Does anyone know the results of the tribunal 13/6
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:17 pmdid matt smith get any games
and cupido did he get any games
and cupido did he get any games
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:17 pmPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:57 pmThink Cupido's must have been withdrawn and Smith got off
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:00 pmYet we see posts like the following on Footysa.
11-Jun-06, 1:04 AM sturtpeter
How many games will Cupido miss.
I think the SANFL should remain consistent and give him a penalty which will discourage a player from similar conduct in future games.
11-Jun-06, 1:31 AM eddie-eagle
Stupid Smith should go for seven weeks plus. Gutless act to bump a players head whillst his head is over the ball. whilst Potts was lucky not to cop a spinal injury these actions MUST be removed from the game.
Was the equal of picket's sniping bump on begley in the AUWFL, for which he got 7 weeks, and chocko's chokers would have accepted four.
11-Jun-06, 1:04 AM sturtpeter
How many games will Cupido miss.
I think the SANFL should remain consistent and give him a penalty which will discourage a player from similar conduct in future games.
11-Jun-06, 1:31 AM eddie-eagle
Stupid Smith should go for seven weeks plus. Gutless act to bump a players head whillst his head is over the ball. whilst Potts was lucky not to cop a spinal injury these actions MUST be removed from the game.
Was the equal of picket's sniping bump on begley in the AUWFL, for which he got 7 weeks, and chocko's chokers would have accepted four.
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:46 pmIf I was Chambers and Sturt, I would be very annoyed. Cupido's was obviously a silly undisciplined thing and fair enough that he got off, but Smith's was disgraceful and extremely dangerous and I can not believe he didn't get at least 3 weeks.
Having been close to both Chambers silly little head butt to Pedler and then Smith's crude charging of Potter front on while his head was over the ball, I wonder what the tribunal were thinking? I really don't like Sturt and I'm not a fan of Chambers at all, but this decision by the SANFL tribunal makes no sense and if I was from Sturt I'd be livid.
Having been close to both Chambers silly little head butt to Pedler and then Smith's crude charging of Potter front on while his head was over the ball, I wonder what the tribunal were thinking? I really don't like Sturt and I'm not a fan of Chambers at all, but this decision by the SANFL tribunal makes no sense and if I was from Sturt I'd be livid.
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:02 pmI'd like to see the footage again, Smith got him high front on, no doubt about that. I would like to see how much of this contact he actually initiated though, the Eagles player seemed to move into Smith playing for the free. Footballers nowadays are doing this, get your head over it and move into the approaching player, is a free everytime!! You could tell by Smiths reaction he had no intent to harm and he himself may not have been aware the Eagles player had actually assisted the collision.
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:16 pmsmiths incident looked bad at first.
After taping the game and watching it again later the eagles player went to pick the ball up, raised his head and saw smith coming, he then fumbled the ball (took his eyes off it) and then went to pick it up again and this is when the contact from smith came.
Immediately after he raised his hand like it was un intentional and was then thrown to the ground in a tackle, which should have resulted in a reversal of the free kick if you want to be consistant.
A good decision by the tribunal in my opinion, after seeing the replay of the incident.
After taping the game and watching it again later the eagles player went to pick the ball up, raised his head and saw smith coming, he then fumbled the ball (took his eyes off it) and then went to pick it up again and this is when the contact from smith came.
Immediately after he raised his hand like it was un intentional and was then thrown to the ground in a tackle, which should have resulted in a reversal of the free kick if you want to be consistant.
A good decision by the tribunal in my opinion, after seeing the replay of the incident.