View Full Version : SANFL Tribunal Results
eddie eagle
23 Sep 2003, 22:25
Tuck of WA
Gowans C of CD
both got off with reprimands:(
Both of em were very lucky!
GO THE GOWANS!
koulagirl22
24 Sep 2003, 00:37
Well thank Judas for that. We're going to need Tucky if we are to win against the Eagles on Sunday.
bulldog pommy
24 Sep 2003, 08:18
And so they should.
What did the umpire get for being a ****
Would've been ridiculous if Gowans got suspended - absolutely nothing in it. Tuck was a tad lucky but considering he apologised to Quinno on the day, a reprimand was probably sensible. I'm just glad that neither player was suspended - there's nothing worse than missing finals that way.
eddie eagle
24 Sep 2003, 13:50
Originally posted by bulldog pommy
And so they should.
What did the umpire get for being a ****
Did not see either incident - but both reported players pleaded guilty to the charges, so not sure where you are coming from. The players themselves did not dispute the reports.
They were reprimanded after their guilty pleas were accepted.
Jars458
24 Sep 2003, 15:28
Reprimands make no sense whatsoever
Its like the first one is free.
Do it again and you will only get a week and so there is no punishement
They should have at least got suspended sentences one would have thought.
Every player in the SANFL pretty much knows they can whack someone and get away with it if they plead guilty and have a clean record.
Parry must have almost killed Coulter to get five weeks.
brucetiki
24 Sep 2003, 16:01
2 very sensible decisions here. The reprimands were appropraite considering the clean records of both players.
Uncle Steve
24 Sep 2003, 16:49
Originally posted by Jars458
Every player in the SANFL pretty much knows they can whack someone and get away with it if they plead guilty and have a clean record.
... or they can whinge that the umpire was giving them a hard time, and have their club stand over the umpire by bringing charges against him. This will result in the dropping of all charges after a mutual hand-job session behind closed doors. :mad:
bulldog pommy
24 Sep 2003, 19:12
Originally posted by eddie eagle
Did not see either incident - but both reported players pleaded guilty to the charges, so not sure where you are coming from. The players themselves did not dispute the reports.
They were reprimanded after their guilty pleas were accepted.
Of course the players are going to plead guilty, its the sensible thing to do.
The strike that Gowans did was nothing more than swishing a fly away and Tuck's was a change in direction and a loss of balance.
eddie eagle
24 Sep 2003, 21:35
Originally posted by Uncle Steve
... or they can whinge that the umpire was giving them a hard time, and have their club stand over the umpire by bringing charges against him. This will result in the dropping of all charges after a mutual hand-job session behind closed doors. :mad:
yes let's hope that the foul mouthed player cannot be talked into continuing his career at the club.
eddie eagle
24 Sep 2003, 21:37
Originally posted by bulldog pommy
Tuck's was a change in direction and a loss of balance.
OK but was the result of the tuck trip the injury to graham's knee. A fletcher special?. A dogs fan at work is ****faced that he may miss the GF.