Black Diamond AFL

[borgsta2006]

If Matt Bailey did get 3 weeks last night this is yet another example of this league having no idea. The incident must have been worth about 8 weeks knowing he has a clean record and never been to a tribunal before. But then again, that's the way we want our 16 & 17 yr olds treated.......
And people ask why our Under 18s players are leaving our game Mm

JOKE !!!, and 3 weeks instead of the two, your kidding.

Probably could do with a rest considering he backs up from 18's every week, such is the quality of the kid.

Great way to encourage our up and comers, hang your heads tribunal, the kid hasn't got a malicious bone in his body.

I'm not going to argue with you fellas, or tell you that the player deserved his penalty, but this is what he was reported for. Maybe if you know the bloke, you can ask him what happened. I heard at the tribunal last night the defence for this was that because he hit the player from side on, that it was not guilty. It was also acknowledged that he hit the player in the head.

The umpire apparently then showed the rule book to the player and asked him to read the rule I have written below. There is a picture attached to the file I have attached which shows the zone.

The "kid" (poor excuse for why he shouldn't be suspended either or tagged / targeted on the field fellas) was offered a one match ban and the club / he failed to take it. The rule is clear and consise. The tirbunal did the job they were supposed to do with the rules they were given.

I personally believe from what I have heard that City have done this "kid" no favours in their representation of him and weren't aware that the rule was written this way.

I think it is a lesson learned.

For your reference (should you choose to read the link and go to Page 35 of the PDF or 68 of the Rule Book) is the rule with the diagram.

I hope this makes it clearer.


http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/Development/umpiring/Laws of football_2008.pdf

(xi) bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from
front-on when that player has his head down over the ball.
Note:
- a player can bump an opponent’s body from side-on but any
contact forward of side-on will be deemed to be front-on;
- a player with his head down in anticipation of winning
possession of the ball or after contesting the ball will be
deemed to have his head down over the ball for the
purposes of this law.

 

[Usingtheforce]

If Matt Bailey did get 3 weeks last night this is yet another example of this league having no idea. The incident must have been worth about 8 weeks knowing he has a clean record and never been to a tribunal before. But then again, that's the way we want our 16 & 17 yr olds treated.......
And people ask why our Under 18s players are leaving our game Mmmm!

Whisper unfortunately the young bloke got caught up in that new rule of front on contact of a player with head down over the ball. Very hard for the incoming player to contest the ball and we all know why the rule was bought in to protect the neck of players. Be it accidential going the ball or going the bump unfortunately it is now a reportable offence. Goodes got done for it, Bucannan at the weekend got 4 weeks. It is just the trend these days. I saw it and you could see he didn't do it on purpose but the rule is there now and we would all i guess want it enforced to protect players from injury going the ball.

 

[MerkSaysWhat]

The rule is designed to protect the player with his head over the ball which is great, because in that scenario he is exposed to injury. The concern I have with the rule is that it can pre dispose players to turn their head into a disputed contest to gain a free, something I have seen more of this year than previously.

In both the AFL and BDAFL particularly noticable by smaller forwards and on ballers in front of goal. Usually rewarded but a very dangerous tactic

 

[deitzy]

I agree, the tribunal system is a joke. Matty Bailey is a ball player, had never been up before a tribunal in 7 years of footy and from what I have heard from about 20 people involved in the game that there was absolutely minimal contact and it was more a case of him trying to avoid contact. To get 4 weeks is a bit over the top, especially when the initial offer was one week. How can the penalty be increased so much through pleading not guilty? 2 weeks I could understand, but 4 seems pretty severe, half of what Dean Solomon did on the weekend. Must have been a nasty incident if it deserved half of that.
On the other hand, an established player in the competition, with a couple of prior offences, can face the tribunal on a clear cut striking case and have it thrown out on a technicality. I guess Bails paid the price for not being a "name" player.

 

[Usingtheforce]

The rule is designed to protect the player with his head over the ball which is great, because in that scenario he is exposed to injury. The concern I have with the rule is that it can pre dispose players to turn their head into a disputed contest to gain a free, something I have seen more of this year than previously.

