View Full Version : THE SANFL's secret tribunal should be ashamed
Can't make sense of the Cupido suspension? Read below....
Tribunal’s record of leniency
Don’t go to the SANFL website looking for data on the tribunal hearings over the last two years – it doesn't show that info.
But a google search brings up scattered news items which show that over the past two years about half of the reports have been dismissed. There’s also quite a string of cases where the player was found guilty and given a reprimand due to ‘insufficient force’ in the contact.
The tribunal undoubtedly has a record for leniency, as anyone who has followed the SANFL will know. [
So why no leniency in the Cupido case?
Two strange things. Firstly it's on TV for all to see how innocuous it all was. The TV commentators say ‘nothing much to worry about there’. Secondly, in the same game Backwell was reported for coming in late to a marking ‘contest’ with a forearm to the back of the head of his opponent, who was wide open. Considerable force, the victim was down for awhile and could have been seriously injured.
Incredibly, the tribunal dismissed this as no case to answer but suspended Cupido for one match, and a final at that. One case, potentially serious damage - the Cupido case, absolutely no harm at all.
Not only is the Cupido case out of kilter with all precedent from the tribunal, it's even unfathomable when lined up against another case [I]from the same match
So who are these guys?
The tribunal hearing the Cupido case was:
Paul Cuthbertson, a lawyer, chairman of the tribunal;
Peter Woite, former Port player; and
David Swain, (don’t know anything about him).
We don’t know what happens at tribunal hearings as unlike the law of the land they are closed to the public. The media is also excluded (but can be let in on occasion at the invitation of the tribunal). Essentially, the hearings are held in secret. They’ll let in the media if they feel like it.
The tribunal doesn’t explain what evidence they heard (did they look at the TV footage? speak to Cupido’s victim to ask if he had a bruised chest?). They don’t explain their decision or answer any questions from the media.
And of course there is no appeal against the Tribunal’s verdict.
So no public access, no media access, no explanation and no appeal.
Therefore, no accountability.
So what to do with the current tribunal members?
Anyone who was seen the TV footage of the Cupido incident and knows the tribunal’s record of leniency will be incredulous at the verdict, especially given he misses a final’s match. Were the tribunal trying to help Port......because they can?
What is certain is that for no good reason they have ruined the year of a young player who was trying to redeem his football career, and who had earned the right to play in the elimination final.
They have done so at variance to their own precedents.
They should be ashamed.
They should resign.
Maybe you should edit and start again
Adam BK
16 Sep 2006, 10:27
yikes thats shocking
Blue Red and Gold
16 Sep 2006, 10:41
Maybe you should edit and start again
Why?
I repeat, have you seen the incident?
Why?
I repeat, have you seen the incident?
Bit sensitive? I was talking about the way it was first posted
PerthCrow. 'Bit sensetive', 'Hit a nerve?'.
Is that all you say?
You know NOTHING about this incident and obviously NOTHING about SANFL this year. As a passionate SANFL follower I can tell you that something was a miss in this case. Something has gone on to make sure Cupido doesn't take to the field.
You know NOTHING about this incident and obviously NOTHING about SANFL this year.
And maybe thats why I can look at this dispassionately.
You may be right , there maybe something amiss... I havent commented at all on the suspension nor the tribunal process ( other to query why no appeal process) . All I have put forward is that I dont agree with using the Supreme Court to interfere in football issues
Sorry but the words dispassionately and football should not be used in the same sentence.
So let's get this straight.
Burton kicks 5 goals and has 30 touches in the prelim. In the last minute he gets suspended for a push in the chest.
And let's suppose the AFL did not have an appeals system.
Would you want the AFC to take it to the supreme court? I know I bloody would.
The other reason why the SAFC should have done EXACTLY what they did is that now the SANFL will put in an appeals system which is well overdue.
Bam.
crows98
16 Sep 2006, 12:51
Sorry but the words dispassionately and football should not be used in the same sentence.
So let's get this straight.
Burton kicks 5 goals and has 30 touches in the prelim. In the last minute he gets suspended for a push in the chest.
And let's suppose the AFL did not have an appeals system.
Would you want the AFC to take it to the supreme court? I know I bloody would.
The other reason why the SAFC should have done EXACTLY what they did is that now the SANFL will put in an appeals system which is well overdue.
Bam.
FFS at no time did Damien Cupido have an open palm so it was not as simply as a push in the chest; from the moment he motioned his arm and shoulder back his first was clenched (go back and watch the vision). He swung thought with an aggressive process in mind.
He punched the Glenelg player in the chest (as soft as it was) deserved a one week holiday.
I agree with what PC said in a different thread that if this was a round 3 clash with nothing on the end, would SAFC taken it to court and tried to have this over turned.
In my eyes he was guilty of striking with a clenched fist.
macca23
16 Sep 2006, 12:57
FFS at no time did Damien Cupido have an open palm so it was not as simply as a push in the chest; from the moment he motioned his arm and shoulder back his first was clenched (go back and watch the vision). He swung thought with an aggressive process in mind.
He punched the Glenelg player in the chest (as soft as it was) deserved a one week holiday.
Come on, get real!!
I have no allegiance to South, being WWT, and I have zero time for Cupido who just is wasting his god given talents.
