RWO Game Day Thread - Finals - August 30/31

[justabaraker]

As I understand the by-laws it is 6 games for the Club. For some reason the rule about playing 9 or more games at a higher level does not count if it is in a different competition. The NEAFL has a few byes so it is probably not hard to engineer the 6 Club Games required.
In any event it will be a big ask to get over the Dragons this week ... not impossible but challenging.

Those of us who follow the NEAFL as well as the SFL reckon that the Swans and Giants Reserves will rest some of their listed players for their finals this weekend and draw on SFL top-ups to make up numbers.
This would impact mostly on Penno and St George...but, looking at the footage from Saturday arvo's game, I'm not sure that Mudge will be playing anywhere !!

[The Student]

It's interesting that a side which finished fifth can win a crunch final over the third side by nearly 100 points.

I also watched some of the Div 2 match, and Sydney Uni were so far ahead of their opponents it wasn't funny.

Sydney Uni aren't going to worry about the spirit of the game when it comes to winning finals, clearly.

Maybe you need to talk to the League.

Our Div 2 side had 6 players that had played a combined total of 26 PD games - one of whom had played more PD than D2. The Div 3 side had 12 players that had played Div 2, four of whom who had played the majority of their games in the higher grade. I guess this is an unusual occurrence throughout clubs with a number of teams - I mean there's no way Nor-West would have picked blokes in Div 5 yesterday that had played Div 3 during the season. Oh wait, looking at the team list it appears that there was about a dozen of them. Seems it's okay for some but not for others?

[saviour01]

All clubs do it, can't really fault them. I know our 19's played a lot of ressies and a fair few had 1's games through out the year. There's probably 5 or 6 that are ineligible for 19s though because of too many PD games.. Could have been a much better side.

[Coastal Boy]

Penno v Manly at Blacktown just like last years grand final should be a fantastic match next week.
Interestingly I saw that Robertson from Manly played in the reserves after breaking his leg in May or June. They have been going fine without him but he's a big addition, even if he plays forward.

I had a quick look at the Syd Uni PD team on Sunday. There were 3 or so players who have played less than 6 games in the SydAFL and theres probably another 3 or so who would probably have played too many neafl to qualify down for SydAfl games. So at a guess 5 players played PD fairly under the rules (it seems) which you could argue maybe shouldn't have. If each lower division thus gains 5 players from above and losers there bottom 5....it makes sense they will dominate every game they are in.

[mountainsofpain]

Our Div 2 side had 6 players that had played a combined total of 26 PD games - one of whom had played more PD than D2. The Div 3 side had 12 players that had played Div 2, four of whom who had played the majority of their games in the higher grade. I guess this is an unusual occurrence throughout clubs with a number of teams - I mean there's no way Nor-West would have picked blokes in Div 5 yesterday that had played Div 3 during the season. Oh wait, looking at the team list it appears that there was about a dozen of them. Seems it's okay for some but not for others?

The two matches in Div 3 between Sydney Uni and Nor-West Jets during the H&A season resulted in a 2 point win to SU and an 11 point win to NWJ. Suddenly the finals match between the clubs blows out to 94 points.

The two H&A matches in Div 2 between Sydney Uni and Blacktown saw a 69 point win to Blacktown and a 17 point win to Sydney Uni. Then the finals match between the two clubs blows out in favour of Sydney Uni, in pretty ordinary conditions. Amazing!

But I'm sure it's just a case of SU suddenly having everyone available. Plus I am sure everyone hit form at the right end of the season as well!

Don't blame people for just noticing the discrepancies.

If NWJ Div 5 had suddenly produced a similarly inconsistent result I would have probably asked similar question of them by the way.

- - - Updated - - -

All clubs do it, can't really fault them. I know our 19's played a lot of ressies and a fair few had 1's games through out the year. There's probably 5 or 6 that are ineligible for 19s though because of too many PD games.. Could have been a much better side.

