2018 NEAFL Grand Final

[goswannies]

http://websites.sportstg.com/get_file.cgi?id=36381723

This is the 2018 laws of the game.

I look forward to seeing where the by-laws in reference are out of interest - given what happened previously...

- - - Updated - - -

Page 18 of that says all the points are stripped and it’s the 2018 rules you cited.

[ugg]

NEAFL have their own rules and regulations

Rules, Regulations and Policies - NEAFL

[mcs]

NEAFL have their own rules and regulations

Rules, Regulations and Policies - NEAFL

I couldn't see anything in those rules Ugg when I looked in relation to a bylaw for this particular circumstance.

[royboy42]

Probably be a few more questions asked about it.
Cos if the points had been deducted, I believe Sydney would have taken it out.
Hollow victory , indeed, but rules are rules.
Wouldn't all occasions where too many are on the field be interchange breaches? How else does it happen?
Check Rules 2018 on AFL website Rule 5 5.3.. seems pretty clear .

[goswannies]

According to NEAFL Twitter, it was treated as an interchange breach: NEAFL on Twitter: "The incident at the start of the fourth quarter is deemed an interchange breach as per the NEAFL rules and regs. The current score is correct. @SouthportSharks @sydneyswans"

That I’ll accept if it’s an interchange breach

And, ironically, we have been involved in a similar breach in 2013 involving Jese White and Darren Jolly Swans slapped with $25k fine - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) where we didn’t lose points (just $25k)

[liz]

It would have been a travesty for the Swans to have won that game on a technicality but I am confused by the ruling. Did they change the bye-laws in the off-season?

At AFL level the score wouldn't have been wiped. That used to the rule until the "Roosgate" game when the Swans did briefly have 19 on the ground. In that game the Swans managed to get a player off before the Roos could call for a count, and then the AFL changes its rules so that the scores no longer got wiped. But there are plenty of other instances of rules being different at AFL and lower league levels (such as the send-off rule, for example, which I think still exists in the NEAFL). So given we know that the score wipe rule was applied last year, it seems odd that it has suddenly disappeared.

That said, there is another little known NEAFL bye-law (so secret that it is written in invisible ink) that where anything could work in favour of an AFL-affiliated side at the expense of a non-affiliated side, it will be adjudicated in favour of the non-affiliated side. It applies to HTB decisions, locations where finals are played and anything else that may crop up from time to time.

[mcs]

That said, there is another little known NEAFL bye-law (so secret that it is written in invisible ink) that where anything could work in favour of an AFL-affiliated side at the expense of a non-affiliated side, it will be adjudicated in favour of the non-affiliated side. It applies to HTB decisions, locations where finals are played and anything else that may crop up from time to time.

So very true Liz. I understand the need to even up the playing field in some ways, but it does make it frustrating to watch some of the less nuanced ways they even the field up. The last thing I want to see is uneven contests because AFL affiliated teams are simply too good - but as was seen today, its pretty easy for it to swing the other way as well.

[ugg]

They must have changed it for this year for there was a Swans Giants NEAFL game last year where the Giants had their score wiped. Granted they had only kicked 4 behinds at the time.

I don’t really know why so many people are getting so worked up about this, particularly on Twitter. Even if the decision had gone our way, does it change the fact we were terrible the whole day?

[Ludwig]

What lesson will these young men learn about life when something well earned was not taken away from them by some silly rule?

I'm disappointed we missed out on what could have been a good Kafkaesque ending.

[liz]

They must have changed it for this year for there was a Swans Giants NEAFL game last year where the Giants had their score wiped. Granted they had only kicked 4 behinds at the time.

I don’t really know why so many people are getting so worked up about this, particularly on Twitter. Even if the decision had gone our way, does it change the fact we were terrible the whole day?

I suspect they haven't changed it. They've found a way to bend their rules (see my comment above). I was surprised during the game it was taking them so long to read their own rules. I can't believe that they didn't have senior people present at the grand final who would know the rules. That they've ruled it an "interchange infringement" rather than having 19 men on the ground sounds like they were desperately trying to find a loophole. I doubt they would have been so desperate to do so had the teams been reversed.

This isn't sour grapes over the outcome. It's a hefty penalty to pay that doesn't reflect the impact it has on a game. Southport absolutely deserve their premiership. And when the Swans finally break through for their maiden NEAFL premiership, I'd like it to be a victory worth savouring, not a hollow one as this would have been. I just get irritated at the different playing fields that the AFL and non-AFL sides play on.

[goswannies]

They must have changed it for this year for there was a Swans Giants NEAFL game last year where the Giants had their score wiped. Granted they had only kicked 4 behinds at the time.

Yeah, I posted a link to that on the previous page

I don’t really know why so many people are getting so worked up about this, particularly on Twitter. Even if the decision had gone our way, does it change the fact we were terrible the whole day?

2 reasons.

1) sure we were terrible and the Sharks were way better but it’s a Steven Bradbury last man standing situation

2) we’ve had a crap year. We are desperate for any sort of win. Heck I think we’d cheer if Swans supporter won a Swans run raffle!

[mcs]

I suspect they haven't changed it. They've found a way to bend their rules (see my comment above). I was surprised during the game it was taking them so long to read their own rules. I can't believe that they didn't have senior people present at the grand final who would know the rules. That they've ruled it an "interchange infringement" rather than having 19 men on the ground sounds like they were desperately trying to find a loophole. I doubt they would have been so desperate to do so had the teams been reversed.

This isn't sour grapes over the outcome. It's a hefty penalty to pay that doesn't reflect the impact it has on a game. Southport absolutely deserve their premiership. And when the Swans finally break through for their maiden NEAFL premiership, I'd like it to be a victory worth savouring, not a hollow one as this would have been. I just get irritated at the different playing fields that the AFL and non-AFL sides play on.

I postulated to the Mrs that I thought they were either looking for a way to bend the rules, or were busy trying to convince the Swans to just 'let it be' irrespective of the actual rule.

Without being at the ground its hard to tell whether it was an interchange infringement or not - but the initial reaction from the commentators seemed to suggest that they had 19 on the field for more than a few moments, as you would expect from an interchange infringement. Would not suprise me had they actually had 19 players on the park for quite a fair chunk of time, especially assuming it was the swans that called for the count (but even that isn't clear).

[ugg]

Looks like you're right liz.

Comparing the 2017 rule book http://neafl.com.au/wp-content/uploa...2017-FINAL.pdf to the 2018 rule book http://neafl.com.au/wp-content/uploa...Rules-2018.pdf there seems to be very little difference, and the main thing is there's also nothing about interchange infringements

[Meg]

I wasn’t watching at the time. How did the umps adjudicate that there were in fact 19 players? Did they line them up and count?

[Meg]

Also, if the Sharks’ score till then had been scrubbed what would the final scores have been?