Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 49

Thread: RWO Game Day Thread - Finals - August 30/31

  1. #25
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by Benchwarmer View Post
    The NEAFL players allowed to play in PD finals, who have played more games in NEAFL than PD, is a farce and this loophole should be changed THIS WEEK... it favours one club only.
    It should be changed NOW, not after the season end but THIS WEEK before the next game. It needs to be corrected as an urgent matter.
    Its wrong, we all know it is wrong. Lets fix it now.

    The sooner the 9 game rule is changed to be based on the "players games", not the "team games" , the fairer it will be for all clubs.
    Are you serious? The maximum game rule has been in place for many years (no more than 8 in a higher grade) and is in every AFL competition in Australia. They also need to complete a minimum amount of games which from memory is 4 in the grade that they play in. The rule that players can play in any division if all play on the one day / round has also been in place for a long time. Getting rid of these rules would be detrimental to the clubs ability to get enough numbers on the park on game day. Every club in the Sydney AFL has been abiding by these rules (and using them) for a long time however now that Sydney Uni have won a few games on the weekend all of a sudden everyone wants them changed??? Hats off to Sydney Uni for beating a highly fancied Wests side in PD who more than likely underestimated the ability of Sydney Uni. As did the rest of us I think who assumed they were simply making up the numbers in the finals. I am actually amazed that Sydney Uni won it and I too looked at the list that played on the weekend and I can tell you with confidence that none of them were regular NEAFL players. Evan Smith played a few games as did David Johnson but neither exceeded the maximum and both played plenty of PD games to be considered genuine PD players.

    IMO players shouldn't have to sit in the stands when they can be playing a game of footy which is especially important in this state. Many on here spruik about the merits of divionalisation and how that has helped grow the player numbers and keep clubs alive. I would think that this is part of it.

  2. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Freedman View Post
    Are you serious? The maximum game rule has been in place for many years (no more than 8 in a higher grade) and is in every AFL competition in Australia. They also need to complete a minimum amount of games which from memory is 4 in the grade that they play in. The rule that players can play in any division if all play on the one day / round has also been in place for a long time. Getting rid of these rules would be detrimental to the clubs ability to get enough numbers on the park on game day. Every club in the Sydney AFL has been abiding by these rules (and using them) for a long time however now that Sydney Uni have won a few games on the weekend all of a sudden everyone wants them changed??? Hats off to Sydney Uni for beating a highly fancied Wests side in PD who more than likely underestimated the ability of Sydney Uni. As did the rest of us I think who assumed they were simply making up the numbers in the finals. I am actually amazed that Sydney Uni won it and I too looked at the list that played on the weekend and I can tell you with confidence that none of them were regular NEAFL players. Evan Smith played a few games as did David Johnson but neither exceeded the maximum and both played plenty of PD games to be considered genuine PD players.

    IMO players shouldn't have to sit in the stands when they can be playing a game of footy which is especially important in this state. Many on here spruik about the merits of divisionalisation and how that has helped grow the player numbers and keep clubs alive. I would think that this is part of it.
    Thank God & Tim, a decent objective post - having just read all this I was starting to believe it until reason appeared..... I follow NEAFL a bit and if Eagles or Uni wanted to manipulate things to assist their lower grades (knowing all year they wouldn't win a NEAFL flag) they could do it easily with the talent on their lists. They clearly haven't - I just saw Uni beat Wests at Picken just a few weeks ago and generally due to so many teams across so many divisions like Bats and Bulldogs looks like their sides can be a bit up and down over the journey. Also I know from following NEAFL that both Sydney clubs have strived to make NEAFL finals. Depth can sometimes be an advantage as can having more than one grade in finals on a weekend, just like a good run with injuries, kicking straight, being fitter/younger and better on larger grounds etc. As Tim says these rules have been around for eons - reads on here just like the same old prejudices coming through - be better than this folks - less sour grapes and "traditional" conspiracy theories when convenient, its just ridiculous talk.

  3. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Freedman View Post
    Are you serious? The maximum game rule has been in place for many years (no more than 8 in a higher grade) and is in every AFL competition in Australia. They also need to complete a minimum amount of games which from memory is 4 in the grade that they play in. The rule that players can play in any division if all play on the one day / round has also been in place for a long time. Getting rid of these rules would be detrimental to the clubs ability to get enough numbers on the park on game day. Every club in the Sydney AFL has been abiding by these rules (and using them) for a long time however now that Sydney Uni have won a few games on the weekend all of a sudden everyone wants them changed??? Hats off to Sydney Uni for beating a highly fancied Wests side in PD who more than likely underestimated the ability of Sydney Uni. As did the rest of us I think who assumed they were simply making up the numbers in the finals. I am actually amazed that Sydney Uni won it and I too looked at the list that played on the weekend and I can tell you with confidence that none of them were regular NEAFL players. Evan Smith played a few games as did David Johnson but neither exceeded the maximum and both played plenty of PD games to be considered genuine PD players.

