2018 NEAFL Grand Final

[Hotpotato]

Very Hollow victory if they reversed that.
It’s a pretty harsh rule anyway.

[caj23]

Very Hollow victory if they reversed that.
It’s a pretty harsh rule anyway.

I'm not sure the boys over in SA would agree. The opposition outscored them with the additional player on the field, had that not occurred, they would've won

Don't really see why its a harsh rule, its not that difficult to have the correct number of players on the field

[barry]

Losing all points for the quarter is understandable, but whole match seems excessive.

[707]

Sensible and sporting call by the Swans. Barry is correct, whilst it would be nice to win the NEAFL flag, for the overall good of the comp, it's much better that a non AFL side wins.

Whilst we like the reserves to be competitive, for us it is just a development comp for listed players. Good to see the "senior" players were best. Really want COR & Dawson to be best 22 next year and if Reid isn't avauilable how about trying Sinclair and Cameron as a ruck/FF combo?

[rb4x]

I am very puzzled by the report that O'Riordan was asked what did he want done. It should not be the captains choice but up to umpires following the rules which do not give the option to the captain as to what he wants done. O'Riordan made the right call if he was asked but he should not have been put in that position in the first place. If Southports score which was 12-4 at the time was wiped it would have been an enormous penalty of an 82 point swing taking into account O'Riordan's goal as well. Far in excess of the crime which had no real effect on the score at the time. This is one rule that Gill should have a copy with Clarko and get revised to a more realistic penalty. Certainly give the free kick and wipe any scores while 19 were on the field but not a reset to zero.

In the case of North Adelaide v Woodville West Torrens, North Adelaide kicked 8 points in the five minutes they had 19 men on the field and eventually won by 5 points. Wiping those 8 points would have given Woodville-West Torrens the win which would have been a fair result. As it is I believe they are now considering a legal challenge to the result.

[stevoswan]

Very Hollow victory if they reversed that.
It’s a pretty harsh rule anyway.

Agree. Scores made while 19 on the ground should be removed, not the entire score.....we were getting smashed anyway and didn't deserve to win. Rules ARE rules but the penalty for this is way too harsh. On the other hand, how hard is is to count to 4 (men on bench)??

It's not poor sportsmanship if we are following the rules.
If the rule is there, bugger them, stop playing Mr Nice Guy...

Why aren't I surprised? I doubt anyone would relish an ill deserved flag......we are not the Western Bulldogs!!

[rb4x]

Actually Southport would have had four on the bench as they have a 23 man team when playing an AFL team. Just another hurdle we face in the NEAFL.

[mcs]

I said same thing earlier but Ugg (?) explained that the interchange official had been told a player was in the rooms getting injury treatment and so the official thought three on bench was correct.

I thought that they were allowed an extra on the bench yesterday - i.e. 23 in total? Maybe I misread something or misheard something, but I thought that was part of the allowances of the NEAFL in the case of non-afl affiliated vs afl affiliated club?

[ugg]

I was referring to the SANFL game.

[Meg]

Whatever the number, same explanation applies - if official thought one player was still in the rooms then would expect one less on bench.

[Meg]

I was referring to the SANFL game.

Ok thanks Ugg, I thought you meant NEAFL match. Does explain the otherwise inexplicable re how the 19th player could go undetected for so long in Adelaide.

[Meg]

Duplicate