Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
spert wrote:I would have thought Zac's incident was at the extreme, worthy of a reprimand and nothing more, but two weeks is an absolute unrealistic penalty. The club is now sitting on top of the ladder and at this stage, should be seen to be making itself heard in all arenas, and should appeal this penalty. It is really pointless to say cop it and move on, when one thinks of the injustices in life where, by making a stand, investigating all avenues, an injustice is turned around in favour of the victim who would have otherwise meekly gone on as a victim of a flawed system..in this case the AFL tribunal system.
you really are on a distant beach Spert.
If it took 30 minutes, the chances of an appeal are almost zero. An appeal is not a second hearing. it is only for an error of law , like when the jury does not follow the laws or rules ,or a manifestly excessive number of weeks. the afl changed it to stop clubs appealing and hoping the Qcs listening to the appeal would have had a different opinion on the report than the jury.
there has benn only one successful appeal EVER, which was about an error in the actual rules.
So lets not waste thousands of dollars cahsing an impossible dream to make us feel better . That is what you get with a jury. they looked at the incident , probably like most Crows supporters did.
spert wrote:I would have thought Zac's incident was at the extreme, worthy of a reprimand and nothing more, but two weeks is an absolute unrealistic penalty. The club is now sitting on top of the ladder and at this stage, should be seen to be making itself heard in all arenas, and should appeal this penalty. It is really pointless to say cop it and move on, when one thinks of the injustices in life where, by making a stand, investigating all avenues, an injustice is turned around in favour of the victim who would have otherwise meekly gone on as a victim of a flawed system..in this case the AFL tribunal system.
you really are on a distant beach Spert.
If it took 30 minutes, the chances of an appeal are almost zero. An appeal is not a second hearing. it is only for an error of law , like when the jury does not follow the laws or rules ,or a manifestly excessive number of weeks. the afl changed it to stop clubs appealing and hoping the Qcs listening to the appeal would have had a different opinion on the report than the jury.
there has benn only one successful appeal EVER, which was about an error in the actual rules.
So lets not waste thousands of dollars cahsing an impossible dream to make us feel better . That is what you get with a jury. they looked at the incident , probably like most Crows supporters did.
Jeez I'm glad you're not coaching the team this season-as that kind of logic meant we would have layed down and rolled over against Geelong as they are the benchmark of the comp and it's pointless trying to beat them. Sorry bud, being walked over is not a great option...though it must clearly work for you?
Well the fact is that there is an error of law. He has been incorrectly found guilty of a charge. The rule is unduly rough conduct.
His contact was text book and not illegal. The force was not excessivse as evidenced by the fact that Symes played out the game.
The oppoonent was in play, and had alreaddy made the transition from a player standing the mark to one "corralling" the opposition ball carrier. He therefore should be prepared to expect contact, whether or not he can see it coming.
Therefore Dawson has not transgressed and the only areas for debate are subjective - was the force of contact illegal or unreasonable - no. Was the state of play such that player Symes could not reasonably expect contact - no.
GO to APPEAL because an error of law has been made.
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
Is there a definition of unduly rough play ? Or is it open to interpretation each week ( as it appears). Is 'unduly rough play' play that is rougher that necessary ie Zac didnt have to crunch the guy !
What is the message from this selected report? Was the incident a bit to blatant , so lets ping him ?
How will all teams play the game in coming weeks ..... the same as usual is my guess.
What does RL do ? say tough Zac .. try and be 'careful' nextime ??
I reckon all players would be confused as to what they can do and cant do.
Its all so uncertain to be a joke of inconsistency. A lotto of bad luck.
Finally the field umpires saw no reason for a report ...obviously they have no idea either about the rule !!!
aussiejones wrote:There seems to be similar 'incidents' each week .
Is there a definition of unduly rough play ? Or is it open to interpretation each week ( as it appears). Is 'unduly rough play' play that is rougher that necessary ie Zac didnt have to crunch the guy !
What is the message from this selected report? Was the incident a bit to blatant , so lets ping him ?
How will all teams play the game in coming weeks ..... the same as usual is my guess.
What does RL do ? say tough Zac .. try and be 'careful' nextime ??
I reckon all players would be confused as to what they can do and cant do.
Its all so uncertain to be a joke of inconsistency. A lotto of bad luck.