    IMO players shouldn't have to sit in the stands when they can be playing a game of footy which is especially important in this state. Many on here spruik about the merits of divionalisation and how that has helped grow the player numbers and keep clubs alive. I would think that this is part of it.
    Tim, it is six games in their grade or lower to be eligible with an exception for women's and 19's which is 5.

    And the rule does not state that a player can play in any division if multiple teams are playing on same day. They can only play one club grade lower than what they are eligible for
    Last edited by ShortHalfHead; 2nd September 2014 at 12:12 PM.

  4. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Benchwarmer View Post
    Interesting the Sydney Uni Div 4 team on the weekend had 11 regular players miss out on a game yet they found room for players who had not played Div 4 at all this year, which included their club president to our surprise.
    What a great culture.. . What great club mates....
    It says a lot about the character of these higher grade players who have never played in the team and drop down and take these regular players positions in the team for finals games .

    Is another SOFT lower grade premiership really that important?
    Let the boys who got themselves into the finals play in the finals and win a deserved flag.
    I'll say it slowly so that you can follow - there were five blokes out of the 22 in Div 3 that had played more games in another grade. Of the blokes in the top 25 games played for Uni in Div 3, 16 of them were playing on Sunday. Of the remaining nine, three played down a grade and the others were injured or unavailable. So to suggest that we stacked the team is laughable. Is it your opinion that we should overlook available players from the grade above and instead pick from the grade below? I suppose that wouldn't make it a SOFT win for whoever we were playing that week, would it? Keep in mind this was our fourth grade side up against the firsts from another club - maybe next time we can get their input at the selection table to make it fairer for them?

    Also, you know next to nothing about the culture at our club so it would probably be best if you kept your ill informed opinions to yourself.

  5. #29
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bateau Bay
    Posts
    508
    I don't see a problem with Syd Uni playing their best team possible in each grade. Good luck to them. However.....Johnson and Sleigh would never have been eligible to play PD if the NEAFL was not considered a separate competition. Both were named in the best as well.

    This does filter down meaning the top 2 players in each team would not have been there without this special condition. Would this have changed a result on the weekend? That's the big question.
    Last edited by Coastal Boy; 2nd September 2014 at 10:27 PM. Reason: Typo

  6. #30
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    quakers hill
    Posts
    1,378
    Sydney Uni Div 2 team last weekend contained 4 players who were not there in the final round when we played them.

    Far be it for me to defend them but what we encountered on the bye week was a disgrace in my opinion and completely outside of playing in the spirit of the game it wasn't funny. Made worse by the fact that our opponents had requested even more concessions for the game from the league. However what they did was allowed in the bylaws.

    Of those who were selected in SU's team on the weekend one is predominately a PD player. Two are players I would have expected to play given Im used to seeing them in D2 when we face them. One would arguably be a fringe div 2 player based on his history.

    The team we faced the prior week wasnt stacked it just appeared to them played what would be their finals list. Overall I wouldnt say their div 2 team was stacked, people should remember they won the GF in that grade the year before and were only left in D2 due to the restructuring of the comp.

    All that being said the league needs to seriously look at was to stop team stacking and rorting the system when it does nothing but provide an unfair imbalance in the competitions.

  7. #31
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bateau Bay
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by tara View Post
    Sydney Uni Div 2 team last weekend contained 4 players who were not there in the final round when we played them.

    Far be it for me to defend them but what we encountered on the bye week was a disgrace in my opinion and completely outside of playing in the spirit of the game it wasn't funny. Made worse by the fact that our opponents had requested even more concessions for the game from the league. However what they did was allowed in the bylaws.
    So what happened on the bye weekend? Do you mean a wet weather make up game? I would assume any players who played on the original weekend in divisions higher are ineligible. Don't feel you're having a crack at them with a reply....I'm asking the question.

