jo172 wrote:I still find it to be a very curious anomaly that Club's on AAAs (aside from SN) appear to be able to avoid suspensions, but the second they get off they appear to find themselves back in trouble. Consider North Pines, Smithfield, Salisbury West and Ingle Farm as recent graduates off AAAs, with impeccable behaviour during the AAA, all of whom have spent more time at the Tribunal this year than they would have cared for.
Now I acknowledge it's a small sample size, but it would suggest that when the mind is properly applied Clubs are entirely capable of controlling the discipline of their playing group.
I appreciate it's a poor look, coming off and suddenly re-offending, but it's definitely not a deliberate act or that (in our case) a relaxing of our standards and expectations.
We (Ingle Farm) didn't even inform our members they were off the AAA when it was lifted, even after our first report we told the players we were still on it and it was still being discussed, so that hopefully they'd remain focused on football, and not get complacent in their behavior.
Complacency has definitely crept in though, when i reflect back over the previous few years, there was a constant drive/emphasis on behavior and the repercussions for the club as a whole - mostly driven from the playing group during games - players would pull players out of hazardous situations, or moving away/bringing themselves off from retaliating to incidents.
Go without incident for an extended period of time, and rightly or wrongly that seems to slip a little bit from the mind - you become comfortable and assume people are going to continue to do the right things.
That's not to say we still don't stress the importance of discipline and behavior as a club.
Also FWIW the two reports we had this year are both recruits for 2017
Like all of us, they rely on safooty.net for the truth
Zartan wrote:Complacency has definitely crept in though, when i reflect back over the previous few years, there was a constant drive/emphasis on behavior and the repercussions for the club as a whole - mostly driven from the playing group during games - players would pull players out of hazardous situations, or moving away/bringing themselves off from retaliating to incidents.
My suspicion is that this is more the case than anyone consciously thinking "no more aaa, time to belt someone" and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
An interesting example is Rosewater. Prior to their AAA they had a relatively poor record. Haven't heard a peep from them this year. The Clubs who manage to maintain constant vigilance (which is bloody difficult) seem to manage best.
Do you think that clubs that have been under scrutiny the most, or have been on AAA in the past seem to be noticed more when they offend/re offend than clubs that generally have a good reputation?
e.g. Broadview Cat 'A's - i wouldn't think anyone would consider them a poor side with offending, but they consistently each year get their couple of reports (as do most clubs), but nothing is heard... Salis West (1x U18) and Ingle Farm (2x new recruits) have two reports and there are fears of relapse.
2017 - 0 2016 - 3 2015 - 2 2014 - 3 2013 - 4
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
Zartan wrote:Complacency has definitely crept in though, when i reflect back over the previous few years, there was a constant drive/emphasis on behavior and the repercussions for the club as a whole - mostly driven from the playing group during games - players would pull players out of hazardous situations, or moving away/bringing themselves off from retaliating to incidents.
My suspicion is that this is more the case than anyone consciously thinking "no more aaa, time to belt someone" and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
An interesting example is Rosewater. Prior to their AAA they had a relatively poor record. Haven't heard a peep from them this year. The Clubs who manage to maintain constant vigilance (which is bloody difficult) seem to manage best.
Do you think that clubs that have been under scrutiny the most, or have been on AAA in the past seem to be noticed more when they offend/re offend than clubs that generally have a good reputation?
e.g. Broadview Cat 'A's - i wouldn't think anyone would consider them a poor side with offending, but they consistently each year get their couple of reports (as do most clubs), but nothing is heard... Salis West (1x U18) and Ingle Farm (2x new recruits) have two reports and there are fears of relapse.
2017 - 0 2016 - 3 2015 - 2 2014 - 3 2013 - 4
Undoubtedly.
However, I don't think its appropriate to downplay an incident on the basis of a player being an u18 or new recruit.
The Club is responsible for everyone who represents it from the President to the worse player in the D-Grade (at one stage I was both)
Zartan wrote:Complacency has definitely crept in though, when i reflect back over the previous few years, there was a constant drive/emphasis on behavior and the repercussions for the club as a whole - mostly driven from the playing group during games - players would pull players out of hazardous situations, or moving away/bringing themselves off from retaliating to incidents.
My suspicion is that this is more the case than anyone consciously thinking "no more aaa, time to belt someone" and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
An interesting example is Rosewater. Prior to their AAA they had a relatively poor record. Haven't heard a peep from them this year. The Clubs who manage to maintain constant vigilance (which is bloody difficult) seem to manage best.
Do you think that clubs that have been under scrutiny the most, or have been on AAA in the past seem to be noticed more when they offend/re offend than clubs that generally have a good reputation?
e.g. Broadview Cat 'A's - i wouldn't think anyone would consider them a poor side with offending, but they consistently each year get their couple of reports (as do most clubs), but nothing is heard... Salis West (1x U18) and Ingle Farm (2x new recruits) have two reports and there are fears of relapse.
2017 - 0 2016 - 3 2015 - 2 2014 - 3 2013 - 4
Undoubtedly.
However, I don't think its appropriate to downplay an incident on the basis of a player being an u18 or new recruit.
The Club is responsible for everyone who represents it from the President to the worst player in the D-Grade (at one stage I was both)
jo172 wrote: My suspicion is that this is more the case than anyone consciously thinking "no more aaa, time to belt someone" and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
An interesting example is Rosewater. Prior to their AAA they had a relatively poor record. Haven't heard a peep from them this year. The Clubs who manage to maintain constant vigilance (which is bloody difficult) seem to manage best.
Do you think that clubs that have been under scrutiny the most, or have been on AAA in the past seem to be noticed more when they offend/re offend than clubs that generally have a good reputation?
e.g. Broadview Cat 'A's - i wouldn't think anyone would consider them a poor side with offending, but they consistently each year get their couple of reports (as do most clubs), but nothing is heard... Salis West (1x U18) and Ingle Farm (2x new recruits) have two reports and there are fears of relapse.
2017 - 0 2016 - 3 2015 - 2 2014 - 3 2013 - 4
Undoubtedly.
However, I don't think its appropriate to downplay an incident on the basis of a player being an u18 or new recruit.
The Club is responsible for everyone who represents it from the President to the worst player in the D-Grade (at one stage I was both)
They have been on a AAA for the best part of 3 years now and have already accumulated 18 games in suspension this year, obviously have no respect for the sanctions the league has imposed on them, and its fair to say they have made no attempt at all to rectify their on field attitude in any grade, don't deserve to be up with the 'elite'.
The League has trialled Pre-Tribunal offers of penalty where a) the player is pleading guilty and b) where the version of events is not disputed by the reported player/s from the reporting umpire’s charge. A guilty plea may also result in a portion of the penalty being suspended e.g. 2 + 1 suspended.
The motivation for introducing this initiative was borne from a discussion with the West Australian Amateur Football League who have successfully reduced the need to engage volunteers at the tribunal for a charge which for all intents and purposes is a forgone conclusion for a guilty finding. The Pre-Tribunal Offer is not available to players who are already credited with a tribunal history or at least if the previous charge was for the same as the one in question nor is it available for serious allegations.
Players and or clubs are not compelled to accept any offer and a club is more than welcome to argue the charge in front of the tribunal just as they can in the event of a Prescribed Penalty offered by the Umpire on a Saturday. It is not The League Administrations’ position to negotiate penalty but to simply refer to the Tribunal guidelines as described in the Tribunal Reference Manual as per the charge.
The League will review the practice at the completion of the season though one concern is what appears to be a loss of focus from clubs to reaffirm to all players of the league’s standards because the very real threat of having to sit in the waiting room to have your case heard is no longer a reason to keep reminding all and sundry of a need to toe the line.
There is no substitute to clubs taking a pro-active course of action to ensure players are very aware of the consequences of coming to the attention of an umpire. The table above would suggest all clubs need to remain vigilant in ensuring players are well aware of the consequences for crossing the line between what is and isn’t.
carey wrote:Could there be another situation like Rosewater last year?
Not a good look in Div 1 footy. #watchthisspace
Sals North getting kicked out?
I don't know all the facts yet mate, but that's the rumor I heard at the pub last night. Big call! "Apparently" a report from a boundry umpire for a behind the play strike.
*As I said I heard this second hand at the pub last night pub talk can be very misleading at times lol
carey wrote:Could there be another situation like Rosewater last year?
Not a good look in Div 1 footy. #watchthisspace
Sals North getting kicked out?
I don't know all the facts yet mate, but that's the rumor I heard at the pub last night. Big call! "Apparently" a report from a boundry umpire for a behind the play strike.
*As I said I heard this second hand at the pub last night pub talk can be very misleading at times lol
This is what I heard at the pub last night too from someone who was at the game.
always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them so much
carey wrote:Could there be another situation like Rosewater last year?
Not a good look in Div 1 footy. #watchthisspace
Sals North getting kicked out?
I don't know all the facts yet mate, but that's the rumor I heard at the pub last night. Big call! "Apparently" a report from a boundry umpire for a behind the play strike.
*As I said I heard this second hand at the pub last night pub talk can be very misleading at times lol
This is what I heard at the pub last night too from someone who was at the game.
@carey you frequenting establishments with Adelaide University FC folk these days?
