He's done well. And I thought Maibaum was a hardworking contributor.Originally Posted by ScottH
He's done well. And I thought Maibaum was a hardworking contributor.
He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)
I don’t usually swear (and Southport were the better side) but WTF? Don’t say that the “bylaws” say it when it’s happened before in the NEAFL last year no less and this was the result!
Bizarre Scenes As NEAFL Players Forced Into Head Count
Bizarre Scenes As NEAFL Players Forced Into Head Count
NEAFL spectators were treated to something truly unique on Saturday.
During the clash between the Swans and the Giants, the umpires stopped play.
They did it to complete a head count, thinking the Giants might have had one too many players on the field.
Players lined up so the umpires could figure it out, and it worked: the Giants were found to have one too many on the field, according to AFL NSW/ACT's Twitter feed.
An extra player on the ground meant the Giants had their score completely reset, from 0.4 (4) to 0.0 (0).
http://websites.sportstg.com/get_file.cgi?id=36381723
This is the 2018 laws of the game.
I look forward to seeing where the by-laws in reference are out of interest - given what happened previously...
- - - Updated - - -
Both did well in a well beaten side. Maibaum in particular impressed me with his reading of the footy in tough conditions and COR never gave up trying. Will be disappointed if with a good pre-season he isn't part of our senior 22 for Rd 1.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
2017
http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/f...n_Football.pdf
Matt Stevic the match referee....
According to NEAFL Twitter, it was treated as an interchange breach: NEAFL on Twitter: "The incident at the start of the fourth quarter is deemed an interchange breach as per the NEAFL rules and regs. The current score is correct. @SouthportSharks @sydneyswans"
Seems pretty convenient for mine.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
Page 18 of that says all the points are stripped and it’s the 2018 rules you cited.
NEAFL have their own rules and regulations
Rules, Regulations and Policies - NEAFL
I couldn't see anything in those rules Ugg when I looked in relation to a bylaw for this particular circumstance.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
Probably be a few more questions asked about it.
Cos if the points had been deducted, I believe Sydney would have taken it out.
Hollow victory , indeed, but rules are rules.
Wouldn't all occasions where too many are on the field be interchange breaches? How else does it happen?
Check Rules 2018 on AFL website Rule 5 5.3.. seems pretty clear .
That I’ll accept if it’s an interchange breach
And, ironically, we have been involved in a similar breach in 2013 involving Jese White and Darren Jolly Swans slapped with $25k fine - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) where we didn’t lose points (just $25k)
It would have been a travesty for the Swans to have won that game on a technicality but I am confused by the ruling. Did they change the bye-laws in the off-season?
At AFL level the score wouldn't have been wiped. That used to the rule until the "Roosgate" game when the Swans did briefly have 19 on the ground. In that game the Swans managed to get a player off before the Roos could call for a count, and then the AFL changes its rules so that the scores no longer got wiped. But there are plenty of other instances of rules being different at AFL and lower league levels (such as the send-off rule, for example, which I think still exists in the NEAFL). So given we know that the score wipe rule was applied last year, it seems odd that it has suddenly disappeared.
That said, there is another little known NEAFL bye-law (so secret that it is written in invisible ink) that where anything could work in favour of an AFL-affiliated side at the expense of a non-affiliated side, it will be adjudicated in favour of the non-affiliated side. It applies to HTB decisions, locations where finals are played and anything else that may crop up from time to time.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks