Life ban

[LaughingKookaburra]

And that's where I was coming from when I mentioned showing the entire incident. The Facebook post fails to show the entire incident prior to boiling over. If you showed a bloke sprinting 100 metered to go do that then sorry mate cop it on the chin.

[The Big Shrek]

It's easy to pot the bloke as many have done here. He obviously did the wrong thing.

This misses the point. The question that should be asked is does what he did deserve a life ban from football?

I think the answer to that is no.

Does anyone know who decides whether players can re-register after s ban?

[bird of prey]

It's easy to pot the bloke as many have done here. He obviously did the wrong thing.

This misses the point. The question that should be asked is does what he did deserve a life ban from football?

I think the answer to that is no.

Does anyone know who decides whether players can re-register after s ban?

A majority on here say yes. The tribunal and league said yes.

The idea of a life ban, is a life ban.

So unless it's in another life, the rules say he can not re-register. Pretty simple really.

He may be a decent bloke off the field. But that's irrelevant here.

[Footy Chick]

It's easy to pot the bloke as many have done here. He obviously did the wrong thing.

This misses the point. The question that should be asked is does what he did deserve a life ban from football?

I think the answer to that is no.

Does anyone know who decides whether players can re-register after s ban?

I'm not sure whether it's at the discretion of the league or whether it has to go through the CFL, would be easy enough to find out though.

[Robb_Stark]

just like you made a big deal about second chances for that other guy from salisbury north how did that one work out

[LaughingKookaburra]

It's easy to pot the bloke as many have done here. He obviously did the wrong thing.

This misses the point. The question that should be asked is does what he did deserve a life ban from football?

I think the answer to that is no.

Does anyone know who decides whether players can re-register after s ban?

I'm not potting the bloke mate, you asked for people's opinions and just because I don't agree with you and have had a mature debate about it and I am taking a pot at him because I think the league did the right thing? I completely understand your points, I just don't agree with them.

[jo172]

My understanding is once a player is de-registered, there’s no avenue to re-register in any case so if that is right, the only way would be to a) have the board approve it or b) have the clubs overrule the board.

For what it's worth there are subtle distinctions between the"life ban" and "deregistered"

[The Big Shrek]

It's easy to pot the bloke as many have done here. He obviously did the wrong thing.

This misses the point. The question that should be asked is does what he did deserve a life ban from football?

I think the answer to that is no.

Does anyone know who decides whether players can re-register after s ban?

A majority on here say yes. The tribunal and league said yes.

The idea of a life ban, is a life ban.

So unless it's in another life, the rules say he can not re-register. Pretty simple really.

He may be a decent bloke off the field. But that's irrelevant here.

I must have missed the part of this thread where the majority said he deserved it.

I'm quite certain there is an avenue to come back on a bond. A bloke from Paralowie did it and so did a guy from Salisbury West.

[bird of prey]

It's easy to pot the bloke as many have done here. He obviously did the wrong thing.

This misses the point. The question that should be asked is does what he did deserve a life ban from football?

I think the answer to that is no.

Does anyone know who decides whether players can re-register after s ban?

A majority on here say yes. The tribunal and league said yes.

The idea of a life ban, is a life ban.

So unless it's in another life, the rules say he can not re-register. Pretty simple really.

He may be a decent bloke off the field. But that's irrelevant here.

I must have missed the part of this thread where the majority said he deserved it.

I'm quite certain there is an avenue to come back on a bond. A bloke from Paralowie did it and so did a guy from Salisbury West.

Umm....I've basically just read the comments.

[jo172]

Didn't Jason Creek last two weeks on his bond? Can see why the League would be hesitant to throw them around

[The Big Shrek]

I've gone back and read the comments too. Difficult to see how a majority say he deserves a life ban.

My recollection is that Creek was a completely different kettle of fish. I don't think he had 3 years without incident either.

