2014 Non-Crows AFL Discussion

[LiquidCrow]

If they really need players to fill their team, I'd expect the Bombers to be given permission to either upgrade their rookies or take players them from their reserves side. At the moment I don't see any need to raid other state comps, but if they did receive permission to do so, I doubt there'd be too much outrage if they were to take anyone recently delisted like Tambling, Sellar, Didak etc.

 

[macca23]

I might seem just a touch callous towards Essendon here, but bad luck if they lose 10 players. They should still be able to field a side - most teams in the AFL have close to 50 listed players. That leaves them with 40 on the list to choose from. Even with bad injuries they should be able to field a side.

It's their mess, they can handle it themselves.

Essendon have 40 players on the senior list and 5 on the rookie list.

Forgetting quality, that's a total of 45 players and like you I say bad luck if they lose 10 players. They still have 35 players to choose from, and even if they had 13 players injured they still have a full team of 22.

Yes, they'd be fielding an absolute shit team that couldn't win, but I'm with you stabby.

It is their mess and they can go handle it themselves as far as I'm concerned. The club will suffer and so it should.

 

[dylan123]

I believe some clubs used up to 39 players last year so I don't think they can just cover a loss of 10 players without being able to call up anyone else from a lower level.

 

[cmndstab]

Just for the sake of argument, if injuries/suspension meant that they couldn't field a side, I assume the AFL has a system in place whereby they can temporarily field a player from their reserves side anyway.

I remember a few years back the Crows had a situation where we literally named an injured player on our emergency list because we only had 24 fit players from top to bottom. It can happen even without losing ten players, so presumably a system is in place for it.

Of course, if that system is "Essendon forfeit the match" then so be it as well.

 

[Wright Away]

I hope this happens.

Essendon is Richter.

 

[Vader]

I believe some clubs used up to 39 players last year so I don't think they can just cover a loss of 10 players without being able to call up anyone else from a lower level.

I suspect that some of those 39 players were voluntary selections, on the grounds of introducing young players. I suspect that there weren't too many occasions when clubs had 13 players injured/suspended at the same time. That said, the AFL does need to come up with some mechanism for providing Essendon the ability to top-up should they have insufficient players available to field a team.

Just for the sake of argument, if injuries/suspension meant that they couldn't field a side, I assume the AFL has a system in place whereby they can temporarily field a player from their reserves side anyway.

There are no such mechanisms in place. A player cannot play in the AFL unless they are on a team list. The only time this has been permitted was during the Mickey Mouse pre-season games, once a team had been knocked out of the main competition. You may recall that Hawthorn fielded a number of Box Hill players against us when we played them at Renmark a few years back.

I remember a few years back the Crows had a situation where we literally named an injured player on our emergency list because we only had 24 fit players from top to bottom. It can happen even without losing ten players, so presumably a system is in place for it.

That's what the rookie list is there for. It's highly unusual to have 16 players on the injury list, with none of them eligible for the LTI list (which only requires the player to be unavailable for 8 weeks).

Of course, if that system is "Essendon forfeit the match" then so be it as well.

This is the one situation that the AFL cannot permit. Essendon can be completely uncompetitive, getting smashed by 150pts every week - the AFL won't care. However, the AFL is contractually bound to provide the television broadcasters with 9 AFL games every round (split rounds duly noted). That means that Essendon cannot be placed in a situation where they have no choice but to forfeit.

 

[fabs33]

Just for the sake of argument, if injuries/suspension meant that they couldn't field a side, I assume the AFL has a system in place whereby they can temporarily field a player from their reserves side anyway.

I remember a few years back the Crows had a situation where we literally named an injured player on our emergency list because we only had 24 fit players from top to bottom. It can happen even without losing ten players, so presumably a system is in place for it.

Of course, if that system is "Essendon forfeit the match" then so be it as well.

Or they can make up a rule on the fly, the AFL are pretty good* at that.



*By good I mean bad, but that's just the way they roll.

 

[skoobydoo]

Essendon have 40 players on the senior list and 5 on the rookie list.

Forgetting quality, that's a total of 45 players and like you I say bad luck if they lose 10 players. They still have 35 players to choose from, and even if they had 13 players injured they still have a full team of 22.

