SAAFL Div 7 2008

[Keepitreal]

Tough call Boxhead without knowing unis side of it. I feel for the lad you bumped aswell. Obviously a bad injury and would be harder to take from his point of you. If you still want to play footy im pretty sure you can still play in another league so at least you still have that option.

Boxhead is banned but with an official name change Col Arado isn't.

[The Real Number 3]

I don't understand the logic behind the number of games. Why 15? Why not just 12 games, the result is the same. It is my understanding that the life-ban targets repeat offenders. Are you a repeat offender Boxhead?

Hey all.

Nah Quichey i am not a repeat offender. I have played football since I was 6. Over 200 Junior games at Salisbury North and around 50 senior games there. I have been at Paralowie for 5 or 6 years now and also help coach the u/13's. Everyone i know through football know me as a hard but fair player. Yes, i like the odd hip "n" shoulder but who doesnt? This year i was put in the leadership group of the B's because of my voice and general skills on the field. To go out and seriously hurt someone intentionally while part of the leadership group would be a disgrace on my behalf. Also, everyone i know knows that i dont like fighting. Even when im out on the piss.

Yeah, i can be quite the irratator on the field but thats all part of the game. I love the mental and physical side of the game. I'll be the first to have a few words to you if you've missed a sitter or something (The St Pauls lads would agree). As i've said before, my knee is shot and i've gained a few kg's due to lack of a preseason. The SAAFL tribunal basically said i ran full pace at the lad with my elbow raised and hate in my eye and knew what spot i was aiming for. For christ sake, im fat and unco-ordinated!

[The Big Shrek]

How can they know where your eyes were from half an oval away?

[Keepitreal]

How can they know where your eyes were from half an oval away?

As he was running forward, being a larger built lad, obviously his short slipped revealing more crack than a drug dealer and perhaps it was a brown eye they were referring to!

[Punk Rooster]

Tough call Boxhead without knowing unis side of it. I feel for the lad you bumped aswell. Obviously a bad injury and not being able to play again would be harder to take from his point of you. If you still want to play footy im pretty sure you can still play in another league so at least you still have that option.

yeah, but surely you should't have to change leagues because someone else got injured?

[wattle]

Sounds like Soft old UNI again,they always whinge and complain to get their own way,Play soft and hate it when you play hard.Sorry for the injured player but footy is footy a contact sport which we all no before we take the field.What happend to what happends on the field stays on the field.The SAAFL has always favoured higher graded clubs and dont like a few clubs so you must be from 1 of them.

[hawkseye]

Tough call Boxhead without knowing unis side of it. I feel for the lad you bumped aswell. Obviously a bad injury and not being able to play again would be harder to take from his point of you. If you still want to play footy im pretty sure you can still play in another league so at least you still have that option.

yeah, but surely you should't have to change leagues because someone else got injured?

Probably not, but the option is there to play again which the other lad doesnt have. I doubt he got a raw deal.

[Punk Rooster]

Tough call Boxhead without knowing unis side of it. I feel for the lad you bumped aswell. Obviously a bad injury and not being able to play again would be harder to take from his point of you. If you still want to play footy im pretty sure you can still play in another league so at least you still have that option.

yeah, but surely you should't have to change leagues because someone else got injured?

Probably not, but the option is there to play again which the other lad doesnt have. I doubt he got a raw deal.

a lot of players have recieved injuries that don't allow them to play again.
As I said earlier, no disrespect to the young lad injured, but do we need to identify & punish a "villain", when there might not be one?
I'm probably drawing a long bow by accepting Shaun's evidence unquestioned, but no-one has said it was a king hit behind the play, but hard contact in a passage of play.
Footy is a contact sport, & whilst we can all rejoice that sniping is no longer acceptable, let us not switch our focus to those who play the game hard but fair.

[zedman]

imo he got the games because of the injury not the actual act..if the hit player had not sustained an injury then it wouldnt have even gone to "trial" as there was no report on the day i believe..hes been judged on the outcome of the act, not the act by my reckoning then..

[Boo25]

I was at the game when the so called strike happened I saw the collision in which the player from uni was injured also there was nothing out of the ordinary in this collision just players attacking the ball, if this is a strike behind the play whywas there no backlash from uni players on the ground or supporters or match day officals or there umpire?
because nothing happened. As zedman has said box has been given the sentence on the injury not the act its a FU#%ING DISGRACE

[Q.]

I don't understand the logic behind the number of games. Why 15? Why not just 12 games, the result is the same. It is my understanding that the life-ban targets repeat offenders. Are you a repeat offender Boxhead?

Nah Quichey i am not a repeat offender.

Given this, I don't see why 8-10 games isn't a sufficient punishment (assuming you are guilty at least of reckless and negligent contact). It puts you 'on notice' in the future. Their sentence makes little sense.

[Keepitreal]

I don't understand the logic behind the number of games. Why 15? Why not just 12 games, the result is the same. It is my understanding that the life-ban targets repeat offenders. Are you a repeat offender Boxhead?

Nah Quichey i am not a repeat offender.

Given this, I don't see why 8-10 games isn't a sufficient punishment (assuming you are guilty at least of reckless and negligent contact). It puts you 'on notice' in the future. Their sentence makes little sense.

If there was no issue/report on the day it should be just an unfortunate accident but also part of a contact sport that is accepted as a risk taken when we cross the white line by all players

[Q.]

I hear what you're saying, I'm just assuming, for the sake of my argument, that there is some sort of guilt involved. Not suggesting there actually is though.

[Keepitreal]

I hear what you're saying, I'm just assuming, for the sake of my argument, that there is some sort of guilt involved. Not suggesting there actually is though.

Surely between 2 on field, goal & boundary umps some sort of report should have been lodged if there was anything to actually report if not it should be a non issue and just an accident.

[heater31]

I hear what you're saying, I'm just assuming, for the sake of my argument, that there is some sort of guilt involved. Not suggesting there actually is though.

Surely between 2 on field, goal & boundary umps some sort of report should have been lodged if there was anything to actually report if not it should be a non issue and just an accident.

yes but using the Elimination final of the SANFL as an example, Daniel Hargraves has allegedly belted Aaron Kite whilst the ball is overhead going for goal. Umpires would have been focused on the ball and the 2nd and 3rd umpires in this case might have been obstructed.


Surely in this incident a report from the umpires on the moments before to the incident could have been obtained and used a evidence?

[finn]

I hear what you're saying, I'm just assuming, for the sake of my argument, that there is some sort of guilt involved. Not suggesting there actually is though.

Surely between 2 on field, goal & boundary umps some sort of report should have been lodged if there was anything to actually report if not it should be a non issue and just an accident.

the overly cynical could say that perhaps the reason no umpire saw it was because of its lateness...





ah say that's a joke son...

[aceman]

I don't understand the logic behind the number of games. Why 15? Why not just 12 games, the result is the same. It is my understanding that the life-ban targets repeat offenders. Are you a repeat offender Boxhead?

Nah Quichey i am not a repeat offender.

Given this, I don't see why 8-10 games isn't a sufficient punishment (assuming you are guilty at least of reckless and negligent contact). It puts you 'on notice' in the future. Their sentence makes little sense.

As soon as this was brought in, there always was going to be a 'first timer'. just like a notch in John Wayne's belt

[aceman]

Tough call Boxhead without knowing unis side of it. I feel for the lad you bumped aswell. Obviously a bad injury and not being able to play again would be harder to take from his point of you. If you still want to play footy im pretty sure you can still play in another league so at least you still have that option.

Not sure other leagues affiliated with the SANFL as is the SAAFL would register the guy. All suspensions carry over to those affil. clubs for this very reason

[heater31]

Tough call Boxhead without knowing unis side of it. I feel for the lad you bumped aswell. Obviously a bad injury and not being able to play again would be harder to take from his point of you. If you still want to play footy im pretty sure you can still play in another league so at least you still have that option.

Not sure other leagues affiliated with the SANFL as is the SAAFL would register the guy. All suspensions carry over to those affil. clubs for this very reason

yes but he can serve his suspension then register its only the SAAFL have the rule of 12 games and de-registered.

[Keepitreal]

I don't understand the logic behind the number of games. Why 15? Why not just 12 games, the result is the same. It is my understanding that the life-ban targets repeat offenders. Are you a repeat offender Boxhead?

Nah Quichey i am not a repeat offender.

Given this, I don't see why 8-10 games isn't a sufficient punishment (assuming you are guilty at least of reckless and negligent contact). It puts you 'on notice' in the future. Their sentence makes little sense.

As soon as this was brought in, there always was going to be a 'first timer'. just like a notch in John Wayne's belt

Already notched up Central United Full Forward got 12 games and life ban last season.