In both the AFL and BDAFL particularly noticable by smaller forwards and on ballers in front of goal. Usually rewarded but a very dangerous tactic

Agree Merk players are getting smarter on ways to milk a free kick and it's been done throughout the years of footy. Classic example is the hands in the back rule with players throwing themselves forward to get a free. You like any supporter hopes the umpires see that the player is trying to milk a free kick but the better the players get at hiding what they are up to the harder it is for the umpire. Your example shows a dangerous tactic and i think it will continue until someone is hurt by it and players think twice about doing it.

 

[MerkSaysWhat]

Unfortunately Matt isn't part of the "protected players program" (wrong club for starters).

On another matter, any goss on the rescue package ofr Nellie Bay?

Quote from the BDAFL website:"The league is currently investigating a scheme where some of the stronger clubs may be able to supplement the numbers in those who are finding the going a bit difficult at this time in the season."
​

 

[Barto86]

We ll if thats the case Barto then they are teaching it incorrectly in some courses or they know something you dont. So we shall wait and see whether the courses is right or you are. So now that issue is closed maybe we can get back to the footy and the real questions????

You're not the only one to have done a RSA course mate....Those things are so dodge it's not funny. These new alcohol laws you speak of that were introduced July 1st...Explain why the drinking age hasnt increased as of then...and why Kevin Rudd came out on JUNE 25th and said straight out that the legal drinking age was NOT going up to 21....Don't believe everything you hear in an RSA course you clown. Your knowledge of how this country operates is about as good as your umpiring knowledge (which at best is ordinary)

 

[The Whisper05]

For your reference (should you choose to read the link and go to Page 35 of the PDF or 68 of the Rule Book) is the rule with the diagram.

I hope this makes it clearer.


http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/Development/umpiring/Laws of football_2008.pdf

(xi) bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from
front-on when that player has his head down over the ball.
Note:
- a player can bump an opponent’s body from side-on but any
contact forward of side-on will be deemed to be front-on;
- a player with his head down in anticipation of winning
possession of the ball or after contesting the ball will be
deemed to have his head down over the ball for the
purposes of this law.[/quote]

I'm well aware of this rule and have seen many examples of it, however I have also witnessed both incidents where players have now been charged and suspended. I have no affiliation with either of the 2 clubs from where the players play before you bring up this point.
If the Bailey contact was greater than the Davis contact a few weeks ago, I'll swim the channel.
Bailey had his head over the ball, his opponent lifted his head hearing foot steps and then lowered it....... playing for a free. The was no front on contact, a minor clip it would be called. I have been told that he was offered 2 weeks not the 1 week you stated. He should have challenged it. If the league wished to make a statement, perhaps a suspended sentence would have been suffiecient, but then again a clean 7 year record counts for nothing.

 

[Usingtheforce]

You're not the only one to have done a RSA course mate....Those things are so dodge it's not funny. These new alcohol laws you speak of that were introduced July 1st...Explain why the drinking age hasnt increased as of then...and why Kevin Rudd came out on JUNE 25th and said straight out that the legal drinking age was NOT going up to 21....Don't believe everything you hear in an RSA course you clown. Your knowledge of how this country operates is about as good as your umpiring knowledge (which at best is ordinary)

Don't even go there BARTO. Put up or shut up, come umpire so we can judge you. Easy to hide here and bag out people, be the man you aspire to be and show us your talents before you judge people then we may listen.

 

[Tardus]

I'm not going to argue with you fellas, or tell you that the player deserved his penalty, but this is what he was reported for. Maybe if you know the bloke, you can ask him what happened. I heard at the tribunal last night the defence for this was that because he hit the player from side on, that it was not guilty. It was also acknowledged that he hit the player in the head.

The umpire apparently then showed the rule book to the player and asked him to read the rule I have written below. There is a picture attached to the file I have attached which shows the zone.

The "kid" (poor excuse for why he shouldn't be suspended either or tagged / targeted on the field fellas) was offered a one match ban and the club / he failed to take it. The rule is clear and consise. The tirbunal did the job they were supposed to do with the rules they were given.

