Tribunal Results

[Pace To Burn]

Has anyone noticed how many players are being found Guilty this year after being Reported but are getting off with NO-PENALTY or REPRIMAND. It seems to be quite a few. Does this mean alot of the umpires are reporting players for very minor things or does it mean that the current review system of the umpires being asked their opinion on what penalty a player gets is leading to alot of inconsistancy, you would think if a umpire reported a player they would in most cases think they deserve some sort of penalty, or are the admin now deciding for themselves. If you have a look at the results there are alot of players charged for similar offences, but recieve completly contrasting penalties. Also there were some charges that a player was always required to front the tribunal( eg abuse of umpires) in the last two seasons but this year we have seen a number of players offered set penalties. Would be interested to know what everyone else thinks.

[The Duck]

I notice a player was given a reprimand for kicking, how does that work?

[Pace To Burn]

Dont know Duck, but even when you see one guy getting off when found guilty for striking then other guys getting 2-4 weeks and they both have never been suspended before makes you wonder. Also one player getting 5 weeks for abuse and others getting off, all a bit strange...........

[The Duck]

I think the tribunal is a major weakness in Sydney football. I have similarly seen the same as you. Players who have never been reported before in their whole career getting a week for wrestling, whilst others who have had a chequered career get of for far worse charges. Obviously all cases are different and this must be taken into consideration. The major weakness is the tribunals weighting of the evidance heard. Often they take the umpires version of events as gospel. I have no doubt umpires should get given some respect in the hearings, but in to many cases their story does not add up to other evidence given. Let's put it this way, if it was a legal court case and the umpire got put on the stand to testify, often the jury would not find a conviction against the defendant.

[Pace To Burn]

Players who have never been reported before in their whole career getting a week for wrestling, whilst others who have had a chequered career get of for far worse charges. Obviously all cases are different and this must be taken into consideration. The major weakness is the tribunals weighting of the evidance heard. Often they take the umpires version of events as gospel. I have no doubt umpires should get given some respect in the hearings, but in to many cases their story does not add up to other evidence given. Let's put it this way, if it was a legal court case and the umpire got put on the stand to testify, often the jury would not find a conviction against the defendant.

I agree 100% with you. I have seen this happen on a number of occasions. I think the main thing the league Def need to change is the fact that no retired players sit on the tribunal. In the AFL, NRL the people sitting on the tribunal are either all ex players or maybe most with one legal type person. This would bring in a balanced view as you mentioned towards umpire Vs players testimonies. Of course an umpire is going to be adament of what he saw as he doesnt want to look like a goose, but alot of the time it doesnt add up, but the people on the tribunal have a presumption of guilt after hearing an umpires side and you have to prove your innocence which is very hard too do if their evidence carries more weight than the players

[Dunger]

I noticed this in the tribunal:

WESTERN SUBURBS 12/07/08 Striking 23/07/08 AFL Offices Guilty 12 match

12 weeks is a serious outage.

Would anyone care to share the reason this differentiates from a normal striking offence which would get ~2-3 weeks?

Was it a king hit in Barry Hallesque style?

[boris]

Maybe the recipient of the 12 weeks should wear orange boots and move to the Eastern Suburbs. That way he could get away with whatever he felt like.

[The Duck]

Maybe he got a week for each punch. I think if you saw his actions you would change your opinion. 12 weeks is a little lenient in my view

[Pace To Burn]

Maybe he got a week for each punch. I think if you saw his actions you would change your opinion. 12 weeks is a little lenient in my view

I heard something very similar. I spoke to someone who was there for an old boys day and he told me the game was held up for about 10 mins

[Pekay]

Any idea who was on the recieving end??And have they woke from the coma he induced?
Thats similar (but not as bad) as the suspension his older brother recieved in Canberra about ten years ago....

[El Gato]

Making contact with an umpire - 8 weeks

If your name is "Kassem" - 12 weeks

Did you see his brothers nose?

[nugget]

Making contact with an umpire - 8 weeks

If your name is "Kassem" - 12 weeks

Did you see his brothers nose?

Does that excuse what he did?

[El Gato]

Absolulutely not.

I didnt think he deserved 12 though, that was my comparison with the "contact with umpire" penalty.

I thought the game was halted as UNSW wanted a head count.

[Norris Lurker]

I was at that game doing a match report - there was a head count called, but the numbers were in order. But Salem had dragged himself by then and was on the bench.
I wonder if he has been judged more harshly by the tribunal because he is a coach. Do playing coaches generally get given harsher sentences?

[Monty Burns2]

I was at that game doing a match report - there was a head count called, but the numbers were in order. But Salem had dragged himself by then and was on the bench.
I wonder if he has been judged more harshly by the tribunal because he is a coach. Do playing coaches generally get given harsher sentences?

I was also at the game and it is one of the worst things I've seen on the footy field for a long time. I think that he is very lucky to only get 12 weeks. He was repeatedly attacking a player (Stephen Pech), who was making it abundantly clear he wanted no part in the altercation - walking backwards, with his hands up in a submissive gesture. He was also taking wild swings at anyone that tried to stop the repeated attacks.

His carry on after the game and his threats along the lines that Stephen was not going to leave the ground in one piece was also disgraceful. In my opinion Wests should take a stand and sack him.

Yes, his brother's nose was broken, but when you tackle someone off the ball, preventing their run forward, these things can happen. It was during an attempt to break the illegal tackle when this occurred.

The game was held up initially because Salem was going beserk and refusing to leave the field - just as things calmed down, he would fire up again, throwing more punches.

He was red-carded and finally went off, but was replaced. A head count was called and both sides had 18. Wests should have had their points taken off, as they should have only had 17 on the field (you can replace a yellow carded player, but not a red-carded player). The umpires missed this, which is evidenced by the fact that the report against UNSW-ES' captain Ben Sutton for time wasting (which is the rule when the count turns out OK) was withdrawn.