We've been over this before you idiot and whatever your opinion, it was a more serious injury than what Lee sustained and an investigation proved nothing.
-
Please read this post on the rules on BigFooty regarding posting copyright material, including fair dealing rules. Repeat infringements could see your account limited or closed.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Sunraysia Football league
- Thread starter ringo1
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
We've been over this before you idiot and whatever your opinion, it was a more serious injury than what Lee sustained and an investigation proved nothing.
I didn't bring it up knucklehead
Ibis100
Team Captain
As I said previously, Red Cliffs made the decision after a committee meeting and no doubt considering everything that occured. They would know more about it than I and made the decision to proceed.
With regard to the Alvey incident proving nothing you couldn't be further from the truth.
The investigation found that there was no case to answer. Just cause it didn't establish the outcome you thought it should have, doesn't mean it didn't find an outcome. The job of the investigator is to establish if an offence has occurred and if any further action on behalf of the League should be taken. If the evidence isn't there, then the outcome is that no action be taken for lack of evidence. If the evidence points to an offence and an offender then the investigator recommends further action. It is not up to the investigator to be Judge and Jury. He simply attempts to find all evidence and presents his finding and provides a recommendation to the League.
You have to remember, most witnesses to an event don't want to provide information or are people on the sidelines that names are never supplied to the investigator and prevent a thorough finding.
You may say they are a waste of time, but if he finds there is sufficient evidence, I am sure you will see action taken by the SFL. You need to know all the facts what is before the Investigator before you make comments that it found no outcome.
Simply, the Alvey outcome was either that no-one had anything to answer as all actions in the view of the investigator who has obtained all the available evidence did not require any further action, or, not enough evidence or too much conflicting evidence prevented any further action being taken.
There is always an outcome, just not to the liking of each party.
Ibis100
Team Captain
I have to agree to disagree with you here Wayne.
As I said, the investigation in to the Alvey incident FOUND that there was no case to answer. It didn't find lack of evidence or anything like that. I'm unsure if people know of the investigators credentials but here is a list of them.
Former Victorian Police Officer with about 15 or more (No doubt more but I am unsure of his exact number of years served) who was qualified as a Detective.
Spent time in the Police Ethical Standards department I believe as either a Sgt or S/Snr Sergeant, investigating Police Officers.
Has been in the Private Investigation Industry for near 7 or more years.
If there is a case to answer, Bob will find it and report it as he sees it.
I do believe there is a problem with people supplying correct evidence, it goes back to not wanting to put other blokes in etc etc etc.
My question is, Is there a requirment for Players and Officials to supply information to the investigator. I have never been involved in an investigation so I don't know if there is penalties for refusing to assist or not. At the end of the day if you don't want to get involved you can just tell them you saw nothing. Simply, if there isn't a requirement to assist, how many players are really going to give any evidence against another player or give up their time to speak to the investigator. NOT many I would say.
Secondly, how many supporters who see the event (Which are probably more so than other players who are concentrating on the game) are spoken to by the investigator or even try to find the investigator to give eveidence. My answer to that would be Nil.
Perhaps Delray, seeing you saw what occurred and are so passionate about putting these blokes in (Except your coach of course cause you blinked at that point), you could tell us if you have been contacted by the investigator or have you approached him to supply your version of events?
If so, how did it come about. Was your name supplied to the investigator or did you just volunteer yourself to give the information? I am not having a go at you here, just trying to put a point across about how many witnesses aren't interviewed due to various reasons and that that can have a huge effect on the overall outcome of any investigation.
Always happy to assist where possible Ibis. I too was very intrested in the whole process. What i have been told by our team manager is that he gave Bob 3 Names of people who witnessed the event and bob Has/Will be in contact with them in due time.
Although i did witness it and offered my statement i was informed that he already had given bob the names and i didnt make the cut.
So the clubs give the names to the investigator and the investigator follows it up.
Findings should be out soon and the tribunal will no doubt be called in.
Although i did witness it and offered my statement i was informed that he already had given bob the names and i didnt make the cut.
So the clubs give the names to the investigator and the investigator follows it up.
Findings should be out soon and the tribunal will no doubt be called in.
Didn't make the cut???????
Sounds like the team manager is filtering the evidence that the investigator has access to. The manager is assuming a huge role in attempting to achieve a particular outcome, must be a lawyer or a copper I reckon. What happened to the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Perhaps your version will not assist in reaching the outcome he desires or perhaps he thinks you are such a poor witness that your credibility may adversely affect the manner in which he thinks the case should be presented.
