Preliminary Final

All discussions to do with the SANFL

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby Wedgie » Thu Sep 20, 2018 4:45 pm

Lightning McQueen wrote:
Wedgie wrote:A free kick plus 50 metres is the penalty if a captain calls a count and the opposing team has 18 or less at the time of the count.
A score is wiped up to that point if a captain calls a count and the opposing team has more than 18 at the time of the count.

Separately, an interchange infringement if called by the 4th umpire incurs a free plus 50m. An extra player coming off through the interchange gate is not an interchange infringement.

None of the above happened so it should have just been play on.

The total score?

There is only one other league in the state that still plays by that rule, would've thought they've adapted to the newer system.

Yep, the whole score, I wasn't aware other comps did something different.
It's all in Rule 5.5 of the SANFL laws. But only if the opposition captain calls a count, can't be applied any other way.
If the opposition captain doesn't call a count then no penalties of any sort should apply.
Cut and dried.

For people that say it's antiquated and unfair to suggest a captain could do that in 3 mins and 39 seconds a NEAFL captain managed to do it last weekend. Weirdly the opposition score wasn't wiped as per the rules state they should have been. There should be an uproar there!
User avatar
Wedgie
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 50795
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:00 am
Has liked: 2023 times
Been liked: 3867 times
Grassroots Team: Noarlunga

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby FlyingHigh » Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:11 pm

And is just a goal penalty sufficient? In this case, it was pretty obvious the infraction only last a few minutes, but if it happened in the middle of a quarter then it might be hard to quantify exactly how long the extra player was on for, so wiping the score should stay.
FlyingHigh
Assistant Coach
 
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:12 am
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 173 times

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby Wedgie » Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:15 pm

FlyingHigh wrote:And is just a goal penalty sufficient? In this case, it was pretty obvious the infraction only last a few minutes, but if it happened in the middle of a quarter then it might be hard to quantify exactly how long the extra player was on for, so wiping the score should stay.

A free and 50m is given if there's an interchange infraction such as running on when the player is still 2 metres away from getting off. I think that's fair.
Wiping an entire score seems a bit weird as you could get penalised 1 goal if it happens in the first quarter or 20 goals if it happens in the last quarter. Perhaps it should be changed so scores for that entire quarter so far gets wiped. That would be fairer IMHO.
User avatar
Wedgie
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 50795
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:00 am
Has liked: 2023 times
Been liked: 3867 times
Grassroots Team: Noarlunga

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby FlyingHigh » Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:24 pm

Wedgie wrote:
FlyingHigh wrote:And is just a goal penalty sufficient? In this case, it was pretty obvious the infraction only last a few minutes, but if it happened in the middle of a quarter then it might be hard to quantify exactly how long the extra player was on for, so wiping the score should stay.

A free and 50m is given if there's an interchange infraction such as running on when the player is still 2 metres away from getting off. I think that's fair.
Wiping an entire score seems a bit weird as you could get penalised 1 goal if it happens in the first quarter or 20 goals if it happens in the last quarter. Perhaps it should be changed so scores for that entire quarter so far gets wiped. That would be fairer IMHO.


Yeah, agree in the interchange case, and that is something the AFL have created that seems to, in certain areas, be getting confused with this case.
What you suggest sounds fairer, except in the scenario of a team trying to shut down a game rather than score itself. Imagine if you kicked into a howling wind and had an extra defender for 15 minutes, or you were the Eagles on Sunday protecting a 20 point lead.
FlyingHigh
Assistant Coach
 
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:12 am
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 173 times

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby Wedgie » Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:38 pm

Good points all round.

It is refreshing that on this site we can have mature discussions about incidents. I've given up on facebook for SANFL!
It's weird how people act like 3 year olds where their real names are visible and here where we have different names its the best discussion going around. Must be the great moderation. ;)
User avatar
Wedgie
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 50795
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:00 am
Has liked: 2023 times
Been liked: 3867 times
Grassroots Team: Noarlunga

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby FlyingHigh » Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:49 pm

I reckon some of the comments by the media "experts" have been just as embarrassing. "The league has lost credibility". Huh? Because it stuck to the laws of the game?
FlyingHigh
Assistant Coach
 
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:12 am
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 173 times

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby whybother » Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:45 am

Does anyone know by now exactly how did NA manage to avoid the surveillance of the interchange stewards and end up with 19 players on the field? As the tribunal QC said : Their (ie NA) various explanations as to how this came about were unsatisfactory and confusing. It seems that the interchange stewards can track player movements during active playing time but has a "blind spot" at breaks. There was an incident at Elizabeth earlier this year where the same sort of thing happened at the first quarter break. If we don't know exactly how this happened, then rules & regulations can't be formulated to prevent the same thing happening again. Will the SANFL set up an investigation to examine this?
whybother
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:16 am
Has liked: 108 times
Been liked: 97 times

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby Corona Man » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:13 am

whybother wrote:Does anyone know by now exactly how did NA manage to avoid the surveillance of the interchange stewards and end up with 19 players on the field? As the tribunal QC said : Their (ie NA) various explanations as to how this came about were unsatisfactory and confusing. It seems that the interchange stewards can track player movements during active playing time but has a "blind spot" at breaks. There was an incident at Elizabeth earlier this year where the same sort of thing happened at the first quarter break. If we don't know exactly how this happened, then rules & regulations can't be formulated to prevent the same thing happening again. Will the SANFL set up an investigation to examine this?


