SA Footy

Barracker1 wrote:Update: The Scotch OC player somehow got a bleeding spleen when he was 30M off the play. Its still bleeding today (Tuesday) His seasons over till 2021and if Flinders medical staff have their way, he wont play again as his spleen would certainly rupture if hit again. He is 21 and confronted with this. Apparently there is a tribunal hearing tomorrow night so lets all stop the commentary and see how the Ammos deal with it.

Advertise article says it was Josh Heading who got hit, any idea if he is the same one that played at Flaggies? Age is similar.

Pag wrote:

Down the Hill wrote:This was probably out of our leagues hands. I suspect Broadview or the player has lodged an appeal to the SACFL under their rules and regulations. This can only be done if an affiliated league tribunal suspends a player for 6 matches or more. Not sure the technicalities thereafter but if they were forced to defer the appeal through no fault of the player then maybe no choice of the SACFL to allow him to play yesterday.

If this is the case, it’s a crap rule and needs to be changed. It means the worst offenders and offences can get through a loophole that clearly shouldn’t be there.

If a guy is found guilty for a serious assault, is sentenced to six years, and then launches an appeal, he isn't a free man whilst he waits for said appeal? Shrek would clearly know more about the legal system than me but it doesn't fit I don't think.

Short answer is that bail pending appeal is very normal when the matter is one that is being appealed from the Magistrates Court. Bail pending appeal is extraordinary when it is a matter being appealed from a higher court.

Every case is dealt with on its merits though and the principles are a bit too complicated for a post here.

It’s fair to say though that 6 year’s imprisonment doesn’t really compare to 6 weeks off footy.

The Advertiser Afternoon Edition 11/08/2
Banned footballer stars on the field while waiting for appeal
A local footballer, who was suspended for seven weeks for a strike that left the victim in hospital,has been allowed to continue playing while his appeal is being reviewed. Watch This Space

Barracker1 wrote:The Advertiser Afternoon Edition 11/08/2
Banned footballer stars on the field while waiting for appeal
A local footballer, who was suspended for seven weeks for a strike that left the victim in hospital,has been allowed to continue playing while his appeal is being reviewed. Watch This Space

When is the appeal being heard?

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

Barracker1 wrote:The Advertiser Afternoon Edition 11/08/2
Banned footballer stars on the field while waiting for appeal
A local footballer, who was suspended for seven weeks for a strike that left the victim in hospital,has been allowed to continue playing while his appeal is being reviewed. Watch This Space

When is the appeal being heard?

wednesday evening

A decision to appeal this is made from the top.

coach, president, football director. Not surprising really, Grainger is a good coach, but the last 4 clubs he has been at has always been left in a worse position after he leaves, sucks the culture out at the expense of a result.

On the appeal, does he risk the prospect of receiving more games?

What happens if still found guilty, and was allowed to play on the weekend?

Playing on Saturday probably stands without any comeback from the league or the opposition club. Not sure if the SACFL Appeal system has the power to increase the suspension but only rule on it being manifestly unfair and reduce it accordingly if it rules in favour of the appellant. In the SFL, if a club lodges a report it goes to an investigation committee that usually doesn't get heard until the following week which means the player is free to play the week after the alleged incident occurred. It's not ideal but in a way no different to when a tribunal hands down a trifling suspension and is able to return to play against an opponent that may have otherwise expected the player to still be suspended. Even the AFL has had to succumb to legal processes when it comes to tribunal findings. Sydney Swans with Dunkley in 1996 and I think it happened again with the Sydney Swans with Barry Hall in 2005 or 2006.

PS: ohwhenthesaints goes BANG with his debut post. Welcome to SA Footy.

Down the Hill wrote:Playing on Saturday probably stands without any comeback from the league or the opposition club. Not sure if the SACFL Appeal system has the power to increase the suspension but only rule on it being manifestly unfair and reduce it accordingly if it rules in favour of the appellant. In the SFL, if a club lodges a report it goes to an investigation committee that usually doesn't get heard until the following week which means the player is free to play the week after the alleged incident occurred. It's not ideal but in a way no different to when a tribunal hands down a trifling suspension and is able to return to play against an opponent that may have otherwise expected the player to still be suspended. Even the AFL has had to succumb to legal processes when it comes to tribunal findings. Sydney Swans with Dunkley in 1996 and I think it happened again with the Sydney Swans with Barry Hall in 2005 or 2006.