If I were you or one of the huge number of similar volunteers who stepped up and was knocked back, I would be wondering what the manager's opinion of me was.....not very high I imagine.
What do you think?
Sounds like the team manager is filtering the evidence that the investigator has access to. The manager is assuming a huge role in attempting to achieve a particular outcome, must be a lawyer or a copper I reckon. What happened to the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Perhaps your version will not assist in reaching the outcome he desires or perhaps he thinks you are such a poor witness that your credibility may adversely affect the manner in which he thinks the case should be presented.
If I were you or one of the huge number of similar volunteers who stepped up and was knocked back, I would be wondering what the manager's opinion of me was.....not very high I imagine.
What do you think?
Well Gusty i never really looked into it that much the manager just told me that 4 witnesses was enough. I didnt ask any more questions. But from the Irymple side of things all the 4 would be very similar you would think. Will be very intresting to see if it lines up with what the redcliffs guys say.
Ibis100
Team Captain
You have only reinforced my point that an investigation is only as good as the information provided. How is it that a team manager of one of the clubs decides how many witnesses is enough. Isn't that up to the Investigator to decide. Surely you should contact the investigator yourself to offer ALL the available evidence to make a credible finding.
I understand that your evidence could be SIMILAR to that of the other Irymple witnesses, but in my experience and that of the Investigator is that every witness has a different view and a slightly different recollection of the events. The slightest detail could make the difference in any recommendation. If there were 20 witnesses, in order to make an unbias and correct recommendation, the investigator would need to interview all 20, not pick and choose which ones of the 20 he deems more appropriate for a particular outcome.
I believe if this is taken to the tribunal, you have just opened a can of worms and allowed Red Cliffs to Attack the whole investigation process. I have printed this particular post and will hand it to Red Cliffs if required to show that the Investigation process was floored and tampered with by your Team Manager. By withholding witnesses who are more than willing to come forward (Whether they assist the Irymple or Red Cliffs Case) which you have stated you are willing to do and even approached the committee to advise them, they have completely ruined any chance of a fair and transparent investigation.
It clearly gives the impression that Irymple are picking and choosing the witnesses they require to get the outcome they want even if that isn't thier intention.
It is also about time people understood that Irymple paid a further $500 to have a separate investigation in to the Red Cliffs Players. It was lodged some four days after the incident. It amazes me that the papers don't get hold of this information and report the full story.
didn't this game happen a week and a half ago. anyone care to talk about the games from 3 days ago?
i'm interested in how eagles v imps went. i see imps won a close one - is this grand final preview? is alex douglas still playing ones?
i'm interested in how eagles v imps went. i see imps won a close one - is this grand final preview? is alex douglas still playing ones?
Are u starting to panic or what Ibis. If you want my statement read my first post thats what i would be saying or better still hand it in to Bob Kerr if you are so happy printing my posts out.
Ibis how do you reckon he gets the numbers and the people Names he is ment to call. The investigator was not there whats he ment to do get the white pages and just start ringing people till he gets some1 that was at the match. That would have to be 1 of the stupidest things i have ever read.
Of course a club representive is gunna give him the names and numbers its not a lottery.
And as for the paper well the two Red Cliffs players in question are "pure ball players" There fists just accedentley sliped on to Eatos head certainly not news worthy.
And as for the four days we were just waiting on conformation that the investigation that red cliffs called could see Red Cliffs players brought to the tribunal. Once it became apparent that it couldnt we had to lodge our own.
I hope this clears it all up Ibis.
Ibis how do you reckon he gets the numbers and the people Names he is ment to call. The investigator was not there whats he ment to do get the white pages and just start ringing people till he gets some1 that was at the match. That would have to be 1 of the stupidest things i have ever read.
Of course a club representive is gunna give him the names and numbers its not a lottery.
And as for the paper well the two Red Cliffs players in question are "pure ball players" There fists just accedentley sliped on to Eatos head certainly not news worthy.
And as for the four days we were just waiting on conformation that the investigation that red cliffs called could see Red Cliffs players brought to the tribunal. Once it became apparent that it couldnt we had to lodge our own.
I hope this clears it all up Ibis.
Ibis100
Team Captain
This is great stuff Delray, a real good debate, lets keep it up.
I'm not sure why you are saying I am panicing. I'm not facing any investigation and aren't going to be cited to the tribunal. I have also asked if you are supplying your information and have condemned your club for failing to provide your details to the investigator. How is that panicing. I have clearly shown that your club is withholding witnesses. Your evidence goes toward their case, at a tribunal it could easily be argued that the club is also withholding witness details that could assist the Red Cliffs case. That would be the arguement (And a very strong arguement) that I would put to the tribunal to show the investigation was not fair and just and did not take in all the available evidence. It need not be shown that the evidence was for or against any party, simply that it was withheld by the club that requested the investigation. You would have to ask why, if your evidence was so damning, they would withhold that from the investigation. If the matter is referred for further action on the three supplied witnesses, if I was Red Cliffs (Which obviously I'm not) I would strongly argue that the investigation was hampered by the Irymple Football Club failing to provide details of witnesses that came forward and request the Investigation be dismissed.
With regard to the clubs giving the names and number of witnesses, that has clearly not happened as you stated in your own words and by doing that, Irymple have made the selection of witnesses in to a lottery. You have only managed to reiterate that by saying you advised the club you wanted to provide a statement and they told you, "YOU DIDN'T MAKE THE CUT"
I understand how the investigator gets his information but a person can also approach the investigator without going through any football club.
And you can stop making Nesty out to be all innocent. Remember, one of the Red Cliffs Players left the field under the blood rule and you don't need to be einstein to know how he got it. (But I remember you must have blinked and missed that part of the altercation so we don't know exactly how that happened). I would call one of those players pure ball considering he has played the game for 30 years without ever being reported and has two League B&F's to his name. I also know he can't punch his way out of wet paper bag and if he did do anything it would have been in reaction to something that occurred to him. That comes from playing with him for 10 years, not cause we are related. You can ask any team mate or opposition player over that 30 years and they will tell you the same thing.
A simple phone call would have cleared up the question about the investigation, unless of course the SFL ar so busy they couldn't take 5 minutes to look up the rules and advise the club. It appears to me like a bit of tit for tat really. Your players didn't have anything wrong with them, yet two players from Red Cliffs end up off the ground, one unconscious, the other bleeding. Why would you bother unless you were just Getting them back so to speak.
JUST MY OPINION. (Sad that I have to keep writing that to avoid any criticism isn't it.)
On a positive note, young South Mildura footballer Luke Teasdale was best player for North Adelaide U/17's on Saturday in his first game. Great effort considering he is an underage player and wouldn't know any of the players.
Why would you bother unless you were just Getting them back so to speak.
Well what do u expect Ibis. I explained what happened. Then Redcliffs called the investigation, do u expect Irymple to just to hang Sam out to dry????
Certainly not condoning what Sam did but Walder and Lee need to be held accountable for there actions also.If the good people from redcliffs think otherwise then maybe they should not have gone ahead with the investigation.
I mean in its simpilest form 2 Red Cliffs blokes wacked 1 Irymple bloke. 1 Irymple bloke wacked 1 Red Cliffs Bloke. All guilty of striking the tribunal to work out weeks or reprimands.
Well what do u expect Ibis. I explained what happened. Then Redcliffs called the investigation, do u expect Irymple to just to hang Sam out to dry????
Certainly not condoning what Sam did but Walder and Lee need to be held accountable for there actions also.If the good people from redcliffs think otherwise then maybe they should not have gone ahead with the investigation.
I mean in its simpilest form 2 Red Cliffs blokes wacked 1 Irymple bloke. 1 Irymple bloke wacked 1 Red Cliffs Bloke. All guilty of striking the tribunal to work out weeks or reprimands.
Ibis100
Team Captain
Again Delray you leave out your coach from all this. I won't get in to the version I heard with regard to Eato and what sparked the ensuing incident but I assure you, Walders nose didnt bleed from Altitude sickness. You have to ask, was the blood nose before or after what you saw Walder do. You have said you didn't see anything so perhaps Walders reaction was a reaction to his nose being hit. Food for thought there Delray.
Sam isn't being HUNG OUT TO DRY by your club. I am sure they will do everything they can to defend him and any good club would.
But the way to NOT hang him out to dry would be to defend him vigourously at a tribunal, IF there even is one to be held. You would supply all the evidence you could to the Investigator, defending his actions putting enough doubt in the mind of the Investigator that he even did the action so no further action be taken. If it does go further you would do everything to ensure you got either a not guilty verdict or the minimum of sentence if he was found guilty.
You don't just call for an investigation in to the incident before hand to show you are flying the flag. In my view, by calling for the investigation you are trying to Justify his actions, not defend them.
