The rules are there for a reason though. What's the point if the VFL can choose when to apply them and when not to? I'm sorry I think it's unfair that McEvoy was allowed to play when normally he wouldn't have qualified.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Box Hill gets approval for McEvoy
- Thread starter pazza
- Start date
- Tagged users None
lionbear
Geelong Member from 2016
- Feb 25, 2007
- 12,420
- 8,872
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- 49ers, Indians, Storm
The rule was clear, he was given special permission to play. There was no blurred lines here.
Hawthorn have been given an advantage here which has compromised the VFL
romeoh
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 23, 2011
- 6,199
- 4,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
What are you talking about here-the rule requires that a player must have played 6 games in the VFL comp to be eligible. McEvoy hadn't played 6 games. Suckling hasn't played any?
floss_7
Senior List
All the talk about bending the rules refers to other clubs too. Maybe some should not be so hypocritical.
romeoh
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 23, 2011
- 6,199
- 4,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Are you talking about something specific and what is it please?
floss_7
Senior List
Rules regarding the recruitment of players & salary cap issues.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...nt-increase-in-salary-cap-20131223-2zum4.html
Box Hill/Hawthorn could have let the No 1 ruckman play in Ceglar, who was eligible to play. I don't really see what the big deal is.
romeoh
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 23, 2011
- 6,199
- 4,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Yep but the Williamstown salary cap is not under discussion here. Discuss the issue at hand.
They could have played Ceglar, he was eligible, but they didn't. They chose to play McEvoy who wasn't eligible. Its not an interchangeable thing-can you do my suspension for me so I can play next week, is it?
They didn't want to play Ceglar for obvious reasons which I suggest is having your cake and eating it too. The clubs like Box Hill, as has been pointed out get every advantage already and now they get a further hand up by allowing rules to be exploited.
Not a big deal. Big Boy wasn't best 22 for Hawthorn so he plays in the ressies (which he has done for the last month)
Not like we're dropping Sam Mitchell and Shaun Burgyone back lol
Not like we're dropping Sam Mitchell and Shaun Burgyone back lol
romeoh
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 23, 2011
- 6,199
- 4,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Nope of course it isn't, except it made a difference to the game. If its not such a big deal, why didn't they drop the eligible player back?
He was eligible. It's not like he played without VFL approval
and Ceglar is Hawthorn's #1 ruck so he won't be playing in the 2's anytime soon
romeoh
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 23, 2011
- 6,199
- 4,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Am agreed its not the biggest deal although would have been interested to see what happened if it had been disallowed( as it should have been). Do you think Ceglar would have been dropped back?
I don't think he would have been. So no Ceglar and no Mcevoy-who is the next option down there?
Anyway do you think the third option would have changed the game?
So ultimately it is an unfair exploitation of the rules that the VFL shouldn't have accepted.
No chance. Hawthorn look after Hawthorn 1st and Box Hill 2nd. Don't think Hale was eligible so it would have just been Lowden and Grimely in the ruck for BH (not that Hale would have played anyway)
Only reason it's an issue is that Hawthorn weren't playing due to the bye. If Hawthorn and lost to your mob we could have played anyone we wanted and it wouldn't have been any different because we aren't going to drop back 1st teamers
romeoh
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 23, 2011
- 6,199
- 4,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Exactly. So you see, poor old stand alone club has been disadvantaged.
Anyway good luck on Saturday-will be cheering for Port of course but expect a Hawks win.( fresh legged ruck men will help!)
It's a poor rule to begin with imo but the rule was brought in due to Willy which makes their whinging sound a bit rich
I think the most alarming thing to come from this is that the head of AFL VIC has the right to veto a rule regarding which player plays where. Why have rules?
McEvoy didn't qualify under the rules, the rules were ignored for Box Hill and Hawthorn's benefit and Williamstown's misfortune. It shouldn't matter what's best for Hawrhorn, it should be what's best for the VFL comp.
Which is why it's such a corrupt outcome which, in turn, says a lot about the AFL.
McEvoy didn't qualify under the rules, the rules were ignored for Box Hill and Hawthorn's benefit and Williamstown's misfortune. It shouldn't matter what's best for Hawrhorn, it should be what's best for the VFL comp.
Which is why it's such a corrupt outcome which, in turn, says a lot about the AFL.
romeoh
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 23, 2011
- 6,199
- 4,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Its s reasonable rule that has been a part of my 18 year old son's cricket and football scenarios since he began playing at 8 or so. And it is enforced in all those junior comps and it exists to stop this sort of unfair advantage being given. Never heard of the precedent being broken before.
Willy's transgressions are not about this issue.
- Dec 30, 2003
- 2,129
- 1,926
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Bulldogs / Willy / Palace
Yep, barking mad. Gallant effort by the Towners, foiled by an ineligible player and a very compliant VFL. Will be a very hollow flag for Box Hill if they win it this week.
I thought if the aligned club was playing all could play?
The wording says "same weekend" - but IMO should not disadvantage teams that have won the qualifying final.
romeoh
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 23, 2011
- 6,199
- 4,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Next week when Hawthorn are also playing on the same weekend, anyone can play. But this week, nope.
This should have nothing to do with the AFL, and whether the AFL team has won the qualifying final. It is about the integrity of the VFL, which is why this McEvoy decision is a problem.
The 6 game rule was developed to preserve the integrity of the VFL.
If the AFL team is playing, then there is the expectation that 22 players will not be able to play in the reserves/affiliate. This means that only a few players will be able to play in the reserves/affiliate (i.e. enough for them to have a full team). Some of the players may have played less than 6 VFL games, but if that is the case then it means they have been kicked out of the AFL team by a deserving and in form player (possibly more of a danger than a player running off an injury or out of form).
On the other hand, a team without the seniors playing does not have this impediment of having to field an AFL side, which theoretically means they, without this rule, could play anyone, which is obviously unfair. Hence the rule is there for a team who finishes the season (i.e. Footscray), or has a week off in the AFL finals, to stop them playing whoever they please when the seniors arent playing.
Hawks weren't playing, but wanted to run McEvoy in to form, this means that the integrity of the VFL was subverted for the needs of the AFL team, on the basis of a veto rule. In sum, this resulted in a player that couldnt play under the relevant rule being played, who ultimately proved the difference in a prelim...... That is unacceptable, and demonstrates that the rules that were put in place to supposedly preserve the integrity of the VFL have no meaning.
Williamstown should be upset over what has happened, and whether they themselves have received unfair treatment in the past is irrelevant. They got dudded for the sake of another team in another league, in the prelim final no less - wouldnt you be mad?
With respect to the VFL comp, it's totally compromised regardless of the McEvoy decision.
The WAFL is once again totally compromised.
The SANFL for the first year is totally compromised.
As I've said before, the AFL only consider their salary cap, draft rules etc as valid, they couldn't give a stuff about these issues in other comps.
The game is rotting from the ground up. They don't want to believe it though.
The WAFL is once again totally compromised.
The SANFL for the first year is totally compromised.
As I've said before, the AFL only consider their salary cap, draft rules etc as valid, they couldn't give a stuff about these issues in other comps.
The game is rotting from the ground up. They don't want to believe it though.
Only if Hawthorn beat Port. Otherwise it the rules come into play again
You did so well up until this point, but....
McEvoy was already outside the 22, and has played the last month at Box Hill. He's likely only injury cover. It wasn't to do with Hawthorn at all.
Should Williamstown have been forced to select only players with >6 games? If not, why penalise Box Hill?
As per my first post, it's the rule itself is wrong, which is why the overrule was (IMO correctly) made.
Which is truly ridiculous. Hawthorn are playing the same weekend, so they should be allowed to play anyone outside their 22 at Box Hill regardless of the result Sat night.
romeoh
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 23, 2011
- 6,199
- 4,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Comon Simon-It has to do with Hawthorn. That is the factor that precipitated this rule being exploited. They didn't want to drop Ceglar back because they want him fit and rested for the prelim. And they didn't want their 3rd ruck option, not good enough presumably. That left 2nd choice McEvoy.
Willy obviously played eligible players so not sure what that means re penalizing Box Hill.
Why is the rule wrong?
And are wrong rules changed on the run like this as a matter of course-nope. And don't think it was overruled as such-Hawthorn argued that they should be able to substitute McEvoy for Ceglar. Apparently -what's the diff goes ok.
Last edited:
