2024 NPL Men's

[Fairgo]

If the Fed keep letting players off with reduced or no suspension at all they may as well rip up the Zero Tolerance campaign, players aren?t doing the right thing because others have got off lightly, stick to the 6 weeks and things will improve

So players do not have rights! From what I heard the linesman on his report said he called him a f***en prick the player and witnesses deny this and as said he said I got f***en kicked. I can understand when you say these out loud the linesman could miss heard/interpreted what was said as he was some distance away. I think some of the comments may have hidden agendas. As I recall a Magic player man handled a referee but got off as commonsense prevailed. 100% agree with Zero tolerance and have full respect for the officials. But I think this is a bit over the top. It has to go both ways

[Fairgo]

As an extension, to avoid misunderstandings, don't swear at others/at all on the pitch? You don't keep your job if you disagree with someone and call them an expletive, how about transferring that to football? Take kids to to senior matches and they hear all the unnecessary language shouted, think it's part of the game and then this transfers down to youth football and things start to fester.

You nailed it in your comment You don't keep your job if you disagree with someone and call them an expletive, That is the issue by all accounts of what has been said the official was not called an expletive. In regard to swearing you will need to lock kids up at home and not turn on the tv or take them to shops, or an NRL games or send them to school or allow them to work. There is swearing in every day life unfortunately not sure what you do about it.

[The Hacker]

Any truth to the rumour that the Federation said No to Adamstown to sign an emergency goal keeper with their 3 senior keepers out injured. Looks like the U18 keeper will have to play 2 games or the U16 keeper will have to play reserve grade. Could be a tough weekend for the buds
Find it a very stiff decision if true

[Luke Littler]

Everything you have said Fairgo ? is what you have heard ?. Unless you heard it yourself it?s pretty hard to make comments on hearsay 🤷*♂️

[Stanley]

You nailed it in your comment You don't keep your job if you disagree with someone and call them an expletive, That is the issue by all accounts of what has been said the official was not called an expletive. In regard to swearing you will need to lock kids up at home and not turn on the tv or take them to shops, or an NRL games or send them to school or allow them to work. There is swearing in every day life unfortunately not sure what you do about it.

I hear the linesman had a witness come forward backing his account of the incident.

[Alton]

I hear the linesman had a witness come forward backing his account of the incident.

Fed have to start supporting and believing referees FFS otherwise they will walk away, before we know it there will be witnesses saying it wasn?t a penalty 😀

[Taffy]

Any truth to the rumour that the Federation said No to Adamstown to sign an emergency goal keeper with their 3 senior keepers out injured. Looks like the U18 keeper will have to play 2 games or the U16 keeper will have to play reserve grade. Could be a tough weekend for the buds
Find it a very stiff decision if true

Last time that U18 keeper played 1st grade he kept a clean sheet, so may not be too bad, have to see if the players in front of him will protect him or not

[Bremsstrahlung]

Fed have to start supporting and believing referees FFS otherwise they will walk away, before we know it there will be witnesses saying it wasn?t a penalty ��

Yeh. It’s tricky.

If the assistant hears something and flags it as dissent/abuse. You have to trust that statement of events. There’s not really any reason to blatantly make something up. Fed should back it IF Assistant is sure of the version of events.

If there’s doubt about what’s said, that’s when it becomes tricky. Regardless, the language and nature of the incident probably warrants dissent and a week off is probably a compromise between extending punishment for details and just leaving it as an on field incident.

What we don’t want is a precedent where any alleged verbal abuse of referees is met with a he said, she said type argument.

We don’t have microphones like ALM or other competitions where we get audio of incidents, so these all come down to referee reports and any neutral witnesses/ or opposition witnesses supporting defendant would probably be acceptable.


It’s hard. If you don’t back a referee, you lose them. But if there’s doubt and assistant THINKS or SOUNDED LIKE, then that’s some vague language and you probably can’t send somebody off because you THINK something happened. You don’t want a referee being abused and you don’t want a player wrongfully suspended.

[anfield]

In my experience. Alot of players tend to blow up and swear after a bad challenge. I will add they swear when decisions don't go their way.