I personally believe from what I have heard that City have done this "kid" no favours in their representation of him and weren't aware that the rule was written this way.

I think it is a lesson learned.

For your reference (should you choose to read the link and go to Page 35 of the PDF or 68 of the Rule Book) is the rule with the diagram.

I hope this makes it clearer.

http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/Development/umpiring/Laws of football_2008.pdf

(xi) bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from
front-on when that player has his head down over the ball.
Note:
- a player can bump an opponent’s body from side-on but any
contact forward of side-on will be deemed to be front-on;
- a player with his head down in anticipation of winning
possession of the ball or after contesting the ball will be
deemed to have his head down over the ball for the
purposes of this law.

Interesting to see some of the comments. I am pleased no one is blaming the umpire. He just did his job. Has seen a reportable offence, has reported it, attended the tribunal and told them what he saw. The rest is up to them.

Based on the law don't blame the tribunal, like a court, they only work with the law and the framework they are given. What everyone says is true. This law was introduced in 2007 to protect players.

The message that everyone is missing is this: if you are offered a prescribed penelty and choose to "take your chances" at the tribunal, if you are found guilty, you will get a penelty higher than that which you were offered.

The person I feel sorry for is the player. If the club had done its research correctly, read the rule correctly in full, with all its componants, they would have relised that defending this charge was not going to be easy and they should have taken the 1 match ban that was offered.

It is clear, City attended the tribunal thinking they had the case won on a techniacality, but were "hung" when the full rule was read out.

The player is not a victim of the law, tribunal or the BDAFL. He is a victim of poor advice and guidence from his club.

 

[Barto86]

Don't even go there BARTO. Put up or shut up, come umpire so we can judge you. Easy to hide here and bag out people, be the man you aspire to be and show us your talents before you judge people then we may listen.

No, USINGTHEFORCE....That is not the issue here. The point is you were wrong and that YOU have decided to be an umpire. Not me. When I'm a washed up hasbeen then I just might have a go at club umpiring. But until then I'll leave that up to you....It's not about putting up or shutting up mate. You made the decision to umpire and it's your responsibility to do it properly. I'm sure everyone in the league would like to see you do that...

 

[fatmansfriend]

Interesting to see some of the comments. I am pleased no one is blaming the umpire. He just did his job. Has seen a reportable offence, has reported it, attended the tribunal and told them what he saw. The rest is up to them.

Based on the law don't blame the tribunal, like a court, they only work with the law and the framework they are given. What everyone says is true. This law was introduced in 2007 to protect players.

The message that everyone is missing is this: if you are offered a prescribed penelty and choose to "take your chances" at the tribunal, if you are found guilty, you will get a penelty higher than that which you were offered.

The person I feel sorry for is the player. If the club had done its research correctly, read the rule correctly in full, with all its componants, they would have relised that defending this charge was not going to be easy and they should have taken the 1 match ban that was offered.

It is clear, City attended the tribunal thinking they had the case won on a techniacality, but we "hung" when the full rule was read out.

The player is not a victim of the law, tribunal or the BDAFL. He is a victim of poor advice and guidence from his club.

We saw a game Carlton V Essendon 3 weeks ago where 2 players 1 from each opponent had their heads over the footy, head on hit eachother. Cant see why Bailey should get charged for having his head over the footy. Its good courage to be doing that from both players involved thats how it should have been seen by the umpires. Neither players were charged for their courage in the Bomber V Blues Game. Can Understand why City Contested.

 

[Tardus]

We saw a game Carlton V Essendon 3 weeks ago where 2 players 1 from each opponent had their heads over the footy, head on hit eachother. Cant see why Bailey should get charged for having his head over the footy. Its good courage to be doing that from both players involved thats how it should have been seen by the umpires. Neither players were charged for their courage in the Bomber V Blues Game. Can Understand why City Contested.

Mate, what you say is fair enough. Thats why we have a tribunal I guess. It gives the opportunity for the club to put their case. What you say about "how the umpires should have seen it". Tough call for the umps. They only get 1 look.

Part of their job is to protect the players. I have no issue if an umpire reports what they see, tells the truth to the tribunal (like a Police Officer in court), the club puts their case. Thats natural justice. Its the job of the tribunal (like a court) to then make a desision.

I would rather see a report dismissed at the tribunal (after a fair hearing) than to have something missed and a player end up in a wheelchair.

 

[Usingtheforce]

No, USINGTHEFORCE....That is not the issue here. The point is you were wrong and that YOU have decided to be an umpire. Not me. When I'm a washed up hasbeen then I just might have a go at club umpiring. But until then I'll leave that up to you....It's not about putting up or shutting up mate. You made the decision to umpire and it's your responsibility to do it properly. I'm sure everyone in the league would like to see you do that...

Ok let me debate you just to make you feel bigger than you are and pump up your ego. As everyone knows most club umpires would prefer not to be doing it or they would be in the official umpire ranks. Because of the shortage of umpires and i don't blame them for not wanting to do it having to put up with would-be-if-they-could-be gooses like you slangin off at them every chance you get, volunteers at the clubs had to put up their hand for the good of the game, to help out or it would be 1st grade and under 18's only. As for doing it properly, every club has the avenue to complain about both official and club umpires should they feel the need and as yet noone has. If we are doing it wrong, we are usually spoken to and advised by the official umpires at the ground who are waiting to umpire 1st grade as was the case last weekend when they wanted us to pay more hands in the back. We did and the players complained.

So mate when you are the best at what you do or maybe you are already that washed up hasbeen i will listen.

Oh and i am glad to see what you think of your own clubs umpire/s being washed up hasbeens. I sure you are popular at your club.

Now i will wait for you to explain oh i wasnt talking about my clubs ones.

 

[forwhatitsworth]

why are we concerned what happens to some young kid from City who doesn't know how to bump. The Mick Ryan/ Quinton Davis reports were a disgrace.

 

[fatmansfriend]

Mate, what you say is fair enough. Thats why we have a tribunal I guess. It gives the opportunity for the club to put their case. What you say about "how the umpires should have seen it". Tough call for the umps. They only get 1 look.

Part of their job is to protect the players. I have no issue if an umpire reports what they see, tells the truth to the tribunal (like a Police Officer in court), the club puts their case. Thats natural justice. Its the job of the tribunal (like a court) to then make a desision.

I would rather see a report dismissed at the tribunal (after a fair hearing) than to have something missed and a player end up in a wheelchair.

I said, "thats the way the umpires should have seen it". They should have seen it with t2 footballers head over the footy hard at it but instead we have a young bloke who was hard done by because an umpire didnt interpret the rules very well. If 2 players end up in a wheel chair cos they were showing courage thats unfortunate but thats part and parcel of playing a full contact sport.

 

[Tardus]

I said, "thats the way the umpires should have seen it". They should have seen it with t2 footballers head over the footy hard at it but instead we have a young bloke who was hard done by because an umpire didnt interpret the rules very well. If 2 players end up in a wheel chair cos they were showing courage thats unfortunate but thats part and parcel of playing a full contact sport.

Mate, fair enough. Sorry if I have mis-interpreted you.

However, if the trubunal thought the umpire had not interpeted the rule correctly, they would have dismissed the report. They did not. They agreed with his interpretation.

This goes back to my point about having the checks and balances of a tribunal system.

 

[Barto86]

Ok let me debate you just to make you feel bigger than you are and pump up your ego. As everyone knows most club umpires would prefer not to be doing it or they would be in the official umpire ranks. Because of the shortage of umpires and i don't blame them for not wanting to do it having to put up with would-be-if-they-could-be gooses like you slangin off at them every chance you get, volunteers at the clubs had to put up their hand for the good of the game, to help out or it would be 1st grade and under 18's only. As for doing it properly, every club has the avenue to complain about both official and club umpires should they feel the need and as yet noone has. If we are doing it wrong, we are usually spoken to and advised by the official umpires at the ground who are waiting to umpire 1st grade as was the case last weekend when they wanted us to pay more hands in the back. We did and the players complained.

