tigerpie wrote:Wtf? Who cares if she flushed her? She could've broken her face really badly. Bloody ordinary.
Well it makes all the difference - particularly in regards to a tribunal.
It's a horrible look and act, agreed, and could've ended very badly.. I was just asking if she got her.. probably looks worse than it was - may also explain why it was only a yellow instead of what thought was an obvious red.
Another classic example of the act being punished not the outcome. Would've thought that's a red card all day.
It should always be the act that is punished, outcome should not come into it. Unfortunately we are starting to see an expectation that there should be a penalty everytime someone gets hurt irrespective of the act itself.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Agreed, and that the way it used to be.
This particular act is precisely the reason why you should penalise the act and not the outcome. Reckless, Intentional, unprovoked and had the capacity to cause significant injury. Just luck or lack of skill that it didn't. Intent was clear, just lucky she executed poorly.
Watching this as a father i can see for the first time how the game has been looked at by mums not wanting their boys to play. I don't want my daughters out on the field with this sort of stuff going on.
mots02 wrote: Agreed, and that the way it used to be.
This particular act is precisely the reason why you should penalise the act and not the outcome. Reckless, Intentional, unprovoked and had the capacity to cause significant injury. Just luck or lack of skill that it didn't. Intent was clear, just lucky she executed poorly.
Watching this as a father i can see for the first time how the game has been looked at by mums not wanting their boys to play. I don't want my daughters out on the field with this sort of stuff going on.
Has to be a huge penalty. No excuse.
Agree. Very ordinary act.
helicopterking wrote:Flaggies will choke. Always have.
mots02 wrote: Agreed, and that the way it used to be.
This particular act is precisely the reason why you should penalise the act and not the outcome. Reckless, Intentional, unprovoked and had the capacity to cause significant injury. Just luck or lack of skill that it didn't. Intent was clear, just lucky she executed poorly.
Watching this as a father i can see for the first time how the game has been looked at by mums not wanting their boys to play. I don't want my daughters out on the field with this sort of stuff going on.
Has to be a huge penalty. No excuse.
Agree. Very ordinary act.
Yep 100% agree.
No place on a footy field for someone with that short a fuse. The 'tackle / contest' wasn't even little shove worthy never mind a full blooded knee to the head attempt worth.
If your anger is that easily lit a footy field isn't the place for you, go down to your local mixed martial arts trainer and get the anger sorted out.
tigerpie wrote:Wtf? Who cares if she flushed her? She could've broken her face really badly. Bloody ordinary.
Well it makes all the difference - particularly in regards to a tribunal.
It's a horrible look and act, agreed, and could've ended very badly.. I was just asking if she got her.. probably looks worse than it was - may also explain why it was only a yellow instead of what thought was an obvious red.
Another classic example of the act being punished not the outcome. Would've thought that's a red card all day.
It should always be the act that is punished, outcome should not come into it. Unfortunately we are starting to see an expectation that there should be a penalty everytime someone gets hurt irrespective of the act itself.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
I think the outcome should be considered but you are right the act should be punished.
The Bedge wrote:Well it makes all the difference - particularly in regards to a tribunal.
It's a horrible look and act, agreed, and could've ended very badly.. I was just asking if she got her.. probably looks worse than it was - may also explain why it was only a yellow instead of what thought was an obvious red.
Another classic example of the act being punished not the outcome. Would've thought that's a red card all day.
It should always be the act that is punished, outcome should not come into it. Unfortunately we are starting to see an expectation that there should be a penalty everytime someone gets hurt irrespective of the act itself.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
I think the outcome should be considered but you are right the act should be punished.
Outcome should only be considered as evidence when determining severity, it should not be the driving factor.
i.e. Throwing a haymaker but not doing damage due to the reaction time of the target turning their head is still a more severe act than a broken nose resulting from a high fend-off during play.
Watched the GF today. 1st time I have watched SFL in a while. Played SFL in late 90’s-late 2000’s. Flaggies are a good side, but can’t be much depth in Comp based on today & what I read on here. I’ve watched a fair bit of Div 3 this year & Flaggies would go well, but not dominate in IMO. Not sure what answer is, but the competition has deteriorated.
On the bright side, outstanding U15 GF (with all SANFL lads available at this age group), these teams would be v. good SANFL Juniors Div 1 sides.
Anatidae wrote:Watched the GF today. 1st time I have watched SFL in a while. Played SFL in late 90’s-late 2000’s. Flaggies are a good side, but can’t be much depth in Comp based on today & what I read on here. I’ve watched a fair bit of Div 3 this year & Flaggies would go well, but not dominate in IMO. Not sure what answer is, but the competition has deteriorated.
On the bright side, outstanding U15 GF (with all SANFL lads available at this age group), these teams would be v. good SANFL Juniors Div 1 sides.
Well done flaggies on their 6th. A pretty remarkable achievement. I respectfully disagree and think while there are some struggles overall, I think Flaggy would be at least a good Div 2 side based on what I’ve seen, maybe even div 1 quality. It does drop away but the people that blame Flaggy for that are a bit warped in my opinion, they’ve set a great benchmark for everyone to try and beat. Perhaps all the other clubs need to look at themselves rather than whine at the quality of Flaggy.
The 15s was an amazing game of football. Well done to the wineflies, Reynella winning all 3 junior grades shows the club has a huge future ahead.
Anatidae wrote:Watched the GF today. 1st time I have watched SFL in a while. Played SFL in late 90’s-late 2000’s. Flaggies are a good side, but can’t be much depth in Comp based on today & what I read on here. I’ve watched a fair bit of Div 3 this year & Flaggies would go well, but not dominate in IMO. Not sure what answer is, but the competition has deteriorated.
On the bright side, outstanding U15 GF (with all SANFL lads available at this age group), these teams would be v. good SANFL Juniors Div 1 sides.
Well done flaggies on their 6th. A pretty remarkable achievement. I respectfully disagree and think while there are some struggles overall, I think Flaggy would be at least a good Div 2 side based on what I’ve seen, maybe even div 1 quality. It does drop away but the people that blame Flaggy for that are a bit warped in my opinion, they’ve set a great benchmark for everyone to try and beat. Perhaps all the other clubs need to look at themselves rather than whine at the quality of Flaggy.
The 15s was an amazing game of football. Well done to the wineflies, Reynella winning all 3 junior grades shows the club has a huge future ahead.
They won the u14 sanfl comp flag as well. 4 junior premierships is a remarkable achievement.
For the trivia buffs. Flaggies winning margin in both the 2020 and 2021 premierships was 66 points. Remarkably, their average winning margin over their past 4 premierships (2018 - 21) is also 66 points! Coincidences do occur! As a side line, their average winning margin over all 6 premierships is 53 points.
