SANFL MRP Results & Discussion

Adam Grocke has been referred direct to the tribunal for the rough conduct charge on Brad Symes...

Looks like Grocke only has 4 games on his record so unless he cops 12 games, will not be looking at de-registration...

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/2433/

Grocke gets 7 matches

about right

From the SANFL site...

http://sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/2433/

blacky wrote:about right

yep, i still hope Symes takes Grocke to court for assault

bayman wrote:

blacky wrote:about right

yep, i still hope Symes takes Grocke to court for assault

Let us seriously hope this is not the case. The overly litigious world we live in doesn't need people who play contact sports lodging court documents against other players.

I agree, there will be crude incidents in footy, this is one. It was deliberate and all wrong, but the ball was there and it was in play. If it was a king hit behind play there could be a lot said. But as long as the SANFL deal with it correctly no need for legal action and that appears to be the case. You expect physical contact when playing footy otherwise you wouldnt play.

Im torn on the matter of of-field charges, but I will pose this question. What if Symes had been seriously injured - broken jaw, skull or cheekbone, sinus issues etc. Effectively anything that could bother him for life or cause he and his family a big loss in employment income. Would it then be justifiable to pursue through legal avenues? I consider the fact he didn't receive any of those injuries pure luck. The end result is no different to when people are on the receiving end of a coward punch. Some get lucky with any health effects and sadly some don't. I love tough hard football as much as anyone and Im even happy for two blokes to go toe-to-toe, but in my opinion this one crossed the line and could very easily have had permanent ramifications.

I think that the day will come where an insurance company will persue charges. Using Scrunch's scenario, if Symes couldn't work for a year (or possibly permanantly) due to injuries received in a match then an insurer or Workcover faces a payout in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I can see them launching an action to get some of their money back.

All players should have income protection insurance, from the bottom SAAFL competition to AFL football and I am certain the likes of Symes at SANFL level would have such protection.

Let's keep it simple, without neglecting what Grocke did, you play a contact sport you run the risk of serious injury. Be it accidental ( see Nathan Brown Western Bulldogs broken leg ) or incidental ( Grocke on Symes ). Unless you see any incident as 100% intentional, which even the hardest of critics would have trouble convincing me this was the case here then there is no place for legal action in Aussie rules, in my most humble of opinions.

Booney wrote:All players should have income protection insurance, from the bottom SAAFL competition to AFL football and I am certain the likes of Symes at SANFL level would have such protection.

Let's keep it simple, without neglecting what Grocke did, you play a contact sport you run the risk of serious injury. Be it accidental ( see Nathan Brown Western Bulldogs broken leg ) or incidental ( Grocke on Symes ). Unless you see any incident as 100% intentional, which even the hardest of critics would have trouble convincing me this was the case here then there is no place for legal action in Aussie rules, in my most humble of opinions.

I do know for a fact that all players at West Adelaide are required to take out insurance. Not sure what type, but my guess is to cover their injury costs first. Loss of income insurance would probably fall back onto the player's responsibility.

I would think that SANFL clubs pay workcover to cover these instances. Players are paid a salary so surely must be covered under workcover.

I get your sentiment Booney, because I've always felt the same way. Perhaps in my old age I'm getting soft, but if it were a member of my family injured permanently through such an action I would completely support them taking legal action. Apologies from deviating slightly away from this specific topic, I just think it's interesting and relevant.

Absolutely, looking at it from a distance is easily done....make it my lad out there and I've got no doubt I'd feel completely different.

Luke Barmby's 3 match suspension for rough conduct has been overturned by the SANFL Tribunal, and he is free to play against Adelaide this weekend.

Brucetiki wrote:Luke Barmby's 3 match suspension for rough conduct has been overturned by the SANFL Tribunal, and he is free to play against Adelaide this weekend.

Let me first say I probably have a bias view but I think he is very lucky and deserved a few games. He has no intention of going for the ball and went for the man. Watching the replay I dont see how anyone can say he was shepparding either  as no Central player had a chance to win the ball.

It's irrelevant for the tribunal but it wasnt even a tough act, he lined up probably the smallest player on the ground when he didnt see it coming. Had it been Baulderstone or Bode I dont think he would of done it.

Anyway like I said I probably have a bias view but I am really surprised at this result.

Is our tribunal heading down the same path as the AWFL?

Tribunal results hardly ever get overturned in the afl.
If I was a club manager and my player was suspended, I would almost always challenge it.

The ratio of success is pretty high.

The tribunal in the SANFL have been very lenient towards offenders for many years, players get of so easily, and the fact that not all games are televised as in the AFL Probably may have something to do with it.

a Norwood player got reported tonight, for the life of me i can't think who it was but i reckon he tried pulling out of the contact & was very stiff to be reported, free kick probably, but shouldn't have been reported imho

bayman wrote:a Norwood player got reported tonight, for the life of me i can't think who it was but i reckon he tried pulling out of the contact & was very stiff to be reported, free kick probably, but shouldn't have been reported imho

I would go so far as to say that most of the suspensions shouldn't happen that result from players contacting front or side on. I am not talking about reckless elbows either.

But the penalties from bumps that are (unintentionally) or marginally high are not in the spirit of the game in my opinion. There are just too many inconsistencies in how these infractions are applied.

For example, if you wring a bloke's neck with a high tackle = free kick. Ok with that.
But a bump with your shoulder that is high = suspension. Not ok with that.
When both can inflict as much damage, how do they differ in reality?

I don't know where the logical end to this "Rules Folly" is going to be, but I can say with certainty it isn't helping the spectacle of the game. Whilst it remains a contact sport (and not netball rules) these clashes are always going to occur and blokes will be rubbed out for doing essentially what they have been taught to do over many years.

I just wish that the AFL particularly would wake up and consider how all of this is viewed from a patrons point of view.

To say that rubbing out the bump is cleaning up the game, is a blinkered view with a subversive agenda I think.

bayman wrote:a Norwood player got reported tonight, for the life of me i can't think who it was but i reckon he tried pulling out of the contact & was very stiff to be reported, free kick probably, but shouldn't have been reported imho

The big fella in Sam Baulderstone...

South defender Bradley Crabb offered a 1 week suspension by the SANFL Incident Review Panel...

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/2453/

Big Phil wrote:South defender Bradley Crabb offered a 1 week suspension by the SANFL Incident Review Panel...

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/2453/

should have got 2

1 for the punch & 1 for stupidity

Maybe get these 2 threads merged, redandblack?

http://www.talkingfootysa.com/t2292-tribunal

Henry Slattery has not been given the opportunity to get a reduction for early gulity pleas or clean records...

Sent straight to the tribunal...

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/2484/

Interesting also that Ben Jefferies has been offered a 3 match ban from the tribunal...