SA Footy

If true, would seriously hope they are fined heavily.


http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/port-adelaides-use-of-runner-and-physio-in-sanfl-match-to-be-investigated/story-fnii05e5-1227352137222

HAS the Port Adelaide Football Club been crossing the boundaries when it comes to using its runner and physiotherapist at SANFL games?

The Advertiser has obtained footage from a spectator at the Sturt v Port game and it shows

Magpies runner Eugene Warrior in yellow and physiotherapist Michael Wilson in the black on the ground for an extended period.
The SANFL has opened an investigation following a complaint from the Sturt Football Club after the game at Alberton on Saturday.

It is believed the Double Blues were unhappy with the amount of time Warrior and Wilson, the former Power star, spent on the ground.

VOTE: Have your say below now

Each year the clubs are reminded of the obligations of runners to deliver their message to the players and immediately leave the ground. Medical staff can only enter the arena to treat an injured player.

Sorry to go off topic, but I might be going crazy in saying that this is the only thread/post on this particular match!

Anyway, what penalties do the AFL hand out if it was in an AFL match?

And another off topic thing, but while I'm on a roll, a match at Alberton involving Sturt has only had one lower attendance. The estimated 2,000 which was at the Round 9 1915 match

Port seems to have a history of nuisance staff on the field during games. Didn't that arnfield bloke use to get in trouble often back in the day?
While on the topic of the crowd at Alberton, it sounded on the radio like there was a heap more Sturt supporters there, I mentioned that on the scores thread but someone who was actually at the game countered the comment. Perhaps just a fluke placement of the affects mike? Anyone at the game who could give an indication?

...and this is news ?? Port have been doing stuff like this for years!!

Serial pest Armfield comes to mind!

Port will get slapped with a wet fish over this.....

heater31 wrote:Port will get slapped with a wet fish over this.....

Yeah I guess Warrior and Wilson should be sentenced to 6-8 months behind bars???? Oh and Budda 3 months as an accessory to the major crime.

This is news? pffft give me a break!

If it was any other club apart from Port or Adelaide there would be no discussion at all.

Its an extra person on the ground who is not allowed. It's quite simple AND YES Hocking should is an accessory as he is the coach ! Far out .

Poor old Port hey . The facts are it was't another club it was Port . I'm sure we will hear a valid reason as to why he was on the ground when shouldn't be.

It's the umpires' responsibility to police the presence of officials on the field. FFS there are 7 of them out there, plus the emergency umpire who sits between the two boxes! All it takes is one free kick to be awarded and it will stop, eventually.

carey wrote:

heater31 wrote:Port will get slapped with a wet fish over this.....

Yeah I guess Warrior and Wilson should be sentenced to 6-8 months behind bars???? Oh and Budda 3 months as an accessory to the major crime.

This is news? pffft give me a break!

If it was any other club apart from Port or Adelaide there would be no discussion at all.

Is it news - yeah for me it is. There is a perception that an AFL reserves team is able to flaunt the rules because they don't really give a stuff about the premiership, they want to develop the guys through increased on field mentorship. One competition, 3 policies. Why not chuck a couple more in.

Rising Power wrote:It's the umpires' responsibility to police the presence of officials on the field. FFS there are 7 of them out there, plus the emergency umpire who sits between the two boxes! All it takes is one free kick to be awarded and it will stop, eventually.

I was thinking that myself, were the umpires asleep? The spare umpire would be in a decent position you would think to cotton on to what they were doing.

Forget about some measly money penalty, sanction them on game day. It will stop soon enough.

Ronnie wrote:

Rising Power wrote:It's the umpires' responsibility to police the presence of officials on the field. FFS there are 7 of them out there, plus the emergency umpire who sits between the two boxes! All it takes is one free kick to be awarded and it will stop, eventually.

I was thinking that myself, were the umpires asleep? The spare umpire would be in a decent position you would think to cotton on to what they were doing.

Forget about some measly money penalty, sanction them on game day. It will stop soon enough.

i dont know that it will if the penalty is on game day. give away a few free kicks? who cares when the magpies are now all about teaching their players about the structures etc that the afl club wants. they dont care about the wins, its all about the development. however, hit the club that is constantly bleating about not making money with a financial penalty, that is a penalty they will take notice of.......

tipper wrote:
i dont know that it will if the penalty is on game day. give away a few free kicks? who cares when the magpies are now all about teaching their players about the structures etc that the afl club wants. they dont care about the wins, its all about the development. however, hit the club that is constantly bleating about not making money with a financial penalty, that is a penalty they will take notice of.......

Not if it's a $500 penalty as reported.

If, like you are inferring, Port will have an extra official on the park that is repeatedly giving away free kicks to the opposition: (a) it won't be doing much for player development, other than perhaps defensive set ups, will it? and (b) the official can be reported, (I assume) sent from the field if reported twice and then sanctioned/banned for a number of weeks by the SANFL tribunal. If the umpires just did their job there would be no issue.

so up the dollar value of the penalty. put an extra zero on the end of that figure, then do the same each time they are caught again. no need to waste peoples time at the tribunal, no need to give one bloke a week or two off just for him to be replaced by someone else doing the same thing the following week, no need for the umpires to be doing anything other than watching the game rather than keeping an eye on an official that shouldnt be on the field anyway. easy fixed

Rising Power wrote: the official can be reported, (I assume) sent from the field if reported twice and then sanctioned/banned for a number of weeks by the SANFL tribunal.

Really? On the rare occasion that a runner has been referred to the SANFL tribunal, the runner has escaped without penalty, due to the tribunal claiming no existing guidelines for dealing with non-players. (IIRC).

Pseudo wrote:

Rising Power wrote: the official can be reported, (I assume) sent from the field if reported twice and then sanctioned/banned for a number of weeks by the SANFL tribunal.

Really? On the rare occasion that a runner has been referred to the SANFL tribunal, the runner has escaped without penalty, due to the tribunal claiming no existing guidelines for dealing with non-players. (IIRC).

Time to make some guidelines then.

Pseudo wrote:

Rising Power wrote: the official can be reported, (I assume) sent from the field if reported twice and then sanctioned/banned for a number of weeks by the SANFL tribunal.

Really? On the rare occasion that a runner has been referred to the SANFL tribunal, the runner has escaped without penalty, due to the tribunal claiming no existing guidelines for dealing with non-players. (IIRC).

I missed a lot of recent SANFL history being overseas, but could you give a few examples of clubs doing this? I don't want to be a narrow thinker and ATM I can only think of the one club that has ever done this.

therisingblues wrote:

Pseudo wrote: On the rare occasion that a runner has been referred to the SANFL tribunal, the runner has escaped without penalty, due to the tribunal claiming no existing guidelines for dealing with non-players. (IIRC).

I missed a lot of recent SANFL history being overseas, but could you give a few examples of clubs doing this? I don't want to be a narrow thinker and ATM I can only think of the one club that has ever done this.

I could only think of The One Club too. I deliberately worded my comment to play down this aspect.

Rising Power wrote:It's the umpires' responsibility to police the presence of officials on the field. FFS there are 7 of them out there, plus the emergency umpire who sits between the two boxes! All it takes is one free kick to be awarded and it will stop, eventually.

Why didn't the emergency umpire do anything about it ?

Pseudo wrote:

therisingblues wrote:

Pseudo wrote: On the rare occasion that a runner has been referred to the SANFL tribunal, the runner has escaped without penalty, due to the tribunal claiming no existing guidelines for dealing with non-players. (IIRC).

I missed a lot of recent SANFL history being overseas, but could you give a few examples of clubs doing this? I don't want to be a narrow thinker and ATM I can only think of the one club that has ever done this.

I could only think of The One Club too. I deliberately worded my comment to play down this aspect.

Perhaps if any rule change was to result from this issue it could be named after that club? If it turns out they are the only perpetrators. (Why do I feel a need to type some sort of qualifier whenever I mention something which might be perceived as negative about "that club"? It's like a standard "not that there's anything wrong with that" to head off back lash.)

Typical bloody wharfie scum.