Toast Keath to be upgraded and debut!
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Sep 30, 2014
- 18,956
- 40,126
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
There was something I read which did contradict that though.
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/2015-2016 CBA FINAL.pdf
14(c) says it's 8 weeks or duration of time on LTI, whichever is more.
Who knows?
- Sep 30, 2014
- 18,956
- 40,126
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I don't think we can just fill our free senior list spot mid season.
And I think we can only do 1 mid season upgrade - non-transferable.
And yet they allowed clubs to put players on the LTI list on the eve of the finals last year... The rule is exactly as you've quoted it, yet the AFL deliberately chose to ignore it last year. Go figure...
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 58,246
- 150,963
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #305
There is a provision of the rules, probably posted in here already, that allows you to ask the AFL to upgrade a rookie with a reasonable reason provided the total number of allowed senior players isn't exceeded.
Alternatively we could demote Beech when Hampton returns as per the already stated rules.
- Feb 3, 2004
- 17,999
- 24,204
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- panthers, ukraine & broncos
There is also the optics for the AFL that a Cat B success story won't be allowed to play in the finals. Especially one from Cricket where the AFL is keen to sway players from. We all know how much the AFL like their optics in promoting themselves.
It's pretty clear... 14 (c) (i):
An injured Player who is transferred to an AFL Club’s Long Term Injury List is ineligible to play in the AFL Competition or in any other competition for the period:
(i) the Player’s name is on the AFL Club’s Long Term Injury List;
If the player is still on the LTI list, they're not allowed to play in the AFL or the SANFL (or any other competition for that matter).
It's irrelevant that Beech is in the mid-year upgrade slot. It's also irrelevant that Hampton is coming off the LTI list, and Keath was upgraded as his replacement.
We still have 2 other list vacancies - CEY's LTI vacancy, and the nominated rookie (due to having 39 on the senior list).
They might have to do a bit of paperwork, to rearrange the deckchairs, but the end result is still the same.
We still have 2 other list vacancies - CEY's LTI vacancy, and the nominated rookie (due to having 39 on the senior list).
They might have to do a bit of paperwork, to rearrange the deckchairs, but the end result is still the same.
- Sep 30, 2014
- 18,956
- 40,126
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
That's that document.
The official AFL rules document doesn't say that. http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/AFL Rules - May 2016.pdf
(Can't find a 2017 version but also can't find anything to say Rookie rules changed in this regard)
26.4
Duration on Long Term Injury List
- (a) An injured Player transferred to a Club’s Long Term Injury List is ineligible to play in the AFL Competition or a State Body competition for a minimum period of 8 weeks, commencing from the day on which the General Counsel gives his approval for the injured Player to transfer to the Club’s Long Term Injury List.
- Sep 30, 2014
- 18,956
- 40,126
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Why is it irrelevant that Beech was the mid year upgrade. It's entirely relevant. A player has to be nominated for that. It's not transferable.
- Feb 3, 2004
- 17,999
- 24,204
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- panthers, ukraine & broncos
No, that is not transferrable, but where in the rules does it say that you can't transfer them back to the rookie list under a different ruling?
- Sep 30, 2014
- 18,956
- 40,126
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
The rules say you can nominate one player mid season. They don't say you can send them back and nominate someone else.
The whole exercise is to try to get Hampton off the LTI while keeping Greenwood and Keath on the Primary by sending Beech back instead. Can't be done.
- Aug 7, 2015
- 10,634
- 17,351
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Actually, just noticed something interesting ... the bolded part of 26.5(b) below uses "may request" meaning that a player coming off the LTI back to the main list does not automatically mean a previously promoted rookie has to drop back to the rookie list (unless there's some clause elsewhere that makes it so).
I think if the returning player doesn't make the main list exceed the max number of allowed players or the combined salary of the main list players to exceed the TPP, maybe we don't need to demote a rookie.
26.5 Transfer from Long Term Injury List to Primary List
(a) ...
(b) Where a Player is transferred from a Club’s Long Term Injury List to its Primary List, the Club may request the General Counsel to:
(i) transfer the Player transferred from the Club’s Rookie List under Rule 26.1(b) back to the Club’s Rookie List unless that Player is included on the Club’s Primary List at the time it is lodged with the AFL under Rules 6.1 or 7.2; or
(ii) transfer from the Club’s Primary List to the Club’s Rookie List another Player who is eligible to be included on the Club’s Rookie List at the time of transfer.
I think if the returning player doesn't make the main list exceed the max number of allowed players or the combined salary of the main list players to exceed the TPP, maybe we don't need to demote a rookie.
26.5 Transfer from Long Term Injury List to Primary List
(a) ...
(b) Where a Player is transferred from a Club’s Long Term Injury List to its Primary List, the Club may request the General Counsel to:
(i) transfer the Player transferred from the Club’s Rookie List under Rule 26.1(b) back to the Club’s Rookie List unless that Player is included on the Club’s Primary List at the time it is lodged with the AFL under Rules 6.1 or 7.2; or
(ii) transfer from the Club’s Primary List to the Club’s Rookie List another Player who is eligible to be included on the Club’s Rookie List at the time of transfer.
Shaz2012
Cancelled
- Sep 15, 2012
- 7,928
- 8,424
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I think this must be right. It assumes that the nominated rookie rule allows all clubs to basically have 41 players from mid season onwards due to the nominated rookie rule. Is there any way to clarify this is the case. Does any other club have 41 on their list including the nominated rookie?
I wasn't sure about this, but I read 10.16 and 10.17 closer. Certainly, the pay structure (and how it related to our salary cap) is different for 10.16 and 10.17, which does seem to indicate they are different spots on the senior list.
One potential issue, though - 10.16 still says that the form needs to be lodged before "the Tuesday after the pre-season grand final." It's still not clear to me whether that is the window to lodge a form to nominate a particular rookie, or just to open up a slot that can be filled at any time during the season.
Another potential issue - do we know for sure that Beech was upgraded using the mid-season nominated rookie? Or the extra one we get for having only 39 players? If it's the latter, then Keath would need to be upgraded as a mid-season rookie, but that needs to be done before the Tuesday after round 23. So if Hampton is not off the LTI by then (and it needs to be okayed by a doctor) then it will be too late to use that option. Of course, if Beech was upgraded using the mid-season nominated rookie rule then no issue.
- Feb 3, 2004
- 17,999
- 24,204
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- panthers, ukraine & broncos
Beech was upgraded using the mid-season nominated rookie rules.
It's irrelevant because we have 3 positions we can fill, even after Hampton comes off the LTI list. We don't need to worry about whether or not we can demote Beech, because there is no need to do so.
Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk
The CBA is a legally enforceable contract. It has just as much weight as the AFL Rules document.
Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk
They're definitely different positions. The only question might be about the lodgement date.
Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk
Doedee could fill the Lever role based on his intercept marking? Keath at CHB.
Similar threads
