SA Footy

From memory Luke Jericho copped a suspension several years ago for saying far less

whybother wrote:But still no investigation into exactly what happened and why

What Happened? - North Cheated
Why? - To gain an advantage

Cheating is deliberate. This was not deliberate.

DOC wrote:Cheating is deliberate. This was not deliberate.

I do not think North intended to have 19 on. A stuff up no doubt.

JK wrote:From memory Luke Jericho copped a suspension several years ago for saying far less

Is this the one?
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/af ... 19f4126e35

Got a reprimand - no suspension or fine. But yes, a lot lower on the scale.

Hopeful Jelly wrote:

JK wrote:From memory Luke Jericho copped a suspension several years ago for saying far less

Is this the one?
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/af ... 19f4126e35

Got a reprimand - no suspension or fine. But yes, a lot lower on the scale.

Must have been mate, I thought he got a game. Regardless, the league’s made it pretty clear and all clubs and players know the drill - Whilst Seb would have obviously been distressed after losing such a big final, think he was always gonna cop some sort of whack for an outburst of that nature

Guilhaus pleaded guilty to the charge, which was heard before SANFL Tribunal panel chairman Ian White.

Interesting Ian White is a former NA player.

DOC wrote:Cheating is deliberate. This was not deliberate.

Yes, most (if not all people) accept that it was not deliberate, but "cheating" does not have to be deliberate.

Think of a sportsperson accidentally taking a drug that is on the banned list - eg. Shane Warne with the diuretic, or the Essendon players (if they did actually take what the authorities thought they did), etc. They didn't act "deliberately" to gain an advantage, but it's still cheating.

Regarding Seb's comments, there were other players commenting about the 19th man, but the worst part of it (which was missed by some media outlets) was mentioning the 31-17 free kick count and suggesting that the umpiring was rigged.

A 3-match ban might be right if maybe a little harsh, but comparing that to NA's 2-match penalty and fine (that was recouped just by playing in the GF) for actually "cheating", it might be considered laughable by some.

Someone got a ban for a comment on facebook... That's a joke. What is the SANFL coming too.

Is this the old East Germany or North Korea?

What a joke. He would have got less games for striking.
Get rid of Olsen and his fellow AFL loving yes men.

How come this suspension is not reported like other tribunals are reported? ie Base sanction, reduced by so much for good record etc etc . Was Seb's match penalty actually much higher than the 3 match suspension that he has to serve?

woodublieve12 wrote:Someone got a ban for a comment on facebook... That's a joke. What is the SANFL coming too.

SAAFL club have social media policies, I'm sure the WWTFC do as well, it's just Gilhaus and Boyd didn't listen at the meeting.

woodublieve12 wrote:Someone got a ban for a comment on facebook... That's a joke. What is the SANFL coming too.

Ridiculous isn’t it.
What happen to freedom of speech?

All this PC is absolute crud!

People and entities are so precious these days.

goddy11 wrote:Guilhaus pleaded guilty to the charge, which was heard before SANFL Tribunal panel chairman Ian White.

Interesting Ian White is a former NA player.

And South Adelaide!

whybother wrote:How come this suspension is not reported like other tribunals are reported? ie Base sanction, reduced by so much for good record etc etc . Was Seb's match penalty actually much higher than the 3 match suspension that he has to serve?

He was high so that was 2 matches.
It was a forceful impact comment so that was 2 matches.
It was deliberate so that was 2 matches.
His past record of being a loser added another 2.

8 matches reduced to 3 matches because he choked on 5 of them so they were suspended.

Wedgie wrote:

whybother wrote:How come this suspension is not reported like other tribunals are reported? ie Base sanction, reduced by so much for good record etc etc . Was Seb's match penalty actually much higher than the 3 match suspension that he has to serve?

He was high so that was 2 matches.
It was a forceful impact comment so that was 2 matches.
It was deliberate so that was 2 matches.
His past record of being a loser added another 2.

8 matches reduced to 3 matches because he choked on 5 of them so they were suspended.

should have been given 19

Wedgie wrote:

whybother wrote:How come this suspension is not reported like other tribunals are reported? ie Base sanction, reduced by so much for good record etc etc . Was Seb's match penalty actually much higher than the 3 match suspension that he has to serve?

He was high so that was 2 matches.
It was a forceful impact comment so that was 2 matches.
It was deliberate so that was 2 matches.
His past record of being a loser added another 2.

8 matches reduced to 3 matches because he choked on 5 of them so they were suspended.

+1 for being intentional
-1 for pleading guilty(well sort of as his rant was in his name)

Does anyone know if Seb quoted on his private Facebook account or was it on the SANFL Facebook. If he posted on his own account did someone dob him in. Poor form if that's the case.

goddy11 wrote:Does anyone know if Seb quoted on his private Facebook account or was it on the SANFL Facebook. If he posted on his own account did someone dob him in. Poor form if that's the case.

Poor form by him or the person who "dobbed" him in?

It's one of two things, Gilhaus was dumb or Gilhaus was dumb. You can have it either way.