Yes, they'd be fielding an absolute shit team that couldn't win, but I'm with you stabby.

It is their mess and they can go handle it themselves as far as I'm concerned. The club will suffer and so it should.

Yep. Essendon as a club must suffer further. It would be unacceptable for individual players to receive 'greater' penalties than the 'slap on the wrist' already handed out by the AFL to the club itself. But somehow I think the AFL consider the penalties already applied have closed the (club) case. Also, the new post Demitriou management will be keen to ensure the competition strengthens and moves forward by encouraging/assisting a 'drug-free' Essendon and its supporters to bolster the coffers of the game.

Why do I hold this view? Maybe its because I'm an AFC supporter living outside Vic?

 

[dylan123]

I suspect that some of those 39 players were voluntary selections, on the grounds of introducing young players. I suspect that there weren't too many occasions when clubs had 13 players injured/suspended at the same time. That said, the AFL does need to come up with some mechanism for providing Essendon the ability to top-up should they have insufficient players available to field a team.

The median of players used for all 18 clubs last season was 36.5 with a low of 33 and a high of 40 between them. I agree that not all would have been injured at the same time but there's a very high chance that they'd run out of players to play if you were to remove 10 from a list of 44 players which would give them just 34 players to choose from. There would be very little chance for players to rest which would have the older guys like Chapman and Fletcher breaking down along with the younger guys bodies not being able to withstand so many AFL games at a young age, they just wouldn't be able to last the season.

Would be interested to know what the rule in place would be as to what happens should a team run out of players to select to play a match.

 

[BACCS]

Just as well he opens the batting for Australia.

Yeah, I hate blokes with 7 Test hundreds and averaging over 40 opening the batting.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Why should we allow them to be competitive if they cheated? Serves them right if guilty & end up with the spoon.

Let Hird make a playing come-back...

Yeah, sure. If justice is the desired outcome.

I'm thinking that the goal will be a punishment that is juuust harsh enough to be deemed acceptable plus some means of making sure they field a competitive enough team to maintain crowds/ratings.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Yeah, sure. If justice is the desired outcome.

I'm thinking that the goal will be a punishment that is juuust harsh enough to be deemed acceptable plus some means of making sure they field a competitive enough team to maintain crowds/ratings.

I suppose what it means by competitive.

I have no issue with Essendon being able to draft in 10 replacement players to ensure a full squad so they can field a team if they have lots of injuries.

Can't see them being any less competitive than GWS in their 1st year as still have some experience.

Don't see why we should do any more & give them a chance to make the finals - if found guilty.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

GWS aren't one of the flagship teams though. Essendon, Collngwood impact the bottom line and every club suckles off their teet.

I hope they get no help and are left to flounder though.

We copped our whack.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

GWS aren't one of the flagship teams though. Essendon, Collngwood impact the bottom line and every club suckles off their teet.

I hope they get no help and are left to flounder though.

We copped our whack.

Agree.

Being a flagship is irrelevant.

I doubt Carlton would have any sympathy!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

BTW, what a joke Little is disgusted that the players names are now public.

Whilst I feel for the players, I'm more disgusted by EFC tarnishing the AFL's image in a huge way last year.

 

[cmndstab]

There are no such mechanisms in place. A player cannot play in the AFL unless they are on a team list. The only time this has been permitted was during the Mickey Mouse pre-season games, once a team had been knocked out of the main competition. You may recall that Hawthorn fielded a number of Box Hill players against us when we played them at Renmark a few years back.

I do recall that, yes. And while there are no mechanisms in place, as you rightly say, the AFL will not allow Essendon to simply forfeit the match. So if they don't have enough players to field a side, the AFL have have to set a new precedent - and I suspect that will be allowing them to use players from their reserve side. That's the neatest way to do it.

 

[bomberclifford]

I do recall that, yes. And while there are no mechanisms in place, as you rightly say, the AFL will not allow Essendon to simply forfeit the match. So if they don't have enough players to field a side, the AFL have have to set a new precedent - and I suspect that will be allowing them to use players from their reserve side. That's the neatest way to do it.

