Gore Hill - ACL grave yard?

[5yearplan]

Totally agree there will be 2 grounds open being gore hill and kanebridge

[5yearplan]

bit of rain fallen and normally by this time Norris Gore Hill closed, be interesting if this weekend brings up some interesting changes

[tara]

Totally agree there will be 2 grounds open being gore hill and kanebridge

Id add Rosedale to that list - UNSW and Mac Uni PD womens playing there tomorrow.

[Clubman]

East Coast Eagles played at Gore Hill last week. Can they give feedback on the Ground.
Any thing to report or any Injuries on the day out of the games

[The Culmination]

I thought you were there last week clubman?

Ive heard various reports, some positive some negative.

Positives: Better than Original Gore Hill. Wont get rained out. Concussions down.

Negatives: Burns from players above average than normal. Ankles injuries. Knee Injuries. After effect with aching muscles and joint.

Nothing compares to a ideal grass track, the impacts for clubs is one game a season however the true test will be how North Shore will feel after a full season on there. Will it impact them come the end of season.

[saviour01]

First go there for me today. Agree with the post above. Better than old gore hill, worse than a grass field.

Asked one of their players "well it's better than mud". Lots of skin taken off, few ankle injuries and the ball definitely bounces different on it.

[Clubman]

East Coast had 3 Prems Players with Ankle injuries - 2 required surgery
1 player had concussion - Missed 2 weeks
Lots and Lots of Skin taken off – most got infected - and all treated after game.
See what happens next year as Clubs do have a Duty of Care for there players.

[Mac warrior]

So north shore have asked to break the rules in the mens division 3 because they have so many players out with injuries........

[mrns]

So north shore have asked to break the rules in the mens division 3 because they have so many players out with injuries........

worst thing about this forum is the amount of ambiguous comments ending with an ellipsis implying that everyone should know what you're talking about

[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.