Pies fined $20k, ($10k suspended) over ineligible player

AFL fines Collingwood $20K ($10K suspended), whaddaya reckon?

  • No big deal / a drop in the ocean / mistakes happen

  • That’s members’ hard earned cash / is probably symptomatic of bigger problems


Results are only viewable after voting.

Remove this Banner Ad

I read this and found it interesting.

Not so much in the pies case which is open and shut as the player was outside the system but just around the rules in general.

The AFL site said any player nominated for draft testing of any sort couldn't train with a club or affiliate leading up to the draft.

What happens to a guy like Tom Stewart, who I know was nominated for one of the secondary draft screenings, when he was already playing for Geelong VFL. Pretty average if the AFL say well you can't do any training at your own club between the end of the season and the draft...
 
That would be Appleby
Came down to play vfl with his mate with the roosters out of the vfl and trained strongly
Took Ramas spot
Very harsh penalty
Typical big wack for us
( h shaw , maxwell , bock, gambling fines example)
So don't believe we stuffed up
Can't believe the KNEE JERK reaction that the same olds come up with
As others have posted
MEH


Reposted from10 days ago
Apologies accepted
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Read my other post mate
He trained with us and friggin inpressed , earnt the rookie spot and took Ramas
Now what would you want the club to do , KEEP RAMA and get baged for being loyal (oxley) or take advantage of the opportunity on the doorstep
No spin just logical facts
But keep following the knee jerker s
Mate This preseason their going great guns , all seem to know more than the paid professionals


And again
 
Repeat 2 north Ballarat rebel players convinced to try out for vfl spots i lieu of no Ballarat vfl team
One impressed enough to take ramsays earmarked spot , which was a suprise to most
Great move by the club checking the kid out , must have shown a lot to oust the incumbent who I add was liked and respected by all at the joint


Not a member , don't know the secret handshake
Pretty obvious who is though

And
 

Good call. So is it safe to assume Ramma thought he had a rookie spot, but got denied the position at the last minute? Or was there a "no guarantees" position taken with him. Tough for him either way but that's what happens when you don't sew up a spot I guess.
 
Interesting development in this story!:- http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-10/exclusive-roos-selfreport-over-rules-breach

NORTH Melbourne has self-reported a list lodgement indiscretion to AFL investigations manager Ken Wood that could spring open a League-wide Pandora's box.

The Roos' decision came in the wake of Collingwood's $20,000 fine – half of which was suspended until October 31 this year – last week for Flynn Appleby training at its VFL affiliate leading into the 2017 drafts.

AFL.com.au can reveal that North Melbourne had three ineligible footballers under the same rule – 5.9(b)(ii) in the official AFL rules handbook – training with its new VFL team ahead of last year's drafts.

The Kangaroos confirmed the club's self-reporting to AFL.com.au.

"We notified the AFL regarding the list lodgement and eligibility rules and are currently working with the League to review the information that was volunteered," the statement read.

AFL.com.au understands there are other clubs, on top of the Magpies and North, that broke the same rule before last year's drafts.

There is genuine confusion about the rule among some AFL and TAC Cup clubs.

Multiple sources AFL.com.au spoke to in the past week believed the rule applied only to 18-year-olds or players eligible for the draft for the first time.

An AFL spokesman told AFL.com.au on Thursday that "the player's age is not relevant".
 
Last edited:
Interesting development in this story!:- http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-10/exclusive-roos-selfreport-over-rules-breach

NORTH Melbourne has self-reported a list lodgement indiscretion to AFL investigations manager Ken Wood that could spring open a League-wide Pandora's box.

The Roos' decision came in the wake of Collingwood's $20,000 fine – half of which was suspended until October 31 this year – last week for Flynn Appleby training at its VFL affiliate leading into the 2017 drafts.

AFL.com.au can reveal that North Melbourne had four ineligible footballers under the same rule – 5.9(b)(ii) in the official AFL rules handbook – training with its new VFL team ahead of last year's drafts.

The Kangaroos confirmed the club's self-reporting to AFL.com.au.

"We notified the AFL regarding the list lodgement and eligibility rules and are currently working with the League to review the information that was volunteered," the statement read.

AFL.com.au understands there are other clubs, on top of the Magpies and North, that broke the same rule before last year's drafts.
Pretty sure Norf were the narcs that dobbed us in then. Probably knew we were about to repay the favour and “self reported.”
 
Pretty sure Norf were the narcs that dobbed us in then. Probably knew we were about to repay the favour and “self reported.”

or they wanted Appleby with there 2nd Rookie Pick;)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Here's the key bit from the AFL Rules (5.9(b)(ii) in the official AFL rules handbook) that clubs have apparently had trouble understanding:-
5.9 Only Listed Players May Train With or Be Tested By a Club
(a) Except as provided in Rule 5.9(b), a Club shall not permit or invite an Unlisted Player to:
(i) train with the Club;
(ii) undertake any Testing conducted by or on behalf of the Club; or
(iii) complete any Survey conducted by or on behalf of the Club.
(b) Notwithstanding Rule 5.9(a), a Club may permit or invite an Unlisted Player to do one or more of the acts referred to in Rule 5.9(a) where:
(i) the Unlisted Player has been removed from a Club’s List following the conclusion of the most recent AFL Season, limited to the period between the commencement of the Club’s pre-season training program (as advised to the AFL) and the next National Draft Selection Meeting;
(ii) any Unlisted Player (excluding any Unlisted Player referred to in Rule 5.9(b)(i)) is eligible to be selected at the next National Draft Selection Meeting and has not been invited to an AFL Combine during the preceding 12 months, limited to the period between the conclusion of the last AFL Combine of the Football Year and the next National Draft Selection Meeting; or
(iii) where a determination is made by the General Counsel under Rule 5.9(c).
(c) The General Counsel may issue determinations pursuant to Rule 5.9(b)(iii) and Rule 5.8(b)(iv). Without limitation, such determinations may provide for an exception in relation to a particular Unlisted Player or class of Unlisted Players and may be subject to such conditions as the General Counsel sees fit.

http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/AFL-Rules-June-2017.PDF
 
As to the Appelby fine,

Very much a grey area if he has a run with the VFL team and unexpectedly hits the ball out of the park such that he ends up drafted on the senior list. What are we supposed to do? Get permission for every single potential player who trains with our VFL list? Possibly thems the rules but it sounds like a pretty pointless administrative burden.
 
As to the Appelby fine,

Very much a grey area if he has a run with the VFL team and unexpectedly hits the ball out of the park such that he ends up drafted on the senior list. What are we supposed to do? Get permission for every single potential player who trains with our VFL list? Possibly thems the rules but it sounds like a pretty pointless administrative burden.
And the fine does seem very heavy.

Let’s say north are guilty of 4 transgressions will it be 80 large with 40 large set aside?
Bet it’s all concurrent.
And just be 10 / 20 overall.
 
Back
Top