BL&G Football League

[skipper]

Well look's like it is he said she said, main thing is whether or not the rules have been interprated correctly by the umpires. Barossa may have been upset by the incident but the instuctions from the coach should have been "play to win" as we will contest this through the week.

My opinion is if the Barossa player was coming off prior to the bounce it should have been let go but I was not at the game and don't know the full circumstances. If this was the case I certainly do not believe that the other clubs in the league would do the same.

[brook]

Common-sense should have prevailed and the game should have been let to run its course, to be sorted after the game.

[Borat]

The worst circumstance ever to play out in the Barossa. We certainly would not of contested that at Ango.
Willaston terrible that you even contested that, James was 15 metres from the boundary running off when the ball had not even been thrown up to start the last quarter.
Common-sense should of prevailed, but hey havent we got a league run by Willaston directors?

[Lightning McQueen]

Common-sense should have prevailed and the game should have been let to run its course, to be sorted after the game.

I would have thought the process would be the same in all country football leagues. In our League if there is a count and a team has 19 on the field the umpire simply records that time of the incident and the League committee determines the penalty after the match. There is no immediate loss of score.

These scenario's would cause a big mess, I think the AFL have it right and the rest of the affiliated bodies should follow suit to some degree, I'm pretty sure it's a free kick in the goalsquare, although I think it should be a free kick from where the ball is when the count was called plus a 50m penalty.
As a coach, I always instructed my players to stand well back from the line to avoid any contraversy, losing the whole score is far too strict to for an honest mistake that didn't affect any result.

[Stewie Griffin]

Is unfair to blame Willaston or Baker for calling for a count, the reality is the rule is the problem.
A free kick in the goalsquare would probably be a more sensible approach.
The current rule IS in place though so there can't be an issue of sportsmanship if Willaston apply it.
Is impossible to say what any other captain would have done, I am sure Baker would have done it in a split-second decision,
once its done it can't be overturned by the bench/coach, which I am led to believe Willaston would have done if possible.
I am sure Roger took it on the chin as it is not a matter of contention whether the ruling was right.
Would have been more interesting if Commane had've started the game on 95 goals, then kicked 5, celebrated his 100,
then had it removed and gone back to 95.
At the end of the day debate 'the Rule' not the teams or the result.

[The Patriach]

Put very simply, the "player count" rule (5.5) involves far less interpretation that a 'holding the ball' rule (15.2.3), and is a rule that is set fro all association, even the AFL and SANFL. There is no different interpretation, at all, if the captain asks for a player count in any level of football, anywhere in Australia, as according to the official rulebook the player count will be enforced.

So its fairly simple, its a rule, so how can the rule be hard to understand. If it had happened in the first 5 minutes of the first quarter it would've become a gimmick, the circumstances however created the controversy, no different to a free kick at goal after the siren with scores level.

[Lightning McQueen]

Put very simply, the "player count" rule (5.5) involves far less interpretation that a 'holding the ball' rule (15.2.3), and is a rule that is set fro all association, even the AFL and SANFL. There is no different interpretation, at all, if the captain asks for a player count in any level of football, anywhere in Australia, as according to the official rulebook the player count will be enforced.

So its fairly simple, its a rule, so how can the rule be hard to understand. If it had happened in the first 5 minutes of the first quarter it would've become a gimmick, the circumstances however created the controversy, no different to a free kick at goal after the siren with scores level.

The interpretation is the same but the outcomes vary.

[hotspur]

I think the forum should award a trophy for the most stupidest - sorry Lethal - comment on the final fiasco. There was some beauties thrown around and some club biases very apparent. Most constructive award to Stewie for some commonsense, The Hyena award to Norm - hahahaha - and who does Richie Rich support???? But my favourite was " a montage of morons"; priceless and poetic. If only justice was the same?

[brook]

Put very simply, the "player count" rule (5.5) involves far less interpretation that a 'holding the ball' rule (15.2.3), and is a rule that is set fro all association, even the AFL and SANFL. There is no different interpretation, at all, if the captain asks for a player count in any level of football, anywhere in Australia, as according to the official rulebook the player count will be enforced.

So its fairly simple, its a rule, so how can the rule be hard to understand. If it had happened in the first 5 minutes of the first quarter it would've become a gimmick, the circumstances however created the controversy, no different to a free kick at goal after the siren with scores level.

What do the official rules say?
What is the penalty for the crime?

[Lightning McQueen]

I think the forum should award a trophy for the most stupidest - sorry Lethal - comment on the final fiasco. There was some beauties thrown around and some club biases very apparent. Most constructive award to Stewie for some commonsense, The Hyena award to Norm - hahahaha - and who does Richie Rich support???? But my favourite was " a montage of morons"; priceless and poetic. If only justice was the same?

Which one of Lethal's was the winner?

[The Patriach]

Put very simply, the "player count" rule (5.5) involves far less interpretation that a 'holding the ball' rule (15.2.3), and is a rule that is set fro all association, even the AFL and SANFL. There is no different interpretation, at all, if the captain asks for a player count in any level of football, anywhere in Australia, as according to the official rulebook the player count will be enforced.

So its fairly simple, its a rule, so how can the rule be hard to understand. If it had happened in the first 5 minutes of the first quarter it would've become a gimmick, the circumstances however created the controversy, no different to a free kick at goal after the siren with scores level.