Finally the field umpires saw no reason for a report ...obviously they have no idea either about the rule !!!
An independent jury of 3 former players, with the benefit of hearing both side's QCs , and the tribunal chairman's summation, came to a different conclusion.
aussiejones wrote:There seems to be similar 'incidents' each week .
Is there a definition of unduly rough play ? Or is it open to interpretation each week ( as it appears). Is 'unduly rough play' play that is rougher that necessary ie Zac didnt have to crunch the guy !
What is the message from this selected report? Was the incident a bit to blatant , so lets ping him ?
How will all teams play the game in coming weeks ..... the same as usual is my guess.
What does RL do ? say tough Zac .. try and be 'careful' nextime ??
I reckon all players would be confused as to what they can do and cant do.
Its all so uncertain to be a joke of inconsistency. A lotto of bad luck.
Finally the field umpires saw no reason for a report ...obviously they have no idea either about the rule !!!
An independent jury of 3 former players, with the benefit of hearing both side's QCs , and the tribunal chairman's summation, came to a different conclusion.
Given that the highlighted statements appear to be true, maybe the tribunal should let everyone else in on the secret, before we spend money appealing their ruling (if we do). Obviously Collingwood have been let in on the 'code', otherwise Maxwell would have been lucky to get a game in before the mid-season break.
The guy on the mark would not be expecting contact. As KB said today imagine if that could happen every week. Players would be on the ground 10 times a game. Teams would practice it. Who would be first to go for us, Rooy then Kosi and so on. I havent heard one commentator say it was stupid decision. I have heard a couple say they were surprised but not one person has jumped up and down about it. Lets get on with next week. Nothing is going to change the decision.
plugger66 wrote:The guy on the mark would not be expecting contact. As KB said today imagine if that could happen every week. Players would be on the ground 10 times a game. Teams would practice it. Who would be first to go for us, Rooy then Kosi and so on. I havent heard one commentator say it was stupid decision. I have heard a couple say they were surprised but not one person has jumped up and down about it. Lets get on with next week. Nothing is going to change the decision.
Fair enough, but imagine if FF's jumped with their knees up every week and did such damage that players were so badly injured that they had to stay in hospital with major trauma and were out for the remainder of the season.
Teams would practice it, and the hospitals would be full of players with injuries like car accident victims.
Funny how one legal but highly dangerous action can be applauded, but another legal, but fairly low danger action can get a player two weeks.
Personally I dont like a game that allows kneeing. Seems a bit more cowardly than a genuine body on body bump. Both come from the blindside and both should be expected in a game.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
plugger66 wrote:The guy on the mark would not be expecting contact. As KB said today imagine if that could happen every week. Players would be on the ground 10 times a game. Teams would practice it. Who would be first to go for us, Rooy then Kosi and so on. I havent heard one commentator say it was stupid decision. I have heard a couple say they were surprised but not one person has jumped up and down about it. Lets get on with next week. Nothing is going to change the decision.
I think you'll find surprise is the emotion most people feel when they hear about the charge, let alone the tribunal verdict.
A tackle from behind can be unexpected...is it legal?
Given the tribunal's record for turning over very blatant offenses this year, it's certainly worth challenging, but as I mentioned earlier, I'd rather see our team go into this weekend angry. Might be a good, albeit negative, motivational factor.
plugger66 wrote:The guy on the mark would not be expecting contact. As KB said today imagine if that could happen every week. Players would be on the ground 10 times a game. Teams would practice it. Who would be first to go for us, Rooy then Kosi and so on. I havent heard one commentator say it was stupid decision. I have heard a couple say they were surprised but not one person has jumped up and down about it. Lets get on with next week. Nothing is going to change the decision.
I think you'll find surprise is the emotion most people feel when they hear about the charge, let alone the tribunal verdict.
A tackle from behind can be unexpected...is it legal?
Given the tribunal's record for turning over very blatant offenses this year, it's certainly worth challenging, but as I mentioned earlier, I'd rather see our team go into this weekend angry. Might be a good, albeit negative, motivational factor.
The thing is they will not be angry. Our suppoters will but players dont take these things personally like we do. Zac will be angry because who knows he may not get back into the team. As for your other point a tackle from behind is legal. Hitting a player when they shouldnt expect contact is not legal.