But to call that a punch??? Pffttt! Buckley gave a blow to the head many times more forceful than that and it was called a push.
It deserved nothing - absolutely nothing.
South Adelaide have been shafted big time.
FFS at no time did Damien Cupido have an open palm so it was not as simply as a push in the chest; from the moment he motioned his arm and shoulder back his first was clenched (go back and watch the vision). He swung thought with an aggressive process in mind.
He punched the Glenelg player in the chest (as soft as it was) deserved a one week holiday.
I agree with what PC said in a different thread that if this was a round 3 clash with nothing on the end, would SAFC taken it to court and tried to have this over turned.
In my eyes he was guilty of striking with a clenched fist.
And the other part of my post?
You agree...just as I thought.
Scott Van Persett
16 Sep 2006, 13:03
And it looked to me that the Glenelg player took a dive as there was a significant time lapse between contact and falling backwards
McConnell is soft as it is and he took a huge dive in this instance.
crows98
16 Sep 2006, 13:07
Come on, get real!!
I have no allegiance to South, being WWT, and I have zero time for Cupido who just is wasting his god given talents.
But to call that a punch??? Pffttt! Buckley gave a blow to the head many times more forceful than that and it was called a push.
It deserved nothing - absolutely nothing.
South Adelaide have been shafted big time.
And Steven Baker from St Kilda virtually did the same thing and received 2 weeks.
The force of the strike should not come into it, the intent of the action should. He hit him with a closed fist not an open palm. The closed fist makes it a strike and that is what he has been found guilty of.
If the vision showed that he simply pushed him with an open hand to the chest, no problem with the appeal or the court case to try and over turn this verdict, but it was a punch not a push.
I have nothing against South Adelaide or Damien Cupido but the conspiracy theories and the hard done by crap that the SANFL are out to get them, well that’s a bit rich.
If it was not a final, it would not matter.
Leaping Lindner
16 Sep 2006, 13:08
Come on, get real!!
I have no allegiance to South, being WWT, and I have zero time for Cupido who just is wasting his god given talents.
But to call that a punch??? Pffttt! Buckley gave a blow to the head many times more forceful than that and it was called a push.
It deserved nothing - absolutely nothing.
South Adelaide have been shafted big time.
Substitute North for WWT :p , and that's exactly what I think!
crows98
16 Sep 2006, 13:12
And the other part of my post?
You agree...just as I thought.
I have no problem taking it to the Supreme Court if it can be justified and I don’t believe that South Adelaide could justify it.
If any AFC was found guilty and there was evidence that showed he was innocent I would have no problem. However, in the Cupido case there was no new evidence used or precedence to challenge the decision.
macca23
16 Sep 2006, 13:14
I have no problem taking it to the Supreme Court if it can be justified and I don’t believe that South Adelaide could justify it.
If any AFC was found guilty and there was evidence that showed he was indecent I would have no problem. However, in the Cupido case there was no new evidence used or precedence to challenge the decision.
I'm not sure that's what you meant to say!! :p
Couldn't justify it?!?! WTF.
Believe it or not they don't base SANFL suspensions on what has happened with similar cases in the AFL.
They use their own competition as a precedent and rightfully so.
If you had been following the SANFL this year you would know that you basically had to kill someone to get a suspension.
crows98
16 Sep 2006, 16:44
Couldn't justify it?!?! WTF.
What new evidence (camera angle or player testimony) did South Adelaide use to prove Cupido innocence?
Believe it or not they don't base SANFL suspensions on what has happened with similar cases in the AFL.
Of course, it's a different competition; in cases like this you can only compare apples with apples.
They use their own competition as a precedent and rightfully so.
Of course, But any tribunal result is subjective and results in questions being asked.
If you had been following the SANFL this year you would know that you basically had to kill someone to get a suspension.
Then Cupido should count himself unlucky, if he didn’t act like a wanna be tough guy and hit him, he wouldn’t have been suspended.
So is Cupido playing tomorrow, or what?
macca23
16 Sep 2006, 16:52
So is Cupido playing tomorrow, or what?
Nope - suspension stands. The court per se couldn't change it, all it could do was to order a re-hearing by the tribunal, but the judge abstained from doing that.
RoosterLad
16 Sep 2006, 16:53
It is a shame.
How can Backwell get off and Cupido cop a week?? Should have been the other way around!!
Stiffy_18
16 Sep 2006, 18:29
Come on, get real!!
I have no allegiance to South, being WWT, and I have zero time for Cupido who just is wasting his god given talents.
But to call that a punch??? Pffttt! Buckley gave a blow to the head many times more forceful than that and it was called a push.
It deserved nothing - absolutely nothing.
South Adelaide have been shafted big time.
Couldn't agree more :thumbsu:
One of the most mind-boggling decisions for a LONG LONG time. Not even worth a free kick IMHO :confused:
Crows 98, the point is not whether the hand was open or closed. The point is it was in the chest and insufficient force to warranty any penalty. According to all the tribunal's precedent it should have been dismissed, or at worst a reprimand. The fact they gave him a match, and a final at that, is incredibly harsh.
What were they thinking? Well that's the other point - as the system stands they don't bother about justifyinging it or being open to review through an appeals process.