SA Footy

jo172 wrote:

whufc wrote:

jo172 wrote:Given the number of people who play each weekend and crackdowns on things like dangerous tackles an extraordinary result for the league to keep a clean sheet over an entire weekend.

Pats on the back all round

Great result for the league....well done

They've done a great job in recent years.....some may whinge about the game getting soft but imo the league has done by far whats best for the genuine guys who want to go out and 'play' football each week.

Not just the league as it is, but the Clubs and players. Ultimately clubs and players seem to be largely embracing this mindset rather than having it imposed on them against their will. For everyone's benefit

There is a pretty big deterrent for clubs - Having your affiliation stripped is pretty confronting. If you’re a dickhead whose intentions are to go out and hurt people you don’t belong on a footy field. There is a small minority that complain the game has gone soft, however the game at Amateur level in particular hasn’t ever been in better shape and the standards are as good collectively as they have ever been over the last 3-4 years in particular. If you put a side up in any division against any side from even 10-12 years ago head to head todays clubs would win comfortably and it’s far safer.

Brodlach wrote:Nothing to report this week

Thought Ingle farm had a red card this week?

holdy2323 wrote:

Brodlach wrote:Nothing to report this week

Thought Ingle farm had a red card this week?

I was at the Ingle Farm Div 7 game. Two yellow cards ..... one for each team. No red cards.

holdy2323 wrote:

Brodlach wrote:Nothing to report this week

Thought Ingle farm had a red card this week?

I believe houghton had a red card but not sure about the incident

Intimidation of an umpire must have been “rule of the week “

To post or not to post...

I think we have a genuine strategic problem in the game.

Probably an unpopular opinion.. but I feel like in efforts to "clean up" the league or behaviors, it's tipped too far the other way. The penalties often seem excessive.

Yes, I agree the majority do the right thing week in week out without a problem, and that shouldn't defend those who cross the line, but feel like it's a heavy price to pay if you stuff up twice (or even once) over your playing time to be told you can no longer play the countries national sport anymore. Ever.

For instance take Nathan Wait - adjudged captain of his club, clearly has leadership credentials, done the right thing over a long time.. suddenly his days are over off one incident (albeit serious, not trying to downplay). Brandon Rigney with Ingle Farm - his only other suspension / reportable offence came as a 17 year old kid - now 12 years later he finds himself on the edge with 1 game left.. all it takes is an umpire to view something wrong or differently - or even feel "intimidated" (flavor of the week) and he's done.

Lad from Greenacres - 25yrs old, gone.

There is no "incentive" for long sustained good behavior - you don't get back demerit points like driving offences - often you don't even get more than a 2nd chance.

I think de-registration should be a combination of either games suspended and/or reportable offences.. and I think that if a player shows good behavior over a long person of time, they should be trusted to move themselves further away from that de-reg line.

We don't need thuggery, and we don't need trouble makers - I agree - but people make mistakes, people go through tough times and equally people change and deserve opportunity to demonstrate their change.

morell wrote:To post or not to post...

I think we have a genuine strategic problem in the game.

Go on, give us a laugh. Do it.

The Bedge wrote:Probably an unpopular opinion.. but I feel like in efforts to "clean up" the league or behaviors, it's tipped too far the other way. The penalties often seem excessive.

Yes, I agree the majority do the right thing week in week out without a problem, and that shouldn't defend those who cross the line, but feel like it's a heavy price to pay if you stuff up twice (or even once) over your playing time to be told you can no longer play the countries national sport anymore. Ever.

For instance take Nathan Wait - adjudged captain of his club, clearly has leadership credentials, done the right thing over a long time.. suddenly his days are over off one incident (albeit serious, not trying to downplay). Brandon Rigney with Ingle Farm - his only other suspension / reportable offence came as a 17 year old kid - now 12 years later he finds himself on the edge with 1 game left.. all it takes is an umpire to view something wrong or differently - or even feel "intimidated" (flavor of the week) and he's done.

Lad from Greenacres - 25yrs old, gone.

There is no "incentive" for long sustained good behavior - you don't get back demerit points like driving offences - often you don't even get more than a 2nd chance.

I think de-registration should be a combination of either games suspended and/or reportable offences.. and I think that if a player shows good behavior over a long person of time, they should be trusted to move themselves further away from that de-reg line.

We don't need thuggery, and we don't need trouble makers - I agree - but people make mistakes, people go through tough times and equally people change and deserve opportunity to demonstrate their change.

Anything that's along the lines of striking, umpire abuse, etc, I'm happy with that counting towards your 12 games and if it rubs you out quickly, so be it.

I do start to align with your line of thinking when its things like 'dangerous tackle' that's rubbing people out for life.
If it's a football matter, sure, they still need to be punished, but not for life.

But yeah, if you go out and belt a bloke on the footy field, I don't care if that's the end of your career, you're not playing footy when you punch him, you're fighting, go do that elsewhere.

Just my 2 cents.

I'm not worried about the thugs, i'm worried about the victims lost to the game because of these thugs.

You’d like to know what was said in three separate games and incidents to warrant 6 matches for “intimidation of an umpire “. Can’t remember that being mentioned in a report this year although I maybe wrong then three in the same day

Raised some great points Bedge but as others has said there should be zero tolerance on striking etc.

You get lengthy periods, it’s really your own fault. Majority of players don’t ever get suspended


PS nice to see you post Bedge

The other area that concerns me is the potential influence umpires can/do have.. especially in B/C grade - and the lowest divisions.

It’s no secret the lower you are the lesser the level of umpires - and I’ve seen countless umpires that berate, taunt, antagonise players.. they’re then in a position to decide if they feel a players movements or actions are deemed intimidating or abusive? More often than not, if the umpire had been doing their job properly then matches wouldn’t escalate to the point there is an incident.

Obviously the lowest levels I’m referring - not A grade or higher level B/C.

Last post.. I wouldn’t mind seeing a behavioural rating system / coach rating / e-scoring model like the SANFL Jnrs. Rate coach, bench and spectator behaviour and control and provide feedback on good/bad.

Surely would give real time feedback on clubs that need to address areas of concern.

I know I’d love to have that data so I could show coaches / players how their mannerisms impact or are perceived by external people.

Equally, A grade coaches should be able to provide appropriate feedback on umpires.

In respect of the de-registration point I'm not a huge fan of junior suspensions counting towards de-registration.

I could also be persuaded into some kind of "spent convictions" system. I.e, you get suspended in Round 1 2023, you keep your nose clean for 10 years (playing every year and a minimum of 12-15 games or whatever) and get suspended in round 1 2034 your 2023 suspension doesn't count towards de-registration.

Ultimately this is a matter for the clubs at the AGM to try and change the rule if they deem it unfair.

In respect of umpires, the real problem is not enough umpires and not enough qualified and good umpires. This is a bloody good reason in of itself to come down hard on those who abuse/intimidate.

I think there's some attraction to a condition of registration of a side is that you as a club have an umpire for that side but they are not allocated to games of that Club. This means the League has an umpire in respect of every team and notionally game, and we get rid of perceptions of bias/antagonism.

Trader wrote:

morell wrote:To post or not to post...

I think we have a genuine strategic problem in the game.

Go on, give us a laugh. Do it.

Bedge has nailed it

See the trick isn't to know everything, but rather to know who does and create the space for them

Hot tip for young players

Putting in some context, who here remembers when clubs supplied umpires for B’s & C’s? Was the biggest load of shit each week and it fuelled massive fights. It was clearly an issue as club umpires could only umpire the defensive half for obvious reasons.

Personally, I don’t have any issues with umpire abuse, striking ect. Dangerous tackles and head high football incidents are a massive issue even at the highest level. The game is clearly going through a transition that over time will settle down with the evolvement of the game. Overall, todays product in any division is far better than it was even 10 years ago. Understand the context and there’s always room for improvement, however fmd go back to even the late 2000’s and this is far better. Personal opinion.

Being found guilty of striking a player has to be worth more games than a dangerous tackle

WHEELS&DEALS wrote:Being found guilty of striking a player has to be worth more games than a dangerous tackle

In most cases there’s no arguments there however you can’t be as general as that. If a player intentionally defends and misses the ball to make connection to someone’s head I see that as a lesser concern than picking up a player and intentionally dumping them to the ground with no way to break the fall.

Agree that a striking incident vs a dangerous tackle could be looked at differently when it comes to de-registration rather than a blanket 12 games.

In saying that I think the league definitely needs to be on the side of being too strict vs being too lenanient.

Personally I would rather see a bloke who gets done for belting someone out the game quicker vs someone who is maybe treading a fine line with say a dubious dangerous tackle decision.

Like deadset if you go a belt someone on two seperate occasions, piss off, go join your local boxing or mma club.