Gore Hill - ACL grave yard?

[Mac warrior]

AFL Sydney has received a request from North Shore to review By-law 9.6 (F) that governs the movement of players between their 2 x Men’s Division 3 teams. Currently, the By-law states that where a Club has two teams in the same competition any player who plays five (5) or more matches for one team is not permitted to then play for the other team.



Due to a large influx of new players to the Club on the eve of the season, North Shore found themselves in a position where in order to give these players the opportunity to play football and support the growth of the game, they would need to enter a second Division 3 team. Although late timing, AFL Sydney accepted the team nomination as we want to encourage and facilitate growth, plus the addition of an extra team was a positive outcome for the competition as it eliminated a bye, meaning more games for all teams.



North Shore have raised concerns regarding their ability to continue fielding 2 teams for the remainder of the season. As is the case for all Clubs, North Shore’s player availability in all grades across the season has resulted in players being moved up and down between divisions, including from their Red Division 3 team up into their other Division 3 team and back down. As a number of Division 3 players have now played 5 or more games in one of the two Division 3 teams, the pool of players that the Club has available to select from for either team is being reduced as the season progresses, placing the Club at risk of forfeiting games.



AFL Sydney is currently considering increasing the games limit under By-law 9.6 (F) to assist North Shore with being able to field their 2 x Division 3 teams for the remainder of the season. The reasons AFL Sydney are considering this include:



to reduce the likelihood of the competition and participants being negatively affected by forfeits, or worst case scenario the withdrawal of a team;the By-law has not been invoked for over 5 seasons meaning it has not been seen in practice during this time; the By-law has not been subjected to the standard review process over the last 5 seasons; again due to its inactivity over this time;given the late team nomination, this was not a scenario envisaged when the 2019 By-laws were finalised and issued, therefore consideration had not been given to the application of this particular By-law;we want to encourage club growth and as the competition continues to expand, it is likely there will be more instances where Clubs will need to field two teams in the one division



We are conscious of competition integrity and this is certainly something we are seriously considering as part of the decision making process. It should be noted that we are not considering changing the By-laws relating to the movement of players between divisions.



AFL Sydney has not made a decision on this matter at this stage and would like to give all Clubs in the Division 3 competition the opportunity to provide feedback for us to consider as part of our decision making process. If you would like to provide feedback please send it through by the end of Wednesday June 26.



At the end of the season, AFL Sydney will review By-law 9.6 (F), which will include looking at how other leagues regulate the movement of players under this scenario. All Clubs will have the opportunity to provide input into how this By-law should look as part of the standard post season By-law review process.

[ShortHalfHead]

I don't get it. Both their sides had 22 listed to play yesterday. Only 14 players needed for a game. My take is that if one team had to withdraw that it would be the team leading the comp..and the one that remains is the one running second last. Though as a betting man I would take Winx like odds that a premier division club submission would easily account for a non-prem club's one.

[bomber.]

Re Mac Warriors comments on div 3.
The note, which reads like a letter from the AFL, isn't completely correct about what happened at the start of the season. There was a bye in the div 3 comp and we had enough players to field an extra team, so we asked the AFL if they would be interested in us fielding a side to take out the bye - to provide extra playing opportunities for players out our club, as well as for the 22 players in opposition club's we play against. Pretty simple.
There is a bye law that restricts players to 5 games in one team before they're ineligible for the other and as any club with a reasonable number of teams will know, the level of player movement in lower grade teams is pretty significant. So the rule makes running two teams in a lower grade (for us at least) progressively more difficult as the year goes on.
It's right that the biggest impact is most likely going to be on the original div 3 team.
Given that'd be an unfair outcome in light of why the second team was fielded and because other clubs would be in exactly the same position if we hadn't fielded the second team, the club asked for relief from the bye law to enable both teams to continue in what is after all a participation grade.
It's understood that most of the clubs in the competition said no to the request and the AFL has knocked it back. Seems unbelievably small minded and it may mean the removal of the second team.
Ridiculous really.

[5yearplan]

Hats off to north shore least trying to get people to play.

Just be a massive honour to win div 3

[justabaraker]

I want to see the ellipsis used more often......

[The Runner]

North Shore don't appear to be acting like the UTS sides of years gone past, and trying to win a low grade comp.
It seems like they are trying to get games for as many people in Sydney as possible. Their growth should be commended. Too often this league seems to focus on the minor irrelevant things (often to please Prem Div clubs). This at surface level seems to be helping more people play in a social comp.

[5yearplan]

Yep! Div 3 is..... div 3 lowest level u work with lowest level to get games. Teams forfeiting in levels above u worry if a club is whinging on div 3 by laws get ur head read

[Jupiter]

I hope the North Shore request is approved if what's written here is true. I'm not sure there will be much prejudice to the other teams by the extra player movement - certainly when balanced against an alternative of a forfeit. I've been pleased to see club's like Nth Shore and ECE embracing lower grades and women's teams in recent years - I think its good for the game in Sydney and good for those clubs. Has Nth Shore thought of asking some other club's for help with some match permits etc as another alternative? There could be people missing out some weeks at Bulldogs, Uni, Bats for example with their numbers. Give them a call I reckon at least.

[Mac warrior]

I would say the bats are struggling for numbers since they have forfeited more than 1 div 3 game this year

[bomber.]

Has Nth Shore thought of asking some other club's for help with some match permits etc as another alternative? There could be people missing out some weeks at Bulldogs, Uni, Bats for example with their numbers. Give them a call I reckon at least.

We have actually permitted players in the women’s comp to Newton to help their div 3 team, but doing that on the men’s side means we’d be folding the second men’s div 3 team. If that happened some players might have a run with another club, but plenty wouldn’t and just wouldn’t play. The resulting bye would mean 22 players in opposition teams would also miss a game. As I said, ridiculous.
I can only think that some clubs think the forfeits will benefit them if we pull the div 3B team out, or they’ll benefit from our div 3A team potentially being weaker, and the afl are pandering to this. Go figure.

[Jupiter]

We have actually permitted players in the women’s comp to Newton to help their div 3 team, but doing that on the men’s side means we’d be folding the second men’s div 3 team. If that happened some players might have a run with another club, but plenty wouldn’t and just wouldn’t play. The resulting bye would mean 22 players in opposition teams would also miss a game. As I said, ridiculous.
I can only think that some clubs think the forfeits will benefit them if we pull the div 3B team out, or they’ll benefit from our div 3A team potentially being weaker, and the afl are pandering to this. Go figure.

It does sound ridiculous. Macwarrior pointed out my ignorance of the current comp which is absolutely accurate re: Bats or any others. What I meant as a genuine suggestion was some other clubs who have lots of players sending players to your 2nd Div3 team so you didn't have to fold or have too many players doubling up - i.e. club cooperation. I am probably deluded suggesting such a thing could happen in Sydney with the quality of the AFL administration and the lack of cooperation between clubs.

[saviour01]

I can only think that some clubs think the forfeits will benefit them if we pull the div 3B team out, or they’ll benefit from our div 3A team potentially being weaker, and the afl are pandering to this. Go figure.

Probably both. I doubt there would be too many in Division 3 who would hate an extra week off to rest up the body and potentially make the top team weaker at the same time.

Good for the game no. Good for their team yes.