PS: ohwhenthesaints goes BANG with his debut post. Welcome to SA Footy.

Will admit that i'm not up to speed with the current appeal process at the SACFL but in years gone by, if a player made an appeal of a suspension to the SANFL the case was effectively re-heard and any decision was possible from there, including increasing the suspension. (an increase happened as often as a decrease).

Not guilty. Charges thrown out, is the word I've heard

Footy Chick wrote:Not guilty. Charges thrown out, is the word I've heard

Ive heard injuries not as severe as first reported.

Footy Chick wrote:Not guilty. Charges thrown out, is the word I've heard

yes i can confirm thats correct

locky801 wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:Not guilty. Charges thrown out, is the word I've heard

yes i can confirm thats correct

Really hoping they release their reasoning behind why they threw out the charges!
As this made the news there will be people wanting answers no less the bloke who got hit

the smokey wrote:Really hoping they release their reasoning behind why they threw out the charges!
As this made the news there will be people wanting answers no less the bloke who got hit

I heard whispers that the Scotch statements didn't match up - they were all different account of events.

Barracker1 wrote:Further news on the Broadview Scotch incident. Downed player has a ruptured spleen. In case you dont know what a ruptured spleen here is the definition and its cause.

"A ruptured spleen is typically caused by a blow to the left upper abdomen or the left lower chest, such as might happen during sporting mishaps, fistfights and car crashes. An injured spleen can rupture soon after the abdominal trauma or, in some cases, days or weeks after the injury.

I think that says it all.

??

The Bedge wrote:

the smokey wrote:Really hoping they release their reasoning behind why they threw out the charges!
As this made the news there will be people wanting answers no less the bloke who got hit

I heard whispers that the Scotch statements didn't match up - they were all different account of events.

Id love to hear the Broadview players story of events..... he just fell over his own feet and ended up in hospital, I had nothing to do with it!!

PRESS RELEASE


The Broadview Football Club commends the SAAFL appeal process for delivering justice to our charged player, Kobi Russell, who’s conduct throughout an extremely challenging & stressful period has been exemplary.

We wish the injured Scotch player Joshua Macpherson-Heading all the best with his recovery & thank him for his honesty at the appeal hearing, which resulted in the truth finally coming out.

On behalf of all footballers and football clubs we urge those who have chosen to comment on this case in the public arena, with some of the comments being quite disgraceful, to consider the potential consequences of such comments – particularly when they are not consistent with the facts.

Let’s now all move forward & focus on the remainder of the 2020 footy season.

Board of Directors
Broadview Football Club Inc.

[quote="FOURTH ESTATE"]PRESS RELEASE


The Broadview Football Club commends the SAAFL appeal process for delivering justice to our charged player, Kobi Russell, who’s conduct throughout an extremely challenging & stressful period has been exemplary.

We wish the injured Scotch player Joshua Macpherson-Heading all the best with his recovery & thank him for his honesty at the appeal hearing, which resulted in the truth finally coming out.


Does this mean he lied at the intial hearing?? As i stated before I would have loved to know what was said last night and how he ended up with the injuries if it had nothing to do with Kobi Russell.

the smokey wrote:

Does this mean he lied at the intial hearing?? As i stated before I would have loved to know what was said last night and how he ended up with the injuries if it had nothing to do with Kobi Russell.

Geez mate, the public (and on here) had Russell hung and given de-registration on an incident that we could only speculate what happened.

It was a very ballsy appeal if there was any shadow of doubt that the player was guilty, the BFC obviously were very diligent with their appeal and the tribunal obviously were privvy to some evidence that was unavailable initially.

It will never happen but in future reports shouldn't be discussed on here until after the tribunal hearing.

the smokey wrote:

locky801 wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:Not guilty. Charges thrown out, is the word I've heard

yes i can confirm thats correct

Really hoping they release their reasoning behind why they threw out the charges!
As this made the news there will be people wanting answers no less the bloke who got hit

if none of the statements actually were consistent, you wonder what the tribunal is doing handing down 7 weeks.

from 7 weeks to being thrown out....

seems they just throw things into a barrel and just pluck things out.