Murray FL 2019

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
"The Roar Is Back" said:
Majority of clubs making moves to remove rumba from the comp ?
Click to expand...

Really??

first I’d heard of it... but it isn’t the first time I’ve heard of other clubs threatening to do this. For what it’s worth I can’t see it happening, a grade netball finished top of the ladder 2 years running, senior team played off in a GF last year, reserves and thirds played off in GF’s this year, and under 14’s football, under 15 and 17’s netball all played finals this year..... having said that, if it were to happen, it would have to be unanimous I would suggest..... but they could always refuse to play, which would be more likely I would think 🤔.... which would give a ride for us an armchair ride to the finals.... but the plot thickens it would appear....
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

goodgolly24 said:
Really??

first I’d heard of it... but it isn’t the first time I’ve heard of other clubs threatening to do this. For what it’s worth I can’t see it happening, a grade netball finished top of the ladder 2 years running, senior team played off in a GF last year, reserves and thirds played off in GF’s this year, and under 14’s football, under 15 and 17’s netball all played finals this year..... having said that, if it were to happen, it would have to be unanimous I would suggest..... but they could always refuse to play, which would be more likely I would think 🤔.... which would give a ride for us an armchair ride to the finals.... but the plot thickens it would appear....
Click to expand...
Seniors didn't quite make it too the big dance last year. As pointed thought the issue would be in regards to conduct the Grand Final incident in particular seems to have some mud stuck too it.
 
Doc Larkins said:
Seniors didn't quite make it too the big dance last year. As pointed thought the issue would be in regards to conduct the Grand Final incident in particular seems to have some mud stuck too it.
Click to expand...

My bad, your right, neither football or netball senior teams mad it to t the GF last year (or this year...)..... and I don’t doubt that the major point is the issue from the GF. As hard as some might find it to believe even we have an issue with what happened..... but it is only hearsay, and would be a waste of time building a case or argument to the contrary until something has surfaced in writing...... until then, I assume everyone is building and developing their clubs and sides for the 2020 season.... I have heard today that Rumba certainly are, with a couple of departures and recruits to be announced in the near future I hope.
 
I can understand the feelings of people who witnessed the U17s gf incident and as some have said on here it was absolutely disgraceful ir disgusting and i dont disagree with that.
But why is it directed at the club as a whole?
I suspect feelings have been elevated to the point it is, not only because of the incident (which in its own right is a big issue) but also the fact of it happening on gf day and the sadness for the Cobram group who didnt get to celebrate the way they would have liked. This all intensifies the emotion and this needs to be taken out of how this is viewed. Judge the act and not the emotions around the day. I recall an all in brawl in lastyears U17s grandfinal in very similar times of the game. Did anyone declare to get those side kicked out of the league for these acts..
 
the road runner said:
I can understand the feelings of people who witnessed the U17s gf incident and as some have said on here it was absolutely disgraceful ir disgusting and i dont disagree with that.
But why is it directed at the club as a whole?
I suspect feelings have been elevated to the point it is, not only because of the incident (which in its own right is a big issue) but also the fact of it happening on gf day and the sadness for the Cobram group who didnt get to celebrate the way they would have liked. This all intensifies the emotion and this needs to be taken out of how this is viewed. Judge the act and not the emotions around the day. I recall an all in brawl in lastyears U17s grandfinal in very similar times of the game. Did anyone declare to get those side kicked out of the league for these acts..
Click to expand...
I agree but I don't think its a good look Rumba appealing the sentence.
 
the road runner said:
I would have taken the 18 weeks personally but i admire rumba for trying to support their player best they can knowing they may cop some backlash for appealing.
Click to expand...
The other side of the argument appears to be that the club should have accepted what ever penalty was handed out and by appealing it is a failing to accept the players wrong doing .
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Post padding said:
The league needs to stand up and appeal the decision
Click to expand...

Is there a process for the league to do so?.... and why would the league do that? Both clubs are affiliated with the league, meaning the league has an obligation to both parties here. All the processes that were pursued were in accordance to the rules and were ran correctly. And I would of thought the league would have to remain somewhat neutral. But Reminding everyone that only kids involved in this incident, If anything I would of thought the league is due to do a welfare check on ALL of their affiliated parties. Publicly or privately....
 
goodgolly24 said:
Is there a process for the league to do so?.... and why would the league do that? Both clubs are affiliated with the league, meaning the league has an obligation to both parties here. All the processes that were pursued were in accordance to the rules and were ran correctly. And I would of thought the league would have to remain somewhat neutral. But Reminding everyone that only kids involved in this incident, If anything I would of thought the league is due to do a welfare check on ALL of their affiliated parties. Publicly or privately....
Click to expand...