I actually think that Sydney Uni benefit from having so many sides. And having played so much finals footy they have learned how to play the eligibility requirements to their advantage.

[Coastal Boy]

Ive delved a little deeper. Players with very few pd games for syd uni are under age players. So other than Johnson (7 pd vs 10neafl) and sleigh(10 pd vs 9 neafl) under any rules you want to consider all others look ok. (normally once you play 9 games you can't go down in sydafl)

[Steamboat]

Query was made in regards to the few mentioned playing too many NEAFL, response was that they only played 7 & 8, were on NEAFL lists for some games and did not play and were not taken off the list(apparently).

As for their lower grades, i thought if all were playing on same weekend then all those qualified for the club, could play where selected, this could mean someone dropped for whatever reason from PD could actually play DIV 3 having not played a game for them all year, but as soon as PD were knocked out, then this player would then become inelligible, does not make it morally or ethically right, but due to injuries etc 26 players may have played more than the 9 PD games(over qualified), if a club has its PD & lower div sides in finals, then how can the 4 players who were not selected for PD be sitting in the stands, this is also not fair on those players.

Like all rules, can be manipulated by clubs and coaches with enough forward planning.

[Nuttsy]

Looks like the flow through of players didn't stop at PD. Their Div 2 and Div 3 sides thrashed their opponents on the weekend.

Also, Macarthur Giants yesterday turned up to their U19 Div 2 Semi-Final with only 15 players. A pretty poor look for the game.

A pretty poor look for the game due to the fact that AFLNSW change the guidlines around numbers for the finals from the regular season. Why have a rule all year that if sides have less than 18 then the other side reduces to a minimum of 16 to then change the goal posts in the finals????????? Do you really think those players wanted to play against 3 extra's and have no chance. if it had been 16-15 then it would have been a contest for sure.

[Benchwarmer]

As I understand the by-laws it is 6 games for the Club. For some reason the rule about playing 9 or more games at a higher level does not count if it is in a different competition. The NEAFL has a few byes so it is probably not hard to engineer the 6 Club Games required. As to it being in the spirit of the game ... that is an entirely different matter and SHH's observations make me concerned as to the Student's guesstimate.

In any event it will be a big ask to get over the Dragons this week ... not impossible but challenging. However the last three player numbers give it a clear ring of truth.

It seems to me the 9 game rule may have served its purpose in the past, before the introduction divisionalisation and the creation of mega clubs , but has now seen its day and allows for these clubs to abuse the spirit of the rule .
There needs to be a change.

I am guessing the number 9 was used as it represented half the number of team games in a season but in any case misses the real mark under the current competition structure . Very few players play 18 games a year.. I would guess its less than 5%..
The finals eligibility rule should be aimed at the Player , not the Team.

For a Players finals eligibility........

If a player plays the majority of his games in a higher grade, he should be deemed a higher grade player.
If a player plays the majority of his games in a lower grade then he should be deemed a lower grade player.
very simple.. no arguments.. no grey areas.

An Under 19 player should have played 6 games in a senior team to be eligible to play finals for the senior team. He should be treated no different from any other player .. very simple.. he is either an Under 19 player or a Senior player...

The new rule introduced this year allowing a higher grade player to play in a lower grade Grand Final if his club nominates him as ineligible for the higher grade, is another rule which needs to go. It only serves the larger clubs and allows them to offer a higher grade player a consolation flag due to their inability to make a mans call and tell him he is dropped from the Grand final team he played in all year, as the consequences of telling a lower grade player he is dropped are far less.

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.

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.

A glance at UTS div 4 side and Div 1 side on the weekend tells a similar story with many players playing more games in a higher grade and taking the placess of regular player positions .

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.

[Tim Freedman]

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.

[Jupiter]

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.

[ShortHalfHead]

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

[The Student]

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.

[Coastal Boy]

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.

[tara]

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.