Adelaide Footy League Division 2 - 2020

[The Bedge]

It will never happen but in future reports shouldn't be discussed on here until after the tribunal hearing.

Don't start with that shit

[Bluedemon]

Not guilty. Charges thrown out, is the word I've heard

yes i can confirm thats correct

Really hoping they release their reasoning behind why they threw out the charges!
As this made the news there will be people wanting answers no less the bloke who got hit

if none of the statements actually were consistent, you wonder what the tribunal is doing handing down 7 weeks.

from 7 weeks to being thrown out....

seems they just throw things into a barrel and just pluck things out.

How did they come up with the earlier suspension of being 7 weeks?

[the smokey]

Does this mean he lied at the intial hearing?? As i stated before I would have loved to know what was said last night and how he ended up with the injuries if it had nothing to do with Kobi Russell.

Geez mate, the public (and on here) had Russell hung and given de-registration on an incident that we could only speculate what happened.

It was a very ballsy appeal if there was any shadow of doubt that the player was guilty, the BFC obviously were very diligent with their appeal and the tribunal obviously were privvy to some evidence that was unavailable initially.

It will never happen but in future reports shouldn't be discussed on here until after the tribunal hearing.

7 weeks to no case to answer - we as members of the SAAFL have a right to know how the tribunal can apparently get it so wrong. this isn't a downgrade in charge from intentional to reckless or anything like that.
This is the initial tribunal made such a ballsup or were fed incorrect information and there is no case to answer.

as i asked did someone lie at the initial tribunal hearing? because if this occured then should they be fined for doing so??? The whole process has been a joke and its easy to say it shouldn't be discussed on a forum like this but everyone who plays in the SAAFL has an invested interest in how the tribunal come to their decisions and the basis/merit of these decisions.

[Footy Chick]

Does this mean he lied at the intial hearing?? As i stated before I would have loved to know what was said last night and how he ended up with the injuries if it had nothing to do with Kobi Russell.

Geez mate, the public (and on here) had Russell hung and given de-registration on an incident that we could only speculate what happened.

It was a very ballsy appeal if there was any shadow of doubt that the player was guilty, the BFC obviously were very diligent with their appeal and the tribunal obviously were privvy to some evidence that was unavailable initially.

It will never happen but in future reports shouldn't be discussed on here until after the tribunal hearing.

Hello, this has been my ruling all along! and this is the exact reason why!

[CCC Romans]

Does this mean he lied at the intial hearing?? As i stated before I would have loved to know what was said last night and how he ended up with the injuries if it had nothing to do with Kobi Russell.

Geez mate, the public (and on here) had Russell hung and given de-registration on an incident that we could only speculate what happened.

It was a very ballsy appeal if there was any shadow of doubt that the player was guilty, the BFC obviously were very diligent with their appeal and the tribunal obviously were privvy to some evidence that was unavailable initially.

It will never happen but in future reports shouldn't be discussed on here until after the tribunal hearing.

Hello, this has been my ruling all along! and this is the exact reason why!

That’s not particularly fair. The tribunal handed down the initial 7 week suspension, not the public or members of this forum. It’s a reasonable question to ask how a 7 week suspension has been overturned on appeal.

[Lightning McQueen]

Does this mean he lied at the intial hearing?? As i stated before I would have loved to know what was said last night and how he ended up with the injuries if it had nothing to do with Kobi Russell.

Geez mate, the public (and on here) had Russell hung and given de-registration on an incident that we could only speculate what happened.

It was a very ballsy appeal if there was any shadow of doubt that the player was guilty, the BFC obviously were very diligent with their appeal and the tribunal obviously were privvy to some evidence that was unavailable initially.

It will never happen but in future reports shouldn't be discussed on here until after the tribunal hearing.

Hello, this has been my ruling all along! and this is the exact reason why!

I'm well aware.

[Lightning McQueen]

It will never happen but in future reports shouldn't be discussed on here until after the tribunal hearing.

Don't start with that shit

[Lightning McQueen]

It will never happen but in future reports shouldn't be discussed on here until after the tribunal hearing.

7 weeks to no case to answer - we as members of the SAAFL have a right to know how the tribunal can apparently get it so wrong. this isn't a downgrade in charge from intentional to reckless or anything like that.
This is the initial tribunal made such a ballsup or were fed incorrect information and there is no case to answer.

as i asked did someone lie at the initial tribunal hearing? because if this occured then should they be fined for doing so??? The whole process has been a joke and its easy to say it shouldn't be discussed on a forum like this but everyone who plays in the SAAFL has an invested interest in how the tribunal come to their decisions and the basis/merit of these decisions.[/quote]

Easy for us to judge without having access to all sets of evidence, I think it's between the two players involved, the two clubs involved and the tribunal/league, it has sweet FA to do with the average Joe.

[hollywood7477]

So the take I got from the article was that the Scotch fella wasn’t able to give evidence as he was in hospital and the evidence that was given last week wasnt correct!!! The tribunal went on what the witnesses said and once the Scotch fella gave evidence last night the matter was thrown out.

[Pag]

Does this mean he lied at the intial hearing?? As i stated before I would have loved to know what was said last night and how he ended up with the injuries if it had nothing to do with Kobi Russell.

Geez mate, the public (and on here) had Russell hung and given de-registration on an incident that we could only speculate what happened.

It was a very ballsy appeal if there was any shadow of doubt that the player was guilty, the BFC obviously were very diligent with their appeal and the tribunal obviously were privvy to some evidence that was unavailable initially.

It will never happen but in future reports shouldn't be discussed on here until after the tribunal hearing.

Hello, this has been my ruling all along! and this is the exact reason why!

That’s not particularly fair. The tribunal handed down the initial 7 week suspension, not the public or members of this forum. It’s a reasonable question to ask how a 7 week suspension has been overturned on appeal.

Agreed, it was being discussed on here after he had a hearing and was found guilty. I think it's 100% fair to be talking about it by that stage.

If there is an error, it's either been made by the tribunal or people giving evidence to the tribunal, not the average joe talking about it after the fact.. Bit rich of Broadies to be having a crack at the wider football community in their statement for talking about an issue that had been adjudicated on. They could've just left that statement as support for their player and acknowledgement of the new decision.

[redyellow&blue]

Easy for us to judge without having access to all sets of evidence, I think it's between the two players involved, the two clubs involved and the tribunal/league, it has sweet FA to do with the average Joe.

not really. it has something to do with the 60+ other cubs out there who may have to go to the tribunal one day.

[redyellow&blue]

So the take I got from the article was that the Scotch fella wasn’t able to give evidence as he was in hospital and the evidence that was given last week wasnt correct!!! The tribunal went on what the witnesses said and once the Scotch fella gave evidence last night the matter was thrown out.

so in reality the original tribunal should not have been inclined to make any decision until they were able to have all the facts?

seems to be a common thread from people that decisions are made (either guilty or not) at initial stage without having everything in front of them?

[Footy Chick]

Easy for us to judge without having access to all sets of evidence, I think it's between the two players involved, the two clubs involved and the tribunal/league, it has sweet FA to do with the average Joe.

not really. it has something to do with the 60+ other cubs out there who may have to go to the tribunal one day.

Here's a good tip then...

Make sure everyone has the same account of events and there won't be a problem

[Lightning McQueen]

not really. it has something to do with the 60+ other cubs out there who may have to go to the tribunal one day.

Gather all your evidence and present facts.

I reckon they get it right far more times than they get it wrong.

[The Bedge]

Question is.. how did the Scotch player end up in hospital with a ruptured spleen (or whatever it was)?

My gut feeling, is old mate was likely involved in some incident but scotch completely ballsed up at the tribunal and it was dismissed.

.. and for Broadies to come out and make comments like they did about public commentary like he's an innocent choir boy is ordinary.

[Lightning McQueen]

That’s not particularly fair. The tribunal handed down the initial 7 week suspension, not the public or members of this forum. It’s a reasonable question to ask how a 7 week suspension has been overturned on appeal.

Agreed, it was being discussed on here after he had a hearing and was found guilty. I think it's 100% fair to be talking about it by that stage.

If there is an error, it's either been made by the tribunal or people giving evidence to the tribunal, not the average joe talking about it after the fact.. Bit rich of Broadies to be having a crack at the wider football community in their statement for talking about an issue that had been adjudicated on. They could've just left that statement as support for their player and acknowledgement of the new decision.

Yeah, a bit of a unique case in this instance, everyone is going to have an opinion after the first outcome.

I guess it was a touchy subject for Broadies as they came under the spotlight, I got my head bitten off when I brought it up to a member out there who watched the game and seen the incident, I was originally consumed by the media and what I had seen on here, I was still not 100% sold until seeing the outcome today.

[the smokey]

Question is.. how did the Scotch player end up in hospital with a ruptured spleen (or whatever it was)?

My gut feeling, is old mate was likely involved in some incident but scotch completely ballsed up at the tribunal and it was dismissed.

.. and for Broadies to come out and make comments like they did about public commentary like he's an innocent choir boy is ordinary.

Couldn't agree more Bedge - yes they wished him well but obviously there was a strong wind out at Broadies 2 weeks ago and knocked him over or blew some rubble from the sidelines onto the ground that made contact with the Scotch player!!

[Footy Chick]

Am I speaking F****ing chinese or something?

I mean that things are not to be discussed BEFORE it goes to tribunal.

Im not sure where anyone got the idea that I'd stop anything once it's been said and done

[The Bedge]

Am I speaking F****ing chinese or something?

Konichiwa

[Footy Chick]

Question is.. how did the Scotch player end up in hospital with a ruptured spleen (or whatever it was)?

My gut feeling, is old mate was likely involved in some incident but scotch completely ballsed up at the tribunal and it was dismissed.

.. and for Broadies to come out and make comments like they did about public commentary like he's an innocent choir boy is ordinary.

Couldn't agree more Bedge - yes they wished him well but obviously there was a strong wind out at Broadies 2 weeks ago and knocked him over or blew some rubble from the sidelines onto the ground that made contact with the Scotch player!!

You can rupture spleens by accidental clashing you know.

Just saying...

(Not insinuating that's what did or did not happen) I'm sure you'll all continue to make up your own theories