What happens when your available players are less than 22?

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The tribunal results that came out of the Cairns grand final when 22 players were suspended from the one team got me thinking what the AFL would do in that situation. It would be the players own fault and the team should be penalised for it but consider this for a second ....

Rookies can't be elevated unless a player is on the long term injury list. Assuming you have 38 senior listed players and 17 were suspended, would you have to play with 21 players? What if they allowed you to use rookies and you had 23 players suspended leaving you with 21 available players? Take it a step further, what happens if you are left with less than the starting 18? Would you have to forfeit? The loss of money in the AFL coffers would have them arranging something pretty fast.

Teams have been close to having the bare minimum 22 available due to injury in the past but this hasn't been tested. If allowed to bring in other players, I assume the players would have to come from local comps or VFL top up players.

Thoughts?

 

[JeffDunne]

Any team with that many players suspended should be forced to forfeit matches where they can't pick 22.

 

[Tambo]

very interesting point this is... i wanna know what would actually happen aswell.....good point the ol dark navi.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Any team with that many players suspended should be forced to forfeit matches where they can't pick 22.

I agree though I imagine the registration process and contract situations with the North Cairns club means will allow them to simply get some fill ins for a year.

In this scenario though:
1. Could the AFL afford to allow forfeits?
2. What if it was because of injury and not suspension?

 

[nananana catman]

Certainly an interesting point, surely the AFL would have to have a rule regarding it. Its possible a virus or something could go through a club and leave them with less than the required number of players.

 

[londontiger]

I would expect that the team would play short, down to a minimum number

In all the footy I played, there were times when this occurred.

If a team couldn't get 14 on the field, the match was forfeited. The team was allowed 22 named players.

Not sure what the minimum would be in the AFL, if there was one at all

 

[JeffDunne]

I agree though I imagine the registration process and contract situations with the North Cairns club means will allow them to simply get some fill ins for a year.

The whole mess in Cairns seems a little suss IMO. The AFL and the AFLQ should get involved to clean up the admin of the game in FNQ. If they don't, I have a feeling this may fester with or without North Cairns for a few years yet.

While I think the AFL can be incompetent and biased at times, I think they and the clubs are light years ahead of the sort of stupidity going on here.

In this scenario though:
1. Could the AFL afford to allow forfeits?
2. What if it was because of injury and not suspension?

Well, I guess in answer to 1, if any club had 17+ players suspended, they couldn't afford not to do something extreme.

As for 2, a couple of clubs have come close to this scenario (as I guess I don't need to remind you) and it has highlighted how shallow lists are. However, if a club became unable to field a 22 after all rookie promotions were exahusted, I guess the AFL would have no choice but to allow additional players to be promoted to the list.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

As for 2, a couple of clubs have come close to this scenario (as I guess I don't need to remind you) and it has highlighted how shallow lists are. However, if a club became unable to field a 22 after all rookie promotions were exahusted, I guess the AFL would have no choice but to allow additional players to be promoted to the list.

What would be the best way to do this though? Use only top up players from your VFL affiliate or use players from anywhere assuming that they would be of a lower quality than the players you are replacing anyway.

Would open up a can of worms the next season when someone else was allowed to draft a player that had already represented your club because you had no contractual claim to them.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I would expect that the team would play short, down to a minimum number

In all the footy I played, there were times when this occurred.

If a team couldn't get 14 on the field, the match was forfeited. The team was allowed 22 named players.

Not sure what the minimum would be in the AFL, if there was one at all

Would the opposition team have to give them players to help them out on match day?

Essendon can hand over Henneman when they meet, Carlton would hand over Clarke, the Saints would find a use for Fiora and the Tigers might be spoiled for choice.

 

[banzai]

Happened in the English premier league once where Middlesbrough had a huge injury list, so they just didnt show up. They forfeted the game 3-0 and were also docked an additional 3 points for memory. I would think an AFL team should be forced to play no matter what, if they have too many players suspended bad luck its their own fault, too many injuries and the less injured ones will just have to play, or they can field less than 22.

 

[pazza]

Tough question ODN.

I guess that you have 16 other players available on your list initally. (Assuming fitness and other matters are all clear).

I would say the AFL would allow only that 16 to play, which could mean an absolute rout in terms of a total scoreline.

