Southern Football League

[RFC 2010]

RFC

Did you really expect anything different from the kangaroo court called the SFL Tribunal??..

Oops do not mention it in a public forum!! They are unprofessional at the very least, when considering they are playing with income of clubs..

Sadly the management do not want to move forward and improve the board.. Arrogance and ignorance are the key words..

The sad thing is that the result didn't surprise me one bit.

Even though Noarlunga had footage of the incident, nobody could force them to produce it at the hearing so it wasn't produced. Even though there were a lot of witnesses, it becomes a case of "he said, she said", the Tribunal gives Mott the benefit of the doubt but still feels like it has to impose a penalty, so they run with two games because this will see him possibly miss a GF.

He's either guilty and deserves at least 8 weeks or he's not guilty and he gets nothing.

[vics01]

Unfortunately there is no procedural fairness at the SFL tribunal.. Am aware of other times video has been offered as evidence and the tribunal has said we have seen it but we ignore it.. Even though it exonerated the alleged offender.. Amateur hour, kangaroo court at it's best. Simple as it sounds if in fact the video footage existed. player is suspended until it is produced.. investigation committee to follow.. I am sure shoe boy has some answers??

[RFC 2010]

Unfortunately there is no procedural fairness at the SFL tribunal.. Am aware of other times video has been offered as evidence and the tribunal has said we have seen it but we ignore it.. Even though it exonerated the alleged offender.. Amateur hour, kangaroo court at it's best. Simple as it sounds if in fact the video footage existed. player is suspended until it is produced.. investigation committee to follow.. I am sure shoe boy has some answers??

Shoe Boy? Old Man Munga?

[Boof]

Really does make you wonder why any club stays in this shambles of a league!

[Oldman Munga]

Unfortunately there is no procedural fairness at the SFL tribunal.. Am aware of other times video has been offered as evidence and the tribunal has said we have seen it but we ignore it.. Even though it exonerated the alleged offender.. Amateur hour, kangaroo court at it's best. Simple as it sounds if in fact the video footage existed. player is suspended until it is produced.. investigation committee to follow.. I am sure shoe boy has some answers??

Shoe Boy? Old Man Munga?

Think I'll just sit back and see how things pan out between SFL and Club on this one , there are those within the club that understand the
processes a lot better than me ,so I'll leave that to them
But I'm fairly pissed off reading people on this forum and social media calling Nick a dog,thug and coward etc ,anybody who has watched him play over the last 10 yrs would attest that those labels do not fit this lad in anyway shape or form , his record of SFL,Association and Country Cup games can't be ignored ,
One things for sure , the natives at the river bends are well and truely fired up for this weeks game ,
As for Reynella supporters all going down to support Flaggies on the weekend ?? Fine by us , they can't support their own club anymore so they can please themselves

[RFC 2010]

Never called him a dog. Said it was a dog act. Two different things. The fact that he rang the RFC coach after the game shows he's not a bad guy when he's not told what to do and say by the club

[pantherman]

Never called him a dog. Said it was a dog act. Two different things. The fact that he rang the RFC coach after the game shows he's not a bad guy when he's not told what to do and say by the club

You seem to know quite a lot about what he was "told to say". It's almost like you were there RFC 2010!

[RFC 2010]

Never called him a dog. Said it was a dog act. Two different things. The fact that he rang the RFC coach after the game shows he's not a bad guy when he's not told what to do and say by the club

You seem to know quite a lot about what he was "told to say". It's almost like you were there RFC 2010!

It's not hard to work out the flow of events. The lad rang Gianni straight after the game and openly felt shite about what had happened. He then turns around and claims at the tribunal that he was not guilty and that hitting Bradwell with an elbow and smashing his jaw was an unintended football collision. I wonder what happened between the phone call and the tribunal hearing? Be a man, admit what you did and take the consequences on the chin (or maybe the jaw)

[Wedgie]

You can't be sorry for a football collision?

