Parry deregistered from footy (appeal pending)

From the Eagles

The WWTFC can confirm it has provided an early guilty plea to accept a Level 3 – Striking charge for Craig Parry from last week’s match versus North Adelaide.

The SANFL review panel interpreted Parry’s incident as Intentional, High Contact and Low Impact which amounted to 225 points. With a loading of 25% and 19.6 carry over points from an offense in 2012 and a 25% deduction for an Early Guilty plea Craig will miss 2 matches with 30.53 carry over points.

The WWTFC can also confirm that as a result of Craig’s 2 week suspension he has now exceeded the accumulated 16-week suspension permitted during a player’s career and has therefor been de-registered by the SANFL in accordance with the National De-registration policy adopted by the
League in 2013.

The Club will appeal Craig’s de-registration at a SANFL Football Commission hearing at a date to be determined

Sheesh. Serious?

Does that mean full stop or for a given period?

If the club accepts his penalty to this charge, I can't see what possible mitigating circumstances could be offered in defence and how they would expect to challenge the de-registration if he has reached 16 weeks?

I don't think this has happened before.
Imagine how short Robbie Muir and Grave Dainger's careers would have been. Although they were across 2 leagues I guess.

This one will be interesting.

The 16 games is across ANY grade of affiliated football from Under 8's on up.

MWJFL makes a regular point to its teams to tell its kids to not to do anything stupid as any suspension will carry over to senior ranks.

Except AFL where apparently its 32.

PhilH wrote:Except AFL where apparently its 32.

I'm not sure about that. Here's a link to the relevant document. (Click on the PDF to download.) Clause 3.2.2 is a bit ambiguous and could refer only to points to be carried over from the AFL to another league. But I'm not a lawyer of course.  

http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?c=1-1047-0-0-0&sID=54974&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=18181542

this is the most moronic penalty system of all time, generalizing surely if a player punches another player & gets a match & the next time he gets 2 & then 4 matches surely at one stage his (or her) club will tell the player to pull his/her heads in & forget the stupid stuff, i wish they'd just go back to what works & what everyone understands

I can understand the rule at amateur level to stop some of the king hits that plague their competitions, however IMO it shouldn't be applicable at state league or AFL level, or at the very least rejigged so that it's over a much shorter period than the 20-25+ years most of the high profile cases seem to attract (eg 16 games over 3 years).

What are WWT appealing?

Parry knew the rule and where he was at as regards total games, but couldn't help himself. The club accepted the penalty so it has no problem with his guilt as charged. He has had an attraction to giving heads a smack for a while as evidenced by his record.

So what grounds are there to appeal? That the rules shouldn't apply to Parry?
That the rule is stupid and should be ignored?

Mind you, as Norwood appears to have avoided any penalty for deliberately breaking the salary cap perhaps WWT is banking on another bizarre SANFL ruling being in their favour this time.

UncleHuey wrote:What are WWT appealing?

Parry knew the rule and where he was at as regards total games, but couldn't help himself. The club accepted the penalty so it has no problem with his guilt as charged. He has had an attraction to giving heads a smack for a while as evidenced by his record.

So what grounds are there to appeal? That the rules shouldn't apply to Parry?
That the rule is stupid and should be ignored?

Mind you, as Norwood appears to have avoided any penalty for deliberately breaking the salary cap perhaps WWT is banking on another bizarre SANFL ruling being in their favour this time.

According to the code behind the 16 game threshold, a player can only be reinstated if the SA Football Commission is 'satisifed the player is genuinely rehabilitated and unlikely to re-offend'.

With Parry having 11 matches in suspensions in the past three seasons, it's going to be a very tough battle for the Eagles to get Parry reinstated.

Advertiser article on the ban http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/woodville-west-torrens-in-push-to-save-craig-parry-from-national-life-football-ban/story-fnii0667-1226700120541

The SANFL seem to have been working for a while to become AFLSA, so endorsing this rule into the competition would hardly be any surprise.

That said however, I would be surprised if Parry was not aware of it and did not know he was on a last chance if it happened again. I have little time or respect for people that are unwilling to take responsability for their own actions. Trying to protect people like that does not help them in life at all.

And it would seem that several of his lengthier holidays have been in the last 3 seasons. That will probably play against a defence.

I recall it being mentioned possibly here in the last 12 months that he was on his last chance.

Agree entirely Uncle Huey.

Craig Parry allowed to play

i doubt he'll get another appeal up should he incur the wrath of the tribunal & surely he wont be so stupid with his remaining games this year

Wednesday August 21 2013

MEDIA STATEMENT – CRAIG PARRY

The SANFL advises that Woodville-West Torrens player Craig Parry has been granted an exemption after successfully appealing his deregistration at a tribunal hearing on Wednesday night.

The Tribunal, in the decision approved by the SA Football Commission, deemed that Parry qualified under the exceptional circumstances provision contained in the national deregistration policy.

Parry advised the Tribunal that he had already initiated a number of actions, by way of active rehabilitation, in an endeavour to ensure that this behaviour does not recur.

1) He will participate in the club’s Under-18 program in a mentoring capacity.
2) He will attend Anger Management counselling sessions, beginning Monday August 26, 2013.
3) He will attend an Umpiring Development Program to gain insight into the perspective an umpire has on the game.

The Tribunal was sympathetic to Parry’s unique position in that when the deregistration regulations were introduced in late 2012; he was already at the permitted maximum.

He is the only SANFL player to be so impacted.

On Tuesday, Parry accepted a two-match ban for striking North Adelaide’s Matt Campbell at Prospect Oval on Saturday.

This resulted in Parry being deregistered by the SANFL for exceeding the accumulated 16-match suspension under the national deregistration policy.

Parry will now be available to play for Woodville-West Torrens in the first week of the finals, once he has served his two-match suspension for striking Matt Campbell.

Should Parry reoffend at any level, he will be automatically deregistered with no further right to apply for an exemption or to appeal.

Considering the circumstances, which I wasn't aware of, I think that's a reasonable decision.

Agreed.

Sounds pretty fair and reasonable from the SANFL there.

He is one of the few blokes in the sanfl that gets his suspensions in 3 and 4s rather than 1s and 2s.

If he intends going to umpire school, maybe he will come back in the next (post-footy) life as one.

Not the first time an antagonist has turned to officiating.
Fabulous Phil did a bit of umpiring in Bendigo I think after his Sturt coaching days. That's pretty ironic I think.

Did the Eagles do a deal?

A fair decision IMO, when the rule was bought in (2011) all players should have been deemed to be on zero suspensions.

I agree with you Testy, changing the rules part way through the game should not be allowed. If all players were on "0" games when the rule was brought in and a player runs up 16 games suspended then it should come into affect.

They did that in the SAAFL a few years ago to get rid of certain players by making matches retrospective,

There is two things wrong with the rule - one, 16 matches is too light given every ground has camera(s) and a MRP of sorts to pour over every incident. The 16 matches which match the SAAFL and country leagues who will be lucky to get one camera at a ground, and no MRP of any sort.

The second is of course the retropsective side of it. How can you bring in a rule and decide years long penalties count?