Only problem there is that play on had been called - the guy wasn't standing the mark as ther was no mark to stand - he was starting to move to contain the opposition ball carrier.
This wouldn't be replicated every week as few would get the timing right. Too soon and you're ahead of the whistle and in breach of the rules, too late and again you're breaking the rules or having to avoid obviously illegal contact. Zac's only crime as far as I can see was to take advantage of a very small window of opportunity timewise, and get it right.
If he was at all late, it was by fractions of a second that can only be really determined on slo-mo, hardly a fair or reasonable way to ping players for legal contact IMHO.
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
plugger66 wrote:The guy on the mark would not be expecting contact. As KB said today imagine if that could happen every week. Players would be on the ground 10 times a game. Teams would practice it. Who would be first to go for us, Rooy then Kosi and so on. I havent heard one commentator say it was stupid decision. I have heard a couple say they were surprised but not one person has jumped up and down about it. Lets get on with next week. Nothing is going to change the decision.
I think you'll find surprise is the emotion most people feel when they hear about the charge, let alone the tribunal verdict.
A tackle from behind can be unexpected...is it legal?
Given the tribunal's record for turning over very blatant offenses this year, it's certainly worth challenging, but as I mentioned earlier, I'd rather see our team go into this weekend angry. Might be a good, albeit negative, motivational factor.
The thing is they will not be angry. Our suppoters will but players dont take these things personally like we do. Zac will be angry because who knows he may not get back into the team. As for your other point a tackle from behind is legal. Hitting a player when they shouldnt expect contact is not legal.
I can understand a playing group not being revved up about Kosi, but Zac, yes. He's been an integral part of their backline and the incident occured acting as a team member.
I didn't realise you had to get an opposition players permission before applying a bump, tackle or block. There are a lot of unexpected occurences in footy, it doesn't make them illegal...you're talking about intention aren't you? Zac stated his intent was to block, hence he didn't run through the player, as was evident. Given that, I'm surprised at the verdict, as are most people.
plugger66 wrote:The guy on the mark would not be expecting contact. As KB said today imagine if that could happen every week. Players would be on the ground 10 times a game. Teams would practice it. Who would be first to go for us, Rooy then Kosi and so on. I havent heard one commentator say it was stupid decision. I have heard a couple say they were surprised but not one person has jumped up and down about it. Lets get on with next week. Nothing is going to change the decision.
I think you'll find surprise is the emotion most people feel when they hear about the charge, let alone the tribunal verdict.
A tackle from behind can be unexpected...is it legal?
Given the tribunal's record for turning over very blatant offenses this year, it's certainly worth challenging, but as I mentioned earlier, I'd rather see our team go into this weekend angry. Might be a good, albeit negative, motivational factor.
The thing is they will not be angry. Our suppoters will but players dont take these things personally like we do. Zac will be angry because who knows he may not get back into the team. As for your other point a tackle from behind is legal. Hitting a player when they shouldnt expect contact is not legal.
I can understand a playing group not being revved up about Kosi, but Zac, yes. He's been an integral part of their backline and the incident occured acting as a team member.
I didn't realise you had to get an opposition players permission before applying a bump, tackle or block. There are a lot of unexpected occurences in footy, it doesn't make them illegal...you're talking about intention aren't you? Zac stated his intent was to block, hence he didn't run through the player, as was evident. Given that, I'm surprised at the verdict, as are most people.
Then he should have blocked and not bumped him hard enought that he was badly bruised. We seriously cannot have players bumped like that less than a second after play on is called or every player would be watching around him and not the player with the ball. If it was legal guys would practice it and players would be taken out weekly. It would be so easy to do. I intially thought he was very unlucky but thinking about it we cannot have that in our game. The game would be called bumpball not football. The hip and shoulder is not dead if you get a guy who could reasonably expect contact.
plugger66 wrote:Then he should have blocked and not bumped him hard enought that he was badly bruised. We seriously cannot have players bumped like that less than a second after play on is called or every player would be watching around him and not the player with the ball. If it was legal guys would practice it and players would be taken out weekly. It would be so easy to do. I intially thought he was very unlucky but thinking about it we cannot have that in our game. The game would be called bumpball not football. The hip and shoulder is not dead if you get a guy who could reasonably expect contact.
I'm sure they practice blocking every week. Blocking is not merely standing in front of a player.