Could the league appeal based on misconduct or bringing the game into disrepute? The attention the league has received could make the league a party to the incident in that scenario?

Understanding there's a bias with your posts, goodgolly, at the end of the day this kid could have killed the kids from Cobram. To coward punch once is unacceptable, twice is unfathomable. Of course we want to support kids and have a place for them to play footy or netball (I assume hence the Club appealing the original suspension), but have a think about the other kids in the league. Theoretically there's 273 kids playing 3rds for the other 13 Clubs in the league (21 players x 13 other clubs), do you think the players will feel they are safe when they walk out to play? The last thing our small communities need is for another reason for a kid to not play footy, or for a parent to not think that footy is a safe place.

The VFL deregistered Leigh Matthews after he punched Neville Bruns so Victoria Police could charge him. The League don't have to remain neutral, the League need to do what's right, just and fair. IMO, and given a sniff or pub test, I don't think 14 weeks is right, just or fair.
 
j
oneclub said:
Could the league appeal based on misconduct or bringing the game into disrepute? The attention the league has received could make the league a party to the incident in that scenario?

Understanding there's a bias with your posts, goodgolly, at the end of the day this kid could have killed the kids from Cobram. To coward punch once is unacceptable, twice is unfathomable. Of course we want to support kids and have a place for them to play footy or netball (I assume hence the Club appealing the original suspension), but have a think about the other kids in the league. Theoretically there's 273 kids playing 3rds for the other 13 Clubs in the league (21 players x 13 other clubs), do you think the players will feel they are safe when they walk out to play? The last thing our small communities need is for another reason for a kid to not play footy, or for a parent to not think that footy is a safe place.

The VFL deregistered Leigh Matthews after he punched Neville Bruns so Victoria Police could charge him. The League don't have to remain neutral, the League need to do what's right, just and fair. IMO, and given a sniff or pub test, I don't think 14 weeks is right, just or fair.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest was he reported once or twice?
 
ark n go said:
Just out of interest was he reported once or twice?
Click to expand...

Yeah I think he was reported twice.... and OneClub, I agree with most of what your saying apart from the league not needing to be neutral. I believe if they are to have any issue at all, it should be with their policies or the AFLVic policies, not their clubs that adhere to them. But I guess this all comes down to ones perspective. But we the club pay our fees just like everyone else, we participate and we support the league just like everyone else does. We have had a player break the rules of the game and after following due process will serve his penalty. Not the club, not its supporters, not its coaches, but a player.... but our club, members, supporters and our players deserve exactly the same amount of unbiased support from the league that the league can/will/might afford to the other affiliated clubs. Is that not a fair request or expectation?
 
goodgolly24 said:
Yeah I think he was reported twice.... and OneClub, I agree with most of what your saying apart from the league not needing to be neutral. I believe if they are to have any issue at all, it should be with their policies or the AFLVic policies, not their clubs that adhere to them. But I guess this all comes down to ones perspective. But we the club pay our fees just like everyone else, we participate and we support the league just like everyone else does. We have had a player break the rules of the game and after following due process will serve his penalty. Not the club, not its supporters, not its coaches, but a player.... but our club, members, supporters and our players deserve exactly the same amount of unbiased support from the league that the league can/will/might afford to the other affiliated clubs. Is that not a fair request or expectation?
Click to expand...

Agreed it’s 100% fair to have unbiased support - side note, reading SheppNews yesterday the league may have tipped in a certain direction. In saying that, Cobram FNC should expect the same and for the league to wholeheartedly support the victims.

I think the thing that is regularly lost in the case of these violent incidents is the focus on the victim. If one, or both, of the victims are unable to play next year because of the incident, why should the offender be in a position to?
 
oneclub said:
Agreed it’s 100% fair to have unbiased support - side note, reading SheppNews yesterday the league may have tipped in a certain direction. In saying that, Cobram FNC should expect the same and for the league to wholeheartedly support the victims.

I think the thing that is regularly lost in the case of these violent incidents is the focus on the victim. If one, or both, of the victims are unable to play next year because of the incident, why should the offender be in a position to?
Click to expand...
One of the victims had the opportunity to play vline cup , the first entry into tac program as such , taken off them due to the incident .
 
oneclub said:
Agreed it’s 100% fair to have unbiased support - side note, reading SheppNews yesterday the league may have tipped in a certain direction. In saying that, Cobram FNC should expect the same and for the league to wholeheartedly support the victims.

