by LaughingKookaburra » Mon Apr 03, 2017 5:42 pm
by The Big Shrek » Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:30 pm
by bird of prey » Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:00 pm
The Big Shrek wrote:It's easy to pot the bloke as many have done here. He obviously did the wrong thing.
This misses the point. The question that should be asked is does what he did deserve a life ban from football?
I think the answer to that is no.
Does anyone know who decides whether players can re-register after s ban?
by Footy Chick » Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:03 pm
The Big Shrek wrote:It's easy to pot the bloke as many have done here. He obviously did the wrong thing.
This misses the point. The question that should be asked is does what he did deserve a life ban from football?
I think the answer to that is no.
Does anyone know who decides whether players can re-register after s ban?
Gatt_Weasel wrote:if they (Walkerville) dont win the flag ill run around the block of my street naked :) you can grab a chair and enjoy the view
by Robb_Stark » Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:12 pm
by LaughingKookaburra » Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:28 pm
The Big Shrek wrote:It's easy to pot the bloke as many have done here. He obviously did the wrong thing.
This misses the point. The question that should be asked is does what he did deserve a life ban from football?
I think the answer to that is no.
Does anyone know who decides whether players can re-register after s ban?
by jo172 » Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:01 pm
by The Big Shrek » Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:21 pm
bird of prey wrote:The Big Shrek wrote:It's easy to pot the bloke as many have done here. He obviously did the wrong thing.
This misses the point. The question that should be asked is does what he did deserve a life ban from football?
I think the answer to that is no.
Does anyone know who decides whether players can re-register after s ban?
A majority on here say yes. The tribunal and league said yes.
The idea of a life ban, is a life ban.
So unless it's in another life, the rules say he can not re-register. Pretty simple really.
He may be a decent bloke off the field. But that's irrelevant here.
by bird of prey » Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:26 pm
The Big Shrek wrote:bird of prey wrote:The Big Shrek wrote:It's easy to pot the bloke as many have done here. He obviously did the wrong thing.
This misses the point. The question that should be asked is does what he did deserve a life ban from football?
I think the answer to that is no.
Does anyone know who decides whether players can re-register after s ban?
A majority on here say yes. The tribunal and league said yes.
The idea of a life ban, is a life ban.
So unless it's in another life, the rules say he can not re-register. Pretty simple really.
He may be a decent bloke off the field. But that's irrelevant here.
I must have missed the part of this thread where the majority said he deserved it.
I'm quite certain there is an avenue to come back on a bond. A bloke from Paralowie did it and so did a guy from Salisbury West.
by jo172 » Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:37 pm
by The Big Shrek » Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:46 pm
by Footy Chick » Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:50 pm
jo172 wrote:Didn't Jason Creek last two weeks on his bond? Can see why the League would be hesitant to throw them around
Gatt_Weasel wrote:if they (Walkerville) dont win the flag ill run around the block of my street naked :) you can grab a chair and enjoy the view
by Gazza's Scalp » Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:10 am
by beef » Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:37 am
by tigerpie » Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:52 am
Gazza's Scalp wrote:I think the life ban was extremely harsh, especially considering it was Callum's first ever report. He has been treated like a random thug and no consideration has ever been given to his character and commitment to the game. Obviously having been on an AFL list, the guy plays good football but his career has so far been defined and judged by one action.
My question isn't whether or not Callum deserved a life ban for his actions as he has already been dished his penalty and that can't be changed, but whether or not he deserves a second chance and is any risk to the league and its integrity if they were to re-register Callum?
Here's a few facts in a bit of a timeline to give a bit more perspective of Callum as a footballer
- SANFL U16 state representative
- SANFL U18 state representative
- North Adelaide Football Club reserves footballer
- Port Power rookie list (2011 age 19)
- 2012 Central Districts FC (limited games due to injury)
- 2013 Salisbury North (age 21, cops life ban for the actions discussed)
- 2014-2016 Eudunda FC, country zone and state representative (one of those seasons he was also judged BOG and got the medal in a grand final)
To me, at the age of 25 this doesn't look like the record of a person who is going to be a major risk if the league was to re-register Callum. Callum has at not one stage of the process been given the opportunity to stand in front of the board (or whoever the decision makers are) and make his claim to be re-registered. This shouldn't be a Salisbury North thing, this is an individual wanting to get back into a good competition and play good footy in his local community again. I think airing his feelings on Facebook was a sign of having nowhere to go to have his perspective heard.
by jo172 » Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:15 am
by Dogwatcher » Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:37 am
The Big Shrek wrote: This misses the point. The question that should be asked is does what he did deserve a life ban from football?
by jo172 » Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:42 am
Dogwatcher wrote:The Big Shrek wrote: This misses the point. The question that should be asked is does what he did deserve a life ban from football?
It's semantics, I know, but he hasn't received a life ban from football, but from one competition.
by Gazza's Scalp » Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:58 am
jo172 wrote:Categorically denying Hay was suspended in 2009 and 2012 for striking?
by Robb_Stark » Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:02 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |