Tribunal results - 8/7

[cd]

From tonight's tribunal

Schwarz - not guilty
Rimington - guilty - 1 match suspension

[spell_check]

Isn't this ironical on two fronts:

Schwarze - has done the exact same thing before, went to the tribunal and was found not guilty. He did this again, and was found not guilty again.
Rimington - hasn't done this before, never been to the tribunal, is reported for conduct to a player who has been to the tribunal a number times before for little consequence, and gets a match.

Clayton was found guilty and reprimanded for a clear strike on Treeby eariler on this year - no damage done, but it was clear as day, right in front of the umpire. And it's not like he hadn't been reported before.

I don't like any player to be suspended from our team (sure if it's warranted, they have to accept it), but it would have been better to have Schwarze suspended; this may mean that Grocke will be in the Reserves again, when he should be in the League side.

[Big Phil]

Isn't this ironical on two fronts:

Schwarze - has done the exact same thing before, went to the tribunal and was found not guilty. He did this again, and was found not guilty again.
Rimington - hasn't done this before, never been to the tribunal, is reported for conduct to a player who has been to the tribunal a number times before for little consequence, and gets a match.

Clayton was found guilty and reprimanded for a clear strike on Treeby eariler on this year - no damage done, but it was clear as day, right in front of the umpire. And it's not like he hadn't been reported before.

I don't like any player to be suspended from our team (sure if it's warranted, they have to accept it), but it would have been better to have Schwarze suspended; this may mean that Grocke will be in the Reserves again, when he should be in the League side.

Totally justfied the post and poll I had on here regarding the credibilty of the SANFL tribunal system...

Again, simply proves the ABSOLUTE SHOCKING INCONSISTANCIES with the current system and their just does't seem to be justice and equity...

[Wedgie]

I disagree, a player who has been found not guilty before of an idescretion shouldn't have any more sort of penatly against him as opposed to someone who's never been reported before.
Being not guilty and not being reported are the same thing as far as history goes.

[spell_check]

Isn't this ironical on two fronts:

Schwarze - has done the exact same thing before, went to the tribunal and was found not guilty. He did this again, and was found not guilty again.
Rimington - hasn't done this before, never been to the tribunal, is reported for conduct to a player who has been to the tribunal a number times before for little consequence, and gets a match.

Clayton was found guilty and reprimanded for a clear strike on Treeby eariler on this year - no damage done, but it was clear as day, right in front of the umpire. And it's not like he hadn't been reported before.

I don't like any player to be suspended from our team (sure if it's warranted, they have to accept it), but it would have been better to have Schwarze suspended; this may mean that Grocke will be in the Reserves again, when he should be in the League side.

Totally justfied the post and poll I had on here regarding the credibilty of the SANFL tribunal system...

Again, simply proves the ABSOLUTE SHOCKING INCONSISTANCIES with the current system and their just does't seem to be justice and equity...

Yeah, but had I started a new thread about it, or bumped yours, I would have got the same response you got, because it's started just after a player from yours/my club was just suspended.

[spell_check]

I disagree, a player who has been found not guilty before of an idescretion shouldn't have any more sort of penatly against him as opposed to someone who's never been reported before.
Being not guilty and not being reported are the same thing as far as history goes.

Well, honestly I'm surprised he didn't get suspended for either two cases (the other was against Glenelg), because the intent was there. But the thing is, when a player does get reprimanded, it's usually because they have a good record.

[CUTTERMAN]

Throw in Charlie Sharples' suspension this year with that lot also Spelly, running for the ball, inconsiquential contact, possibly high, I didn't think so on the day, never been reported and is a clean player...1 week!

[Aerie]

Schwarze is very lucky. 3 times he has been reported for charging late at a player taking a mark in front of him and 3 times he has been found not guilty. Might as well keep doing it...

Didn't see what Rimington did, but he'll be missed in the match against NA as he's been one of our better players.

[TigerBoss]

Schwarze is very lucky. 3 times he has been reported for charging late at a player taking a mark in front of him and 3 times he has been found not guilty. Might as well keep doing it...

Didn't see what Rimington did, but he'll be missed in the match against NA as he's been one of our better players.

Indeed Schwarze is lucky. Staggers me, with the footage the Tribunal would have had of this incident, that Schwarze gets off this charge. Still, perhaps the footage was reviewed closely and he WAS in fact committed (in the air) to the contest, and couldn't pull out in time. I seem to recall him launching himself once Lees had taken the ball...

Rimington's incident was NOT worse than the Schwarze one though...I'm surprised with this decision.

[Big Phil]

As much as the tribunal handles each incident on an individual basis, the inconsistencies with certain players fronting on numerous occasions and continually getting off highlights the very incompetent system the SANFL tribunal has. They have shown too many times in the past to be very lenient to certain players and come down hard on others, even if some are repeat offenders. I have no issue with Paul Thomas getting 2 games for his elbow to John Hinge's head as Thommo was a repeat offender and had been suspended earlier in the year.

It seems blokes like Shwarze and Jeremy Clayton can front over and over again for similar reasons and continually get the case thrown out or get a slap on the wrist with a reprimand. We saw Sharples get a week earlier in the year for Sturt for something very incidental and then on the flip side, the 2 blokes mentioned above get away with worse, not once, not twice but three times in some cases. Matty Slade should count his lucky stars for getting a week off earlier if young Rimmington got 1 week for his minor indiscretion.

The main point I want to make, repeat, harp on about, whinge about, complain etc etc is....

THE SANFL TRIBUNAL SYSTEM IS SHOCKINGLY INCONSISTANT AND NEEDS TO CHANGE...

I guess everytime someone gets reported from here on in, we will all judge our comments and opinions on the outcomes of the individual hearings but I have no doubt, this type of post will be brought up again at some stage throughout the course of the year. The SANFL will refuse to do anything about it as they probably see their current system and fair, reasonable and flawless.

In all seriousness though, I have been of the opinion, and had the expectation for the last 10 years with the tribunal system, that as a rule of thumb, when you expect a guy to get game(s) for his indescretion he generally gets off and when you think there seems to be nothing much in in incident and the player will get off, they get bloody game(s) for it !!?? Of course, there are a few fairly obvious incidents that have seen the punishment fits the crime accordingly but in general, they are bloody hopeless and frustrate the hell out of me and no doubt many others.

[Macca19]

Ridiculous that Schwarze got off and as others have said, considering this is about the 3rd time hes been up for the same thing, its not good enough.

Rimington dropped a knee into the ribs of Clayton. Probably worthy of a week.

[TigerBoss]

I reakon the amount of lip and push and shove Clayton gives out on the field, the knee to the ribs was probably justified...

(kidding)

[smithy]

BIG PHIL - Was that your first ever post without any smilies ?

[Big Phil]

BIG PHIL - Was that your first ever post without any smilies ?

People still harping on about my use of smilies (or sometimes lack of)

Haven't you got something better or more appropriate to post Smithy

In answer to your question.... Don't be stupid mate, of course not

[smithy]

BIG PHIL - Was that your first ever post without any smilies ?

People still harping on about my use of smilies (or sometimes lack of)

Haven't you got something better or more appropriate to post Smithy

In answer to your question.... Don't be stupid mate, of course not

[Big Phil]

BIG PHIL - Was that your first ever post without any smilies ?

People still harping on about my use of smilies (or sometimes lack of)

Haven't you got something better or more appropriate to post Smithy

In answer to your question.... Don't be stupid mate, of course not

Smithy...

[Apachebulldog]

Yeah what a joke !!!

Only Central players get rubbed out !!!!!!!!!!


WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CUTTERMAN]

BIG PHIL - Was that your first ever post without any smilies ?

And notice the no more signing off!! Must be the arthritic fingers.

Cutterman..

[Big Phil]

BIG PHIL - Was that your first ever post without any smilies ?

And notice the no more signing off!! Must be the arthritic fingers.

Cutterman..

I have the same message for you CUTTERMAN as I did for Smithy...



Oh and BTW, just for you mate...

GO U DOGGIES...

Big Phil...

[Bluedemon]

didnt Schwarze charge the Port player, AFL normally give that at least a 1 game suspension.