Had Adelaide not presented a report saying Brad Symes was injured and hampered in training, would the appeal have succeeded? Seems to me that it was a legal manouver that had unfortunate consequences.
Given let off's this season, the tribunal has found to be inconsistant in its judgement, I'm sure an appeal would have some weight. Having said that, I'm not expecting it, sadly.
So if Milne or Baker had been tackled strongly into the turf and accidently knocked out that would have been ok because to tackle a player from behind after the umpire calls 'play on' is ok?
There is no need for the player holding the ball, concentrating on what he is going to do with it, to have any awareness of players standing within a meter behind him. He should expect immediate contact as soon as the umpire calls 'play on'?
I'm having real difficulty trying to understand the reasoning in how 2 players involved in the same segment of play have differing rules surrounding what may/may not be done to them, and why one is supposed to be immune from being 'blind-sided' and the other isn't?
I would have absolutely no issue with either the MRP or Tribunal had the umpire not called 'play-on' immediately prior to Zac's bump/shepherd. That instance is clear cut to me. He is standing the mark and as such is untouchable.
BUT once the umpire calls 'play-on' and the player with the ball can be tackled, then surely the man who was on the mark can be shepherded/blocked/bumped?
plugger66 wrote:Then he should have blocked and not bumped him hard enought that he was badly bruised. We seriously cannot have players bumped like that less than a second after play on is called or every player would be watching around him and not the player with the ball. If it was legal guys would practice it and players would be taken out weekly. It would be so easy to do. I intially thought he was very unlucky but thinking about it we cannot have that in our game. The game would be called bumpball not football. The hip and shoulder is not dead if you get a guy who could reasonably expect contact.
I'm sure they practice blocking every week. Blocking is not merely standing in front of a player.
Had Adelaide not presented a report saying Brad Symes was injured and hampered in training, would the appeal have succeeded? Seems to me that it was a legal manouver that had unfortunate consequences.
Given let off's this season, the tribunal has found to be inconsistant in its judgement, I'm sure an appeal would have some weight. Having said that, I'm not expecting it, sadly.
But the point is Symes was injured. If he got straight up nothing would have happened. Can you at least see if you were allowed to take players on the mark out every game that it would happen far to often. And yes I know they had called play on but the player had less than a second to prepare for a hit that you would expect as he wasnt even making an effort to get near Joey.
It was crude, unnecessary and dangerous to say the very least.
It was worth a week.... they rolled the dice and lost.
Personally I think this whole double or nothing, spin the wheel and take your chances deal stinks.... you get penalized for believing you are innocent.
degruch wrote:I'm sure they practice blocking every week. Blocking is not merely standing in front of a player.
Had Adelaide not presented a report saying Brad Symes was injured and hampered in training, would the appeal have succeeded? Seems to me that it was a legal manouver that had unfortunate consequences.
Given let off's this season, the tribunal has found to be inconsistant in its judgement, I'm sure an appeal would have some weight. Having said that, I'm not expecting it, sadly.
But the point is Symes was injured. If he got straight up nothing would have happened. Can you at least see if you were allowed to take players on the mark out every game that it would happen far to often. And yes I know they had called play on but the player had less than a second to prepare for a hit that you would expect as he wasnt even making an effort to get near Joey.
Well, the boys at the top better get out their pencil and their eraser, and make a rule to cover it (under the Post-St Kilda Clause of 2005), because as it stands there is nothing wrong with the action of blocking, provided the outcome is satisfactory to the opposition player.
So your stance now plunger is that there is a polite period of grace after the whistle is blown, during which our boys should not bump the opposition so as not to cause them any nasty bruises ???
The whistle goes and it is on, 1 second or 10 seconds, it is not relevant. Once the whistle is blown, expect contact. And you also seem to be implying that our boys should exercise restraint and hold back on the intensity, again to avoid bruising the delicate little flowers on the opposition.
The only issue I have with this, is that if the shoe were on the other foot, and one of our blokes got a great bump like that, that you would be taking the stance that "it's a fair bump and we need to harden up and simply move on". Do you actually support St Kilda and follow aussie rules? That was one of the best bumps this year by one of our guys and it is a disgraceful decision, particularly given the outcomes of other cases thus far this year for things like punchung and head-butting, which are clearly outside the rules!!
