Adelaide Plains Football League

[OnSong]

What happens when player X is in the squad but does a hammy a week or two before the association game just like Heberle did and would have been fit by the following club game but not the association game? Subsequently a good player misses a game for his local club as he was not available for the Who-Cares Cup or whatever its called...

As above, the suspension applies.
And as for the who cares cup, that's the attitude the rule is in place to counter.

I understand thats what the league is trying to avoid but who benefits from a win over YPFL or NEFL? apart from the players/coaches and the league committee then I can't see too many....

Depends on your attitude. I believe every game at the next level is a benefit, whether it's just from meeting new blokes or challenging yourself at the next step up, there's benefits there if you want to look for them.

It's also about giving something back to the league in some respects. It's an honour to represent your association, so it shouldn't be about "what's in it for me".

[RooShootOhh]

What happens when player X is in the squad but does a hammy a week or two before the association game just like Heberle did and would have been fit by the following club game but not the association game? Subsequently a good player misses a game for his local club as he was not available for the Who-Cares Cup or whatever its called...

As above, the suspension applies.
And as for the who cares cup, that's the attitude the rule is in place to counter.

I understand thats what the league is trying to avoid but who benefits from a win over YPFL or NEFL? apart from the players/coaches and the league committee then I can't see too many....

Depends on your attitude. I believe every game at the next level is a benefit, whether it's just from meeting new blokes or challenging yourself at the next step up, there's benefits there if you want to look for them.

It's also about giving something back to the league in some respects. It's an honour to represent your association, so it shouldn't be about "what's in it for me".

So blokes like Wilson and Herbele who probably have the exact same attitude as you OnSong, and have more than likely happily played plenty of Rep footy get penalised.... So the rule was put in place to counter bad attitudes, actually punishes good attitudes as well???

[norm11]

After speaking to hebs on Sunday he said he would have trained and even probably played if selected, just so he could have given him self the chance to play the next week. From what I understand it's a niggling hammy injurie. Andy told him not to train cause he seen him go off injured on Saturday. So for anybody else in the same boat from now on ignor the coach and train. It's a shambles.

[OnSong]

After speaking to hebs on Sunday he said he would have trained and even probably played if selected, just so he could have given him self the chance to play the next week. From what I understand it's a niggling hammy injurie. Andy told him not to train cause he seen him go off injured on Saturday. So for anybody else in the same boat from now on ignor the coach and train. It's a shambles.

So, you would prefer he played injured, and injured himself worse and was out for a month than miss the one week because Andy had the player's best interests at heart?

[OnSong]

As above, the suspension applies.
And as for the who cares cup, that's the attitude the rule is in place to counter.

I understand thats what the league is trying to avoid but who benefits from a win over YPFL or NEFL? apart from the players/coaches and the league committee then I can't see too many....

Depends on your attitude. I believe every game at the next level is a benefit, whether it's just from meeting new blokes or challenging yourself at the next step up, there's benefits there if you want to look for them.

It's also about giving something back to the league in some respects. It's an honour to represent your association, so it shouldn't be about "what's in it for me".

So blokes like Wilson and Herbele who probably have the exact same attitude as you OnSong, and have more than likely happily played plenty of Rep footy get penalised.... So the rule was put in place to counter bad attitudes, actually punishes good attitudes as well???

Yes. As I have written earlier.

From the today's Plains Producer, page 19:

THE rule regarding suspending players for not making themselves available for association duties has again attracted scrutiny.
The Adelaide Plains Football League constitution states: “Any player selected to play in any interleague match or matches, who neglects or refuses to train or play in such match or matches, will not be eligible to play there next club match.”
The rule applies whether the player is injured or not, to avoid rorting of the system through feigned injury.
APFL coach, Andy Michael, openly criticises the rule, claiming it is punishing players with genuine interest in playing association football.
For example, Joel Wilson was unavailable to play through injury on the weekend.
He will be suspended for this week’s clash for Hummocks-Watchman Eagles against United.
Mallala’s Jason Earl, if he were selected in the squad, would be in the same boat.
“We can’t be suspending the Joel Wilsons and Jason Earls, who are two of the league’s greatest association football stalwarts in the last 10 years,” Michael said.
He believed players who missed their club game through injury the week before the association match should be exempt from suspension.
Several players were suspended for their upcoming fixtures, including Virginia’s Chris James and Adrian Mark, who pulled out of the selected squad through injury, no doubt causing frustration for clubs and coaches.
“It comes back on the coach and selectors and that’s not right,” Michael said.
Michael was generally critical of suspending players who claim they are injured.
“How do we know they are not injured, or perhaps I’m the only one who thinks like that?” he posed.
“Blokes who want to play will play if they’re fit.”
He said he will be looking to amend the rule through discussions with the league later this year.

[Extractor]

After speaking to hebs on Sunday he said he would have trained and even probably played if selected, just so he could have given him self the chance to play the next week. From what I understand it's a niggling hammy injurie. Andy told him not to train cause he seen him go off injured on Saturday. So for anybody else in the same boat from now on ignor the coach and train. It's a shambles.

So, you would prefer he played injured, and injured himself worse and was out for a month than miss the one week because Andy had the player's best interests at heart?

I'm pretty sure everyone concerned would rather an injured player missed the match that he was actually injured for and not any extra games because he happened to be injured association week...

[OnSong]

After speaking to hebs on Sunday he said he would have trained and even probably played if selected, just so he could have given him self the chance to play the next week. From what I understand it's a niggling hammy injurie. Andy told him not to train cause he seen him go off injured on Saturday. So for anybody else in the same boat from now on ignor the coach and train. It's a shambles.

So, you would prefer he played injured, and injured himself worse and was out for a month than miss the one week because Andy had the player's best interests at heart?

I'm pretty sure everyone concerned would rather an injured player missed the match that he was actually injured for and not any extra games because he happened to be injured association week...

I dunno, I just think you can't blame a coach for not selecting a player who he saw get injured the week before.

[RooShootOhh]

Yes. As I have written earlier.

From the today's Plains Producer, page 19:

THE rule regarding suspending players for not making themselves available for association duties has again attracted scrutiny.
The Adelaide Plains Football League constitution states: “Any player selected to play in any interleague match or matches, who neglects or refuses to train or play in such match or matches, will not be eligible to play there next club match.”
The rule applies whether the player is injured or not, to avoid rorting of the system through feigned injury.
APFL coach, Andy Michael, openly criticises the rule, claiming it is punishing players with genuine interest in playing association football.
For example, Joel Wilson was unavailable to play through injury on the weekend.
He will be suspended for this week’s clash for Hummocks-Watchman Eagles against United.
Mallala’s Jason Earl, if he were selected in the squad, would be in the same boat.
“We can’t be suspending the Joel Wilsons and Jason Earls, who are two of the league’s greatest association football stalwarts in the last 10 years,” Michael said.
He believed players who missed their club game through injury the week before the association match should be exempt from suspension.
Several players were suspended for their upcoming fixtures, including Virginia’s Chris James and Adrian Mark, who pulled out of the selected squad through injury, no doubt causing frustration for clubs and coaches.
“It comes back on the coach and selectors and that’s not right,” Michael said.
Michael was generally critical of suspending players who claim they are injured.
“How do we know they are not injured, or perhaps I’m the only one who thinks like that?” he posed.
“Blokes who want to play will play if they’re fit.”
He said he will be looking to amend the rule through discussions with the league later this year.

The rule states neglects or refuses to train or play, so in this case didn't the bloke put his hand up to train (neither neglecting nor refusing) CASE CLOSED free to play. He cant help it the coach advised him not to train whether the coach had his best interests at heart are irrelevant, because it was not the desired outcome from either party!

[RooShootOhh]

After speaking to hebs on Sunday he said he would have trained and even probably played if selected, just so he could have given him self the chance to play the next week. From what I understand it's a niggling hammy injurie. Andy told him not to train cause he seen him go off injured on Saturday. So for anybody else in the same boat from now on ignor the coach and train. It's a shambles.

So, you would prefer he played injured, and injured himself worse and was out for a month than miss the one week because Andy had the player's best interests at heart?

I'm pretty sure everyone concerned would rather an injured player missed the match that he was actually injured for and not any extra games because he happened to be injured association week...

I dunno, I just think you can't blame a coach for not selecting a player who he saw get injured the week before.

I don't think anyone is blaming the coach mate, just the circumstances the league put in place which, in the end, make every decision around representation an important one.

[OnSong]

Yes. As I have written earlier.