I support the zero tolerance on Referee abuse, but at the same time more needs to be done on player protection for bad challenges. If the punishments were to increase on the challenges, players wouldn't get as frustrated on the pitch Imp.

Sometimes you see a really bad challenge and the player gets a red card and possibly 3 to 4 games. It could also result in an injury to an opposition player. Yet a player may be sent off and given 6 weeks for swearing.

For mine greater consistency on suspensions and balances for offences needs to occur.

[Fairgo]

Yeh. It?s tricky.

If the assistant hears something and flags it as dissent/abuse. You have to trust that statement of events. There?s not really any reason to blatantly make something up. Fed should back it IF Assistant is sure of the version of events.

If there?s doubt about what?s said, that?s when it becomes tricky. Regardless, the language and nature of the incident probably warrants dissent and a week off is probably a compromise between extending punishment for details and just leaving it as an on field incident.

What we don?t want is a precedent where any alleged verbal abuse of referees is met with a he said, she said type argument.

We don?t have microphones like ALM or other competitions where we get audio of incidents, so these all come down to referee reports and any neutral witnesses/ or opposition witnesses supporting defendant would probably be acceptable.


It?s hard. If you don?t back a referee, you lose them. But if there?s doubt and assistant THINKS or SOUNDED LIKE, then that?s some vague language and you probably can?t send somebody off because you THINK something happened. You don?t want a referee being abused and you don?t want a player wrongfully suspended.

100% agree. Just to be clear at no point has it been suggested the linesman has made it up. Just a case he has genuinely assumed what was said and by all witnesses account has made an error. That happens, deal with it fairly, honestly and move on.

[Fairgo]

Everything you have said Fairgo ? is what you have heard ?. Unless you heard it yourself it?s pretty hard to make comments on hearsay ��*♂️

Not hearsay, I have spoken to a witness that was there who heard it all and has no association to the player or the club. They were bewildered as to why he was sent.

[Fairgo]

I hear the linesman had a witness come forward backing his account of the incident.

BS

[Thomas477]

BS

I?ve heard that the assistant is reconsidering whether or not what they heard was correct, their beard may have blocked their ears.

[ExWhistleMan]

Yes that is what I heard from people that witnessed it and they said they were shocked he got a red. But the linesman THOUGHT he said ?your a ****ing p*ick?.

So your story is that the player is stating he said 'I was ****ing kicked' yet you watch the BarTV coverage and he wasn't even remotely close to being kicked....... doesn't really pass the pub test.

I also assume your witness is one of the few people you can see standing on that side of the field? Otherwise how would they know what was said with such confidence?

[Allday]

So your story is that the player is stating he said 'I was ****ing kicked' yet you watch the BarTV coverage and he wasn't even remotely close to being kicked....... doesn't really pass the pub test.

I also assume your witness is one of the few people you can see standing on that side of the field? Otherwise how would they know what was said with such confidence?

If you pause the video on 49:03 of the bar tv match clock you will see there is clearly contact. Stewards even stumble after the contact.
Was it soft? Yes, did the number 6 overreact yes. But to reply to your statement there was clear contact.
Maybe you need to head to specsavers or change out of your red shirt.
I suppose you?re also going to say that wells didn?t touch the ref in his incident?

[Allday]

So your story is that the player is stating he said 'I was ****ing kicked' yet you watch the BarTV coverage and he wasn't even remotely close to being kicked....... doesn't really pass the pub test.

I also assume your witness is one of the few people you can see standing on that side of the field? Otherwise how would they know what was said with such confidence?

And to add to that stupid comment, if you had your glasses on there is a group of 8 people one in a magic tracksuit right where the incident happened

[Taffy]

Valentine have told everyone that the new Head Coach will be announced at their upcoming midseason fundraiser. Anyone have an idea who it is?

[Alton]

Valentine have told everyone that the new Head Coach will be announced at their upcoming midseason fundraiser. Anyone have an idea who it is?

Law

[Barry Dawson]

Gomez and GVE

[Stanley]

BS

Why is it BS, doesn’t seem like a fairgo to me.