Southern Football League

[White Line Fever]

And as for Marion NOT hosting any finals this year, the SFL apparently wants a certain amount of money from the gate takings (a sizeable amount), and Marion oval has too many entrances and ways around gate.
Its a pity, as the new home changerooms and balcony would've been great for finals...

[the big bang]

And as for Marion NOT hosting any finals this year, the SFL apparently wants a certain amount of money from the gate takings (a sizeable amount), and Marion oval has too many entrances and ways around gate.
Its a pity, as the new home changerooms and balcony would've been great for finals...

agreed. i enjoyed sitting up there a little too much back in round 2 this year.

[t express]

officially the SFL has the worst umpys i have seen for a long time,The two from the reynella v marion game could not even umpire the year 4/5 on a sunday let alone A grade footy,terrible

I've definately seen worse, didn't think they were that bad...
Must of been all the free kicks I was getting??

you must be B smith

[t express]

And as for Marion NOT hosting any finals this year, the SFL apparently wants a certain amount of money from the gate takings (a sizeable amount), and Marion oval has too many entrances and ways around gate.
Its a pity, as the new home changerooms and balcony would've been great for finals...

agreed. i enjoyed sitting up there a little too much back in round 2 this year.

awesome balcony i wonder who has pokies must me marion

[Bag The Points]

A sensational round of footy coming up, and one of the sides below Cove will join the definites if they win this week ----- Valley can't miss if they beat Port, would make them more than two wins clear inside the Eight with only two to play.

Cop this lot- Valley v. Port
Christies v. Morphie Park
Noarlunga v. Marion
(and of course- Brighton v. Morphett Vale)

[WHEELS&DEALS]

Can someone from Morphy Parks confirm that no 12 on the weekend was Alex Grima from the Bays/Hawthorn last year? i think the paper had him down as Grimer if it was him or not could play the game and had a great boot on him. Great game of footy Morphys were very good and deserved to be even closer im surprised they aren't higher they seemed a very slick side or was this a rather rare occasion.

Yes terms it was him, first game he has played for us and not to sure why the bays didn't pick him but we will be more than happy to keep him. It might sound a bit stupid but we are playing better footy this year than last year even though we are not in the eight, have been alot more competitive with the top teams than we were last year except against the emus. We lost a few players early to season ending injuries which if where still playing may have got us over the line in a few games. Its been a while but we are not to far away from being up the pointy end of the ladder again. Would be interesting to hear from other clubs to see if they think we have improved.
One more thing, SEB has to be favorite to win the mail medal. Go the SEB

[Esteban Vihaio]

Can someone from Morphy Parks confirm that no 12 on the weekend was Alex Grima from the Bays/Hawthorn last year? i think the paper had him down as Grimer if it was him or not could play the game and had a great boot on him. Great game of footy Morphys were very good and deserved to be even closer im surprised they aren't higher they seemed a very slick side or was this a rather rare occasion.

Yes terms it was him, first game he has played for us and not to sure why the bays didn't pick him but we will be more than happy to keep him. It might sound a bit stupid but we are playing better footy this year than last year even though we are not in the eight, have been alot more competitive with the top teams than we were last year except against the emus. We lost a few players early to season ending injuries which if where still playing may have got us over the line in a few games. Its been a while but we are not to far away from being up the pointy end of the ladder again. Would be interesting to hear from other clubs to see if they think we have improved.
One more thing, SEB has to be favorite to win the mail medal. Go the SEB

Improved yes and with an easier draw you would have made the eight, but not beating any of the better seven sides is proof of not improving enough.

[WHEELS&DEALS]

Can someone from Morphy Parks confirm that no 12 on the weekend was Alex Grima from the Bays/Hawthorn last year? i think the paper had him down as Grimer if it was him or not could play the game and had a great boot on him. Great game of footy Morphys were very good and deserved to be even closer im surprised they aren't higher they seemed a very slick side or was this a rather rare occasion.

Yes terms it was him, first game he has played for us and not to sure why the bays didn't pick him but we will be more than happy to keep him. It might sound a bit stupid but we are playing better footy this year than last year even though we are not in the eight, have been alot more competitive with the top teams than we were last year except against the emus. We lost a few players early to season ending injuries which if where still playing may have got us over the line in a few games. Its been a while but we are not to far away from being up the pointy end of the ladder again. Would be interesting to hear from other clubs to see if they think we have improved.
One more thing, SEB has to be favorite to win the mail medal. Go the SEB

Improved yes and with an easier draw you would have made the eight, but not beating any of the better seven sides is proof of not improving enough.

easier draw would have been nice but still have to face the big boys sooner or later and we only got the one pasting against the emus. We will keep improving EV one step at a time

[Dazza44]

Think we might be landing too much of this onto the umpires. I'm sure the official rule DOES NOT include automatic loss of the entire score to that point (pretty sure that point came up in a case a couple of years ago) ----- the rule as i understand it to be is that penalty is applied according to severity and circumstances (whether full or part deduction of score, or the application of some other penalty).
I agree the ump concerned may have erred in not implicating yellow card correctly, and maybe that was why the umps then ruled the way they did ----- which makes that ruling not to deduct any score the correct one in my book.
Maybe the powers that be should actually accept the umps ruling.
And by the way ---- this ruling would NOT have been affected by being scared of the crowd. That suggestion is totally ridiculous.

Thanks for putting some sanity back into this ridiculous debate BTP !!

I was watching it all unfold from the Sth end of the ground - well away from the crowd and the melee (and the resultant uproar from both sides which would seem to have coloured the various versions put up here).

Some comments:
1. The umpires have acted totally in accordance with the instructions issued to them by the Umpires panel (or the SFL) - I got this from an SFL umpire who was not one of the ones officiating. That is, that in any case of a "count", the scores are to be noted at that time and the incident reported to the Board for action. I don't actually agree with this by the way - I think that the scores should be immediately cancelled, at least that way everyone knows where they stand ! I think that the actual rules are quite clear that a team found to have to many players on the field loses their score to thet point in the match, it's just that the AFL has gone soft on this with their new rules - but we don't play by AFL rules, we play by SFL rules which follow the SANFL.
2. I don't agree that the ump concerned erred in not indicating the yellow card correctly, he clearly showed it (I could see from the other end of the ground) and then walked half-way to the interchange bench following the player before he went back to deal with the melee that was re-erupting.
3. As a long-time Team Manager and Interchange Steward, there is no doubt in my mind that the fault was totally in the court of the Morphies officials. Everyone should know that if there is any doubt whether there is a send-off you confirm it with either the players or the umps before you send a player on. .. and in this case there should have been no doubt that there may have been a send-off. To say that they thought it was just a player running off for "self-discipline " after a 50m penalty is crap - that player had already well and truly run off after giving 2x50m before the melee even happened !!
4. BTP is totally correct - there was never any chance that the ruling was in any way affected by being scared of the crowd. That suggestion is totally ridiculous. Anyone that knows Gary Bilney would realise that ....

Morphies should just suck it up - realise that their officials stuffed up and that the same rules apply to them as to everyone else.

[The Lova]

Think we might be landing too much of this onto the umpires. I'm sure the official rule DOES NOT include automatic loss of the entire score to that point (pretty sure that point came up in a case a couple of years ago) ----- the rule as i understand it to be is that penalty is applied according to severity and circumstances (whether full or part deduction of score, or the application of some other penalty).
I agree the ump concerned may have erred in not implicating yellow card correctly, and maybe that was why the umps then ruled the way they did ----- which makes that ruling not to deduct any score the correct one in my book.
Maybe the powers that be should actually accept the umps ruling.
And by the way ---- this ruling would NOT have been affected by being scared of the crowd. That suggestion is totally ridiculous.

Thanks for putting some sanity back into this ridiculous debate BTP !!

I was watching it all unfold from the Sth end of the ground - well away from the crowd and the melee (and the resultant uproar from both sides which would seem to have coloured the various versions put up here).