[Oldman Munga]

Never called him a dog. Said it was a dog act. Two different things. The fact that he rang the RFC coach after the game shows he's not a bad guy when he's not told what to do and say by the club

You seem to know quite a lot about what he was "told to say". It's almost like you were there RFC 2010!

#flyonthwall ?

[RFC 2010]

Never called him a dog. Said it was a dog act. Two different things. The fact that he rang the RFC coach after the game shows he's not a bad guy when he's not told what to do and say by the club

You seem to know quite a lot about what he was "told to say". It's almost like you were there RFC 2010!

#flyonthwall ?

I'll pay that

[Look Good In Leather]

Never called him a dog. Said it was a dog act. Two different things. The fact that he rang the RFC coach after the game shows he's not a bad guy when he's not told what to do and say by the club

You seem to know quite a lot about what he was "told to say". It's almost like you were there RFC 2010!

It's not hard to work out the flow of events. The lad rang Gianni straight after the game and openly felt shite about what had happened. He then turns around and claims at the tribunal that he was not guilty and that hitting Bradwell with an elbow and smashing his jaw was an unintended football collision. I wonder what happened between the phone call and the tribunal hearing? Be a man, admit what you did and take the consequences on the chin (or maybe the jaw)

There is a lot of hysterical discussion here. I did not see the incident and have heard conflicting accounts so am not going to form an opinion either way.

However, to suggest that Mott contacting Petrucci to check on the health of the injured player is somewhat proof of his guilt is a step way too far.

I assume that the majority here have played enough football to understand it is an aggressive game, and yes you do at times intend to hurt your opponent. I doubt there are many who would deliberately attempt to injure an opponent though. If this incident was intentional, deliberate, reckless, negligent or accidental is not able to be determined by whether the accused holds any sympathy towards the injured player. Few of us gain joy from seeing another player with a serious injury.

All it does is reinforces Noarlunga's claims that he is a decent lad and the incident is either accidental (reckless or negligent) or out of character.

[RFC 2010]

Never called him a dog. Said it was a dog act. Two different things. The fact that he rang the RFC coach after the game shows he's not a bad guy when he's not told what to do and say by the club

You seem to know quite a lot about what he was "told to say". It's almost like you were there RFC 2010!

It's not hard to work out the flow of events. The lad rang Gianni straight after the game and openly felt shite about what had happened. He then turns around and claims at the tribunal that he was not guilty and that hitting Bradwell with an elbow and smashing his jaw was an unintended football collision. I wonder what happened between the phone call and the tribunal hearing? Be a man, admit what you did and take the consequences on the chin (or maybe the jaw)

There is a lot of hysterical discussion here. I did not see the incident and have heard conflicting accounts so am not going to form an opinion either way.

However, to suggest that Mott contacting Petrucci to check on the health of the injured player is somewhat proof of his guilt is a step way too far.

I assume that the majority here have played enough football to understand it is an aggressive game, and yes you do at times intend to hurt your opponent. I doubt there are many who would deliberately attempt to injure an opponent though. If this incident was intentional, deliberate, reckless, negligent or accidental is not able to be determined by whether the accused holds any sympathy towards the injured player. Few of us gain joy from seeing another player with a serious injury.

All it does is reinforces Noarlunga's claims that he is a decent lad and the incident is either accidental (reckless or negligent) or out of character.

Not only rang the RFC coach but also admitted that he **** up and regretted what he did as soon as he did it.

Anyway, there's no point going on about it. What's done is done. Chris Bradwell is sitting at home with a broken jaw and will be eating through a straw for at least 6 weeks while the guy who did it to him only misses two weeks of football (assuming there is no appeal or Supreme Court injunction)

[Look Good In Leather]

[quote="RFC 2010"]Never called him a dog. Said it was a dog act. Two different things. The fact that he rang the RFC coach after the game shows he's not a bad guy when he's not told what to do and say by the club

You seem to know quite a lot about what he was "told to say". It's almost like you were there RFC 2010!

