by Harry the Horse » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:54 am
by Big Phil » Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:13 pm
Harry the Horse wrote:Can anyone explain to me how you can be found guilty for striking an "unknown" Woodville-West Torrens player?
Was at the game although didn't see this incident. Still, how can the League make a charge stick if they don't know who he hit? Anyone see it?
by Pseudo » Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:27 pm
Big Phil wrote:On watching a taped replay of the game the other night, there were a few big bralws in this game so perhaps it was in one of them ?
by Grahaml » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:11 pm
by Big Phil » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:26 pm
Pseudo wrote:Big Phil wrote:On watching a taped replay of the game the other night, there were a few big bralws in this game so perhaps it was in one of them ?
I had heard that there was no video footage of the specific incident.
I don't know if Mills pleaded guilty, which would make video evidence redundant.
by wycbloods » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:34 pm
by Harry the Horse » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:39 pm
by redandblack » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:57 pm
by wycbloods » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:59 pm
Harry the Horse wrote:Got one game after pleading not guilty. So no video evidence ... and they've accepted the word of an umpire who said ... "Duh, I saw him hit someone."
Interesting.
by Harry the Horse » Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:00 pm
by wycbloods » Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:01 pm
Harry the Horse wrote:You can add Logan to that who will def play for the Powders
by Dirko » Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:09 pm
by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:12 pm
Grahaml wrote:If they can be sure he hit someone, but not sure who surely he's still guilty? I see how it would be tough to have a situation where this could happen, but perhaps if the umpire saw him hit a player, but was immediately more concerned with breaking up a fracas than getting the number of the player who was hit, this could happen.
by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:14 pm
redandblack wrote:I also watched the game tape. The reaction of the Eagles player certainly suggested that something untoward had happened.
That's not evidence, but.......
by drebin » Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:22 pm
by BL&G_Ump » Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:29 pm
by Mickyj » Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:38 pm
MAY-Z wrote:Grahaml wrote:If they can be sure he hit someone, but not sure who surely he's still guilty? I see how it would be tough to have a situation where this could happen, but perhaps if the umpire saw him hit a player, but was immediately more concerned with breaking up a fracas than getting the number of the player who was hit, this could happen.
lol at that comment - when the fight was on in teh last qtr teh only umpire that was anywhere near it for the duration of about 2-3 mins was a boundary umpire.
then acouple of minutes later in the same spot the fight starts again but with the ball in the area this time the umpire is only watching the fight and not the play
by Mickyj » Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:39 pm
drebin wrote:Another baffling outcome from the "Tribunal" (using that term loosely too). One game for striking who??? No body knows yet he gets "conked" on the "snozzer" himself and no one gets done for that?
Surely the umps could have just picked any Eagles player and blamed him (apparently you don't need to too much evidence these days!) and given him one to even it up or better still do nothing to anyone!
The whole reporting / tribunal hearing system has become a laughing stock almost beyond a joke these days and it is time for the SANFL to overhaul it.
by MatteeG » Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:40 pm
BL&G_Ump wrote:Judging by the amount of Eagles players running around with head strapping, Mills had a field day!!!!
helicopterking wrote:Flaggies will choke. Always have.
by Mickyj » Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:41 pm
BL&G_Ump wrote:Judging by the amount of Eagles players running around with head strapping, Mills had a field day!!!!
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |