"They" only posed for a photo of the boys having fun at the pub
1 person uploaded it to fb
1 person wrote the words f u to the league
Do u reckon they all sat around first saying lets all pose and give a big f u photo to league. Most such as the coach would certainly not have participated
Was it posted on rosewater fc fb wall?
1 kids actions again and whole club is being burnt to the ground again
Its not one kids action, if he had posted the photo without all of them holding the finger up you could put the blame on one person, but them all flipping the bird confirms that they all knew what was happening and they were all compliant in it. Stupid and you can't defend it.
Stupid indeed.. But if that's the lead story on the news then Christ almighty it must have been a slow news day..
But, those present in the photo haven't been suspended or found guilty of any offence yet are stuck unable to play footy because of the actions of a few. They have been punished without individually having done anything wrong. One bloke posts the silly photo and whether they all knew he would a.) Post it and b.) Add that caption, is open to speculation. I doubt Ricky would have sanctioned it had he knew he would caption it like that.
*I don't know 2 of the people in the photo, so one of them could be a bloke who got suspended this season, but I can account for the rest of them*
Unfair on the blokes that do the right thing week in week out. You'd be disappointed being suspended so close to finals and they had beaten everyone above them on the ladder as well. But if the league thinks enough is enough then there's not a great deal you can do about it and posting a photo like that aimed at the league is just dumb.
I've gotta be honest, I've been surprised by the amount of coverage received by both Roewater and Elizabeth in this whole process. It's been a bit OTT. My understanding is that Channel 7 is heavily targeting the northern suburbs in regards to coverage, as Nine's ratings were higher there than Seven's - that might explain the coverage Elizabeth received. As far as their negative focus on Rosies, I've noticed that Seven will often run stories about SAAFL footy when there's a negative. Could it have something to do with Nine being the sponsor of the league?
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher wrote:I've gotta be honest, I've been surprised by the amount of coverage received by both Roewater and Elizabeth in this whole process. It's been a bit OTT. My understanding is that Channel 7 is heavily targeting the northern suburbs in regards to coverage, as Nine's ratings were higher there than Seven's - that might explain the coverage Elizabeth received. As far as their negative focus on Rosies, I've noticed that Seven will often run stories about SAAFL footy when there's a negative. Could it have something to do with Nine being the sponsor of the league?
id say they measure the social media impact/clicks on these stories and base it on that, It gets traction so they lead with it. Also its an easy story on a Sunday when presumably they don;t have the number of reporters on the ground as they do during the week.
Media will only report something if it is news worthy, so simply don't give them content!
Dogwatcher wrote:I've gotta be honest, I've been surprised by the amount of coverage received by both Roewater and Elizabeth in this whole process. It's been a bit OTT. My understanding is that Channel 7 is heavily targeting the northern suburbs in regards to coverage, as Nine's ratings were higher there than Seven's - that might explain the coverage Elizabeth received. As far as their negative focus on Rosies, I've noticed that Seven will often run stories about SAAFL footy when there's a negative. Could it have something to do with Nine being the sponsor of the league?
id say they measure the social media impact/clicks on these stories and base it on that, It gets traction so they lead with it. Also its an easy story on a Sunday when presumably they don;t have the number of reporters on the ground as they do during the week.
Media will only report something if it is news worthy, so simply don't give them content!
I reckon you have hit the nail on the head. Its all about who belongs to who.
Query - if Rosewater and the players have been deregistered by the league (press release from the league), then how can the league demand any explanation from them or punish any of the players?
Dols wrote:Query - if Rosewater and the players have been deregistered by the league (press release from the league), then how can the league demand any explanation from them or punish any of the players?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It would affect the registration for 2017. why would you let them back in when not less than 7 days kicking them out the previous season carrying on like absolute melons....
Dols wrote:Query - if Rosewater and the players have been deregistered by the league (press release from the league), then how can the league demand any explanation from them or punish any of the players?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It would affect the registration for 2017. why would you let them back in when not less than 7 days kicking them out the previous season carrying on like absolute melons....
agree but the league saying they have demanded an explanation, they aren't entitled to anything, they deregistered them.
Dols wrote:Query - if Rosewater and the players have been deregistered by the league (press release from the league), then how can the league demand any explanation from them or punish any of the players?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It would affect the registration for 2017. why would you let them back in when not less than 7 days kicking them out the previous season carrying on like absolute melons....
Because banning them for 2017 would be entirely disproportionate
Dols wrote:Query - if Rosewater and the players have been deregistered by the league (press release from the league), then how can the league demand any explanation from them or punish any of the players?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It would affect the registration for 2017. why would you let them back in when not less than 7 days kicking them out the previous season carrying on like absolute melons....
agree but the league saying they have demanded an explanation, they aren't entitled to anything, they deregistered them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because the club is likely to see to re-register and the SAAFL would like all the information about the situation so they can determine if it requires extra attention when they put together the conditions upon their return. Makes sense to me.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dols wrote:Query - if Rosewater and the players have been deregistered by the league (press release from the league), then how can the league demand any explanation from them or punish any of the players?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It would affect the registration for 2017. why would you let them back in when not less than 7 days kicking them out the previous season carrying on like absolute melons....
Because banning them for 2017 would be entirely disproportionate
Dols wrote:Query - if Rosewater and the players have been deregistered by the league (press release from the league), then how can the league demand any explanation from them or punish any of the players?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It would affect the registration for 2017. why would you let them back in when not less than 7 days kicking them out the previous season carrying on like absolute melons....
Because banning them for 2017 would be entirely disproportionate
cant believe I agree with a solicitor
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You can be very sensible when you're not drinking.
thejuddernaught wrote:The bar has been set now by the SAAFL. It'd be interesting to see what sort of punishment is handed out if a Division 1 club player were to strike an umpire?
Depends which club, no doubt the suspension to the player would be same/similar - however I couldn't imagine them deregistering any of the College Bloc.
thejuddernaught wrote:The bar has been set now by the SAAFL. It'd be interesting to see what sort of punishment is handed out if a Division 1 club player were to strike an umpire?
Depends which club, no doubt the suspension to the player would be same/similar - however I couldn't imagine them deregistering any of the College Bloc.
I agree with you but it shouldn't matter which club it is. I understand that the Rumbelow incident was the "last straw" in a series of reports, but if a College side for example Prince Alfred Old Collegians , Division 1, a player were to strike an umpire, it'd be very interesting to see what sanction would be given.