What do the official rules say?
What is the penalty for the crime?

5.5 Counting of Players

5.5.1 Request by Captain
The captain or acting captain of a Team may at any time during a Match request that the field Umpire count the number of Players of the opposing Team who are on the Playing Surface.

5.5.2 Procedure
(a) Where a request is made under Law 5.5.1, the field Umpire shall:
(i) stop play at the first available opportunity;
(ii) call into line within the Centre Square the Players of both Teams who are at the time on the Playing Surface and count the number of Players;
(iii) upon completing the count, ensure that each Team has the permitted number of Players on the Playing Surface and then recommence play at the position on the Playing Surface where the field Umpire stopped play; and
(iv) as soon as practicable after the Match, report to the Controlling Body that a request has been made to count the number of Players in a Team and the number of Players actually counted.
(b) The maximum number of Players permitted on the Playing Surface at the same time is 18 per team or, in circumstances where a Player(s) has been ordered from the Playing Surface under Law 20, 18 less the Player(s) ordered from the Playing Surface.

5.5.3 Players Exceeding Permitted Number
Where a Team has more than the permitted number of Players on the Playing Surface, the following shall apply:
(a) a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick to the captain or acting captain of the opposing Team, which shall be taken at the Centre Circle or where play was stopped, whichever is the greater penalty against the offending Team;
(b) a Fifty-Metre Penalty shall then be imposed from the position where the Free Kick was awarded; and
(c) the Team shall lose all points which it has scored in the Match up to the time of the count.

[Old Blue New Tiger]

If the game had not commenced to start the last 1/4 and Roger was heading to the bench then nothing should have happened. We had a game in the GSFL 3 weeks ago Myponga v Yankalilla , the players lined up in position to start the last and Myponga had 19 on the field and the extra was in the centre square. He proceeded to head to the boundary and the umpire didn't start the game until he was off. Common sense prevailed.

Pretty hollow victory I reckon.

[brook]

The only issue would be had the quarter started.
According to both time keepers the clock wasn’t running. Also if the game had of started the umpire surely would of called time on.
Didn’t happen either.
Willaston is not to blame.
The Umpire in question should have started the game then called the count, by that time James would have been off and no questions asked.
Gawler Centrals next week, should be a closer game than the last.
Let the league deal with the ramifications. I hope no one got it on tape for the league’s sake.

[Swamp Donkey]

Thought James coaching in GF last year was 2nd rate
Now this
Club needs to have a good look
Bring back Nelson

Well apparently they have approached Nelson to be director of coaching so there maybe some truth in that.

WOW... the Hamley Bridge A grade coach telling Roger James how to coach...... he must be very highly rated by the BDFC if this is the case.

[scud]

SANFL play that the other team gets a free kick, also the same in AFL. Remember when the new interchange rule came in the AFL. if the ruls was the same as the one in the BL&G then all thoes game would of gone back to zero score.
Will be good to see what Barossa will do this week.

these games your talking about in the AFL are a different case, the man is out there for less than 2 or 3 seconds and is being changed at same time, the only time it could of been done was in a sydney swans game a few years back but the oppostion captain needs to be switched on enough to tell the umpire.... its harsh but by the letter of the law its fair... well done to the donnybrook captain who was switched on.

[scud]

does this mean now that bay 13 is being changed to bay 19????? do you think barossa took the crows idea of the 19th man too far???

[Extractor]

does this mean now that bay 13 is being changed to bay 19????? do you think barossa took the crows idea of the 19th man too far???

I heard liqour licensing were called to Williamstown Saturday night as there were too many people in the Barossa Clubrooms...

[The Patriach]

The only issue would be had the quarter started.
According to both time keepers the clock wasn’t running. Also if the game had of started the umpire surely would of called time on.
Didn’t happen either.
Willaston is not to blame.
The Umpire in question should have started the game then called the count, by that time James would have been off and no questions asked.
It’s just what happens when Dad sends his son to do a man’s job.
Gawler Centrals next week, should be a closer game than the last.
Let the league deal with the ramifications. I hope no one got it on tape for the league’s sake.

brook, the quarter starts when the ball is raised and the whistle is blown
the timing starts when the ball is balled up, therefore the quarter had commenced, started, begun, initiated, etc, etc. Therefore time-on was not needed to be called.

Therefore no ramifications are to be dealt with, apart from possibly adopting a by-law at the AGM dealing with the rule.

[hotspur]

Re: my awards - I'll leave that to others to decide; it was just my suggestions. There were lots of others under consideration - there still are! Perhaps lethal could choose?

[The Gimp]

The only issue would be had the quarter started.
According to both time keepers the clock wasn’t running. Also if the game had of started the umpire surely would of called time on.
Didn’t happen either.
Willaston is not to blame.
The Umpire in question should have started the game then called the count, by that time James would have been off and no questions asked.
It’s just what happens when Dad sends his son to do a man’s job.
Gawler Centrals next week, should be a closer game than the last.
Let the league deal with the ramifications. I hope no one got it on tape for the league’s sake.

Not sure if it's true, but I'd been told that it was the umpire that first noticed it and then asked the capt. if he wanted to call for a count!!

Poor form from the umpire in question and the Willaston capt in my opinion. If it was me, I'd be telling Roger to hurry up and get off and that he owes the opposition a carton for after the game!