SAAFL Div 4 2008

[The Big Shrek]

Seems like two or three North Haven supporters should have written a letter saying they saw the bloke whose jaw broke got bumped in the head by one of his teamates on the bottom of the pack. He then got up holding his jaw.

[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.

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!!

The Portland runner was dealt with accordingly. He had 'Runner' written on his shirt, but it should have read 'Brisk Walker'.

[hawkseye]

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.

I never stated that and i dont think that. If you are reported by an umpire and found guilty you do the time. If you can prove your innocence you get off. Pretty simple realy. All these investigations 2 weeks later are rediculous.
I only asked you a question mr. moody nothing else.

[Felch]

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.

All this stuff is good Shrek, and applies in a court of law, but the SAAFL tribunal is not a court of law. I agree with the transparancy idea though. It would make them much more accountable for their findings.

[mr.moody]

Fair enough hawkseye, my mistake. I thought it was implied by your question, but I guess I was wrong. I'm adamant that the investigation was opened the week of the incident.

I don't know that it should be about proving your innocence (innocent until proven guilty right? ), but in reality at this level it is. Anyway, I've rambled enough. Good luck to all this week (except any Mitcham guys ).

[hawkseye]

Fair enough hawkseye, my mistake. I thought it was implied by your question, but I guess I was wrong. I'm adamant that the investigation was opened the week of the incident.

I don't know that it should be about proving your innocence (innocent until proven guilty right? ), but in reality at this level it is. Anyway, I've rambled enough. Good luck to all this week (except any Mitcham guys ).

Yeah i dont like that side of town

[heater31]

Fair enough hawkseye, my mistake. I thought it was implied by your question, but I guess I was wrong. I'm adamant that the investigation was opened the week of the incident.

I don't know that it should be about proving your innocence (innocent until proven guilty right? ), but in reality at this level it is. Anyway, I've rambled enough. Good luck to all this week (except any Mitcham guys ).

I can confirm that Investigation was launched the week after the said incident. I believe the league review the complaint then give the defendant an appropriate time frame to prepare.


If the supporters of the North Haven Footy club believe that he is innocent then WHY PLEAD GUILTY???? Get the humongous chip off your shoulders that the league have it in for Western Suburbs clubs I don't see the Henley FC, Lockleys or PHOS Camden have a whinge that they are hard done by.


I will not be responding to this issue again so build a bridge a move on people.

[ouzo666]

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.

You have just put words in my mouth then used those words to base your arguement around. I have no idea about Northern Clubs because I am not from there and have never had anything to do with the clubs out there, so I will not speak for them. When did I mention eastern or southern clubs?

I agree that we have no cameras so we rely on witnesses but a sketchy story typed out and signed is not evidence, it is just a piece of paper. It must be a legal document that you will put you name to in order to have any bearing otherwise I can say aliens came down and made me break the rules as long as I have someone who will say the same thing on a piece of paper.

[ouzo666]

Fair enough hawkseye, my mistake. I thought it was implied by your question, but I guess I was wrong. I'm adamant that the investigation was opened the week of the incident.

I don't know that it should be about proving your innocence (innocent until proven guilty right? ), but in reality at this level it is. Anyway, I've rambled enough. Good luck to all this week (except any Mitcham guys ).

I can confirm that Investigation was launched the week after the said incident. I believe the league review the complaint then give the defendant an appropriate time frame to prepare.


If the supporters of the North Haven Footy club believe that he is innocent then WHY PLEAD GUILTY???? Get the humongous chip off your shoulders that the league have it in for Western Suburbs clubs I don't see the Henley FC, Lockleys or PHOS Camden have a whinge that they are hard done by.


I will not be responding to this issue again so build a bridge a move on people.

Sorry I will be more specific smart ass, the Port Adelaide area clubs, happy. You are right though the issue is dead, our player has to serve his sentence now and there is no changing that. The only way we can retaliate and stick up for our mate is to win football matches and make the GF, which is exactly what Amateur League don't want. We have to get over it you're right and hope we do. Thanks for your insight.

[Roaring Lion!]

Round 9 Tips In Capatils

Adelaide Luthern v FITZROY by 12 pts in a close Div5 GF rematch (Fitzroy in B's & C's)
UNLEY v Pultney by 24 pts they play good at home (Unley in B's & Pultney in C's)
PORTLAND v Pooraka by 2 pts in an upset at the Port (Portland just in the B's as Pooraka aint that bad & Portland in C's)
Mitcham v PAOC by 36 pts be too good (Paoc in B's but eveyone will be watching what happens here & Mitcham in C's)
NORTH HAVEN v Cbcoc by 36 pts again be too good (North Haven in B's & Adelaide Uni in C's)

Very Interesting Round?
Good Luck Boys!

[Nuff Said]

Fair enough hawkseye, my mistake. I thought it was implied by your question, but I guess I was wrong. I'm adamant that the investigation was opened the week of the incident.

