Daniel Schell back for Dogs

[SANFLnut]

I am more concerned about the integrity of the competition. If Centrals want to play Schell in their twos for 3 games I don't care, but him playing in another game at the time he was supposedly part of a reserves game is ludicrous. If the only thing stopping Walker is Crows permission that is also wrong. I would hope the SANFL would address this to require player to be in attendance for more of the game or only play in one team per week if they are selected in SANFL side or similar. Would not want to see the finals series of our great comp become unrepresentative of rest of year. The number of games an AFL player must play has been bumped up from three to five to prevent this, however this loophole obviously still exists.

[whufc]

I am more concerned about the integrity of the competition. If Centrals want to play Schell in their twos for 3 games I don't care, but him playing in another game at the time he was supposedly part of a reserves game is ludicrous. If the only thing stopping Walker is Crows permission that is also wrong. I would hope the SANFL would address this to require player to be in attendance for more of the game or only play in one team per week if they are selected in SANFL side or similar. Would not want to see the finals series of our great comp become unrepresentative of rest of year. The number of games an AFL player must play has been bumped up from three to five to prevent this, however this loophole obviously still exists.

I get and understand what your saying and agree a bit with it but having rules where players must be in attendance wouldnt stop anything if teams really had to have players leave ala a club could just say he has a suspected broken bone and needs to leave for hospital, has to leave family emergency etc etc

Remember Central took a massive risk, their reserves are right on the borderline of playing finals and we know how important it is to have your ressies in the finals while your league are playing as well. They played a man down for the whole game against a side higher on the ladder. The risk payed off on this occasion, no rules have been broken PLAY ON.

[Grahaml]

I am more concerned about the integrity of the competition. If Centrals want to play Schell in their twos for 3 games I don't care, but him playing in another game at the time he was supposedly part of a reserves game is ludicrous. If the only thing stopping Walker is Crows permission that is also wrong. I would hope the SANFL would address this to require player to be in attendance for more of the game or only play in one team per week if they are selected in SANFL side or similar. Would not want to see the finals series of our great comp become unrepresentative of rest of year. The number of games an AFL player must play has been bumped up from three to five to prevent this, however this loophole obviously still exists.

You're blowing the whole thing out of proportion in a big way. It's not hurting the integrity of the competition. It's not all that rare for a player to play SANFL then get called up during or after the game to AFL. Martin did that on the weekend! Marsh did it a few years ago and I think Rodan last year. Every now and then a reserves player gets pulled out to play league because someone's hurt themselves in a warm up or something.

I think you're forgetting that the SANFL is the highest comp based solely in this state. We aren't allowing players from a higher comp to come down through naming them on the bench and not playing them, it's a guy from a lesser comp. And it's also just an option at this stage, not definite he'll even play any final.

[fish]

The other teams are afraid. Very afraid. And so they should be.

Another masterstroke from King Roy.

[Hazydog]

I can see both sides of the argument here and it's got me thinking. Take the situation where an AFL clubs sends a player back to the SANFL after a long term injury and asks them to only play a half in the reserves. To me that puts the integrity of the comp in question. In the Schell case though, the club is taking a calculated risk of their own wish, which may or may not compromise their ability to win a reserves match, and in which case I dont think questions the integrity of the comp. It's almost like risking a player who is not 100% fit and having it bite you on the backside.

[SANFLnut]

I can see both sides of the argument here and it's got me thinking. Take the situation where an AFL clubs sends a player back to the SANFL after a long term injury and asks them to only play a half in the reserves. To me that puts the integrity of the comp in question. In the Schell case though, the club is taking a calculated risk of their own wish, which may or may not compromise their ability to win a reserves match, and in which case I dont think questions the integrity of the comp. It's almost like risking a player who is not 100% fit and having it bite you on the backside.

The key difference is that the AFL player plays half a reserves game and that is the only game they play. They are not pretending to play a reserves game whie really being at another oval actually playing for someone else. If Schell was forced to choose one game or the other to be listed in and play in then no problem.

If the Crows decided that they want to keep Taylor Walker playing for the next six weeks to maintain his fitness and did that by naming him in the reserves this week (therefore qualifying him for SANFL finals) but he still suited up for the Crows this week then that would be unfair, yet within the current rules.