Didn't Hawthorn have to do this a few years back in a pre-season game?
Maybe the mechanism already exists?

 

[cmndstab]

Didn't Hawthorn have to do this a few years back in a pre-season game?
Maybe the mechanism already exists?

Yes, Vader mentioned it a few posts back. But they were exceptional circumstances, of course (much like how interchange rules or players selected are often different in NAB Challenge games).

Still, I find it hard to believe there is no rule in place for what happens if, due to injuries and suspension, a club is unable to field a side of 22 players. That seems like the kind of thing that would be buried deep in the rulebook somewhere.

 

[Vader]

I do recall that, yes. And while there are no mechanisms in place, as you rightly say, the AFL will not allow Essendon to simply forfeit the match. So if they don't have enough players to field a side, the AFL have have to set a new precedent - and I suspect that will be allowing them to use players from their reserve side. That's the neatest way to do it.

I agree that they should be able to supplement their list with players from the Bendigo Bombers, in the unlikely event that they do not have 22 AFL listed players available for selection (including those on the rookie list). This is one of the two options I proposed previously.

There is currently no mechanism for this to happen. There is a very real possibility that the AFL may have to introduce a new rule to allow for this possibility.

 

[Vader]

Hold that thought.. the AFL does have a mechanism in place... The following is taken from the AFL Player Rules document:

13.1 Unavailability of Listed Players
In the event of the number of available Players on the List of any Club reducing through injury, illness, or other incapacity to 22 or less the AFL may in its absolute discretion grant to such Club the right to include in the Team of the Club a Player or Players other than a Player or Players listed with such Club for such period and upon such terms and conditions as the AFL shall in its absolute discretion determine. Without limitation to the foregoing any Club which claims that a Player or Players is or are unavailable through injury or illness shall not be entitled to the benefit of this Rule 13.1 unless such Club shall have obtained from the AFL Medical Officer a certificate in support thereof.

The bolded bit in the middle is the key. The AFL can allow them to select players from outside their team list, but only when they do not have 22 players available for selection. I would expect that the AFL would force them to select these players from the club's VFL affiliate (the Bendigo Bombers).

 

[LiquidCrow]

Swans' cost-of-living allowance set to be killed off by AFL.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-04/swans-allowance-faces-axe/5298030

Sounds like COLA will go for the Swans, but GWS will be allowed to keep it - pretty much as expected, following the 9 year Buddy deal.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

I agree that they should be able to supplement their list with players from the Bendigo Bombers, in the unlikely event that they do not have 22 AFL listed players available for selection (including those on the rookie list). This is one of the two options I proposed previously.

There is currently no mechanism for this to happen. There is a very real possibility that the AFL may have to introduce a new rule to allow for this possibility.

Just a side note, bombers in the vfl are no longer affiliated with bendigo

 

[simmo97]

NO MORE KB ON THE LAWS COMMITTEE



WEST Coast premiership coach John Worsfold is one of four additions to a revamped AFL Laws of the Game committee.
Collingwood premiership player Michael Christian, umpiring director Wayne Campbell and umpire's coach Hayden Kennedy are the other new members of the committee.
The quartet replace the retiring Kevin Bartlett, Jeff Gieschen and Rowan Sawers, as well as Peter Schwab – who now works as the head of coaching and development at the Brisbane Lions.
AFL football operations Mark Evans thanked Bartlett, Sawers, Gieschen and Schwab for their service to the committee.
"On behalf of the AFL, I wish to sincerely thank Kevin, Jeff, Rowan and Peter for their enormous contribution to the discussions around the laws process," Evans said.
The laws committee consists of Evans (chairman), Worsfold, Christian, Campbell, Kennedy, Joel Bowden, Brett Burton, Rodney Eade, Tom Harley, Leigh Matthews, Michael Sexton and Beau Waters.
Meanwhile, Richmond champion Matthew Richardson has joined the All Australian selection committee.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-03-04/woosha-on-board-with-rules

 

[Vader]

Equally good news is the departure of Jeff Gieschen. Incompetent as an AFL coach, incompetent as an Umpiring coach, incompetent at determining the Laws of the Game.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Got to love the work of Evans so far