The investigations are treated independantly of one another and by the sounds of it, or the inference I take from your last post is that Irymple have lodged the application solely to get back at Red Cliffs for them asking for an investigation in to the Lee incident. Had Red Cliffs not lodged their application, Irymple would not have lodged theirs which confirms what I had said.
Try this Delray, make Lee Sam Curran who gets knocked out by a King Hit whilst having a scuffle on the ground with another player. He may have thrown a punch at the other player and as a result a Red Cliffs Player king hits him, knocking him out cold.
The player Curran has had the altercation with gets up and runs off uninjured. Niether player is reported as a result.
Without doubt Irymple would ask for an investigation and it should be expected. Would you really expect Red Cliffs to then lodge an application to have Curran Investigated for a hit that didn't even leave a bump or bruise. You would find it a bit funny and farsicle surely.
Yes they may all have something to answer and I agree if you are caught and found guilty you do the time. But to call an investigation in to an incident for no reason other than "You did it to us, so we will do it to you" is ridiculous.
Ibis100
Team Captain
If you want to talk about the games of 3 days ago, then talk about it. Dont just ask the question mate and get everyone else to do it for you. People get on here and winge about people talking about an incident but never make comments themselves.
Imps defeated Robinvale in a close one. Scores were level at some stage in the last but Imps pulled away at the end. Robinvale fought back from about 4 or 5 goals down at one stage but couldn't keep it going. (Not there myself but heard the radio call.)
It could be the GF preview considering Moncur to come back for Robinvale. He has certainly done well the guys and the loss wouldn't have hurt them I don't think.
blood green and whites, always up there, even when least expected.
Well findings should be out soon anyway Ibis i will be waiting with anticipation for the results.
If the shoe was on the other foot I would ask the player if he would want an investigation, making it quite clear that he too could miss weeks if the other club wished to take there matter further. (As the Rules State Ibis u are not allowed to punch people in the head) Then if the player said yes and the committee supported the actions the investigation would be called.
The only difference is the Red Cliffs player/s could shape the finals and would really not want to miss the next week.
Id loved to know if the Redcliffs players were actually asked????? As they too are at fault and could be found guilty of striking.
Only time will tell!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the shoe was on the other foot I would ask the player if he would want an investigation, making it quite clear that he too could miss weeks if the other club wished to take there matter further. (As the Rules State Ibis u are not allowed to punch people in the head) Then if the player said yes and the committee supported the actions the investigation would be called.
The only difference is the Red Cliffs player/s could shape the finals and would really not want to miss the next week.
Id loved to know if the Redcliffs players were actually asked????? As they too are at fault and could be found guilty of striking.
Only time will tell!!!!!!!!!!!!
bit hard to comment ibis when i live in melbourne and am just genuinely interested in how the game played out.
some might think i'm doing the right thing by not commenting when i wasn't there, by the sounds of it.
seriously, i'm ex-robinvale and keen to know how they're travelling, but also interested in how young alex is faring, if somebody can give some info.
fishalenko
Rookie
Dont worry about robinvale, its probably good that they drop one sooner rather than later... despite the efforts on saturday against a genuine side i think will regroup and fight our way back to the top and finish were we deserve to be. I believe this years grand finals will be played out by:
Seniors: Robinvale v Imperials (no other team will challenge)
Reserves: Imperials v Robinvale / Irymple
Thirds: Mildura v Robinvale / Imperials
but lets get through the final few rounds first....
Seniors: Robinvale v Imperials (no other team will challenge)
Reserves: Imperials v Robinvale / Irymple
Thirds: Mildura v Robinvale / Imperials
but lets get through the final few rounds first....
Draftboard
Draftee
- Jul 8, 2006
- 4
- 0
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Last I can remember was the Chris Bounis / Chris Alderton one, I think he got 2.
On another note for those out of town still keen on the odd match story, Max still covers a game or two on his website.
Draftboard
Draftee
- Jul 8, 2006
- 4
- 0
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Can't help you with his form, but I think how Robinvale is travelling is interesting. Now second on the ladder, they have sneaked home in a few and of course Moncur now injured. I thought Shannon was a great coach and player but a Moncur (or Paul Evans) type to me is a better fit for what they are missing. So without having seen a tremendous amount of them I'd put their good season down to a better structure with Moncur and some terrific form from Ritchie Handrek down back.
Wish the pair of you would just build a bridge and get over it.
Let Natural justice take its course, of course one would hope the chairman excuses himself from the hearing
- Status