I think the thing that is regularly lost in the case of these violent incidents is the focus on the victim. If one, or both, of the victims are unable to play next year because of the incident, why should the offender be in a position to?
Click to expand...

Oneclub, Yes i agree that we can't afford to lose focus of any victims in any circumstances. But from the perspective i'm discussing i think its best to speak in general terms, and I find it hard to comment on what position an offender should be in if they cause harm generally speaking. For instance, IMO the severity of the injury should certainly be relevant, but that then lends itself to the strength or ability of the individual offended against. But how do you judge that or pay weight to that. If you trip (just for argument's sake, and please try not to pick the low hanging fruit here) 2 players and they breaks their ankles, but one heals in half the time, how do you make a ruling on that at the time of the incident or at all?
Or from a different perspective, one breaks their ankle and other doesnt, but your breaking of the rules were exactly the same.

But to be honest i think it's an imperfect system, and I don't know the answer. I don't think anyone does ATM.

"The Roar Is Back" said:
One of the victims had the opportunity to play vline cup , the first entry into tac program as such , taken off them due to the incident .
Click to expand...

TRIS, I went to that carnival and it was a real shame and I think I speak for everyone when I say it was really disheartening when that news dropped. It was a slightly different dialog of reasoning at that time, but matters little now i guess. Hopefully he'll be back on his feet in no time, if he's not already...... But it just adds another dynamic to my point above, how is any tribunal, or anyone, able to predict or take that into account, in a general sense, and distribute its findings fairly? And why should it be different for one and not the other. How would you even begin to weight it.
 
goodgolly24 said:
Oneclub, Yes i agree that we can't afford to lose focus of any victims in any circumstances. But from the perspective i'm discussing i think its best to speak in general terms, and I find it hard to comment on what position an offender should be in if they cause harm generally speaking. For instance, IMO the severity of the injury should certainly be relevant, but that then lends itself to the strength or ability of the individual offended against. But how do you judge that or pay weight to that. If you trip (just for argument's sake, and please try not to pick the low hanging fruit here) 2 players and they breaks their ankles, but one heals in half the time, how do you make a ruling on that at the time of the incident or at all?
Or from a different perspective, one breaks their ankle and other doesnt, but your breaking of the rules were exactly the same.

But to be honest i think it's an imperfect system, and I don't know the answer. I don't think anyone does ATM.



TRIS, I went to that carnival and it was a real shame and I think I speak for everyone when I say it was really disheartening when that news dropped. It was a slightly different dialog of reasoning at that time, but matters little now i guess. Hopefully he'll be back on his feet in no time, if he's not already...... But it just adds another dynamic to my point above, how is any tribunal, or anyone, able to predict or take that into account, in a general sense, and distribute its findings fairly? And why should it be different for one and not the other. How would you even begin to weight it.
Click to expand...

Last point from me on the topic as it’s probably been given more oxygen than it deserves on account of the appeal being submitted as well as us talking about it on here. The whole argument for sentence should match the outcome has no validity in my book. Players are reported for an action (i.e. striking), they’re not reported for an outcome.
 
oneclub said:
Last point from me on the topic as it’s probably been given more oxygen than it deserves on account of the appeal being submitted as well as us talking about it on here. The whole argument for sentence should match the outcome has no validity in my book. Players are reported for an action (i.e. striking), they’re not reported for an outcome.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. There’s plenty of precedence for players at all levels of football being sanctioned for the injuries incurred from the act (outcome)...

It’s called liability. Especially if you are going to king hit someone.. If the injuries are substantial you should absolutely cop a fiercer punishment at the tribunal.
 
wheresyourdidak said:
Rubbish. There’s plenty of precedence for players at all levels of football being sanctioned for the injuries incurred from the act (outcome)...

It’s called liability. Especially if you are going to king hit someone.. If the injuries are substantial you should absolutely cop a fiercer punishment at the tribunal.
Click to expand...

WYD, so just so we’re clear, you think the injury should play a part in a ruling, and in all incidents and just some?
 
goodgolly24 said:
WYD, so just so we’re clear, you think the injury should play a part in a ruling, and in all incidents and just some?
Click to expand...

Yes. It’s taken into account in our legal system and only makes sense for a football tribunal to do the same.
Do you advocate for it being a 2-3 week set penalty in this case?
Ya know... because striking is striking :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MortlockWatcher
  • Sticky
Murray FL Discussion 2024
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
128
Views
17K
rumba1
R
O
  • Locked
Murray FL Discussion 2023
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
392
Views
69K
MortlockWatcher
MortlockWatcher

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top