SAAFL Div 4 2008

[Hoodlum]

How's this for interesting news...

The North Haven player that the Pultney runner grabbed and man handled across the oval was Rowlands.

Intersting that it was Rowlands that was identified in another incident???? Verrrrry suspect!!!

[Hoodlum]

One of the statements sent to the SAAFL was written by the Pultney runner!!!!!

[Felch]

I didnt say it was a fair decision.

But there are always 2 sides to every story.

[Felch]

How's this for interesting news...

The North Haven player that the Pultney runner grabbed and man handled across the oval was Rowlands.

Intersting that it was Rowlands that was identified in another incident???? Verrrrry suspect!!!

That actually doesnt help his case...

Why did the runner grab him ? He obviously did something to upset him.

[Nuff Said]

I'm not saying that I agree with the penalty, but think about the message it sends. And then think about the message a lenient penalty would send. I know which is going to be better for the league as a whole in the long run. Due to the nature of the competition the tribunal is compelled to hand out strict penalties; there's not a lot that can be done about that short of charging exorbitant fees to clubs (who would pass them along in the form of subs) to fund some sort of upgraded system (video recordings of every game for instance)...but that wouldn't be viable would it?! And it sure as hell wouldn't be the best thing for the league.

I somewhat agree with Felch when he said that the North Haven bloke wouldn't have pleaded guilty if he didn't do it. Obviously I don't know all the facts, but it's not uncommon for someone to 'fess up to something and then turn around and spill something entirely different to try to save face (especially amongst their family/friends etc - who they have to see everyday).

With only second hand knowledge, it was basically a lose lose situation. He pleaded not guilty to the alleged incident which he said he had no invovlement in. Stated that he has never been reported in 200 plus games of Football, and the had a character witness. Was sent out side, not sure if the Pultney witnesses were interviewed or not, but then was brought back in and said we have taken your record and charcter witness in to acount and have been leinient with the punishment, heres 8 games. They then pretty much said how can you give a guy 8 games to something he hasn't done, and the tribunal said, "If it wasn't him, you go and get the guy that did it" I dont think anyone at North Haven would know where, what quarter, what Pultney player or what North Haven player was even in the vacinity.
Decision made, no appeal allowed. Its a disgrace.

[Nuff Said]

I didnt say it was a fair decision.

But there are always 2 sides to every story.

Of course there are 2 sides to the story, what is disappointing is that the Tribunal bend over backwards for one and walk all over the other based on their word against his.

[amber_fluid]

don't you have to play 3 games in a year for the club to count it as 'playing' that year?

No, thats to qualify for finals. I played 2 last year - 1 C grade vs Ingle Farm, and the last game of the year vs Rosies. Im still sore from that one...

Pups has also played every year since 1997 - he hasnt played this year though.

does that mean you can play 1 game a year and it counts towards life membership as well.....................assuming you need 100 games and 10 years service to qualify.[/quote]

It would take 100 years to get to 100 games then !

I knew you would say that..........I meant could you play for 6 years and play 96 games or so and then play 1 game a year for the next 4 years?
I forgot you are a "super coach" now and that would count anyway!!

[mr.moody]

I didnt say it was a fair decision.

But there are always 2 sides to every story.

Of course there are 2 sides to the story, what is disappointing is that the Tribunal bend over backwards for one and walk all over the other based on their word against his.

Sorry Felch I didn't mean to imply that you meant that. It's pretty obvious that this Rowlands guy got the runner going for some reason, not many people get physical without cause. So that certainly wouldn't help his defence.

I don't understand how you can say it's a disgrace NS. If you can take a deep breath and think about it logically you'll realise that the tribunal almost have their hands tied by the situation. Don't find anyone guilty and they're setting a precedent for other snipers (I'm not claiming this guy is a sniper by the way ) to go out and hit guys behind the play and get away with it and there'll be broken jaws at ever game; give him 8 games (or otherwise tell Havens to present the player that did do it and give him a suspension instead) and strongly send the message that you'll miss half a season for not controlling yourself. In a system like the Amateur league the deterent factor of suspensions and the precedents they set are essentially the only way the game is kept clean. Even with them there are suspensions every week.

It's just something that we all have to live with. The annoying part is the inconsistency of the penalties...but I guess that's a whole other can of worms

[Hoodlum]

Felch he was man handled for pulling away two players involved in a dispute. In my opinion, something went wrong that day and he was fresh in runners mind. Maybe runner picked him to take emphasis off his own incident

[Nuff Said]

I didnt say it was a fair decision.

But there are always 2 sides to every story.