[Footy Chick]

Didn't Jason Creek last two weeks on his bond? Can see why the League would be hesitant to throw them around

It was Tyson and it was 5 weeks I think

[Gazza's Scalp]

I think the life ban was extremely harsh, especially considering it was Callum's first ever report. He has been treated like a random thug and no consideration has ever been given to his character and commitment to the game. Obviously having been on an AFL list, the guy plays good football but his career has so far been defined and judged by one action.

My question isn't whether or not Callum deserved a life ban for his actions as he has already been dished his penalty and that can't be changed, but whether or not he deserves a second chance and is any risk to the league and its integrity if they were to re-register Callum?

Here's a few facts in a bit of a timeline to give a bit more perspective of Callum as a footballer
- SANFL U16 state representative
- SANFL U18 state representative
- North Adelaide Football Club reserves footballer
- Port Power rookie list (2011 age 19)
- 2012 Central Districts FC (limited games due to injury)
- 2013 Salisbury North (age 21, cops life ban for the actions discussed)
- 2014-2016 Eudunda FC, country zone and state representative (one of those seasons he was also judged BOG and got the medal in a grand final)

To me, at the age of 25 this doesn't look like the record of a person who is going to be a major risk if the league was to re-register Callum. Callum has at not one stage of the process been given the opportunity to stand in front of the board (or whoever the decision makers are) and make his claim to be re-registered. This shouldn't be a Salisbury North thing, this is an individual wanting to get back into a good competition and play good footy in his local community again. I think airing his feelings on Facebook was a sign of having nowhere to go to have his perspective heard.

[beef]

His football ability isn't being questioned, so his awards listed above are irrelevant in my opinion

[tigerpie]

I think the life ban was extremely harsh, especially considering it was Callum's first ever report. He has been treated like a random thug and no consideration has ever been given to his character and commitment to the game. Obviously having been on an AFL list, the guy plays good football but his career has so far been defined and judged by one action.

My question isn't whether or not Callum deserved a life ban for his actions as he has already been dished his penalty and that can't be changed, but whether or not he deserves a second chance and is any risk to the league and its integrity if they were to re-register Callum?

Here's a few facts in a bit of a timeline to give a bit more perspective of Callum as a footballer
- SANFL U16 state representative
- SANFL U18 state representative
- North Adelaide Football Club reserves footballer
- Port Power rookie list (2011 age 19)
- 2012 Central Districts FC (limited games due to injury)
- 2013 Salisbury North (age 21, cops life ban for the actions discussed)
- 2014-2016 Eudunda FC, country zone and state representative (one of those seasons he was also judged BOG and got the medal in a grand final)

To me, at the age of 25 this doesn't look like the record of a person who is going to be a major risk if the league was to re-register Callum. Callum has at not one stage of the process been given the opportunity to stand in front of the board (or whoever the decision makers are) and make his claim to be re-registered. This shouldn't be a Salisbury North thing, this is an individual wanting to get back into a good competition and play good footy in his local community again. I think airing his feelings on Facebook was a sign of having nowhere to go to have his perspective heard.

He also played state u12 school boys.

[jo172]

Categorically denying Hay was suspended in 2009 and 2012 for striking?

[Dogwatcher]

This misses the point. The question that should be asked is does what he did deserve a life ban from football?

It's semantics, I know, but he hasn't received a life ban from football, but from one competition.

[jo172]

This misses the point. The question that should be asked is does what he did deserve a life ban from football?

It's semantics, I know, but he hasn't received a life ban from football, but from one competition.

It's not semantics. That's the facts. Similarly he hasn't received a life ban, he's just been de-registered. As TBS has pointed out there is the capability for re-registration.

[Gazza's Scalp]

Categorically denying Hay was suspended in 2009 and 2012 for striking?

You might want to double check which Hay it was. He has 3 brothers that played... definitely wasn't Callum.

[Robb_Stark]

it only takes one punch you can harp on about how he has not done anything ever accept this one time talk about his back ground that is all good and well but why risk we put a dog down straight away if he bites a child

he has an anger issue looking at that video and while people say he has never been reported what you are saying is he has never been caught in the past people do not just flip out once he would have got away with these things in the past but this time he got caught