  8. #32
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    quakers hill
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Coastal Boy View Post
    So what happened on the bye weekend? Do you mean a wet weather make up game? I would assume any players who played on the original weekend in divisions higher are ineligible. Don't feel you're having a crack at them with a reply....I'm asking the question.
    No it was the bye weekend for PD. North Shore had 7-8 players who would normally be div 2 selected in the team that came to Rosedale, the rest were either PD of Div 1 19's. They are allowed 2 players normally but got exemption for 2 additional PD players although had requested more - due to the fact 4 players didnt play the prior week they were also allowed to be selected taking the number to 8. The 19's included rising star nominations in the coming weeks as well. For the remainder of this year selections show those players clearly were not div 2.

    Based on results this was a game we should have been able to pencil in as a win and when we went to Gore Hill later in the year with a team that was no where near full strength won by 12 goals even though we took of 4 players for the last quarter to rest them.

    On the flip side when we played the wet weather weekend we had players who would have been selected in div four round 1 who played div 2 the week prior to the make up round who were ruled out for the game due to the by laws which effective meant they missed out on playing a game. The funny thing is that given it was our home game and we were able to get a ground available to play these games in round 1 NS should have actually forfeit as they were unable to get the numbers that weekend. There were members of our committee that wanted the forfeit however in the interest of being fair we didnt purse it. Wont happen again.

  9. #33
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bateau Bay
    Posts
    508
    Tara, that scenario is extreme but sounds all too familiar these days. I guess it's a downside to divisionalisation where clubs are not playing each other across all teams on the same day. There's a lot of little issues of this nature that the league have been slow to address.

    I would be happy if no players were allowed to drop down a grade when there is a bye. If the team looks to be short on numbers then the 2 players which the league allows to drop down should not be regulars in the higher grade. It's just more work for the league to oversee and police so it's too hard. The league probably gets phone calls telling them teams are going to forfeit due to lack of numbers so what are they to do.

    I draw the line at div 2 for fair dinkum footy. Any div where you have to umpire yourself is a bit of a joke despite everyone's best intentions.

    I was shocked to see only 2 central umpires at Henson on Sunday for the div 2 and 3 games. I'm sure there were umpires sitting at home which could have been helpful. Once again, it seems the league has their eyes only on PD.

  10. #34
    [QUOTE=Tim Freedman;653474]Are you serious? The maximum game rule has been in place for many years (no more than 8 in a higher grade) and is in every AFL competition in Australia.

    Tim, sorry mate but this is not the case.

    Below is from the WAAFL Bylaws

    34.1 Eligibility for Finals – Senior Grades
    a) To be eligible to play Finals a player shall play five qualifying matches over five rounds of fixtures for his club in the current year.
    b) The grade a player is permitted to play Finals is as follows:
    i. A player is permitted to play in any higher grade Final.
    ii. A player is permitted to play in any grade Final provided he has played five qualifying matches in the respective grade he intends to play.
    iii. A player who plays in a Finals match of a higher grade is permitted to
    play in a lower grade Final (after the higher grade is eliminated) as long as the player has played five qualifying matches in that lower grade.
    iv. A player who has played less than five qualifying matches in a grade is only permitted to play Finals in the highest grade in which he has played.
    v. Where a club has more than one team playing in a Final on the same day a player from a higher grade may play for the lower grade provided it is the club’s NEXT LOWEST GRADE, except those players stated in 34.1(b)(iv) and 34.2(b)(iii).

    This is consistent in sentiment with SAAFL, AFL NSWACT, EDFL, AFL Canberra and so on....
    While I have only checked half a dozen , I could still be wrong..

    Its only my opinion but I still maintain the 9 game rule does not serve the current Sydney AFL structure adequately and it maybe time to go back to the model used by a very large majority of other competitions be adopted.
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein

  11. #35
    I've been following the criticism of stacking etc. particularly criticism of Sydney Uni. I just looked back at their Div 2 GF side and out of the 22 selected players only 4 had played premier division through out the season. Melville (4 games), Coghlan (3), Browne (5) and B. Hawtin (1) and of the 5 best players only Melville had played PD and looks like Potts started in Division 4.

    That could hardly be classified as stacking from PD and they clearly have won by being the best side of the season rather than relying on higher grades, they should have been elevated at the end of last year either way.

  12. #36
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bateau Bay
    Posts
    508
    My only criticism of the current rule is that the NEAFL comp should be considered an extension of the SydneyAFL for qualification purposes. That is, if you play 9 games in NEAFL you can't come down to PD. With this in mind Johnson and Sleigh would have been ineligible.
    I can't see how a fair qualification process can exist without the "9 game rule". It would be too easy to qualify half of your PD side for div 1 without it. Consider a washed out game and 2 byes when players might easily drop down. Then you only need to play the last 3 games to qualify down when you've played up to 15 games in the higher div. Madness if you ask me.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO