RD 7 Glenelg v North Review

[Wedgie]

I'd be grateful if someone could explain the exact racial vilification rule we have and I'd also be interested on people's opinions, would they be more upset if they were racially vilified or would they be more upset if someone said something threatening or derogatory about their children? Its a no brainer in my book but my point is do we have rules for some nasty words and not others? Even if it did happen which I don't think it did in this case what sort of stupid rules hands out onfield penalties for different things said on the footy field?
Imagine in a Grand Final if a premiership was decided because of what an umpire heard about one thing that is deemed unaccpetable in the community where other things deemed unacceptable were let slip?
A real grey area in my books and one that needs to be fixed but probably wont because of political correctness.

[Dirko]

IF Damon White was called a "White ****" would that be vilification or a slur on his surname ?

[stampy]

this may sound stupid, but arent all decisions - in the first instance or reversed based on what the magots think? whether its what they see or hear

[am Bays]

IF Damon White was called a "White ****" would that be vilification or a slur on his surname ?

As an umpire in Alice Springs I got called that term but with cheating in front of it by an indiginous footballer from Yendumu...

But anywho, this is the law in relation to reportable offences (doesn't specifically mention racial abuse):

19.2.2 Specific Offences
Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence:
(m) using abusive, insulting, threatening or
obscene language
(p) any act of misconduct

When reporting umpires must also determine:
19.2.1 Degree of Intent — Clarification
Where any of the Reportable Offences identified in Law 19.2.2
specify that conduct may be intentional, reckless or negligent:
(a) any report or notice of report which does not allege
whether the conduct was intentional, reckless or
negligent shall be deemed to and be read as alleging
that the conduct was either intentional, reckless or
negligent;

If umpires strictly applied law 19.2.2 (m) how many reports would there be per game if they were consistant???? My $0.02 worth

http://www.afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/development/afl_explained/laws_of_football_2009.pdf

[Wedgie]

Thanks for the clarification AM Bays and it confirms what I suspected. It seems the leagues/umpires virtually make up things as they go in regard to what they do and dont report/pay frees for.

[Adelaide Hawk]

I've always been a little uneasy with racial vilification in sports. Any sane person would agree that racism should never be tolerated in normal walks of life. However, in the heat of battle, you are likely to have a go at someone in a verbal manner.

If the brain's not working all that quickly, you are likely to attack a person's appearance, eg red headed ..., big ..., fat .... , and if the first thing you notice about that person is black skin colour, it can escape the lips before you've thought about what you said.

We need to tread carefully before labelling people racists because of an unfortunate slip of the tongue.

When I was a boy, I recall Syd Jackson of Carlton was reported for striking Leigh Adamson from Collingwood in the 1970 VFL 2nd Semi Final. In defence, Jackson claimed he had responded to racist taunts by Adamson and was cleared.

For 23 years Leigh Adamson had to live with the tag of being a racist until 1993 when Jackson finally came clean and admitted he was never vilified, but had been put up to it by (then) Carlton President George Harris in an attempt to ensure Jackson played in the Grand Final. Isn't that just so Carlton?

[the joker]

i tend to think that they are hotter on holding the ball in our comp than the afl, next time you watch an afl game, count the number of times the crowd scream ball, compared to how many times the umps pay it, in all honesty i reckon the ratio would be 20/1 and that isnt being silly

An Adelaide-based AFL game. Every crowd at Amy Stadium thinks that every tackle is automatic holding-the-ball. The poor supporters just don't know the rules.