It's not hard to work out the flow of events. The lad rang Gianni straight after the game and openly felt shite about what had happened. He then turns around and claims at the tribunal that he was not guilty and that hitting Bradwell with an elbow and smashing his jaw was an unintended football collision. I wonder what happened between the phone call and the tribunal hearing? Be a man, admit what you did and take the consequences on the chin (or maybe the jaw)

There is a lot of hysterical discussion here. I did not see the incident and have heard conflicting accounts so am not going to form an opinion either way.

However, to suggest that Mott contacting Petrucci to check on the health of the injured player is somewhat proof of his guilt is a step way too far.

I assume that the majority here have played enough football to understand it is an aggressive game, and yes you do at times intend to hurt your opponent. I doubt there are many who would deliberately attempt to injure an opponent though. If this incident was intentional, deliberate, reckless, negligent or accidental is not able to be determined by whether the accused holds any sympathy towards the injured player. Few of us gain joy from seeing another player with a serious injury.

All it does is reinforces Noarlunga's claims that he is a decent lad and the incident is either accidental (reckless or negligent) or out of character.

Not only rang the RFC coach but also admitted that he **** up and regretted what he did as soon as he did it.

Anyway, there's no point going on about it. What's done is done. Chris Bradwell is sitting at home with a broken jaw and will be eating through a straw for at least 6 weeks while the guy who did it to him only misses two weeks of football (assuming there is no appeal or Supreme Court injunction)[/quote]
What I am finding hard to comprehend out of this is why people are considering it a light penalty. It is the two most important weeks of the season!

If Noarlunga win this week, he has missed a grand final, if they lose you could argue he has cost them a grand final. Stop looking at it as a number and put it into context of what part of the season it is.

I would happily give up all 200+ senior and reserves games I played to have played in one GF at any level.

Had Noarlunga been losing then there would be a big argument for more as he would have cost someone else the opportunity, however as they won this penalty is far beyond 6 regular season games.

[RFC 2010]

It doesn't matter if the incident occurred in round one, in the prelim or in any other final. Chris' jaw will take the same amount of time to heal irrespective of when it was broken

[Look Good In Leather]

It doesn't matter if the incident occurred in round one, in the prelim or in any other final. Chris' jaw will take the same amount of time to heal irrespective of when it was broken

Yes, but 6 games from round 1 is completely different to 2 games from Prelim Final weeks. 6 weeks healing time is also less relevant as Chris is not missing any football. I am not sure how 4 or 5 games next year is going to make Chris heal any quicker, particularly as he will likely be back playing by then. Meanwhile the guilty party has potentially missed a grand final - a far greater penalty.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

[RFC 2010]

I disagree but what's done is done.

Does anyone know if an appeal has been lodged?

[mighty hounds]

It doesn't matter if the incident occurred in round one, in the prelim or in any other final. Chris' jaw will take the same amount of time to heal irrespective of when it was broken

Yes, but 6 games from round 1 is completely different to 2 games from Prelim Final weeks. 6 weeks healing time is also less relevant as Chris is not missing any football. I am not sure how 4 or 5 games next year is going to make Chris heal any quicker, particularly as he will likely be back playing by then. Meanwhile the guilty party has potentially missed a grand final - a far greater penalty.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Wow...

[tigerpie]

I'm not picking up any hysterics on here lgil.
Its quite simple, he broke the lads jaw with an elbow after the lad disposed of the ball.
4- 6 weeks is an appropriate penalty, not 2.
Doesn't matter what round he did it in.

[Look Good In Leather]

I'm not picking up any hysterics on here lgil.
Its quite simple, he broke the lads jaw with an elbow after the lad disposed of the ball.
4- 6 weeks is an appropriate penalty, not 2.
Doesn't matter what round he did it in.

Personally I think if Noarlunga win this week, then the penalty that has been given is far greater than 10 or more weeks during the minor round, but that's just me.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk