Craig Parry - deregistration successfully appealed

[jim5112]

I think SANFL has made a rod for it's own back.

There is nothing exceptional about Parry's case. He is just a cheap shot artist -- SANFL would be better off without him. Now they have ignored the thug rule for one, they will find it hard to enforce it next time.

[on the rails]

First the SANFL allow Norwood to worm out of a Salary Cap penalty and now grant Parry an exemption. 2 reversals within in a week! Those at West Lakes losing the plot!

By not enforcing rules and regulations consistently then the league is opening itself to legal action down the track when similar circumstances and issues arise with other clubs and players.

Piss bloody weak SANFL!

[FlyingHigh]

I think the rule is harsh, but why have it in place if you're not going to enforce it.

Completely gob smacked by this decision.

Did Parry not already know he was on his last chance? Why then does the SANFL give him another? The policy was adopted last year, not last week!

What this now does is give every player in the state (in which the league has adopted the policy) an easy out based on this case. It was included to get rid of serial offenders, and then the first SANFL player who crosses the line has the line moved. It makes those players already de registered hope based on this case, and I can see them lining up with an anger management form under one arm and a tribunal form under the other.

I have nothing against Parry nor WWTFC, just the basis of the decision and the implication on other leagues with de registered players - they will all front the same appeal board - that's what the policy says. I wonder if they will be treated differently because they don't play SANFL??

Agree with these, amongst all the biased BS (both ways) at this result.
The rule is an ass, as discussed before both due to it's full retrospective application and it's relevance at state league level, but if they're the rules and unless there was some sort of procedural error or unfairness, it is hard to believe he was reprieved.

[once_were_warriors]

Thats a relief , chances now greatly approved.

Wish Campbell would stop targeting our players , he has a history of this.

[MightyEagles]

Other teams fans would complain if it was one of their players.

[Booney]

Other teams fans would complain if it was one of their players.

Not if the other teams player had been suspended for 14 games....

On that, he has had 16 games suspension but how many were erased? ie - Get 3 weeks but take the offer of 2 with an early plea?

[Aerie]

Other teams fans would complain if it was one of their players.

Not if the other teams player had been suspended for 14 games....

On that, he has had 16 games suspension but how many were erased? ie - Get 3 weeks but take the offer of 2 with an early plea?

Or loading the other way where because you have been suspended prior, you get points added, regardless of the crime.

My problem with all this is these days you get suspended for something that was once just part of the game.

Take the recent example of Hartlett going for 2 weeks for a bump that was highlighted in their team meeting as a "positive" for the team.

It was a fair shepherd and incidentally hit the player high.

Parry got 4 weeks for something similar last year (or might've been 2011). Because he had a bad record it was loaded to 4 weeks.

You want these type of things to contribute to being banned from playing the game for life!?

That is why the AFL has 32 games instead of 16. It is also why there is something in place to appeal the decision.

How is Matty Campbell by the way? Did he recover ok? Also the little head butt on the South bloke, was he ok? Very dumb by Parry, granted. Worthy of a life time ban? Depends what team you're on.

[whufc]

If Parry doesn't get the ban then two things have to happen

1/ every player starts on zero suspensions and retrospective is not taking into account

2/ the rule has to go and it's a case by case situation as to whether a player gets a life ban

Absolutely zero point in having the rule if Parry can get off in 15 minutes

[heater31]

If Parry doesn't get the ban then two things have to happen

1/ every player starts on zero suspensions and retrospective is not taking into account

2/ the rule has to go and it's a case by case situation as to whether a player gets a life ban

Absolutely zero point in having the rule if Parry can get off in 15 minutes

Or it is like a driver's licence demerit point system......After a period of time your oldest indiscretions are wiped......


16 games in 3 years for example probably means you have a problem, but 16 games in 10 not so much......

[smac]

How many of Parrys suspensions are from the softening of the game and how many are from his own brain fades and inability to control himself?