[Grahaml]

The key difference is that the AFL player plays half a reserves game and that is the only game they play. They are not pretending to play a reserves game whie really being at another oval actually playing for someone else. If Schell was forced to choose one game or the other to be listed in and play in then no problem.

If the Crows decided that they want to keep Taylor Walker playing for the next six weeks to maintain his fitness and did that by naming him in the reserves this week (therefore qualifying him for SANFL finals) but he still suited up for the Crows this week then that would be unfair, yet within the current rules.

Would it be? Schell was actually at the game as far as I understand so there was no pretending at all. I think you're trying very hard to turn this into a bigger issue than it is for no apparent reason.

[gossipgirl]

who cares as long as its in the rules then good luck to them. people just crack me up about using the word integrity. seriously stop using the word when you dont know what it means.

[nickname]

who cares as long as its in the rules then good luck to them. people just crack me up about using the word integrity. seriously stop using the word when you dont know what it means.

How has the word 'integrity' been used incorrectly?

[bulldogproud2]

I can see both sides of the argument here and it's got me thinking. Take the situation where an AFL clubs sends a player back to the SANFL after a long term injury and asks them to only play a half in the reserves. To me that puts the integrity of the comp in question. In the Schell case though, the club is taking a calculated risk of their own wish, which may or may not compromise their ability to win a reserves match, and in which case I dont think questions the integrity of the comp. It's almost like risking a player who is not 100% fit and having it bite you on the backside.

The key difference is that the AFL player plays half a reserves game and that is the only game they play. They are not pretending to play a reserves game whie really being at another oval actually playing for someone else. If Schell was forced to choose one game or the other to be listed in and play in then no problem.

If the Crows decided that they want to keep Taylor Walker playing for the next six weeks to maintain his fitness and did that by naming him in the reserves this week (therefore qualifying him for SANFL finals) but he still suited up for the Crows this week then that would be unfair, yet within the current rules.

No, it would most definitely not be!!!!!! If he is named in the 22 for the Crows, he is totally ineligible to play SANFL that round.
Cheers

[Jim05]

All just a smokescreen, from what ive heard he struggled on the weekend and was heavily favouring one leg. Sounds like his knees are not too flash

[Big Phil]

Mr Rucci has had his say on the matter today...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6126965493

[Dogwatcher]

Wow, a surprisingly balanced piece from Mr Rucci.

[Grahaml]

I don't think he has the facts right regarding AFL listed players. I see his point, I expect the rule to be altered for next season somehow, but they'll need to be careful how they do go about such a rule change.

[bulldogproud2]

I am pretty sure you are right too, Graham. Playing in an AFL match automatically rules out being able to play in a lower level of competition that week. By playing for the Crows, Walker could not gain credit for an SANFL match.
Cheers

[gossipgirl]

who cares as long as its in the rules then good luck to them. people just crack me up about using the word integrity. seriously stop using the word when you dont know what it means.

How has the word 'integrity' been used incorrectly?

here you go hope it helps you

Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy,[1] in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.

The word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete).[2] In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold

[nickname]

who cares as long as its in the rules then good luck to them. people just crack me up about using the word integrity. seriously stop using the word when you dont know what it means.

How has the word 'integrity' been used incorrectly?

here you go hope it helps you

Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy,[1] in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.

The word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete).[2] In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold

Yeah, you'll note I wasn't after a definition, I was asking how it had been used incorrectly. 'Consistency of values' fits exactly with the author's use of the word I'd have thought.

[Grahaml]

Pursuing every legal avenue to gain success I'd say was completely consistent with the values of the competition. Much like West denying Eustice a clearance as long as possible way back when.

[doggies4eva]

Not sure how the doggies getting a past club champion qualified to play in the case of an emergency shows lack of integrity.

Our values have been clearly stated before but to paraphrase - we exist to win premierships.

This move is in line with our stated objectives.

[nickname]

Not sure how the doggies getting a past club champion qualified to play in the case of an emergency shows lack of integrity.

sanflnut was talking about the integrity of the competition, not of Central's actions.