SA Footy

Should be a good game next week.
I can't find the rule relating to the definition of a charge. It would be interesting to see the definition of bumping someone (that's what I thought it was), front on, off the ball whilst they're not in possesion.
I don't need the definition of a tackle whilst in possesion.

As for Stampys moronic comment "we have your number sunshine". Here's one more appropriate for you: Glenside Mental Hospital 8303 1111.

You're probably the tosser named "Jack" who rang 5aa after the game saying "the poms from Elizabeth shouldn't bother getting on the bus next week and Glenelg are going to kick their heads in".

1-all he says.

sjt wrote:Should be a good game next week.
I can't find the rule relating to the definition of a charge. It would be interesting to see the definition of bumping someone (that's what I thought it was), front on, off the ball whilst they're not in possesion.
I don't need the definition of a tackle whilst in possesion.

As for Stampys moronic comment "we have your number sunshine". Here's one more appropriate for you: Glenside Mental Hospital 8303 1111.

You're probably the tosser named "Jack" who rang 5aa after the game saying "the poms from Elizabeth shouldn't bother getting on the bus next week and Glenelg are going to kick their heads in".

Jack from Brahma Lodge, probably the same Doggys supporter that rang up criticising Roy Laird a couple of weeks ago...

Sounded more like a Doggy's supporter trying to motivate his team with reverse psychology

Maybe he sent the "cards"?

SJT the definition of a charge from the 2008 law book


You need to read law 19.2.1 to calrify the the nature of teh charge recklessly, negligently or intentional
19.2.1 D egree 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; and
(b) the Tribunal or other body appointed to hear and determine the
report may find the report proven if it is reasonably satisfied
that the conduct was either intentional, reckless or negligent.

The specific law relating to charging

19.2.2 (g)
(g) intentionally, recklessly or negligently:
(i) kicking another person;
(ii) striking another person;
(iii) tripping another person whether by hand, arm, foot
or leg;
(iv) engaging in Time Wasting;
(v) Charging another person;
(vi) throwing or pushing another Player after that Player
has taken a Mark, disposed of the football or after the
football is otherwise out of play;
(vii) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in
the circumstances is unreasonable;

Thanks Tassie, that's pretty clear.

either intentional, reckless or negligent. I'm pretty sure it wasn't unintentional.
Having said that, regardless I'd rather play them at as close to full strength as possible it sweetens any potential victory.

Well this topic got a lot of interest - not. I assume all were happy with it, nothing to answer for, Stampy, Dutchy ? Not intentional ? No impact on the player ? Be interesting to see if it gets any radio air time. I'm betting not. Not that KG would have seen it anyway.

By the way, I think regardless of the laws of the game (which I believe it infringes), I don't think it should be sighted..It's just I think a degree of hypocrisy is very evident.

From whom? And what was the scenario?

Mules, shirt fronted Thomson in the last quarter. It was off the ball, Mules ran through him. Arm was down, "perfect" hip and shoulder front on into an unexpectant Thomson. Thomson was watching the ball, Mules was watching Thomson. Thomson was carried/helped off after being knocked out. Not stretchered off, by two trainers. Play was stopped even though there was no stretcher, due the players condition.
I only saw it twice on the replay, so could stand corrected with the detail. The commentators had conflicting views.

I heard that during ABC radio's call.
Commentators said it was just good hard football.

sjt wrote:Mules, shirt fronted Thomson in the last quarter. It was off the ball, Mules ran through him. Arm was down, "perfect" hip and shoulder front on into an unexpectant Thomson. Thomson was watching the ball, Mules was watching Thomson. Thomson was carried/helped off after being knocked out. Not stretchered off, by two trainers. Play was stopped even though there was no stretcher, due the players condition.
I only saw it twice on the replay, so could stand corrected with the detail. The commentators had conflicting views.

I thought Cross and Pyman both said it was OK. The ball was in the area, Backwell (I think) had just taken possession and Thomson was within five metres, Mules ran past Backwell to make sure Thomson didn't get to him. Was a perfect hip-and-shoulder. Don't even know if the AFL would've sighted him for it.

AFL I think would've sighted him for it. SANFL wouldn't. One of the reasons we like SANFL. I think it could be argued in defence that it was a sheperd. I think a Glenelg player had just taken possesion. I think the charge rule was bought in from memory when Hocking charged Harvey in the AFL. Thomson wasn't expecting it, didnt have the ball was open and got intentionally cleaned up. personally I don't think there was anything wrong with it due the fact you can "clean" someone up if they're chasing the ball carrier and within 5 metres (I think), and it's termed a sheperd. I don't think it was courageous nor tough. Technically it was a charge with intention.
I think they need to look at the law relating to sheperding though. Not just in relation to this incident but others during the year. Not really to fussed though, just pointing out the hypocrisy we've seen of late. I wouldn't be happy if a doggies player got sighted for it, under current laws, but I imagine if a doggies player had done it we'd have 12 pages of posts.

Ha! I reckon that everyone that dons a jumper and runs on the oval is reckless. The way players run at the ball without thought for their personal safety is reckless. Report them all then if that's what the rule says

sjt wrote:Well this topic got a lot of interest - not. I assume all were happy with it, nothing to answer for, Stampy, Dutchy?

you're embarassing yourself here...

I think not, but thanks for your insightful input. Cheers

sjt wrote: but I imagine if a doggies player had done it we'd have 12 pages of posts.

We already have had 12 pages of posts - Luke McCabe on Troy Butcher in 2006.

sjt wrote:AFL I think would've sighted him for it. SANFL wouldn't. One of the reasons we like SANFL. I think it could be argued in defence that it was a sheperd. I think a Glenelg player had just taken possesion. I think the charge rule was bought in from memory when Hocking charged Harvey in the AFL. Thomson wasn't expecting it, didnt have the ball was open and got intentionally cleaned up. personally I don't think there was anything wrong with it due the fact you can "clean" someone up if they're chasing the ball carrier and within 5 metres (I think), and it's termed a sheperd. I don't think it was courageous nor tough. Technically it was a charge with intention.
I think they need to look at the law relating to sheperding though. Not just in relation to this incident but others during the year. Not really to fussed though, just pointing out the hypocrisy we've seen of late. I wouldn't be happy if a doggies player got sighted for it, under current laws, but I imagine if a doggies player had done it we'd have 12 pages of posts.

i dont write a lot of posts....yours is the reason why.....your just looking for an arguement.....maybe with Stampy or dutchy perhaps.....

watch the replay again....where were you when Gowans made that COURAGEOUS hit in last years grand final................OH NO HERE WE GO


AGAIN!!!!!!!


appologies to other Centrals fans

BEAUTIFUL! (9 letters).

CENTURION wrote:BEAUTIFUL! (9 letters).

ARSEHOLES....(9 letters)

SJABC wrote:

CENTURION wrote:BEAUTIFUL! (9 letters).

ARSEHOLES....(9 letters)

but it was performed by only 1 "arsehole"! (only 8 letters)

Dutchy wrote:

sjt wrote:Well this topic got a lot of interest - not. I assume all were happy with it, nothing to answer for, Stampy, Dutchy?

you're embarassing yourself here...

but not with spelling

.....nice edit, congratulations..............

....to the administrators who now provide post correction......

Still no-one has a definition of a Charge - interesting.

Also, 19.2.2 (g)(vii) "engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in
the circumstances is unreasonable;" is a classic example of a bad rule - it could mean anything and will mean something different to everyone