[ferret]

Don't think the SANFL wanted to get embroiled in this saga, too many more important issues to worry about.
If it came to a legal stoush, lawyers would have a field day. Retrospectivity of any penalty can always be a problem.
Parry's penalties came via two different tribunal systems.
Would the Eagles have recruited Parry if this rule had been in place at the time of recruitment?
Would deregistration be seen as a fair and just punishment when it could deprive a person of the possibly earning up to 50% of their income.
Some players forego fulltime employment to play league football, with football payments covering lost fulltime earnings.
SANFL would be considered a semi-professional league, hence could be compared to the AFL which has a 32 game suspension limit before deregistration, may be the SANFL's should be 20 or 24 suspended games.
I feel all leagues have the ability to suspend thugs for very long periods if they wish to. Why go on accumulated suspended games which could include accidental collisions and other insignificant acts.

[spell_check]

The 16 matches is the same as all leagues around the country...how many country and metro leagues out there have at least one camera for every match, plus one of those is telecast with many more cameras used?
How many leagues then go through footage to find whatever head high accidental bump or love tap may have taken place?
24 matches as ferret said sounds more reasonable (1/2 way between 16 and 32)

[Mark_Beswick]

Agree with you spelly! The suspensions for football incidents make 16 games far too small - I'm not defending parry for hittinh someone but too many players are getting games for rough conduct when they are just going in for the ball and accidently knocking heads. Maybe we need 32 games like the afl

[JK]

I don't have a problem with the Parry ruling, but the amount of conjecture surrounding it surely means the Sanfl f**ked up yet again but not addressing all grey areas at the time of implementation.

[spell_check]

Agree with you spelly! The suspensions for football incidents make 16 games far too small - I'm not defending parry for hittinh someone but too many players are getting games for rough conduct when they are just going in for the ball and accidently knocking heads. Maybe we need 32 games like the afl

Quite right - I'm also not saying certain offences should be condoned, but we are now seeing players who are getting matches just for going in at the ball.

I don't have a problem with the Parry ruling, but the amount of conjecture surrounding it surely means the Sanfl f**ked up yet again but not addressing all grey areas at the time of implementation.

It's this retrospective bit that is what's wrong with it. How can past discretions count towards something under a new system of tribunal procedures for a start...(pretty much what ferret said)

[Killa]

I believe afl players can not be deregistered if they reach their quota, as they play under different rules. The policy says it is for the leagues affiliated with the afl.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Agree with you spelly! The suspensions for football incidents make 16 games far too small - I'm not defending parry for hittinh someone but too many players are getting games for rough conduct when they are just going in for the ball and accidently knocking heads. Maybe we need 32 games like the afl

Quite right - I'm also not saying certain offences should be condoned, but we are now seeing players who are getting matches just for going in at the ball.

I don't have a problem with the Parry ruling, but the amount of conjecture surrounding it surely means the Sanfl f**ked up yet again but not addressing all grey areas at the time of implementation.

It's this retrospective bit that is what's wrong with it. How can past discretions count towards something under a new system of tribunal procedures for a start...(pretty much what ferret said)

One thing Parry hasn't been found guilty of.

[Dols]

I believe afl players can not be deregistered if they reach their quota, as they play under different rules. The policy says it is for the leagues affiliated with the afl.

So technically if Dustin Fletcher was dropped from Essendon he should not be allowed to play reserves in the VFL. So what happens next year or the year after when a thug crow player is over 16 games and is still allowed to play SANFL. Next season there will be 2 groups of players playing in the same competition under different rules[FLUSHED FACE]

[Jim05]

I believe afl players can not be deregistered if they reach their quota, as they play under different rules. The policy says it is for the leagues affiliated with the afl.

So technically if Dustin Fletcher was dropped from Essendon he should not be allowed to play reserves in the VFL. So what happens next year or the year after when a thug crow player is over 16 games and is still allowed to play SANFL. Next season there will be 2 groups of players playing in the same competition under different rules[FLUSHED FACE]

No an AFL player has his games halved if he returns to VFL or any other league.
If Fletcher was playing VFL this week he would be sitting on 9 games

[nwdfanparade]

First the SANFL allow Norwood to worm out of a Salary Cap penalty and now grant Parry an exemption. 2 reversals within in a week! Those at West Lakes losing the plot!

By not enforcing rules and regulations consistently then the league is opening itself to legal action down the track when similar circumstances and issues arise with other clubs and players.

Piss bloody weak SANFL!

Our fine and player recruiting ban has not been lifted.