A Section Premier 2012

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I give the St. Bernards boys abour an hour before they lose it on here youlike.

Personally, 4 A grade GF's in 5 years in the early 2000's give them a bit of credibility regardless of playing in B grade in recent years.

ha-ha what have then done since Byrne and the Jordans left?

Nothing!!

St Bernards = B Grade Club
 
OK, St Bernards are a B grade club and Scotch are a bunch of ****s. According to the brains trust here, anyway.

The line has been crossed, gentlemen; let us invoke the Two Up of Justice.

2 heads = red for both
2 tails = scot free
One of each = warnings for both

drum roll please...

20-Franc-Vreneli-Swiss-Gold-Suisse-Bullion-Coin-Swiss-Francs..-1.jpg


Lucky.
 
can't we all just talk about footy? Scotch (regardless of their sexual orientation) seem to be putting in some good performances. Although after playing in the horrendous weather on the weekend there was bound to be an upset or two, Trinity were up at half time down the trott! Mark Hibbins is slowly losing his mind imo. (or maybe he already lost it)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Yeah..... enough rubbish - including mine. :eek:

This weekend:

St Bedes v Collegians
Old Trinity v Caulfield (big call?)
Bernies v Scotchies
De La v Blues
Xavs v Carey (surprised, youlike?) :)
 
Collegians by 30
Old Trinity by 5
Scotchies by 25
De La 30
Xavs 45

Another 19s player has been proverbially r*ped at the tribunal with a 5 match suspension for abusing an umpire... wow! would love to hear what happened if anyone knows. Seems like the tribunal penalties are increasing with inflation!

Trinity caulf game will be an interesting one for mine.
 
Collegians by 30
Old Trinity by 5
Scotchies by 25
De La 30
Xavs 45

Another 19s player has been proverbially r*ped at the tribunal with a 5 match suspension for abusing an umpire... wow! would love to hear what happened if anyone knows. Seems like the tribunal penalties are increasing with inflation!

Trinity caulf game will be an interesting one for mine.

If rumour mill is true this occured in round 2, and the player was originally offered 10 weeks, was then reduced to 5 upon appeal. Would also love to hear what you need to say to an umpire for that to be the penalty, perhaps that his mothers cooking is well below average? Can anyone confirm the details? I am very interested to find out what has taken place.

Anyway onto football; tips this week

Collegians
Caulfield
Scotch
Uni Blues
Old Xavs
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

So has anyone jumped on the brand new VAFA website today? It looks like they are going to providing much more information than they used to, including the write-ups for each section from teh CURRENT round's record.

As long as it doesn't mean a return to 'Max on Monday'!
 
St Bedes v Collegians
Old Trinity v Caulfield
Bernies v Scotchies
De La v Blues
Xavs v Carey


Looking forward to another cracking round of top section footy, hopefully the "A" section scribe can ctually get out and watch a few games this week and not rely on second hand information.

Mind you not a job that I would put my hand up for but he needs to get better resources providing information.
 
So has anyone jumped on the brand new VAFA website today? It looks like they are going to providing much more information than they used to, including the write-ups for each section from teh CURRENT round's record.

As long as it doesn't mean a return to 'Max on Monday'!

Love the new website, you can actually find things and the information is relevant.

Heaven forbid Max returns or even the "Heath Ledger" for that matter!!!!
 
Collegians by 30
Old Trinity by 5
Scotchies by 25
De La 30
Xavs 45

Another 19s player has been proverbially r*ped at the tribunal with a 5 match suspension for abusing an umpire... wow! would love to hear what happened if anyone knows. Seems like the tribunal penalties are increasing with inflation!

Trinity caulf game will be an interesting one for mine.

As always a bit more to it. This is my understanding as relayed to me by someone from SBMT. Some administrative errors by VAFA led to this being more drawn out then it should have. Was more than just umpire abuse and involved some clear and direct physical threats. Very young umpire obviously in some fear. Player quite rightly reported. Got 8 weeks. Excessive considering age of offender and previous good record. While inexcusable was clearly a dumb comment made on the spur of the moment and in the heat of battle. Club appealed however were not properly advised of appeal date. When player was a no show at tribunal VAFA just slapped another 2 weeks making it 10 rather than making inquiries as to the reason for the non appearance. Club extremely unhappy with all this. Further appeal, VAFA reluctantly agree to hear it (multiple bonds by now have been put up by club). Penalty reduced to 5 on appeal with other conditions. End result probably fair enough. Some common sense in the first instance and at other stages would have avoided this becoming a saga.
 
As always a bit more to it. This is my understanding as relayed to me by someone from SBMT. Some administrative errors by VAFA led to this being more drawn out then it should have. Was more than just umpire abuse and involved some clear and direct physical threats. Very young umpire obviously in some fear. Player quite rightly reported. Got 8 weeks. Excessive considering age of offender and previous good record. While inexcusable was clearly a dumb comment made on the spur of the moment and in the heat of battle. Club appealed however were not properly advised of appeal date. When player was a no show at tribunal VAFA just slapped another 2 weeks making it 10 rather than making inquiries as to the reason for the non appearance. Club extremely unhappy with all this. Further appeal, VAFA reluctantly agree to hear it (multiple bonds by now have been put up by club). Penalty reduced to 5 on appeal with other conditions. End result probably fair enough. Some common sense in the first instance and at other stages would have avoided this becoming a saga.

Thanks for the clear up.. a player making a genuine direct threat to an umpire is a disgrace and I have no issue with giving weeks for that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top