It's either that or allow the club to forfeit its match until enough players to make up a 22-man squad become available.

Otherwise, if they allow open-ended use of the rookie system, it could be easily abused.

 

[Eagles_Rock!!]

Old Dark Navy's, you've stumbled on a good point.

The only solution would be forfeiting the following match. I can't think of anything else on mind.

 

[Vandal]

Im pretty sure there is a rule that clubs can use players from their VFL affiliate if they have so many injuries they can't fill a full team.

 

[Benevolent Ert]

This question was asked to Adrian Anderson on SEN earlier this year, and the response was that the club would be able to field top-up players from it's affiliated reserves team/s

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

This question was asked to Adrian Anderson on SEN earlier this year, and the response was that the club would be able to field top-up players from it's affiliated reserves team/s

Thanks for the info. I switch off whenever Anderson's face appears.

Would be in team's best interest to make sure their VFL team is very strong.

 

[Supermercado]

Does that mean Freo/WCE/Adelaide/Port would have their choice of their local competitions? Given that they don't have a reserves side. Port were running pretty close to the mark at one point this year weren't they? More than 10 players on the injured list, suspensions all over the shop. I was waiting for them to rock up with 15 players, a trainer and some bloke from Victor Harbour called Barry.

When we suffer an injury crisis of epic proportions I expect to see Chad Liddell promoted from Sandringham.

 

[JeffDunne]

I don't see why the rules that currently apply to rookie promtion wouldn't be used. The club would obviously need to nominate players, and I don't see the problem in this if the player qualifications are the same as for the rookie draft.

To say they could use top-ups from the affilliated team would suggest the WA and SA teams could pick any non-contracted player from the entire WAFL or SANFL, whereas the Vic teams from one VFL team. And for Brisbane and Sydney, a VFL team would probably be better than picking from their entire state. The rules need to be consistent and I would have thought the rookie listing rules would suffice.

After having a quick look at the collective bargaining agreement, I couldn't find any thing that covers it. But I thought this was interesting (and didn't know existed).

15. TESTIMONIALS
15.1 An AFL Club may nominate to the AFL, one Player on the AFL Club’s List who has had not less than 10 years service with the AFL Club (“the Testimonial Player”), that it proposes to conduct a testimonial program for the Testimonial Player in a particular year, provided that in the case of Port Adelaide and Fremantle a Player will be eligible to be nominated a Testimonial Player if the Player has been on the AFL Club’s Primary List or Veteran’s List since inception of the AFL Club into the AFL Competition and is at least 32 years of age on 31 December prior to the beginning of the relevant AFL Season. The proviso for Port Adelaide and Fremantle will respectively cease to apply once those Clubs have been in the AFL Competition for ten years.

15.2 An AFL Club which proposes to nominate a Testimonial Player must prior to 1st March in the relevant year:
(a) notify the AFL in writing of the name of the Testimonial Player; and
(b) lodge with the AFL the testimonial program that the AFL Club proposes to
conduct.
15.3 Where the AFL has approved the nomination and testimonial program, the AFL Club shall pay an amount to the Player, which amount up to a maximum of $100,000 shall be outside of and not taken into account in calculating the Total Player Payments of that AFL Club.
15.4 This payment may only be paid to the Player on his ceasing to play with the relevant Club provided that the payment should not be made to the Player until after the Pre-Season Draft in the year the Player leaves the Club.

Hope St Kilda are using this option with Rob Harvey. Seems an easy $100K off the TPP.

 

[Total Package]

having the bare minimum 22 available due to injury in the past but this hasn't been tested. If allowed to bring in other players, I assume the players would have to come from local comps or VFL top up players.

Thoughts?

It almost happened to the Eagles in 1988... We were devestated by injuries and we only had a list of 35 players to chose from whilst every other AFL club had 52 and quite a few were out for the season. There was a stage for a few weeks where we could only pick out of 23 or 24 fit players in the squad.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It almost happened to the Eagles in 1988... We were devestated by injuries and we only had a list of 35 players to chose from whilst every other AFL club had 52 and quite a few were out for the season. There was a stage for a few weeks where we could only pick out of 23 or 24 fit players in the squad.

Saints and Blues were on the verge in 2002 IIRC.