I don't know that it should be about proving your innocence (innocent until proven guilty right? ), but in reality at this level it is. Anyway, I've rambled enough. Good luck to all this week (except any Mitcham guys ).

I can confirm that Investigation was launched the week after the said incident. I believe the league review the complaint then give the defendant an appropriate time frame to prepare.


If the supporters of the North Haven Footy club believe that he is innocent then WHY PLEAD GUILTY???? Get the humongous chip off your shoulders that the league have it in for Western Suburbs clubs I don't see the Henley FC, Lockleys or PHOS Camden have a whinge that they are hard done by.


I will not be responding to this issue again so build a bridge a move on people.

Bridge is in progress and is due to be finished late August. Until then we eagerly await the rematch at your s**thole and will take another two points from you.

[Felch]

Fair enough hawkseye, my mistake. I thought it was implied by your question, but I guess I was wrong. I'm adamant that the investigation was opened the week of the incident.

I don't know that it should be about proving your innocence (innocent until proven guilty right? ), but in reality at this level it is. Anyway, I've rambled enough. Good luck to all this week (except any Mitcham guys ).

I can confirm that Investigation was launched the week after the said incident. I believe the league review the complaint then give the defendant an appropriate time frame to prepare.


If the supporters of the North Haven Footy club believe that he is innocent then WHY PLEAD GUILTY???? Get the humongous chip off your shoulders that the league have it in for Western Suburbs clubs I don't see the Henley FC, Lockleys or PHOS Camden have a whinge that they are hard done by.


I will not be responding to this issue again so build a bridge a move on people.

The SAAFL are against Western suburb clubs, why else would they make us play the top side this week...hmmm...and to make matters worse, we have to play them again later in the year ! Bloody, cheating SAAFL !!!

Sorry boys, bad joke...just trying to lighten the mood...

[The Big Shrek]

All this stuff is good Shrek, and applies in a court of law, but the SAAFL tribunal is not a court of law. I agree with the transparancy idea though. It would make them much more accountable for their findings.

I realise that the tribunal is not a court but the same principles should apply. I'm not saying the standard of proof should be beyond reasonable doubt but there must be a standard all the same. Otherwise how do you find people guilty?

[ouzo666]

Adelaide Lutheren v FITZROY by 40 points
UNLEY v Pultney by 50 points
Portland v POORAKA by 30 points
Mitcham v PAOC by 60points
NORTH HAVEN v Cbcoc by 80 points

[Felch]

All this stuff is good Shrek, and applies in a court of law, but the SAAFL tribunal is not a court of law. I agree with the transparancy idea though. It would make them much more accountable for their findings.

I realise that the tribunal is not a court but the same principles should apply. I'm not saying the standard of proof should be beyond reasonable doubt but there must be a standard all the same. Otherwise how do you find people guilty?

Absolutely agree on that. It never has seemed to apply though, and i can't see it changing in the near future unfortunately.

[Felch]

Fitzroy over Lutheran, fairly easily
Unley to beat Pulteney, pretty easily too.
Portland by 1 pt over Pooraka
PAOC over Mitcham, 2 goals.
Haven in a close one over CBCOC, under a goal.

[mr.moody]

You're missing my point ouzo...and you did raise the western, southern, northern rubbish by suggesting that western teams are hard done by, implying that teams from other areas are treated leniently by the league (and as you've stated in previous posts ). Obviously we won't agree on this one.

It is gonna be a very interesting round this week, especially after the break, we'll see who been on the juice and who's been working hard.


Adelaide Lutheren v FITZROY by 60
UNLEY v Pultney by 12
Portland v POORAKA by 35
Mitcham v PAOC by 15 (Mitcham to win both B's and C's ...but not by much)
NORTH HAVEN v Cbcoc by 30

[Footy Chick]

Hasnt this Western Suburbs V the rest of the world thing been done to death? Can we divert this conversation please to something more appropriate.

I'm not bias, I hate all of you

[NO-MERCY]

Fair enough hawkseye, my mistake. I thought it was implied by your question, but I guess I was wrong. I'm adamant that the investigation was opened the week of the incident.

I don't know that it should be about proving your innocence (innocent until proven guilty right? ), but in reality at this level it is. Anyway, I've rambled enough. Good luck to all this week (except any Mitcham guys ).

I can confirm that Investigation was launched the week after the said incident. I believe the league review the complaint then give the defendant an appropriate time frame to prepare.


If the supporters of the North Haven Footy club believe that he is innocent then WHY PLEAD GUILTY???? Get the humongous chip off your shoulders that the league have it in for Western Suburbs clubs I don't see the Henley FC, Lockleys or PHOS Camden have a whinge that they are hard done by.


I will not be responding to this issue again so build a bridge a move on people.

If those 3 Western clubs copped it like Seaton has for years you'd hear alot more from them.

[Footy Chick]

No Mercy, did you not read my post above yours?