there are going to be errors made by umpires (I feel the South report was one) and then the player is fighting their way back from a penalty which should not have been assigned.

If the umpire feels that a player has committed an offence worthy of a report then take the number and let the tribunal decide the penalty!

Are you serious mate? The tribunal decide the penalty, not the team managers or umpires.

I don't think you actually understand reportable offences correctly for a start, or the basic reporting process. You don't get found guilty for nothing...?

There is no 'making it worth their while', by saying that you're insinuating that the tribunal commissioners are corrupt and dishonest. Your opinion that is wasn't reportable is just an opinion?

[Dogwatcher]

Not simple as that. There are plenty of grey areas in footy.

Especially in the Bunyip match reviews

Meh. Congrats, you know where I work. Relevance?

[Dogwatcher]

The proscribed penalties have worked well in the Riverland.
However, there have been a few dubious reports.

[Extractor]

Are you serious mate? The tribunal decide the penalty, not the team managers or umpires.
I don't think you actually understand reportable offences correctly for a start, or the basic reporting process. You don't get found guilty for nothing...?

There is no 'making it worth their while', by saying that you're insinuating that the tribunal commissioners are corrupt and dishonest. Your opinion that is wasn't reportable is just an opinion?

The tribunal certainly does decide the penalty if the player decides to challenge but otherwise they have the choice to accept the 2 weeks and save themselves $100 and save everybody the time and effort. I'm probably not going out on a limb by saying that the tribunal is not going to find too many players guilty of an offence and give them less than the prescribed penalty!

Like I said in my last post this is absolutely fine if the bloke is guilty and it is a black and white situation...if its not, we can have issues...

I was not implying that the tribunal was dodgy. I was just saying that players may get that impression that it would be everyone's preference that they take the offered penalty. As above, this is no issue if the bloke actually did deserve the penalty but I can see it being more complicated in a lot of situations. I just would hate to see an innocent bloke miss games of footy because of a report that wasn't accurate and then just cop the weeks because they weren't confident to challenge. We all make mistakes and umpires and tribunals are not exempt from this...

My opinion that the South report wasn't reportable appears to have been validated by the fact that the tribunal found him not guilty of striking?

[The Patriach]

Not simple as that. There are plenty of grey areas in footy.

Especially in the Bunyip match reviews

Meh. Congrats, you know where I work. Relevance?

Take a joke mate!