Surely its pretty simple. League interchange stewards MUST account for the players "on the bench" before the ball is bounced at the start of the quarter & a signal given to the officiating umpire. If a bloke, is down in the rooms getting treatment, and not on the bench (or if there is not the correct number on the bench) do the head count on the ground there & then, before play commences. If there are 19 on the field, pay the free & give the 50 metre penalty.
1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008, 2013, 2014, 2015.... And don't you forget it!
User avatar
Corona Man
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12398
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Near the Beer Fridge
Has liked: 1275 times
Been liked: 3461 times
Grassroots Team: Echunga

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby Lightning McQueen » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:49 am

Wedgie wrote:Yep, the whole score, I wasn't aware other comps did something different.
It's all in Rule 5.5 of the SANFL laws. But only if the opposition captain calls a count, can't be applied any other way.
If the opposition captain doesn't call a count then no penalties of any sort should apply.
Cut and dried.

For people that say it's antiquated and unfair to suggest a captain could do that in 3 mins and 39 seconds a NEAFL captain managed to do it last weekend. Weirdly the opposition score wasn't wiped as per the rules state they should have been. There should be an uproar there!


It changed a few years ago in a lot of regional comps, as you stated in a different post it seems unreasonable to wipe 20 goals for a two minute infringement.

I would extend the invitation for the runner to be able to notify the umpire also given the amount of rotations in today's game but as the rules stood for Sunday's game, the Eagles failed to comply.

As for the NEAFL, they'd play by the new rules at a guess.
HOGG SHIELD DIVISION V WINNER 2018.
User avatar
Lightning McQueen
Coach
 
Posts: 51289
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:43 am
Location: Radiator Springs
Has liked: 4339 times
Been liked: 7902 times

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby hollywood7477 » Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:34 pm

Corona Man wrote:
whybother wrote:Does anyone know by now exactly how did NA manage to avoid the surveillance of the interchange stewards and end up with 19 players on the field? As the tribunal QC said : Their (ie NA) various explanations as to how this came about were unsatisfactory and confusing. It seems that the interchange stewards can track player movements during active playing time but has a "blind spot" at breaks. There was an incident at Elizabeth earlier this year where the same sort of thing happened at the first quarter break. If we don't know exactly how this happened, then rules & regulations can't be formulated to prevent the same thing happening again. Will the SANFL set up an investigation to examine this?


Surely its pretty simple. League interchange stewards MUST account for the players "on the bench" before the ball is bounced at the start of the quarter & a signal given to the officiating umpire. If a bloke, is down in the rooms getting treatment, and not on the bench (or if there is not the correct number on the bench) do the head count on the ground there & then, before play commences. If there are 19 on the field, pay the free & give the 50 metre penalty.


From what I have heard, the injured North player was helped down the rooms at 3/4 time and North put him on the bench and when he came back at the start of the last he went back on and the officials werent told he was back on and he wasnt told he was on the bench. The North coaches thought he was still down getting treatment as he was not on the bench. Once they realised they bought the player off
hollywood7477
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:42 pm
Has liked: 56 times
Been liked: 71 times

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby Groucho » Sat Sep 22, 2018 12:25 am

Once they realised they bought the player off[/quote]

How much did they pay for him? ;) :lol:
User avatar
Groucho
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:04 am
Location: Hope Valley
Has liked: 106 times
Been liked: 160 times

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby whybother » Sat Sep 22, 2018 4:05 pm

I heard a rumour that an interchange steward informed the NA bench of the 19th man. This also seems to be against the rules

7.1 INTERCHANGE STEWARD – APPOINTMENT AND DUTIES
A Controlling Body may appoint two Interchange Stewards to officiate during
a Match. The Interchange Steward shall:
(a) be positioned throughout the Match at or near the Interchange Area;
(b) monitor and approve the interchange of Players made by each Team
during a Match; and
(c) report to the Controlling Body any infringement by a Team of this Law 7.

which doesn't mention any involvement with the playing teams, either the offending team or the innocent offended team.

