A Section Premier section 2022

[Over The Post]

WILLIAM BUCK PREMIER FINALS 2022 2nd SEMIFINAL ELSTERNWICK 2pm SAT 3/9	PRELIMINARY FINAL ELSTERNWICK 2:15pm SUN 11/9	GRAND FINAL TREVOR BARKER 2:30pm SUN 18/9
St Kevins
Collegians	Collegians	St Kevins
1st SEMIFINAL TREVOR BARKER 2:30pm SUN 4/9	vs	vs
Old Xaverians	Old Brighton	Old Brighton
Old Brighton

WILLIAM BUCK PREMIER RESERVE 2022 2nd SEMIFINAL TREVOR BARKER 12pm SUN 4/9	PRELIMINARY FINAL ELSTERNWICK 11:40am SUN 11/9	GRAND FINAL TOORAK PARK 1pm SUN 18/9
Old Xaverians
Old Melburnians	Old Melburnians	Old Xaverians
1st SEMIFINAL ELSTERNWICK 11:40am SAT 3/9	vs	vs
Old Scotch	Old Scotch	Old Scotch
St Bernards

 

[Penski]

The last time something like this happened in VAFA was the Andrew Topakas incident ruled on back in 2000.

This is from the Amateur Footballer, August 12th, 2000, issue 019 (editorial from Phil Stevens): -

"Last week I promised to update readers today with progress made regarding Old Melburnians/Old Brighton/Andrew Topakas matters which have grabbed plenty of press space recently. I will briefly summarise the outcomes, and at the time of going to print the VAFA is unsure of whether there will be any challenge to the rules of the VAFA in regard to this matter.

Old Melburnians pleaded guilty at an investigation hearing of conduct unbecoming in that it negligently failed to establish and provide information relevant to the player history of Andrew Topakas in 1998. The committee fined the Old Melburnians Football Club $5,000 in relation to this serious matter.

The investigation committee heard the charge against Topakas of conduct unbecoming. The committee decided to recommend to the Permit Committee on the following night, that Topakas's permit to play Amateur football be revoked.

The Old Melburnians Football Club was also advised of the existence of Rules 37, 38 and 48 which dealt with players that are ruled ineligible and that this matter would be considered by the Permit Committee the following night.

The Permit Committee did meet the following evening and determined that Topakas's permit be revoked. It was also determined that Topakas was ineligible to represent Old Melburnians in the first nine rounds of the 2000 season, that in accord with Rule 48 the club forfeits all matches in which the player played together with all scores registered. Each match was awarded to the opposition club which was given the option of having both scores for the match played included in its percentage."

https://issuu.com/vafa_hq/docs/vafa-vol00.no19

 

[AM]

Didn't OM's lose the case? I have some recollection that had to pay all legal fees too?

Correct.

Old Melburnians Football Club Inc v Victorian Amateur Football Association [2001] VSC 34 (23 February 2001)

www.austlii.edu.au

 

[AM]

There is a Mclachlan-sized stain all over this outcome.

I'm amazed that they didn't also give the 4 points to the opposition teams to make this an actual punishment, unlike the wrist-slap this ultimately is.

And how they can still have a percentage of 87% is just beyond me as well. This is a terrible outcome in terms of actual deterrence.

Harsh!

 

[flat footy]

Harsh!

Im with Penski on this. It is in effect being judged as "a non game/ no result". This is not right. One team followed by the rules and the other didnt.
The game was played and the losing team, who played by the rules is disadvantaged by the other team cheating. They should be handed the 4pts.
Gold medals at the Olympics are withdrawn from proven cheating winners and awarded to the 2nd placer. The same should apply to the 4pts and be awarded to the loser. This represents a far harsher penalty, make it hurt where it counts......pts on the Ladder. The fine is nothing to UB's.............

 

[Del28562]

Im with Penski on this. It is in effect being judged as "a non game/ no result". This is not right. One team followed by the rules and the other didnt.
The game was played and the losing team, who played by the rules is disadvantaged by the other team cheating. They should be handed the 4pts.
Gold medals at the Olympics are withdrawn from proven cheating winners and awarded to the 2nd placer. The same should apply to the 4pts and be awarded to the loser. This represents a far harsher penalty, make it hurt where it counts......pts on the Ladder. The fine is nothing to UB's.............

Exactly it should be points awarded to the opposition and they should have a 25% reduction for their points next year, so they should be playing with 34 points

 

[Phantom Strobler]

Exactly it should be points awarded to the opposition and they should have a 25% reduction for their points next year, so they should be playing with 34 points

Glen Eira in D1 we’re awarded the points when PEGS played an illegible player earlier this year. So what’s the difference?

 

[man in outer]

Exactly it should be points awarded to the opposition and they should have a 25% reduction for their points next year, so they should be playing with 34 points

Have to agree....wont help my team but surely if the team playing against you breaks the rules you get the 4 points. What could be the reasoning for anything else.

 

[Penski]

Glen Eira in D1 we’re awarded the points when PEGS played an illegible player earlier this year. So what’s the difference?

There isn't one (other than it being Uni Blues, who have always tended to have their own unique set of rules when it comes to player eligibility)

 

[flat footy]

There isn't one (other than it being Uni Blues, who have always tended to have their own unique set of rules when it comes to player eligibility)

Be interesting to see how Uni play / perform this week. If they win, their President's end of game wrap up would be worth hearing.

 

[WithThePeanuts]

I can only assume that this was a back room negotiation to keep the issue from going to court.
“Strip the points from us but don’t award them to the opposition and we won’t take it to court”.

 

[vafaeye]

Glen Eira in D1 we’re awarded the points when PEGS played an illegible player earlier this year. So what’s the difference?

Hey Phanto

Players are not ineligible in this case.

The previous admin 'forgot to write it into the rules' for 2022.

Squarely those who have left the building were sleeping at the wheel!

THE EYE

​

 

[Del28562]

I can only assume that this was a back room negotiation to keep the issue from going to court.
“Strip the points from us but don’t award them to the opposition and we won’t take it to court”.

I think it was a backroom negotiation from AFL hq

 

[Del28562]

Hey Phanto

Players are not ineligible in this case.

The previous admin 'forgot to write it into the rules' for 2022.

Squarely those who have left the building were sleeping at the wheel!

THE EYE

​

No but the side is for going over the points, you go over then the other team should win

 

[Mike Olotripo]

Looks like Uni Blues are appealing

 

[vafaeye]

Looks like Uni Blues are appealing

Not in my EYES

​

 

[Gun Island]

In Leader Footy they are saying an appeal is on .


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Penski]

Looks like Uni Blues are appealing

Their president said they would do as much in the last UB newsletter/update.

Here's hoping the appeal brings on the appropriate penalty.

It's amazing. Literally, the entire VAFA community is against UB on this one. They need to read the room.

 

[Max Leader]

Their president said they would do as much in the last UB newsletter/update.

Here's hoping the appeal brings on the appropriate penalty.

It's amazing. Literally, the entire VAFA community is against UB on this one. They need to read the room.

They win 2-3 games and their safe.

Very lucky results weren’t reversed.

 

[flat footy]

They win 2-3 games and their safe.

Very lucky results weren’t reversed.

What are their grounds for appeal then, anyone have any ideas? Clearly they were over the "bar". Whats to appeal?
The VAFA should reconsider their penalty and give the 4 points to the losers in every game......

 

[Mr Platinum]

What are their grounds for appeal then, anyone have any ideas? Clearly they were over the "bar". Whats to appeal?
The VAFA should reconsider their penalty and give the 4 points to the losers in every game......

And take away their percentage for whilst keeping all % against. It's pretty bizarre that the other teams don't get the points IMO, maybe the VAFA can right that wrong through the appeal process. Whilst their at it they should do an audit of their 2019 and 2021 seasons as well for clarity.

 

[vafaeye]

And take away their percentage for whilst keeping all % against. It's pretty bizarre that the other teams don't get the points IMO, maybe the VAFA can right that wrong through the appeal process.

The EYE will repeat

Can't do b/c of the Rules

They don't allow it - Past Admin Stuff Up so Move On

If they go to court there will be huge $$$$ for the VAFA to come up with

Look up the Rules EYE

​

 

[AM]

The EYE will repeat

Can't do b/c of the Rules

They don't allow it - Past Admin Stuff Up so Move On

If they go to court there will be huge $$$$ for the VAFA to come up with

Look up the Rules EYE

​

We live in interesting times.

Uni Blues dispute points penalty, president explains scenario to club members.

The Uni Blues are preparing to appeal the league’s hefty penalty as the club deems the rating of two new rival players to be within the rules of the previous VAFA board.

Max Hatzoglou

July 11, 2022 - 12:50PM

The University Blues have been shocked by the VAFA’s decision to penalise the club $22,000 and 20 premiership points for exceeding the player points limit.

On Friday morning, the club were notified of the decision after two separate independent hearings took place and concluded that the club was in breach of the 45-point limit.

The Uni Blues are now set to appeal the decision as the club say they were following the rules which were confirmed with the previous VAFA board in 2019.

According to the Blues, the club were told in 2019 that they were OK to have players from other clubs in the same competition come in and play under the same points rating.

Therefore when ex-Old Melburnian Jeremy Goddard and ex-Old Scotch footballer William Carrington joined the club this season, the club had kept them as four and three-point players respectively.

Although after a complaint was made by an unknown club, the league completed an audit after round nine to check whether all the Blues players were playing under the correct rating.

The VAFA, with almost a whole new board since 2019, advised the Blues that they had to add a point onto Goddard and Carrington as the league said the rule 6.1 did apply whereas the Blues thought otherwise from the previous board.

According to Blues president Tim Rourke, the club “were advised by VAFA management on numerous occasions in 2019 that Rule 6.1 was not being applied,” Rourke said in a letter to club members on Friday.

After the audit in round nine the VAFA directed the club to adjust the points for Carrington and Goddard going forward and in all previous matches in the season.

This then put the club over the limit in six of the club’s first seven games of the season when the club thought they were entering their player points right on budget.

This officially meant the club registered the points incorrectly for Carrington and Goddard and were over the 45-point budget on several occasions.

The club say it was the first time they knew that rule 6.1 was in play since being told otherwise by the VAFA in 2019. (For clarity it’s also the same rule as VAFA rule 50A)

This meant Goddard and Carrington had their points registered incorrectly in the first seven and six games they played respectively to round seven.

It totalled 13 incorrect rating registrations tallying up to $13,000 worth in fines for games where the club thought they were abiding within the 45-point budget.

In the meantime the club had to part ways with South Sudanese born footballer Mojwok Akoch as they didn’t have enough space in the points budget to have him in the seniors team.

A clearance was approved for Akoch to join the Hampden Football Netball League just before the clearance cut off date.

The club also said that if their whole under 19’s team was to be in the seniors team right now, they would be over the 45-point limit as too many players would be deemed three or four point players for various reasons, including coming from the country and attending another university other than Melbourne University.

The club is set to meet tonight to officially work out the next steps it will take.

It is believed the club are hoping to resolve the matter without taking it to court.

HeraldSun 11/07/2022

 

[flat footy]

The EYE will repeat

Can't do b/c of the Rules

They don't allow it - Past Admin Stuff Up so Move On

If they go to court there will be huge $$$$ for the VAFA to come up with

Look up the Rules EYE

​

Well reconvene the VAFA Board or who ever, change the "said" rule accordingly, then look into 2019, get the correct result sorted, then sack UB again...

 

[AM]

Well reconvene the VAFA Board or who ever, change the "said" rule accordingly, then look into 2019, get the correct result sorted, then sack UB again...

Now that would ensure the matter ended up in court.

 

[FWIW]

Their president said they would do as much in the last UB newsletter/update.

Here's hoping the appeal brings on the appropriate penalty.

It's amazing. Literally, the entire VAFA community is against UB on this one. They need to read the room.

FWIW and when has that bothered Uni Blues?