So mate when you are the best at what you do or maybe you are already that washed up hasbeen i will listen.

Oh and i am glad to see what you think of your own clubs umpire/s being washed up hasbeens. I sure you are popular at your club.

Now i will wait for you to explain oh i wasnt talking about my clubs ones.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said...I don't have a problem with the umpires. I think the majority of them do a great job and I appreciate the great job they do. I was talking about you in particular mate...As for my own club umpires I know them both (one quite well) and think they do a great job and are great blokes....As I'm sure you've noticed, I'm not the only one on this forum that has noticed the bias in your umpiring. Or did you not notice that trend? To all the umpires on here I say again. My comments are not directed at the umpires in general...Just you USINGTHEFORCE. All this came from a completely seperate argument in which you had no idea...You are a strange, strange man.

 

[The Whisper05]

why are we concerned what happens to some young kid from City who doesn't know how to bump. The Mick Ryan/ Quinton Davis reports were a disgrace.

Typical response by some narrow minded clown. Having seen all 3 incidents, each one was completely different, but then again people like you find it hard to see clearly when one is wearing maroon and yellow glasses.

 

[forwhatitsworth]

Typical response by some narrow minded clown. Having seen all 3 incidents, each one was completely different, but then again people like you find it hard to see clearly when one is wearing maroon and yellow glasses.

Yeah nice one whisper, All 3 incidents were very very similar and I saw 1 of them. Perhaps you best check the rule book next time before throwing around these wild allegations but then again people like you find it hard to see clearly when one is wearing a skirt.

 

[forwhatitsworth]

Having seen Borg at a couple of games umpiring this year must say he has a striking resemblance to Channel 10 traffic Helicopter personality Vic Lorusso.

 

[borgsta2006]

Having seen Borg at a couple of games umpiring this year must say he has a striking resemblance to Channel 10 traffic Helicopter personality Vic Lorusso.

I'm writing this from the chopper now mate!!! Forwhatit's worth I reckon Courtney Knight bears more of a resemblance than me!
But I guess as you say "It's not about you."

 

[Usingtheforce]

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said...I don't have a problem with the umpires. I think the majority of them do a great job and I appreciate the great job they do. I was talking about you in particular mate...As for my own club umpires I know them both (one quite well) and think they do a great job and are great blokes....As I'm sure you've noticed, I'm not the only one on this forum that has noticed the bias in your umpiring. Or did you not notice that trend? To all the umpires on here I say again. My comments are not directed at the umpires in general...Just you USINGTHEFORCE. All this came from a completely seperate argument in which you had no idea...You are a strange, strange man.

Keep digging, here you want a bigger shovel. Thought u would back peddle. Shows what type of goose you are. Keep hiding in here giving your insults you'll be right one day maybe. Funny how even your committee members the coach and captain thought we both did a good job at the weekend. Oh thats right u think we are all hasbeens. Shows at what level your mind is at.

 

[forwhatitsworth]

I'm writing this from the chopper now mate!!! Forwhatit's worth I reckon Courtney Knight bears more of a resemblance than me!
But I guess as you say "It's not about you."

that's right, its not about me, Its about Vic Lurusso.

Courtney Knight looks like North Melbourne Coach Dean Laidley.

 

[fatmansfriend]

Mate, fair enough. Sorry if I have mis-interpreted you.

However, if the trubunal thought the umpire had not interpeted the rule correctly, they would have dismissed the report. They did not. They agreed with his interpretation.

This goes back to my point about having the checks and balances of a tribunal system.

I agree with you about the system, I understand that fully about a tribunal acting on the evidence given to them by a umpire/etc.

But it seems on this forum we have a never ending issue with unsatisfied clubs with umpires, the players understand their only doing their best and that if we dont have umpires the games dont go ahead.
But what do umpires do at training?? Do they watch Videos of right and wrong interpretations??

Some interesting games this weekend.

Wyong V terrigal
The Premiership rematch take 2.
and Prehaps 2 floggings.