SA Footy

i've noticed that glenelg have named james sellar for this weeks clash with north at the bay, which leads me to this question via a statement, at the end of 2006 both tom logan & ryan willits were not allowed to play for glenelg in the last minor round game because they had played afl the week before which although ludicrous is the rule so this week sellar is allowed to play yet those other 2 players were not which i don't understand what the difference is & 2nd seeing sellar is allowed to play why couldn't all the other players (who are not at the mcg) be allowed to play for their sanfl teams ?

i'm a confused bayman

I just posted the same question on the Bays Vs North topic. My understanding is that he cannot play as he played in the 22 last week for the Crows so why would the Bays bother naming him??? Maybe to "panic" us but trust me there is enough worry in the North camp without "phantom" selections???

As I posted in the other thread:

Wedgie wrote:I'd say rules governing the week off might be different, if its similar to before I think the AFL clubs had to submit a list of players they wanted to get permission to play at a lower grade on the week their clubs have off.

Ironically Bays fans will be more annoyed about this than North fans, I hope he plays!

drebin wrote:I just posted the same question on the Bays Vs North topic. Mu understanding is that he cannot play so why would the Bays name him if that is the case???

we both have the same understanding drebin, but i couldn't see mickan naming him if he was not allowed to play because jarman etc at north would know the rules as they are, so presuming he does play what is the difference between now & then ?

no smart answers of 18 months either

Wedgie wrote:As I posted in the other thread:

Wedgie wrote:I'd say rules governing the week off might be different, if its similar to before I think the AFL clubs had to submit a list of players they wanted to get permission to play at a lower grade on the week their clubs have off.

Ironically Bays fans will be more annoyed about this than North fans, I hope he plays!

i wouldn't be annoyed if he plays i just can't see what the difference would be between then & now ?

Its got nothing to do with North or Glenelg knowing the Rules, if the Crows get permission for him to play in the lower grade Glenelg can go for it.
Similar has happened in the past.

IIRC there's a SANFL-AFL player interchange agreement if someone could their hands on it would answer all these questions.

I reckon Wedgie is right it's prob starts with the AFL clubs having first say on what happens.

Maybe at times we try to work out what the rules are and tie ourselves in knots about it when the answer could as simple as whatever the AFL teams say, happens.

Wedgie wrote:Its got nothing to do with North or Glenelg knowing the Rules, if the Crows get permission for him to play in the lower grade Glenelg can go for it.
Similar has happened in the past.

So why not are all the rest of the Crows and Port players (not playing in the game of the century! ) getting permission to "have a run" to keep them match conditioned? Why, because Sellar as a 1 game player, any more exempt than other player???

If he plays it is a joke and makes our league look like we are taking the big AFL dick right up our arse!

And before the bays fans go off - I would feel exactly the same if it was a North player in the same situation!

drebin wrote:If he plays it is a joke and makes our league look like we are taking the big AFL dick right up our arse!

They are not SANFL players drebin - its not about being the "female" in a gay encounter.

If they got drafted to any of the other 14 clubs we'd never see them

Be happy if you get some games out of them, rather than none

Unless you accept they belong to someone else you'll give yourself an ulcer about it

drebin wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Its got nothing to do with North or Glenelg knowing the Rules, if the Crows get permission for him to play in the lower grade Glenelg can go for it.
Similar has happened in the past.

So why not are all the rest of the Crows and Port players (not playing in the game of the century! ) getting permission to "have a run" to keep them match conditioned? Why, because Sellar as a 1 game player, any more exempt than other player???

Because the Crows would have deemed him as needing more match practise than other players who they'd prefer to give a rest.
In their opinion Sellar would be better off with another hit out where the others would be better off with a rest.

Don't ask me though, shoot off an email to the Crows and the AFL, Im just explaining it.

Wedgie wrote:

drebin wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Its got nothing to do with North or Glenelg knowing the Rules, if the Crows get permission for him to play in the lower grade Glenelg can go for it.
Similar has happened in the past.

So why not are all the rest of the Crows and Port players (not playing in the game of the century! ) getting permission to "have a run" to keep them match conditioned? Why, because Sellar as a 1 game player, any more exempt than other player???

Because the Crows would have deemed him as needing more match practise than other players who they'd prefer to give a rest.
In their opinion Sellar would be better off with another hit out where the others would be better off with a rest.

Don't ask me though, shoot off an email to the Crows and the AFL, Im just explaining it.

I'm not arguing with you - just posting my opinion but regardles of the fact who he plays for and who he is playing against, it just shows that the integrity of the SANFL comp can "be manipulated" by the whims of AFL clubs who clearly treat out comp as a play thing for their structure which is insulting and how soon blokes like Craig and Reid forget when they were butting heads as SANFL coahces against the then Crows coaches.

drebin wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

drebin wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Its got nothing to do with North or Glenelg knowing the Rules, if the Crows get permission for him to play in the lower grade Glenelg can go for it.
Similar has happened in the past.