Some comments:
1. The umpires have acted totally in accordance with the instructions issued to them by the Umpires panel (or the SFL) - I got this from an SFL umpire who was not one of the ones officiating. That is, that in any case of a "count", the scores are to be noted at that time and the incident reported to the Board for action. I don't actually agree with this by the way - I think that the scores should be immediately cancelled, at least that way everyone knows where they stand ! I think that the actual rules are quite clear that a team found to have to many players on the field loses their score to thet point in the match, it's just that the AFL has gone soft on this with their new rules - but we don't play by AFL rules, we play by SFL rules which follow the SANFL.
2. I don't agree that the ump concerned erred in not indicating the yellow card correctly, he clearly showed it (I could see from the other end of the ground) and then walked half-way to the interchange bench following the player before he went back to deal with the melee that was re-erupting.
3. As a long-time Team Manager and Interchange Steward, there is no doubt in my mind that the fault was totally in the court of the Morphies officials. Everyone should know that if there is any doubt whether there is a send-off you confirm it with either the players or the umps before you send a player on. .. and in this case there should have been no doubt that there may have been a send-off. To say that they thought it was just a player running off for "self-discipline " after a 50m penalty is crap - that player had already well and truly run off after giving 2x50m before the melee even happened !!
4. BTP is totally correct - there was never any chance that the ruling was in any way affected by being scared of the crowd. That suggestion is totally ridiculous. Anyone that knows Gary Bilney would realise that ....

Morphies should just suck it up - realise that their officials stuffed up and that the same rules apply to them as to everyone else.

sounds to me like the opinion of a bloke that sat back and watched his team get flogged by 20 goals and would rather it be 10.

[tatts]

Think we might be landing too much of this onto the umpires. I'm sure the official rule DOES NOT include automatic loss of the entire score to that point (pretty sure that point came up in a case a couple of years ago) ----- the rule as i understand it to be is that penalty is applied according to severity and circumstances (whether full or part deduction of score, or the application of some other penalty).
I agree the ump concerned may have erred in not implicating yellow card correctly, and maybe that was why the umps then ruled the way they did ----- which makes that ruling not to deduct any score the correct one in my book.
Maybe the powers that be should actually accept the umps ruling.
And by the way ---- this ruling would NOT have been affected by being scared of the crowd. That suggestion is totally ridiculous.

Thanks for putting some sanity back into this ridiculous debate BTP !!

I was watching it all unfold from the Sth end of the ground - well away from the crowd and the melee (and the resultant uproar from both sides which would seem to have coloured the various versions put up here).
so did the Emus get any score taken off them
Some comments:
1. The umpires have acted totally in accordance with the instructions issued to them by the Umpires panel (or the SFL) - I got this from an SFL umpire who was not one of the ones officiating. That is, that in any case of a "count", the scores are to be noted at that time and the incident reported to the Board for action. I don't actually agree with this by the way - I think that the scores should be immediately cancelled, at least that way everyone knows where they stand ! I think that the actual rules are quite clear that a team found to have to many players on the field loses their score to thet point in the match, it's just that the AFL has gone soft on this with their new rules - but we don't play by AFL rules, we play by SFL rules which follow the SANFL.
2. I don't agree that the ump concerned erred in not indicating the yellow card correctly, he clearly showed it (I could see from the other end of the ground) and then walked half-way to the interchange bench following the player before he went back to deal with the melee that was re-erupting.
3. As a long-time Team Manager and Interchange Steward, there is no doubt in my mind that the fault was totally in the court of the Morphies officials. Everyone should know that if there is any doubt whether there is a send-off you confirm it with either the players or the umps before you send a player on. .. and in this case there should have been no doubt that there may have been a send-off. To say that they thought it was just a player running off for "self-discipline " after a 50m penalty is crap - that player had already well and truly run off after giving 2x50m before the melee even happened !!
4. BTP is totally correct - there was never any chance that the ruling was in any way affected by being scared of the crowd. That suggestion is totally ridiculous. Anyone that knows Gary Bilney would realise that ....

Morphies should just suck it up - realise that their officials stuffed up and that the same rules apply to them as to everyone else.

sounds to me like the opinion of a bloke that sat back and watched his team get flogged by 20 goals and would rather it be 10.

[Speccy02]

Think we might be landing too much of this onto the umpires. I'm sure the official rule DOES NOT include automatic loss of the entire score to that point (pretty sure that point came up in a case a couple of years ago) ----- the rule as i understand it to be is that penalty is applied according to severity and circumstances (whether full or part deduction of score, or the application of some other penalty).
I agree the ump concerned may have erred in not implicating yellow card correctly, and maybe that was why the umps then ruled the way they did ----- which makes that ruling not to deduct any score the correct one in my book.
Maybe the powers that be should actually accept the umps ruling.
And by the way ---- this ruling would NOT have been affected by being scared of the crowd. That suggestion is totally ridiculous.

Thanks for putting some sanity back into this ridiculous debate BTP !!

I was watching it all unfold from the Sth end of the ground - well away from the crowd and the melee (and the resultant uproar from both sides which would seem to have coloured the various versions put up here).

Some comments:
1. The umpires have acted totally in accordance with the instructions issued to them by the Umpires panel (or the SFL) - I got this from an SFL umpire who was not one of the ones officiating. That is, that in any case of a "count", the scores are to be noted at that time and the incident reported to the Board for action. I don't actually agree with this by the way - I think that the scores should be immediately cancelled, at least that way everyone knows where they stand ! I think that the actual rules are quite clear that a team found to have to many players on the field loses their score to thet point in the match, it's just that the AFL has gone soft on this with their new rules - but we don't play by AFL rules, we play by SFL rules which follow the SANFL.
2. I don't agree that the ump concerned erred in not indicating the yellow card correctly, he clearly showed it (I could see from the other end of the ground) and then walked half-way to the interchange bench following the player before he went back to deal with the melee that was re-erupting.
3. As a long-time Team Manager and Interchange Steward, there is no doubt in my mind that the fault was totally in the court of the Morphies officials. Everyone should know that if there is any doubt whether there is a send-off you confirm it with either the players or the umps before you send a player on. .. and in this case there should have been no doubt that there may have been a send-off. To say that they thought it was just a player running off for "self-discipline " after a 50m penalty is crap - that player had already well and truly run off after giving 2x50m before the melee even happened !!
4. BTP is totally correct - there was never any chance that the ruling was in any way affected by being scared of the crowd. That suggestion is totally ridiculous. Anyone that knows Gary Bilney would realise that ....

Morphies should just suck it up - realise that their officials stuffed up and that the same rules apply to them as to everyone else.

So when the player in question comes off and has no idea at all that he has been yellow carded and relays this to the bench, who subsequently replace him, there is NIL fault on the umpire for correct procedure of the issuing of the yellow card? Get your head out of the clouds buddy. Facts are that the card was not issued correctly, the ump issued a free kick and 50m penalty (i believe this to be AFL rules so which set of rules are we applying? the ones that suit the argument it seems). IF the card was issued correctly for all to see and understand why would the Emu's replace the player? Would seem strange?

[Bag The Points]

Looked at the relative positions again and found we could actually have two sides wrapping up their finals seats after this round. Christies will also be set like cement if both they and the Valley win this Saturday. However the Saints need to be rid of Port before they are safe, so they are only set if the Valley win too. (Happy Valley definite finalists if they beat Port)
If both the Valley and Christies win this would leave one spot open for Porties, Shoes, Roos and Rams to fight for.

[Zelezny Chucks]

Think we might be landing too much of this onto the umpires. I'm sure the official rule DOES NOT include automatic loss of the entire score to that point (pretty sure that point came up in a case a couple of years ago) ----- the rule as i understand it to be is that penalty is applied according to severity and circumstances (whether full or part deduction of score, or the application of some other penalty).
I agree the ump concerned may have erred in not implicating yellow card correctly, and maybe that was why the umps then ruled the way they did ----- which makes that ruling not to deduct any score the correct one in my book.
Maybe the powers that be should actually accept the umps ruling.
And by the way ---- this ruling would NOT have been affected by being scared of the crowd. That suggestion is totally ridiculous.

Thanks for putting some sanity back into this ridiculous debate BTP !!

I was watching it all unfold from the Sth end of the ground - well away from the crowd and the melee (and the resultant uproar from both sides which would seem to have coloured the various versions put up here).

Some comments:
1. The umpires have acted totally in accordance with the instructions issued to them by the Umpires panel (or the SFL) - I got this from an SFL umpire who was not one of the ones officiating. That is, that in any case of a "count", the scores are to be noted at that time and the incident reported to the Board for action. I don't actually agree with this by the way - I think that the scores should be immediately cancelled, at least that way everyone knows where they stand ! I think that the actual rules are quite clear that a team found to have to many players on the field loses their score to thet point in the match, it's just that the AFL has gone soft on this with their new rules - but we don't play by AFL rules, we play by SFL rules which follow the SANFL.
2. I don't agree that the ump concerned erred in not indicating the yellow card correctly, he clearly showed it (I could see from the other end of the ground) and then walked half-way to the interchange bench following the player before he went back to deal with the melee that was re-erupting.
3. As a long-time Team Manager and Interchange Steward, there is no doubt in my mind that the fault was totally in the court of the Morphies officials. Everyone should know that if there is any doubt whether there is a send-off you confirm it with either the players or the umps before you send a player on. .. and in this case there should have been no doubt that there may have been a send-off. To say that they thought it was just a player running off for "self-discipline " after a 50m penalty is crap - that player had already well and truly run off after giving 2x50m before the melee even happened !!
4. BTP is totally correct - there was never any chance that the ruling was in any way affected by being scared of the crowd. That suggestion is totally ridiculous. Anyone that knows Gary Bilney would realise that ....

Morphies should just suck it up - realise that their officials stuffed up and that the same rules apply to them as to everyone else.

So when the player in question comes off and has no idea at all that he has been yellow carded and relays this to the bench, who subsequently replace him, there is NIL fault on the umpire for correct procedure of the issuing of the yellow card? Get your head out of the clouds buddy. Facts are that the card was not issued correctly, the ump issued a free kick and 50m penalty (i believe this to be AFL rules so which set of rules are we applying? the ones that suit the argument it seems). IF the card was issued correctly for all to see and understand why would the Emu's replace the player? Would seem strange?

When sending the Flaggies player off the umpire walked to within 15 metres of the boundary and showed the card, as this didn't happen for anyone else, and the player in question was dragging himself for the 50, it is understandable their was confusion.

Dragging yourself after giving a 50m penalty has been a team rule all year so no one thought anything other than that.

As for it being referred to the Board AFTER the game? What a joke!

[special]

And as for Marion NOT hosting any finals this year, the SFL apparently wants a certain amount of money from the gate takings (a sizeable amount), and Marion oval has too many entrances and ways around gate.
Its a pity, as the new home changerooms and balcony would've been great for finals...

agreed. i enjoyed sitting up there a little too much back in round 2 this year.

awesome balcony i wonder who has pokies must me marion

all clubs are sponsored by pubs and yes all the pubs have pokies whats the differance + we have to share all % with about 8 sports and many teams also marching girls etc if you think marion is richer than how come we cant make the eight (we should be top yea cause we have pokies on site and should be able to cover player payments upto and above every other team bull sh.t)

[MatteeG]

sounds to me like the opinion of a bloke that sat back and watched his team get flogged by 20 goals and would rather it be 10.

You're right Lova, we should all sit back and concede Morphies never do anything wrong..

How dare facts tarnish an argument!

No doubt MV were the superior side, whether 10 or 20 goals (or 30) it was a comprehensive win. Dazza would know a lot more than your good self about anything from a steward/team manager perspective, I'd stake large coin on this.



PS Hows Liam Green going? Far too good at his age to be kicking around the SFL...

[special]

And as for Marion NOT hosting any finals this year, the SFL apparently wants a certain amount of money from the gate takings (a sizeable amount), and Marion oval has too many entrances and ways around gate.
Its a pity, as the new home changerooms and balcony would've been great for finals...

agreed. i enjoyed sitting up there a little too much back in round 2 this year.

awesome balcony i wonder who has pokies must me marion

all clubs are sponsored by pubs and yes all the pubs have pokies whats the differance + we have to share all % with about 8 sports and many teams also marching girls etc if you think marion is richer than how come we cant make the eight (we should be top yea cause we have pokies on site and should be able to cover player payments upto and above every other team bull sh.t)

wouldnt it be nice if other clubs followed and saved some coin on player payment to be in the 21st century

[Swooper16]

Question for T Express, AFL Flyer, SFL Spy or the 1 time reynalla supporter Fly (apologies to any Reynella poster i may have missed)

What is the go with Weetra. Havent seen him his name yet...? Believe you need 4 games to qualify for finals as well...?

[Madrooster]

Swooper - I've been told that weetra is at Pt Districts while the Pt Magpies desperately try to reignite his interest in the game

[dodgingandweaving]

sounds to me like the opinion of a bloke that sat back and watched his team get flogged by 20 goals and would rather it be 10.

You're right Lova, we should all sit back and concede Morphies never do anything wrong..

How dare facts tarnish an argument!

No doubt MV were the superior side, whether 10 or 20 goals (or 30) it was a comprehensive win. Dazza would know a lot more than your good self about anything from a steward/team manager perspective, I'd stake large coin on this.



PS Hows Liam Green going? Far too good at his age to be kicking around the SFL...

Is Liam Green, Tyler Green's brother?