Tribunal Results and Discussions

Hardy Not Guilty - surprise, surprise.

I'm sure most clubs have quality Legal teams but the Dogs are represented by one of their Directors Steve Clark. He is very good at what he does and that record you mentioned is proof of this.

I guess the question you need to ask is what exactly is rough play? What does it mean? It seems to me that a player reported for rough play hasn't been guilty of punching, kicking, tripping, or any of the other misdemeanours that necessitate reporting. So why are they reported at all? It's no surprise to me that a report for rough play can be overturned at the tribunal.

The one that interests me is the 1 match suspension for Rowntree. Technically, the report was there, Willits WAS bending forward, and Rowntree DID make contact above his shoulders. However, Willits just stood there whilst Rowntree bounced off him. He seemed just as surprised by the contact as Willits.

After seeing Eagleton get sent off in 2011 for two of the softest reports imaginable, I just wonder where we're at with reportable incidents, and does the whole system need a review?

It's also relevant that appeals are usually made when the club concerned thinks they have a good case.

redandblack wrote:It's also relevant that appeals are usually made when the club concerned thinks they have a good case.

Exactly - very good point

Big Phil wrote:I'm sure most clubs have quality Legal teams but the Dogs are represented by one of their Directors Steve Clark. He is very good at what he does and that record you mentioned is proof of this.

Absolutely Phil, very good at putting a case together, I wasn't implying anything more than that .

Would rather see Hardy out on the ground this week anyway, hopefully the Bloods can knock them off with as few excuses as possible.

It does seem though that the tribunal panel is going against the aims of the SANFL and match review panel to crack down on incidents, has been a bit of a trend since the points system was introduced. It is almost like the tribunal is saying "Do what you like with set penalties, we will still hold the final say and if we dont agree with the points outcome we will just find them not guilty". Under the old system more players would have been found guilty but just given more lenient sentences.

I like the old system - this is not a dirty comp and doesn't need the AFL obsession with suspending the players we love to watch play.

Just let the players play hard, tough, footy!!

bloodsasia wrote:

Big Phil wrote:I'm sure most clubs have quality Legal teams but the Dogs are represented by one of their Directors Steve Clark. He is very good at what he does and that record you mentioned is proof of this.

Absolutely Phil, very good at putting a case together, I wasn't implying anything more than that

And I wasn't implying anything other than the fact that Steve Clark is good at what he does for Central, so not sure what the rolled eyes are for, mate?

Reported by the NAFC:

James Bennett has accepted a reprimand from the Incident Review Panel for a striking charge. Brett Backwell has accepted a two match penalty from the Incident Review Panel for a striking charge

Craig Parry has been offered 4 weeks by the SANFL tribunal for elbowing Sam Mayes in the side of the head...

The Eagles are going to go to the tribunal tomorrow night and challenge this decision...

Incident can be seen at about the 22:50 mark of 'The Recovery Session', link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO2oYPr_R6I&feature=player_embedded

Parry's got no chance of defending that one.

I think the length of the suspension offered probably has a bit to do with Craig's prior record as well. If the 4 game suspension sticks and the Eagles don't end up making the finals, yesterday could actually be the last game he plays for the Eagles?

Agreed, especially with his record.

That's as blatant as anything I've seen for a long time.

Jeremy Clayton pleaded guilty to umpire abuse and has had his punishment reduced from a 1 match suspension to a reprimand. Is free to play against the Eagles on Saturday...

Craig Parry up next...

Parry to still miss 4 !

If the Eagles don't make the finals now, that is a very good chance he wont be seen in the SANFL again.

I have read that Parry is playing his last year , that talk has been going on for a while . Regardless of this suspension , why would it be his last ? I highly doubt it to be honest , he's only 27 . All this has done is assured him he'll play next year . I could be wrong , I am not one of those posters to make out I know it all but I'd be surprised if he doesn't play next year.

Not sure that the talk has been Parry wants to retire from playing football, waddyamean, more that he may be returning home to Perth.

I meant ,as all have suggested, not playing for the Eagles. I haven't heard anywhere of a move interstate . Like I said , I am probably wrong .

I have heard he is considering moving back home. Parry works for Kings Transport, who supply my work with trucks and drivers, and some of the drivers I've spoke to who are into footy have said that they've heard Craig is thinking of going home.

Central's James Boyd suspended for 2 weeks for striking Matty Jaensch...

Eagles' Chris Kane suspended for 4 weeks for charging James Gallagher...

Norwood's Luke Jericho reprimanded for tweeting about Chris Kane...

So the message from the tribunal to the players is, keep your fists to yourself, keep your elbows to yourself, and keep your thoughts to yourself.

I'm not trying to stir here, I raise this as a serious question. Is the SANFL skating on thin ice (legally), trying to censor what players post on social media sites? I hasten to add that I have no idea what the player concerned said. If it was defamatory, that's a matter between the individuals involved. Otherwise it's surely free speech. Either way I can't see what role the SANFL has in it. Words and actions on the field, are clearly within their jurisdiction. But outside in the real world is another matter, even if it does result from onfield events.

In part, I agree with you, but the fact that Jericho is a public figure who 'represents' the SANFL, they want and need to keep a clean image and send messages about socially acceptable behaviour.

Hiding behind a phone or a computer screen I have always believed 100% to be a deeply cowardly act, no question. If you got something to say, man up and say it to their face and then be done with it.

The concept of "free speech" is an interesting one, and a contradiction unto itself. We use the term free speech, but who is truly allowed to say exactly what is on their minds at all times? Free speech does not mean you can say what you like.

People using the social networks have been testing the bounds of what is acceptable for years, as we have recently seen in the disgraceful Buddy Franklin accusations. We've seen AFL chief Demetriou warn of legal action in future for similar occurances.

Using Twitter and Facebook to slander people has been commonplace for way too long, and must be tempered. I understand the AFL have clauses in player contracts governing such behaviour, I was unaware the SANFL did similar.

In the meantime, we continue to live in a world where people can commit crimes of various means, and yet the greatest crime is committed by anyone who dares say anything about it. Strange, really.

Great post, AH, and I agree with you except for your conclusion.

Kane got 4 weeks for the 'greatest' crime, Jericho got a reprimand.

I don't think his 'crime' was anything particularly bad, but if players are allowed to tell thousands of others that another named player is a (dirty) hack and not be reprimanded for it, then we can look forward to dozens of other players doing the same.

It would be entertaining, but I'm not sure it's in the best interests of the competition.