Southport win NEAFL flag after extra player head count

[Dav]

I’m not sure if it was only for this game or the whole season but apparently Southport were allowed five on the bench, while the Swans had four (mentioned in another thread so I’m happy to be corrected on that).

This is true, I mentioned it in the OP I think. Non-AFL reserves sides get a 23rd man in the NEAFL.

 

[Underdog]

Clearly there are issues with this law and it's a surprise that it wasn't totally resolved back when it came up last time.

You have any number of officials from the club and the league sitting on the boundary, some with the specific task of monitoring interchange matters. The recourse should not require a runner having to tell a captain to call a head count. It's senseless in this day and age.

One incident where a team didn't follow proper process does not necessarily point to an issue. Had the SANFL side understood the rule, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[asanque]

Seems a straightforward fix to the rules required.

1. If an extra player is on the field for one team, once this is discovered, an immediate free kick and 50 m penalty should be imposed.
2. If as a result of having an extra player on the field, one team is materially advantaged, then the AFL/SANFL/NEAFL etc. can dictate any reasonable penalty including deduction of score or forfeiting a match.

Thus, Southport maintain their flag (as it had no material impact).
Whereas, North Adelaide lose the 8 point advantage they gained with the extra player, meaning the Eagles make the SANFL grand final.

 

[Sentinel]

When was the last interchange infringement in the AFL? I recalp it happening a number of times when they first brought the new rule in (including the one I think with Goodes where the interchange steward stuffed it up) but cant remember seeing it happen for a long time now.

 

[Orange Agent]

The bigger issue is why the player eligibility rules change for the Grand Final leaving the Swans with a bunch of kids against men in the biggest game of the season.

They don't change, its just because the senior side wasn't playing the rules then come into effect. Every comp in Oz has the same setup to stop teams loading their reserves sides with senior players once finals start. It can work both ways, Essendon VFL has been playing Francis through the finals. Its a tough one for leagues to get right.

 

[99cents]

Pretty much every competition has eligibility rules for finals where teams have a side in a higher level competition. They are designed to stop teams loading a second tier team with better players once they are no longer needed in the higher team competition. If there were no eligibility criteria, the Swans could, in theory, have sent Franklin, Parker and Kennedy out to play for the NEAFL team. While that would never have happened, it’s pretty clear that some rules are required. The current NEAFL rules that prevented,say, Harry Marsh, playing today may be a little harsh but he alone wouldn’t have made that much difference.

Didn't the swans load up their NEAFL team a few years ago with Mitchell so they could snag a premiership?

 

[Underdog]

Seems a straightforward fix to the rules required.

1. If an extra player is on the field for one team, once this is discovered, an immediate free kick and 50 m penalty should be imposed.
2. If as a result of having an extra player on the field, one team is materially advantaged, then the AFL/SANFL/NEAFL etc. can dictate any reasonable penalty including deduction of score or forfeiting a match.

Thus, Southport maintain their flag (as it had no material impact).
Whereas, North Adelaide lose the 8 point advantage they gained with the extra player, meaning the Eagles make the SANFL grand final.

I don't like the concept of retrospectively removing scores because you're making a call based upon a decision that, at the time, would have altered the course of the game. There was still a lot of footy to be played beyond the infringement. There's a rule in place to deal with these incidents, it should be followed.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

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

Seems as though The Swans got over the injustice on this occasion immediately. I doubt they'll be crying about it in 5 years.

 

[asanque]

I don't like the concept of retrospectively removing scores because you're making a call based upon a decision that, at the time, would have altered the course of the game. There was still a lot of footy to be played beyond the infringement. There's a rule in place to deal with these incidents, it should be followed.

True, but it is the lesser of two evils.

Otherwise, one team could unwittingly gain a significant advantage through a breach of the rules.

They avoid the penalty simply by playing with the correct number of players.

 

[Underdog]

True, but it is the lesser of two evils.

Otherwise, one team could unwittingly gain a significant advantage through a breach of the rules.

They avoid the penalty simply by playing with the correct number of players.

We don't get to go back and revise the game when we see teams breach rules on a replay....

 

[tandino]

One incident where a team didn't follow proper process does not necessarily point to an issue. Had the SANFL side understood the rule, this wouldn't be an issue.

We have a situation where because of the antiquated way a rule is written, a team can be in breach of the laws of the game and that breach can have a material adverse impact on the result of the game, but the field umpire or match official has no unilateral power to enforce that law. I can't think of any other situation in football where an umpire or official can recognise that a law has been broken but every single one of them is powerless to to assign a penalty off their own bat.

The rule is deficient and needs to be amended.

 

[asanque]

We don't get to go back and revise the game when we see teams breach rules on a replay....

That is a fair point.

I guess the secondary rule was to allow the decision makers the authority to judge each case on its own merits

Will be interesting to see what the SANFL come up with!

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Happened in the VFL five years ago interestingly, though not in a final

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-22/history-made-first-successful-headcount-in-vfl

Has the SANFL seriously still not ruled?

 

[brucetiki]

Happened in the VFL five years ago interestingly, though not in a final

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-22/history-made-first-successful-headcount-in-vfl

Has the SANFL seriously still not ruled?

Tribunal been sitting for the past 2 hours to determine outcome!

 

[living_in_syd]

Decision?

 

[brucetiki]

Still waiting

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Apparently the AFL “war gamed” the scenario today were it to happen at AFL level. Concluded that they’d reverse the result.

 

[simmo97]

 

[tandino]

Apparently the AFL “war gamed” the scenario today were it to happen at AFL level. Concluded that they’d reverse the result.

Well in that case the SANFL will do the opposite then.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Apparently the AFL “war gamed” the scenario today were it to happen at AFL level. Concluded that they’d reverse the result.

If they want to war games a few decisions in the 2002 Grand Final while they’re at it they have my full support

 

[Boxhead_31]

Using this precedent will the NEAFL now ask the opposition if they are happy for a free kick to be paid to them from now on?
The rule is there it isn't up to the opposition whether or not if they applied or not

 

[tandino]

 

[Bunk Moreland]

This is ridiculous. They simply have to apply the rule as it’s written and let the result stand. The rule re headcount is dumb, but it’s the rule. It stands.

Now change the rule.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Maybe they had a 'young ruckman still learning the game' in their team and it was his fault, but just an honest mistake, so let's sweep it under the rug.

Aye, 'Roosy'?

The old 'blame Jesse White' trick. Worked for Sydney back in the day.

 

[Underarm]

This is ridiculous. They simply have to apply the rule as it’s written and let the result stand. The rule re headcount is dumb, but it’s the rule. It stands.

Now change the rule.

Nah that's dumb. If the league doesn't think a team was punished harshly enough for breaking the rules during a game they are within their rights to make up a penalty on their own.