SANFL finals debacle - 19th man (split thread)

[Meg]

More detail now on AFL site. I thought the ex-judge was making a black-letter law decision (captain didn’t ask for head count so no rule applies) but in fact he explicitly dismisses that as a reason.

‘I'm of the view that it would be unrealistic to expect the Woodville-West Torrens Football Club through their captain to ask for a count on the day," he said.’

‘My decision should not factor in the fact that was not done.’

So it seems the decision is just his personal opinion.

‘I'm of the view that as this was not deliberate, a reversal of the result is too savage a penalty and the matter should be dealt with by matter of fine and loss of premiership points for next year.’

Seems to me it is irrelevant whether it was deliberate. (Arguably) North were at an advantage during the period they had 19 players and so their scoring during that time should have been scrubbed.

H’mmm ....

Result of Sunday's preliminary final will stand, but penalties handed outhttp://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-09-17/sanfls-19thman-scandal-goes-to-commission

[rb4x]

Ridiculous decision given that he acknowledged that it did not depend on the captain calling for a headcount. Favours the big club rather than the small club who are entitled to feel really hard done by. Meg brought up the point that it was not only the points North scored while having 19 men but the points W-WT did not score because North had 19 men. I now think that not only the points scored by a team during the period they had 19 on the ground should be removed but they also be added to the disadvantaged teams score.

A big fine could also be appropriate but a four premiership point deduction for 2019 is unfair. Four points in the SANFL is two wins they start behind for 2019 for something that was not the doing of their 2019 team.

All too hard for the judge who thought a replay the most appropriate course of action.

The right thing for North Adelaide to do would be too disqualify themselves.

[dejavoodoo44]

More detail now on AFL site. I thought the ex-judge was making a black-letter law decision (captain didn’t ask for head count so no rule applies) but in fact he explicitly dismisses that as a reason.

‘I'm of the view that it would be unrealistic to expect the Woodville-West Torrens Football Club through their captain to ask for a count on the day," he said.’

‘My decision should not factor in the fact that was not done.’

So it seems the decision is just his personal opinion.

‘I'm of the view that as this was not deliberate, a reversal of the result is too savage a penalty and the matter should be dealt with by matter of fine and loss of premiership points for next year.’

Seems to me it is irrelevant whether it was deliberate. (Arguably) North were at an advantage during the period they had 19 players and so their scoring during that time should have been scrubbed.

H’mmm ....

Result of Sunday's preliminary final will stand, but penalties handed outhttp://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-09-17/sanfls-19thman-scandal-goes-to-commission

Yes, he attempts to make the case that it was a balanced decision, that took in a wide range of considerations. But counteracting that, is the fact that the aggrieved party, Woodville-West Torrens, get absolutely nothing from the decision.

[707]

SANFL Prelim result stands with North Adelaide who had the 19th man on field for four minutes whilst they kicked 1.2 (won by 5 pts) still declared the winner.

Got a $10k fine and docked 4 premiership points for next year, that's two wins in SANFL parlance.

Weak result I reckon, I'd be fuming if I was the losing team under those circumstances. Should have erased their score whilst playing with 19 men and that would have changed the result.

[barry]

Yes, playing with 19 men is the same level of offence as a karate kick. Small fine, and move on.

[CureTheSane]

How does the AFL not review the rules regularly.
I've written policies before, and on every one there is a date to review in a couple of years time.
Surely someone in the AFL was asked to look over the rules in the last 50 years?
Crazy decision.
Expected.
Wrong.
#whenyouthoughtsydneywererobbedin2016

[mcs]

Utterly ridiculous decision for mine - an absolute cop out overall by the SANFL. Should either replay the game or change the result.

[liz]

How does the AFL not review the rules regularly.
I've written policies before, and on every one there is a date to review in a couple of years time.
Surely someone in the AFL was asked to look over the rules in the last 50 years?
Crazy decision.
Expected.
Wrong.
#whenyouthoughtsydneywererobbedin2016

I don't think this is an AFL issue. It's an SANFL issue. Although the majority of rules are consistent across all competitions, there are differences too. For example, many leagues have a send-off rule. (Indeed, I think I've heard it stated that the AFL is the only competition without a send-off rule, though don't hold me to that. I certainly remember Nathan Gordon being sent off in a NEAFL game - against the Suns - a few years back.) The SANFL has a last-touch OOB rule, which the AFL doesn't have. And the 19-man-wipe-the-score-if-anyone-gets-around-to-calling-for-a-headcount rule no longer exists in the AFL. Indeed, I believe it was abolished after the Swans Roos game a few years back when it came into focus.

The events of the weekend suggest a few competitions need to have a look at some of their rules and decide whether they are still appropriate. And also whether some are missing. Presumably the SANFL doesn't have a specific rule to cover the situation where it is confirmed a team had more players on the ground than it should yet no head count was called for. I doubt the AFL has a rule for retrospective action either. In the case of the Swans North game, they decided that because the Swans only had 19 player on the ground for a very short period of time, there was no impact on the outcome. North fans still whinge about that ruling to this day. (Not that North fans need much encouragement to whinge about anything and everything.)

The NEAFL, too, needs to take action. I think most feel comfortable with the score not being wiped, but what if it had been during the H&A and another club had been affected by an outcome? What if the game had been closer and so it wouldn't have been clearly so unfair for the score to be wiped? Or it had happened earlier in the game. It's really not fair to expect an opposition team to participate in deciding when and how rules should be applied.

[Doctor]

It has to be case by case. I'm also happy with Southport keeping their win as it was for a very short period of time and did not materially affect the outcome. The SANFL case is clearly very different. It was for much longer and obviously had a massive effect on the outcome.

[CureTheSane]

I don't think this is an AFL issue. It's an SANFL issue.

Of course.
I don't really care about the SANFL.
I do care about the AFL, and my comments stand, even in a general sense in reviewing the rules.
How often is this done?

Regarding the SANFL...
Crazy decision.
Expected.
Wrong.
#whenyouthoughtsydneywererobbedin2016

[Hotpotato]

Yep, it’s a script for another John Williamson play about footy , poignant, comical, farcical and in the end decided by a friggin lawyer .

[sprite]

Having been a field umpire many moons ago, the league I was officiating in had the following instructions:

When a count is called for, the game is stopped and players from both sides had to line up along the centre square lines and be counted.

The umpire had to count he players from both sides, then have the time keepers / goal umpires mark the official score cards at that point.

The game would recommence and scores were kept form the marked point on wards.

The details had to be fully reported by the umpire in the match report, which sent to the league offices.

Additionally when we rang the scores through that night (for publication in the Sunday papers)we had to advise the league official of the count.

The league would then convene a tribunal to decide the matter and decide if any scores needed to be adjusted. The field umpire did not have the power the annul the scores at the game.

I had this wonderful experience once, fortunately the right number of players from both sides were on the ground, but it still required a lot of additional paperwork