If this was the case, then it pre-empted the possibilty one of the Eagles' co-captains getting to "the umpire" (which one?, there are three of them) before a NA interchange took place. This is why there should be a public, exhaustive and open investigation into the whole incident - preferably before tomorrows GF. (Hah !)
whybother
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:16 am
Has liked: 108 times
Been liked: 97 times

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby robranisgod » Sat Sep 22, 2018 4:32 pm

I have been told that Michael Maney from the ABC claims that he told North and the Eagles about the 19th player.
North immediately took the extra player off just as the Eagles runner was going out to ask for a count.
robranisgod
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:36 pm
Has liked: 89 times
Been liked: 224 times
Grassroots Team: Flinders University

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby cennals05 » Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:19 pm

Champion Data notified North and the interchange steward at the 48 second mark of the 4th qtr that North had 19 players on. North sent their runner out and told Allmond to get off, but didn't tell him why. He then took 3 minutes to get off the ground.

Why wouldn't they tell Allmond why he had to get off? That sounds fishy to me.

Josh Carr also said on radio during the week that Tropiano wasn't the 19th man, he was supposed to start on in the last qtr. This calls into question their explanation that they thought he was down getting treatment.

I honestly don't know how they ruled in Norths favour. There is no excuse for having a guy on for a further 3 minutes after you were notified of having 19 men on the ground.
cennals05
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1485
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:43 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has liked: 146 times
Been liked: 248 times

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby locky801 » Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:23 pm

So many conflicting stories, who knows what the real truth is. Anyway all done and dusted and time to move on SFA can be done now
You cant change your past but you can sure hell shape you future
User avatar
locky801
Coach
 
Posts: 55773
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:11 pm
Location: working all around Australia and loving it
Has liked: 3654 times
Been liked: 1160 times

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby whybother » Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:30 pm

But surely the league just has to have a detailed revue of what happened when the finals are out of the way, if only to establish what compensation if any is owed to the Eagles.
whybother
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:16 am
Has liked: 108 times
Been liked: 97 times

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby robranisgod » Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:33 pm

cennals05 wrote:Champion Data notified North and the interchange steward at the 48 second mark of the 4th qtr that North had 19 players on. North sent their runner out and told Allmond to get off, but didn't tell him why. He then took 3 minutes to get off the ground.



I was told by a Champion Data employee that they didn't discover the error until 2 minutes 48 seconds into the last quarter, so once again conflicting stories.

I know that the SANFL are very upset with Champion Data. It used to be the interchange stewards role to ensure each team had 18 players on the field, that is now Champion Data's responsibility.

One thing that hasn't been noted here is that Allmond was off before North scored the goal in the last quarter. I don't know if he was coming off the ground before Ramsay marked or not.
robranisgod
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:36 pm
Has liked: 89 times
Been liked: 224 times
Grassroots Team: Flinders University

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby cennals05 » Sat Sep 22, 2018 7:16 pm

It doesn't really matter if he was off or on. How do we know the Eagles wouldn't have scored a goal if there wasn't a 19th man on the field? There are so many things that we don't know, including who deserved to play in the GF.

And what I have written above came from someone at the tribunal, from the evidence that was given. It was also repeated on radio this morning by some official. Can't remember who it was.
cennals05
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1485
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:43 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has liked: 146 times
Been liked: 248 times

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby daysofourlives » Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:56 pm

cennals05 wrote:It doesn't really matter if he was off or on. How do we know the Eagles wouldn't have scored a goal if there wasn't a 19th man on the field? There are so many things that we don't know, including who deserved to play in the GF.

And what I have written above came from someone at the tribunal, from the evidence that was given. It was also repeated on radio this morning by some official. Can't remember who it was.


It was Slaven, no one can believe a word he says.

I still dont know what the fuss is about
A count wasnt called for, play on.
It should never have gone any further than a polite enquiry from the Eagles who shouldve been shut down immediately by the SANFL. There is absolutely no difference between this and say a goal being called a point or vice versa. Once the decision is made thats it end of story
Supercoach Spring Racing Champion 2019
Spargo's Good Friday Cup Champion 2020
daysofourlives
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11500
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:35 pm
Has liked: 2415 times
Been liked: 1657 times
Grassroots Team: Angaston

Re: Preliminary Final

Postby whybother » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:26 am

It seems to me that part of this fiasco is to find a way to make it "impossible" for it to happen again. My suggestion is to link the data people and the interchange stewards directly to the timekeepers so that the siren can be immediately sounded if a breach is detected. It seems that these people knew in this case before either of the two teams did that there was a problem. The siren would stop play and the umpires could organise a count of players etc etc. Then the current argument of "not detected at the time" is made irrelevant. If the siren is mis-sounded, then that's the League's fault, and has nothing to do with the players or the stage of the game. There are now 4 boundary umps, 3 field umps, one emergency ump and two goal umps to monitor a repeat of the chaos of the 1975 Freddy Bills 19 man incident. Instigate strong penalties against evading the count happening. If a player leaves the field without using the interchange gate, isn't he forbidden to come back on anyway? Keep the current captain call for a count if you must, but tidy up the wording to keep up with the changes in the game that has happened over the past years.
whybother
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:16 am
Has liked: 108 times
Been liked: 97 times

PreviousNext

Board index   Football  SANFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kahuna and 19 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |