Southport win NEAFL flag after extra player head count

[Dav]

Southport and Sydney Reserves played off today in the NEAFL Grand Final. Leading by 50 points in the final quarter, a head count was called against Southport and they were found to have 19 men on the field. However, their score was not wiped and they went on to win the game by 60 points.

This is despite precedent from the NEAFL with GWS Reserves having their score wiped for the same offence last year. The fine print that has been supplied is that it was treated as an 'interchange break' rather than an extra player, which I think is to do with the fact that non-AFL sides in the NEAFL get an extra player on the bench, the 23rd man.

Also worth mentioning the Swans were given discretionary power and decided not to punish Southport. A bit of a confusing situation in all, what are your thoughts?

 

[Firestarter]

Well, the swans in the AFL got away with it so there's that precedent...

 

[SilentHunter_]

Swans made the right decision not to punish them for it but it was definitely dodgy and by the letter of the law the Swans should've won. Southport outplayed us comprehensively.

 

[Underdog]

So they were flogging Sydney Reserves, they copped the approriate penalty for the incident, and Sydney chose not to escalate. I don't see how there's any talking point? It all seems in order and a fair result occurred.

 

[SilentHunter_]

they copped the approriate penalty for the incident

They didn't. The proper punishment would've meant the Swans win the game. Swans chose not to enforce the proper punishment.

 

[Altum Volantes]

I doubt many players would feel great winning a flag via a head count.

Would be a hollow victory.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

That's why you need to be careful when you have a Tasmanian in the side.

 

[Underdog]

They didn't. The proper punishment would've meant the Swans win the game. Swans chose not to enforce the proper punishment.

OP said it was called an interchange break?

 

[SilentHunter_]

OP said it was called an interchange break?

They lied. Clarified after that it was indeed too many players on the ground by headcount. The NEAFL administrators then asked the Swans if they wanted to push forward with the actual rules and they said nah all good.

 

[Underdog]

They lied. Clarified after that it was indeed too many players on the ground by headcount. The NEAFL administrators then asked the Swans if they wanted to push forward with the actual rules and they said nah all good.

OK, would have been useful info in the OP. Cheers

 

[Pedantic]

Score should have been wiped. It's a draconian punishment, but at the same time it's not that hard to make sure you have 18 players or less on the field.

 

[Dav]

OK, would have been useful info in the OP. Cheers

Yeah sorry, there's obviously a fair bit of confusion. Interchange break was definitely how they justified not wiping it originally, and yeah like I said the Swans were given discretionary power. They actually played for a fair few minutes before they decided not to wipe the score.

 

[Underdog]

I'm guessing that Sydney didn't feel that the incident impacted the game in such a harsh manner so thought the penatly was overkill. A very sporting and just decision by Sydney. Lucky there wasn't a couple of kicks in it, or things may have panned out differently.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The wipe-scores rule is a stupid anachronism. With proper stewarding/ bench umpires it should be pretty easy to make sure there’s 4 on the bench for each team. In that if it does happen, I don’t know how a team could get away with it for any useful amount of time.

Maybe wipe the team’s last score (goal or behind) or something.

 

[Dav]

With proper stewarding/ bench umpires it should be pretty easy to make sure there’s 4 on the bench for each team

Might have been the issue as Southport were allowed 5 interchange players whereas Sydney only had 4.

 

[RobbieK]

I'm guessing that Sydney didn't feel that the incident impacted the game in such a harsh manner so thought the penatly was overkill. A very sporting and just decision by Sydney. Lucky there wasn't a couple of kicks in it, or things may have panned out differently.

Yeah, we were getting flogged fairly all day, that they had an extra man on the field for a brief period of time didn't make any difference to the result. I think the club made the right decision to accept that the strict application of the law was not followed, it would have been a hollow victory if we had wiped their score at that point.

The penalty in the law is incredibly strict. You would say that if you have an extra player on the ground after half time you basically automatically lose the match. Maybe a more fair alternative would be to wipe all their points that had already been scored in the quarter in which the infringement happened?

 

[10571z]

Who would want to win a flag when they clearly are better but accidentally had a player on for a minute or 2.

 

[master bate]

An AFL game got stopped a few weeks ago because Port had the wrong player listed on the field. No punishment, just Ebert (I think) jogged off and SPP jogged on.

Melbourne v GWS was all ready to start and Daisy Pearce was still doing her pre game interview and had to run off the ground as the umps were waiting.

In this case an extra player started on the ground after the 3/4 time break, they quickly worked it out, the player ran off but the umps called a count as he did. It was the right call by the Swans but hardly a difficult one for them to let it go. Would've been a disgusting lack of sportsmanship to win a grand final under those circumstances.

 

[Rob]

They didn't. The proper punishment would've meant the Swans win the game. Swans chose not to enforce the proper punishment.

Well, no.....the score was 76-16 early in the last. The proper punishment would have meant the score was 0-16 with plenty of time for Southport to make up the deficit.

And let's be honest, it would have been a bit embarrassing for Sydney even if they did manage to hold on.

 

[hcd199]

AFL Regulations 11.11(b)(iii)(C):
The Interchange Official shall notify an Umpire who will then award a Free Kick and a 50-metre penalty when the replacement Player enters the Playing Surface and who is deemed by the emergency Umpire to be involved in play prior to the Player to be replaced leaving the Playing Surface.

Presumably it's this that is being referred to in saying that not annulling the score is "in keeping with NEAFL and AFL by-laws", or "per the NEAFL rules and regs". Watching the footage, it does seem as though the infringement is noticed from the bench, and if that's the relevant rule here, then it's up to the GM of Football Operations what further sanctions apply (even if you have to be a bit creative to view starting the quarter with 19 as an interchange infringement). But then, why hold a head count at all? And, having staged a head count and found one team to have exceeded the permitted number of players, how does the whole of Law 5.5.3, including the annulment of the score, not also apply? (Colin O'Riordan, the captain, was given the resultant free kick, which suggests they were applying that law, since it's the one that specifically gives the free to the captain.) It certainly isn't a discretionary thing that the beneficiaries can sportingly waive...

To breach the regulation above is to have too many on the field, and thus be in breach of Law 5.5.3 also, so there's ambiguity there in exactly how the two provisions interact. Perhaps the AFL has directed umpires to apply the interchange penalty in each case and only count players if the captain requests it, and these umpires just forgot the directive. But on the laws and by-laws alone, it's hard to see how the score shouldn't have been annulled.

 

[Jukesy85]

Well, no.....the score was 76-16 early in the last. The proper punishment would have meant the score was 0-16 with plenty of time for Southport to make up the deficit.

And let's be honest, it would have been a bit embarrassing for Sydney even if they did manage to hold on.

Pretty much this. Even if Southport has their score wiped they probably still would’ve won the game from 16 points behind, having absolutely destroyed Sydney for three quarters.

 

[StillAtLarge]

Can't believe the Swans have lost 5 neafl grand finals in 6 years!? Crazy stuff.
Honorable decision by them to let the score stand but that is a dreadful record

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Just hearing it happened in the SANFL today too?? WTF?

 

[replicant]

Can't believe the Swans have lost 5 neafl grand finals in 6 years!? Crazy stuff.
Honorable decision by them to let the score stand but that is a dreadful record

Were restricted by who can play. So last week we had Gary Rohan, Dean Towers, Robbie Fox and one other AFL player running around, but they weren't allowed to play this week according to NEAFL rules. So we had a bunch of 17 year old academy kids instead. Boys vs men.

 

[Jeff76]

Just hearing it happened in the SANFL today too?? WTF?

Yep major investigation going on now, they’re saying North scored 8 points with 19 players and that may be deducted from there 5 point win. The Eagles boys are probably already on the booze.