2018 NEAFL Grand Final

[AnnieH]

Controversy corner, or what??
I'm a little disappointed the swans agreed NOT to wipe their score.
Why wouldn't ya???

[0918330512]

Controversy corner, or what??
I'm a little disappointed the swans agreed NOT to wipe their score.
Why wouldn't ya???

Not a classy way to win a Premiership. We would have been derided by the rest of the football community.

The AFL/NEAFL need the Swans to be strong for much of the season, but they don’t want us to necessarily win the “Big Dance”. At a senior level put in unjustified trade bans. At the reserves level restrict who we can play in our final game to weaken us so we can’t win.

As frustrating as it is, if we were to have excercised the option of having Southport’s points stripped, it would have been seen as poor sportsmanship and a big AFL side flexing its might over a puny side in a game that - in the scheme of things - might not mean a lot to the Swans, but means everything to the Sharks.

Swans really had no real choice

[caj23]

Why should it have been the Swans decision? That is such a copout from the league officials

The headcount and 19 man rule has been in place for every league since Adam was a boy.

I know they didn't deserve to win but rules are rules

[Mr Magoo]

One thing that matters immensely in a final is a teams ability to play a team game. With so many academy kids and few listed players , it would have made any intuitive play almost impossible. I wouldnt take too much out of that game at all , especially in terms of academy talent or our the efforts of the listed players.

Southport would have known the leading and running patterns of its better players whereas the swans would have been working off what they saw in front of them (thereby ending up with a lot of kicking down the line etc). It was apparent that a lot of the swans play wasnt intuitive and in defence they didnt act as a unit (third man coming across etc). These things come from playing as a team and it is difficult to just throw them together for one match.

To be clear , the academy kids (even at 18s level) have very little to do with the senior side so its not like they would have had the season to get to know each other.

[barry]

The NEAFL needs clubs like Southport winning, not AFL reserves sides. Swans are focussed on winning AFL flags.

The best, and common sense outcome was found. Therefore Gill can't have been involved.

[AnnieH]

Not a classy way to win a Premiership. We would have been derided by the rest of the football community.

The AFL/NEAFL need the Swans to be strong for much of the season, but they don’t want us to necessarily win the “Big Dance”. At a senior level put in unjustified trade bans. At the reserves level restrict who we can play in our final game to weaken us so we can’t win.

As frustrating as it is, if we were to have excercised the option of having Southport’s points stripped, it would have been seen as poor sportsmanship and a big AFL side flexing its might over a puny side in a game that - in the scheme of things - might not mean a lot to the Swans, but means everything to the Sharks.

Swans really had no real choice

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

[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.