Of course there are 2 sides to the story, what is disappointing is that the Tribunal bend over backwards for one and walk all over the other based on their word against his.

Sorry Felch I didn't mean to imply that you meant that. It's pretty obvious that this Rowlands guy got the runner going for some reason, not many people get physical without cause. So that certainly wouldn't help his defence.

I don't understand how you can say it's a disgrace NS. If you can take a deep breath and think about it logically you'll realise that the tribunal almost have their hands tied by the situation. Don't find anyone guilty and they're setting a precedent for other snipers (I'm not claiming this guy is a sniper by the way ) to go out and hit guys behind the play and get away with it and there'll be broken jaws at ever game; give him 8 games (or otherwise tell Havens to present the player that did do it and give him a suspension instead) and strongly send the message that you'll miss half a season for not controlling yourself. In a system like the Amateur league the deterent factor of suspensions and the precedents they set are essentially the only way the game is kept clean. Even with them there are suspensions every week.

It's just something that we all have to live with. The annoying part is the inconsistency of the penalties...but I guess that's a whole other can of worms

Moody, if he didn't get 8 games no one would even know about this investigation, an out and out sniper will get found out 9 times out of 10 and eventually 10 times out of 10. I agree there is no place in the game for it.
Fact: there is a broken jaw, how or when it occured can not be proven. No proof that the broken jaw happened in the "alleged" incident, from all reports the player continued to play without duress.

Alleged suspect: Matthew Rowlands
Aledged behind the play incident: no conclusive evidence to back this up

My point, and I swear this is the last time I will raise it. The Ametuer League tribunal gave a guy 8 weeks based on his word against someone elses with no conclusive evidence submitted. I cant see how this is right.

[ouzo666]

If any club makes a report (or complaint) to the league, then the league must investigate it properly and take each incident seriously. I don't know much about the incident in question but think about it this way: If you were walking down the street and someone broke your jaw, would you be within your rights to make a police report? And then do you think the cops would call on any witnesses they can get? Of course they would! And likewise the tribunal should take into account any testimony they can get.

I'm not making any comment on the ban except to say that in reality the tribunal doesn't have much choice but to hand down strict pentalties, this is dictated by the nature of the competition, likewise for appeals (although I'm an advocate for allowing appeals to the longer bans, especially since they're rarer than your run of the mill two or three week striking ban).

Having said all of that, I agree entirely that the tribunal can be pretty inconsistent with their decisions, but no-one's perfect right?

The tribunal is consistantly screwing us.

[mr.moody]

who's "us" ouzo? Western suburbs teams? Would you say they're consistantly screwing northern suburbs teams too?

[hawkseye]

who's "us" ouzo? Western suburbs teams? Would you say they're consistantly screwing northern suburbs teams too?

Whats your issue with teams that arent on your side of town?

[Iron Fist]

who's "us" ouzo? Western suburbs teams? Would you say they're consistantly screwing northern suburbs teams too?

Whats your issue with teams that arent on your side of town?

is tynte st one of your sides??
seems they tend to back u guy then western suburbs teams the majority of the time!

[ouzo666]

How's this for interesting news...

The North Haven player that the Pultney runner grabbed and man handled across the oval was Rowlands.

Intersting that it was Rowlands that was identified in another incident???? Verrrrry suspect!!!

That actually doesnt help his case...

Why did the runner grab him ? He obviously did something to upset him.

The runner grabbed me on two separate occassions and I was on the recieving end of several behind play incidents and one right in front of the umpire. I did not push or strike anyone but because their runner grabbed me does that mean I am guilty of something. Their runner was a nutter so others should be punished. Mind you wasn't as bad as that weirdo Portland had running around when we played them

[amber_fluid]

How's this for interesting news...

The North Haven player that the Pultney runner grabbed and man handled across the oval was Rowlands.

Intersting that it was Rowlands that was identified in another incident???? Verrrrry suspect!!!

That actually doesnt help his case...

Why did the runner grab him ? He obviously did something to upset him.

The runner grabbed me on two separate occassions and I was on the recieving end of several behind play incidents and one right in front of the umpire. I did not push or strike anyone but because their runner grabbed me does that mean I am guilty of something. Their runner was a nutter so others should be punished. Mind you wasn't as bad as that weirdo Portland had running around when we played them

Agreed.....................that Portland runner was a bit weird from memory!!

[Roaring Lion!]

hey, did anyone notice the lack of the Div 4 write up in last weeks footy budget?? Not sure if anyone has posted anything about this...I am hoping there is something this week!! Does anyone know anything about this??

Plus, 2007 Div 5 Grand Final rematch this week, i can tell you that we, myself in particular, are looking forward to it!!

The Roy Boys are looking forward to this game also Snakey as the last couple of of years these games have been entertaining in all grades & built up a good rivalary so see u there on saturday!

[The Big Shrek]

I didnt say it was a fair decision.

But there are always 2 sides to every story.

Of course there are 2 sides to the story, what is disappointing is that the Tribunal bend over backwards for one and walk all over the other based on their word against his.

Sorry Felch I didn't mean to imply that you meant that. It's pretty obvious that this Rowlands guy got the runner going for some reason, not many people get physical without cause. So that certainly wouldn't help his defence.

I don't understand how you can say it's a disgrace NS. If you can take a deep breath and think about it logically you'll realise that the tribunal almost have their hands tied by the situation. Don't find anyone guilty and they're setting a precedent for other snipers (I'm not claiming this guy is a sniper by the way ) to go out and hit guys behind the play and get away with it and there'll be broken jaws at ever game; give him 8 games (or otherwise tell Havens to present the player that did do it and give him a suspension instead) and strongly send the message that you'll miss half a season for not controlling yourself. In a system like the Amateur league the deterent factor of suspensions and the precedents they set are essentially the only way the game is kept clean. Even with them there are suspensions every week.

It's just something that we all have to live with. The annoying part is the inconsistency of the penalties...but I guess that's a whole other can of worms

How are the Tribunal's hands tied? They wouldn't be setting a precedent that snipers get let off, they'd be setting a precedent that people who aren't proven guilty let off. I'd like to see what evidence the tribunal saw. It's time they made these hearings public so we can have confidence in what they are doing.

Does anyone know what the standard of proof for a guilty verdict is? Beyond reasonable doubt, balance of probabilities etc.

[ouzo666]

I didnt say it was a fair decision.

But there are always 2 sides to every story.

Of course there are 2 sides to the story, what is disappointing is that the Tribunal bend over backwards for one and walk all over the other based on their word against his.

Sorry Felch I didn't mean to imply that you meant that. It's pretty obvious that this Rowlands guy got the runner going for some reason, not many people get physical without cause. So that certainly wouldn't help his defence.

I don't understand how you can say it's a disgrace NS. If you can take a deep breath and think about it logically you'll realise that the tribunal almost have their hands tied by the situation. Don't find anyone guilty and they're setting a precedent for other snipers (I'm not claiming this guy is a sniper by the way ) to go out and hit guys behind the play and get away with it and there'll be broken jaws at ever game; give him 8 games (or otherwise tell Havens to present the player that did do it and give him a suspension instead) and strongly send the message that you'll miss half a season for not controlling yourself. In a system like the Amateur league the deterent factor of suspensions and the precedents they set are essentially the only way the game is kept clean. Even with them there are suspensions every week.

It's just something that we all have to live with. The annoying part is the inconsistency of the penalties...but I guess that's a whole other can of worms

How are the Tribunal's hands tied? They wouldn't be setting a precedent that snipers get let off, they'd be setting a precedent that people who aren't proven guilty let off. I'd like to see what evidence the tribunal saw. It's time they made these hearings public so we can have confidence in what they are doing.

Does anyone know what the standard of proof for a guilty verdict is? Beyond reasonable doubt, balance of probabilities etc.

I believe a guilty verdict is determined by how many unsolicited letters you can get written by supporters at the game.

[mr.moody]

Ouzo, it's always going to be one man's word against another's when it comes down to it at this level. We don't have 20 TV cameras, or hundreds of officials at each game to recount every little event. It's a shame it can't be more in depth, but that's just the nature of amateur sport.

You guys (Fisty, ouzo...hawkseye....anyone else I missed? ) say that western suburbs teams get the raw end of the deal. Do you guys think northern suburbs teams get screwed too? If so, then your argument is lacking a bit of logic, since (assuming) roughly half of the teams in the competition come from these areas and subsequently must be playing against each other at least as much as they play eastern and southern teams...right? If you say that northern and western teams are both getting bad treatment from the tribunal then you must be suggesting that suspensions only occur when either northern or western teams play against eastern (or college) teams (I don't really know of many southern teams in SAAFL ). Obviously there are suspensions coming from games between western and nothern teams? Whose getting screwed then?

Now I know that that may be a bit out there, but it's (slowly) leading me to my point that maybe the problem isn't that teams from these areas get a rough deal, maybe they're just getting reported more often. The more often you get reported, the more likely you are to cop a bad deal (just as you're more likely to get a lenient suspension) on occassion.