Hey Mic everygame you go to from AFL down to div 7 in the ammos, if the opposition gets tackled the crowd yells Ball. so dont have a dig at crows supporters, every supporter does it

[drebin]

todd grima's report,
i asked a glenelg official what was it all about & got told there was nothing in it & it goes as has been posted todd said to wade thompson you're a 'fat c@#t' but the umpire 'heard' 'black c@#t'..........i would believe todds version given there was no reaction from any north player including wade (so far)

I had a drink (well quite a few to be honest! ) after the game at the Bay and caught up with some old friends including Peter Caven and Mick Godden. We were joined for a while by Rubbers and Todd Grima and spoke about the incident. They told me that the matter had been sorted after the match and that it was clearly the umpire hearing a different word. As you could see on the day if Grima had used a racial slur then Thompson would have reacted so it was clear he didn't say what was alleged. I can tell you Grima still felt like crap when I spoke to him just for the fact it has tarnished his name. He seems like a very switched on bloke and from the chat I had with him you couldn't ever imagine him saying anything like was alleged.

Got to also thank the Glenelg CEO, my old mate "Barro" for hosting me and getting me well and truly "on my way" plus the joint effort with the two clubs re the past players function to honour Mike Parsons was well done and a credit to the Glenleg FC and the past players organisation. It was good to catch up with some ex bay players and mates and a heap of ex North players even if I copped a decent spray from the North Grog Squad for spending all the 2nd half in the hospitality tent!

[Harry the Horse]

Well, I hope you're right Drebin because this one's taking a turn for the worse.
The report is standing and will be heard Tuesday night. My mail is the umpy is sticking to his guns with what he "thought" he heard and Wade Thompson agrees with him.

[UK Fan]

it was lucky that the game was close today otherwise there wouldve probable been very little interest in the last quarter as it wasnt an exciting match although it was never going to be especially in teh 2nd half when north had a 16 man defence for a lot of it. i have no idea why north would play that way with the likes of alleway, stewert and gill as marking targets with ryswyk and younie and smaller types.

They had to because of the zone Glenelg employed.
The ball couldn't get down to the forward line because Glenelg moved everyone into a zone.
It was a zone versus a flood, both a blight on the game, we need a Geelong or two in the SANFL to try and get around them and improve the standard of play.

I found it quite interesting taking note of the styles of play today and being sober for a change, it doesn't happen too often!

As a North supporter I certainly can't be critical as we almost won a game that we were clearly 6-9 goals worse than. I'd be more critical of when the Bays went defensive if I was a Bays fan as that should have cost them the game but North didn't have the skill to make them pay but you'd expect that of the side that came 7th last year.

So just to clarify that is Centrals Eagles and Glenelgs tactics that have made North flood.

Sure it isnt that Norths game plan is to flood.

[Wedgie]

So just to clarify that is Centrals Eagles and Glenelgs tactics that have made North flood.

Sure it isnt that Norths game plan is to flood.

Yeah, that'd be about right, I didn't see the Norwood game and Sturt didn't seem to do it, zones are the tactics employed by most clubs these days in both the AFL and SANFL, unfortunately its a part of the current landscape.

And of course North flood, we now play the Central style of footy, that's what happens when you get a Centrals lad in.
I don't care if we play 18 players in the defensive goal square, if we get some results is all I care about.
I'd probably prefer a cross between our last style and this style with a more direct sort of game but with zones all the rage that's very hard.

We could beat the zones if we get the ball out of the middle but without Archard in the middle we're not doing that, hopefully things will improve after the break but when you look back on it we've played the 6 teams that came ahead of us last year, have won half of those and have a positive percentage so things aren't going too bad with the amount of injuries we've had.

[UK Fan]

So just to clarify that is Centrals Eagles and Glenelgs tactics that have made North flood.

Sure it isnt that Norths game plan is to flood.

Yeah, that'd be about right, I didn't see the Norwood game and Sturt didn't seem to do it, zones are the tactics employed by most clubs these days in both the AFL and SANFL, unfortunately its a part of the current landscape.

And of course North flood, we now play the Central style of footy, that's what happens when you get a Centrals lad in.
I don't care if we play 18 players in the defensive goal square, if we get some results is all I care about.
I'd probably prefer a cross between our last style and this style with a more direct sort of game but with zones all the rage that's very hard.

We could beat the zones if we get the ball out of the middle but without Archard in the middle we're not doing that, hopefully things will improve after the break but when you look back on it we've played the 6 teams that came ahead of us last year, have won half of those and have a positive percentage so things aren't going too bad with the amount of injuries we've had.

