SA Footy

jo172 wrote:

Sass! wrote:

jo172 wrote:The point above would be a bit stronger if it wasn't the 4th incident in 14 months.

Modbury would have to be the unluckiest Club in the Country to have so many significant incidents in such a short period of time, all of which dealing with people outside their control.

In any event, with the amended affiliation agreement model the League's been pretty clear that it's working towards a model of collective responsibility for club disciplinary breaches for a long time and it would appear to be clearly working.

If you think that four individual incidents by 4 indivduals (1 with absolutely nothing to do with our club) over the space of 1 and a half seasons fits into the cataegory of "so many" then you are ignorant. When you regularly get a couple of thousand people to your home games, it is impossible for our club members and officials to ensrue that not one person steps out of line for a single moment, despite an enormous effort by our committee to do so.

Sass! wrote: Oh its certainly possible

Sass! wrote:

jo172 wrote:

Sass! wrote:

jo172 wrote:The point above would be a bit stronger if it wasn't the 4th incident in 14 months.

Modbury would have to be the unluckiest Club in the Country to have so many significant incidents in such a short period of time, all of which dealing with people outside their control.

In any event, with the amended affiliation agreement model the League's been pretty clear that it's working towards a model of collective responsibility for club disciplinary breaches for a long time and it would appear to be clearly working.

If you think that four individual incidents by 4 indivduals (1 with absolutely nothing to do with our club) over the space of 1 and a half seasons fits into the cataegory of "so many" then you are ignorant. When you regularly get a couple of thousand people to your home games, it is impossible for our club members and officials to ensrue that not one person steps out of line for a single moment, despite an enormous effort by our committee to do so.

Sass! wrote: Oh its certainly possible

Fantastic achievement Jo, youve made an incredibly valid point.. you are correct, Modbury are an ultra-vilonet club that encourages unrest and completely ignores the fact that it relies heavily on a vibrant and postive culture to keep Juniors around so they can make their way up the divisions and be sustainable there. Its a dangerous place to be and you should avoid it all costs, stay safe in your glass house mate and have a great day.

Q. wrote:Does Modbury usually have multiple MDOs on the days they attract large crowds?

Sass! wrote:

Q. wrote:Does Modbury usually have multiple MDOs on the days they attract large crowds?

yes mate, and a number of committee members, club members and others that can address matters if an isolate instance occurs.

morell wrote:This is kind of like watching a cat play with a mouse.

Classic case of "Responding to Tone".

morell wrote:Yeah and jo's point, which is apt, is that is absolutely understandable the first time something like this occurred.

Second time? Maybe excusable, still learning about what the problem is.

Third time? Now a trend. Must act.

Fourth time? Something has to be done by the league. With thousands rocking up to a game for a local derby and a recent and repeated history of unruly crowd behaviour, the league simply has to minimise its risk.

Rusty81 wrote:

morell wrote:Yeah and jo's point, which is apt, is that is absolutely understandable the first time something like this occurred.

Second time? Maybe excusable, still learning about what the problem is.

Third time? Now a trend. Must act.

Fourth time? Something has to be done by the league. With thousands rocking up to a game for a local derby and a recent and repeated history of unruly crowd behaviour, the league simply has to minimise its risk.

Do you think it might be possible that because of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and now 4th 'incident' umpires/officials become hyper aware of this and are quicker to report incidents than they are at other clubs? Perhaps even have their ears pricked looking for it?

The punishment is extremely harsh not only on MFC but on the wider sporting community in the area. This game brings so many supporters out to Amateur footy, many whom don't normally attend.

I have no problem with the club losing a home game if that is deemed the most appropriate punishment by the league but to make it this game seems overs to me!

SATCHEL wrote:What I will say is that you cannot and I challenge anyone to tell me differently, manage and control every single person that comes to watch a game of footy. Its physically impossible.

jo172 wrote:My suspicion is that the whole moving of the Gullies game is Modbury being a victim of the calendar. By all logic a penalty needs to be the next [x] games'.

Bloody bad luck that it was TTG and not SPOC or someone

Sass! wrote:And Morrell, i usually agree with alot of what you say but i have to completely disagree with you on the fact that moving the gullies game was about removing the risk.. Modbury and Gullies are neighbours, its one of the healthiest and longest rivalries in Amateur league but far from a spiteful affair, the opposition players, officials and supporters are often work colleagues, family members or very close mates.. the day is anything but spiteful and about local bragging rights.. Moving that game is about inflicting a significant punishment and potentially even netting some profit (if there is a charge on the gate for the day).