RWO Game Day Thread - Finals - August 30/31

[Coastal Boy]

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.

[tara]

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.

[Coastal Boy]

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.

[Benchwarmer]

[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.

[Footy158]

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.

[Coastal Boy]

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.

[Pekay]

My issue was not with playing Sydney Uni with a stacked deck, they played those players within the by-laws.

My issue was seeing players that hadn't played Division 3 at all that season, Boyd and McPherson being two of 4 or 5 selected, luckily Tim Air held his spot in Div 2 as he was named in an extended Div 3 list. Again, the by laws allow it, and it's smart player management from SUANFC. So I'm not attacking the club, the players, rather the law itself. Surely there has to be a minimum number of games in a grade to allow you to take the field.

As for this comment - 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? yes, we had players in Div 5 that had played Div 3, of course, we only have two grades, but it is apples and oranges, as those players had played at least one game in Div 5 before being brought up to Div 3, no regular Div 3 players were dropped to Div 5 to boost their squad at all, and certainly none were playing their first game for the season in that grade, so your argument is 'Oscar'.

[UTSBatman]

yes, we had players in Div 5 that had played Div 3, of course, we only have two grades, but it is apples and oranges, as those players had played at least one game in Div 5 before being brought up to Div 3, no regular Div 3 players were dropped to Div 5 to boost their squad at all, and certainly none were playing their first game for the season in that grade, so your argument is 'Oscar'.

Are you suggesting a rule that states you must have played one game in that division?

[Pekay]

Are you suggesting a rule that states you must have played one game in that division?

It's not that big a stretch is it?

[Coastal Boy]

PK, at the end of the day it is NW 1s playing Sydney uni's 4ths. I do see this as relevant. The fact they also played pd and 2nd div that same weekend and (assuming neafl players are ineligible) it was your best 22 against their best 67-88. I don't know what they are suppose to do. Leave 10 fit players on the sidelines? One would assume that this Sydney uni (div 3) team would have mostly played in round 1 before injuries kicked in. If anything, it's a criticism of divisionalisation which gives teams with 4 and 5 teams a massive advantage at times. The rule could something like once you've played 6 games in a division you cannot go down...even for home and away games. That might be fairer than nine games.

[Pekay]

Don't worry, I know full well that we can't account for a 4th grade team. Pretty embarrassing in itself.

[Coastal Boy]

Don't worry, I know full well that we can't account for a 4th grade team. Pretty embarrassing in itself.

I didn't intend this as a dig at NW. Just highlighting that all lower grade teams strengthen up for the finals more than first grade outfits. It's just the way of the beast. If NW 4ths played SU 4ths then the same type of situation would be evident on both sides of the fence. Maybe a club should be limited to 3 senior teams. Spread the players around a bit. New clubs might form like BM and RCS.

[old_man_sam]

Don't worry, I know full well that we can't account for a 4th grade team. Pretty embarrassing in itself.

Must have been embarrassing having a teammate (B. Johnston) reported and suspended for spitting & striking in this match Pekay?? Pretty low act

[Mug Punter]

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.

As long as Sydney Uni followed the rules set down by the League for qualification then this discussion is pure "Uni bashing"

The issue of stacking players is as old as the day is long. It happened in a two team comp and it will happen with divsionalisation.

Given the number of teams Sydney Uni field and given that all their NWSAFL teams were involved in the finals series I find it impossible to believe they deliberately manipulated anything, just a result of a competitive environment

[Pekay]

Must have been embarrassing having a teammate (B. Johnston) reported and suspended for spitting & striking in this match Pekay?? Pretty low act

Can't see any issue with it, was a normal thing to do...

What a stupid question, how do you think it went down?

Poor form by him but completely out of character, and he's pretty embarrassed by the whole incident. He's only a kid and Lethal got under his skin. I'd have no issue if he had left it at the punch but these things happened, he's gutted by it.