So it is Centrals tactics that is why North flood ????? I thought someone else would be at blame.

I thought you told Dutchy Centrals have many different tactics that can change quarter by quarter.

You are starting to sound like Crows fans when they use to deny Neil Craig flooded.

[Wedgie]

So it is Centrals tactics that is why you flood ?????

I thought you told Dutchy Centrals have many different tactics that can change quarter by quarter. now we flood constantly ???

Dont see to many game plan style changes at the NAFC this year in the 3 games i have seen ???

Centrals flood when they need to, its quite simple, yes that can change quarter by quarter as previously discussed.
I would have thought that would make it obvious Central don't need to flood constantly, your line there is a bit confusing.

North obviously aren't as good as Central at dominating a game, in fact games like last weekend North were outplayed for 3.5 quarters and hence needed to flood for 3.5 quarters.
Centrals probably dominated their game from go to woh so probably didn't need to flood.

You're right about not too many game plan style changes at North, tactics was Jar's biggest downfall IMHO, the only real change has been from the Jars flat out attack game to Healey's game plan. If we're not dominating a match these days it sure aint going to be pretty but will possibly stay close until a change in momentum happens, last year we probably wold have been 12 goals down to the Bay in the last quarter with no chance.
Its not going to be pretty getting a Centrals/Power game plan on board when we're not dominating a game but we're going to be a hell of a lot closer than we were in the past.

Slightly off topic but why the need for 11 question marks in your post?

Come see me next North/Central game, I'll explain tactics and punctuation to you all in one hit.

[UK Fan]

So it is Centrals tactics that is why you flood ?????

I thought you told Dutchy Centrals have many different tactics that can change quarter by quarter. now we flood constantly ???

Dont see to many game plan style changes at the NAFC this year in the 3 games i have seen ???

Centrals flood when they need to, its quite simple, yes that can change quarter by quarter as previously discussed.
I would have thought that would make it obvious Central don't need to flood constantly, your line there is a bit confusing.

North obviously aren't as good as Central at dominating a game, in fact games like last weekend North were outplayed for 3.5 quarters and hence needed to flood for 3.5 quarters.
Centrals probably dominated their game from go to woh so probably didn't need to flood.

You're right about not too many game plan style changes at North, tactics was Jar's biggest downfall IMHO, the only real change has been from the Jars flat out attack game to Healey's game plan. If we're not dominating a match these days it sure aint going to be pretty but will possibly stay close until a change in momentum happens, last year we probably wold have been 12 goals down to the Bay in the last quarter with no chance.
Its not going to be pretty getting a Centrals/Power game plan on board when we're not dominating a game but we're going to be a hell of a lot closer than we were in the past.

Slightly off topic but why the need for 11 question marks in your post?

Come see me next North/Central game, I'll explain tactics and punctuation to you all in one hit.

So to further clarify North Adelaide flooding every week has nothing to do with Centrals at all.

Its cos your not talented enough yet.

Thanks Wedgie i thought as much.

[Wedgie]

So to further clarify North Adelaide flooding every week has nothing to do with Centrals at all.

Its cos your not talented enough yet.

Thanks Wedgie i thought as much.

Yes, in a simplistic manner that's a part of it exactly right.

[Dog_ger]

Are they talented enough to stay in the 5?

Going to be a tuff 5 this year.

4th & 5th will be interasting

6th will be unlucky in 1009

[Big Phil]

Are they talented enough to stay in the 5?

Going to be a tuff 5 this year.

4th & 5th will be interasting

6th will be unlucky in 1009

The SANFL wasn't even going way back then Dogger

[Dog_ger]

Typing Error Big Phil.

Won't be my last mistake big Fella

2009

[Big Phil]

:shock:

Typing Error Big Phil.

Won't be my last mistake big Fella

2009

Yeah, I know mate...

We alk mace tehm frmo tine to time

[fish]

Didn't Norwood win the flag in 1009?