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
True Believer wrote:So your stance now plunger is that there is a polite period of grace after the whistle is blown, during which our boys should not bump the opposition so as not to cause them any nasty bruises ???
The whistle goes and it is on, 1 second or 10 seconds, it is not relevant. Once the whistle is blown, expect contact. And you also seem to be implying that our boys should exercise restraint and hold back on the intensity, again to avoid bruising the delicate little flowers on the opposition.
The only issue I have with this, is that if the shoe were on the other foot, and one of our blokes got a great bump like that, that you would be taking the stance that "it's a fair bump and we need to harden up and simply move on". Do you actually support St Kilda and follow aussie rules? That was one of the best bumps this year by one of our guys and it is a disgraceful decision, particularly given the outcomes of other cases thus far this year for things like punchung and head-butting, which are clearly outside the rules!!
Well the person who get bumped needs to expect it so there is a time frame. There is no way a person less than a second after play on is called could expect a bump of that force when he isnt making an attempt to really do anything. I support the saints very much as I gather you do as well. As you asked me a question I will ask you one. If Zac was found not guilty and the exact same thing happened to Rooy this week what would you say. My guess is you would be wanting blood as I certainly would.
True Believer wrote:So your stance now plunger is that there is a polite period of grace after the whistle is blown, during which our boys should not bump the opposition so as not to cause them any nasty bruises ???
The whistle goes and it is on, 1 second or 10 seconds, it is not relevant. Once the whistle is blown, expect contact. And you also seem to be implying that our boys should exercise restraint and hold back on the intensity, again to avoid bruising the delicate little flowers on the opposition.
The only issue I have with this, is that if the shoe were on the other foot, and one of our blokes got a great bump like that, that you would be taking the stance that "it's a fair bump and we need to harden up and simply move on". Do you actually support St Kilda and follow aussie rules? That was one of the best bumps this year by one of our guys and it is a disgraceful decision, particularly given the outcomes of other cases thus far this year for things like punchung and head-butting, which are clearly outside the rules!!
agree totally with this.... If it's a fair bump and during play then it's play on. Plugger66 the umpire, saw it, called play on. The player was not on the mark as there was no mark anymore. Thats the facts.... the decision was bulls*** and goes against all we ever have been taught about how to play the game.....
FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
True Believer wrote:So your stance now plunger is that there is a polite period of grace after the whistle is blown, during which our boys should not bump the opposition so as not to cause them any nasty bruises ???
The whistle goes and it is on, 1 second or 10 seconds, it is not relevant. Once the whistle is blown, expect contact. And you also seem to be implying that our boys should exercise restraint and hold back on the intensity, again to avoid bruising the delicate little flowers on the opposition.
The only issue I have with this, is that if the shoe were on the other foot, and one of our blokes got a great bump like that, that you would be taking the stance that "it's a fair bump and we need to harden up and simply move on". Do you actually support St Kilda and follow aussie rules? That was one of the best bumps this year by one of our guys and it is a disgraceful decision, particularly given the outcomes of other cases thus far this year for things like punchung and head-butting, which are clearly outside the rules!!
agree totally with this.... If it's a fair bump and during play then it's play on. Plugger66 the umpire, saw it, called play on. The player was not on the mark as there was no mark anymore. Thats the facts.... the decision was bulls*** and goes against all we ever have been taught about how to play the game.....
So you are happy if Rooy is minding his own business on the mark and half a second after play on is called he is taken out. A team gets away with that so the next week a team takes out 2 of our players. I played footy for 15 years but I was never taught to take out a player as soon as play on was called.
plugger66 wrote:
But the point is Symes was injured. If he got straight up nothing would have happened. Can you at least see if you were allowed to take players on the mark out every game that it would happen far to often. And yes I know they had called play on but the player had less than a second to prepare for a hit that you would expect as he wasnt even making an effort to get near Joey.
plugger66 wrote:[If Zac was found not guilty and the exact same thing happened to Rooy this week what would you say. My guess is you would be wanting blood as I certainly would.
Like when Rooey had a broken shoulder and two Brisbane players hit him from behind???
Apparently that type of action was good for the game and not "rough conduct", because after all the player they were bumping only had a broken shoulder.
Hey but that was Ok. How many weeks did Michael and Scott get for that again???
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