So why not are all the rest of the Crows and Port players (not playing in the game of the century! ) getting permission to "have a run" to keep them match conditioned? Why, because Sellar as a 1 game player, any more exempt than other player???

Because the Crows would have deemed him as needing more match practise than other players who they'd prefer to give a rest.
In their opinion Sellar would be better off with another hit out where the others would be better off with a rest.

Don't ask me though, shoot off an email to the Crows and the AFL, Im just explaining it.

I'm not arguing with you - just posting my opinion but regardles of the fact who he plays for and who he is playing against, it just shows that the integrity of the SANFL comp can "be manipulated" by the whims of AFL clubs who clearly treat out comp as a play thing for their structure which is insulting and how soon blokes like Craig and Reid forget when they were butting heads as SANFL coahces against the then Crows coaches.

i agree 100%, who recalls neil craig playing matthew robran in the twos because it interrupted what he was doing at norwood

But why shouldn't he play?


It's just common sense that he does.

I'm presuming that the Cows have decided he's not yet ready for the AFL, and won't be playing for them next week.

What good does it do the Crows, Glenelg, and more importantly Sellar to sit in the stands?

And yes, this has happened before, Elijah Ware played against the Bays 2 or 3 years ago in exactly the same circumstances.

But what WOULD be ironic if Tredrae did a Hammy at training tomorrow, and Port rested Damon White from the Flaccid's on Saturday to make sure he's 100% the week after

I dont know the ruling given this weekends circumstances however same situation for us with Jacky named in our squad.

hondo71 wrote:

drebin wrote:If he plays it is a joke and makes our league look like we are taking the big AFL dick right up our arse!

They are not SANFL players drebin - its not about being the "female" in a gay encounter.

If they got drafted to any of the other 14 clubs we'd never see them

Be happy if you get some games out of them, rather than none

Unless you accept they belong to someone else you'll give yourself an ulcer about it

Yes they belong to someone else. The rules allowing AFL listed players to play in this circumstance (if that is the case) is a joke. If you're happy to let the credibility of the SANFL be reduced to nothing then keep your current attitude.

Did Sellar actually play last week ?
I saw a no.29 masquerading as a Footballer but did he actually touch the ball or just run around like a lame Giraffe.

And yes I do think he is extremely over-rated [let him play-please]

G wrote:Did Sellar actually play last week ?
I saw a no.29 masquerading as a Footballer but did he actually touch the ball or just run around like a lame Giraffe.

And yes I do think he is extremely over-rated [let him play-please]

I'm not sure he's even rated these days, except maybe by deluded Crows fans

drebin wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

drebin wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Its got nothing to do with North or Glenelg knowing the Rules, if the Crows get permission for him to play in the lower grade Glenelg can go for it.
Similar has happened in the past.

So why not are all the rest of the Crows and Port players (not playing in the game of the century! ) getting permission to "have a run" to keep them match conditioned? Why, because Sellar as a 1 game player, any more exempt than other player???

Because the Crows would have deemed him as needing more match practise than other players who they'd prefer to give a rest.
In their opinion Sellar would be better off with another hit out where the others would be better off with a rest.

Don't ask me though, shoot off an email to the Crows and the AFL, Im just explaining it.

I'm not arguing with you - just posting my opinion but regardles of the fact who he plays for and who he is playing against, it just shows that the integrity of the SANFL comp can "be manipulated" by the whims of AFL clubs who clearly treat out comp as a play thing for their structure which is insulting and how soon blokes like Craig and Reid forget when they were butting heads as SANFL coahces against the then Crows coaches.

I didn't say you were agruing with me nor made an assumption you were.

You asked a question, I answered it.

rod_rooster wrote:Yes they belong to someone else. The rules allowing AFL listed players to play in this circumstance (if that is the case) is a joke. If you're happy to let the credibility of the SANFL be reduced to nothing then keep your current attitude.

I think you're over-reacting and making wrong assumptions about my "attitude". It's hardly a "joke" .... I don't see any harm in Sellar or Jacky playing SANFL this week, what's the huge issue

If we think these arrangements compromise the credibility of the comp well then keep them all out of the SANFL league comp, all the time and be done with it.

I actually agree with you at some level - personally I think these interchange arrangements do compromise the cred of the SANFL and I'd prefer the players just stay out of the comp altogether and play in combined teams either in the league (v the bye team, not for premiership points) or in the reserves.

But I don't think that will ever happen so that's why my responses seem intolerant when SANFL forget who actually has the investment in the players and therefore who must have the final say on what happens to them .... as happens in the WAFL and VFL.