From the today's Plains Producer, page 19:

THE rule regarding suspending players for not making themselves available for association duties has again attracted scrutiny.
The Adelaide Plains Football League constitution states: “Any player selected to play in any interleague match or matches, who neglects or refuses to train or play in such match or matches, will not be eligible to play their next club match.”
The rule applies whether the player is injured or not, to avoid rorting of the system through feigned injury.
APFL coach, Andy Michael, openly criticises the rule, claiming it is punishing players with genuine interest in playing association football.
For example, Joel Wilson was unavailable to play through injury on the weekend.
He will be suspended for this week’s clash for Hummocks-Watchman Eagles against United.
Mallala’s Jason Earl, if he were selected in the squad, would be in the same boat.
“We can’t be suspending the Joel Wilsons and Jason Earls, who are two of the league’s greatest association football stalwarts in the last 10 years,” Michael said.
He believed players who missed their club game through injury the week before the association match should be exempt from suspension.
Several players were suspended for their upcoming fixtures, including Virginia’s Chris James and Adrian Mark, who pulled out of the selected squad through injury, no doubt causing frustration for clubs and coaches.
“It comes back on the coach and selectors and that’s not right,” Michael said.
Michael was generally critical of suspending players who claim they are injured.
“How do we know they are not injured, or perhaps I’m the only one who thinks like that?” he posed.
“Blokes who want to play will play if they’re fit.”
He said he will be looking to amend the rule through discussions with the league later this year.

The rule states neglects or refuses to train or play, so in this case didn't the bloke put his hand up to train (neither neglecting nor refusing) CASE CLOSED free to play. He cant help it the coach advised him not to train whether the coach had his best interests at heart are irrelevant, because it was not the desired outcome from either party!

I agree totally but again, it's not my call. It's not Andy's call.

[OnSong]

The thing is, if the rules bend for some, at some stage there will be accusations of partiality and unfairness etc etc.

The rule is a fair way short of perfect but it's either all or nothing, really.

[Lightning McQueen]

The thing is, if the rules bend for some, at some stage there will be accusations of partiality and unfairness etc etc.

The rule is a fair way short of perfect but it's either all or nothing, really.

Don't the club delegates vote on the rules.

[RooShootOhh]

The thing is, if the rules bend for some, at some stage there will be accusations of partiality and unfairness etc etc.

The rule is a fair way short of perfect but it's either all or nothing, really.

The rule is poorly written, and this bloke in question, by all reports on here, didn't break it the way it is currently written, wouldn't hold up anywhere that has some credability.

What if any of these players who would have loved to have played (and that may not be all of them agreed) loses a club B&F or a Mail medal for that matter because of missing a game or being ineligable simply because they were injured on the wrong weekend according to the association??

[Lightning McQueen]

The thing is, if the rules bend for some, at some stage there will be accusations of partiality and unfairness etc etc.

The rule is a fair way short of perfect but it's either all or nothing, really.

The rule is poorly written, and this bloke in question, by all reports on here, didn't break it the way it is currently written, wouldn't hold up anywhere that has some credability.

What if any of these players who would have loved to have played (and that may not be all of them agreed) loses a club B&F or a Mail medal for that matter because of missing a game or being ineligable simply because they were injured on the wrong weekend according to the association??

You're barking at the wrong cyclist mate, OS isn't the postie.

[OnSong]

The thing is, if the rules bend for some, at some stage there will be accusations of partiality and unfairness etc etc.

The rule is a fair way short of perfect but it's either all or nothing, really.

The rule is poorly written, and this bloke in question, by all reports on here, didn't break it the way it is currently written, wouldn't hold up anywhere that has some credability.

What if any of these players who would have loved to have played (and that may not be all of them agreed) loses a club B&F or a Mail medal for that matter because of missing a game or being ineligable simply because they were injured on the wrong weekend according to the association??

You know the answer to that question.

As for Hebs' case, he was injured, there is no denying that. He is in the same boat as all the other injured blokes. Just because his injury wasn't as severe doesn't change anything.

It sucks, yes, but that's the rule. As SD said, he would have been picked if he was fit but he wasn't. End of story. Or the start of one I guess.

[OnSong]

The thing is, if the rules bend for some, at some stage there will be accusations of partiality and unfairness etc etc.

The rule is a fair way short of perfect but it's either all or nothing, really.

The rule is poorly written, and this bloke in question, by all reports on here, didn't break it the way it is currently written, wouldn't hold up anywhere that has some credability.

What if any of these players who would have loved to have played (and that may not be all of them agreed) loses a club B&F or a Mail medal for that matter because of missing a game or being ineligable simply because they were injured on the wrong weekend according to the association??

You're barking at the wrong cyclist mate, OS isn't the postie.

I'm happy to clarify things but I reckon we're rehashing old ground here.

I'm sure HB will put their case to the league, who will in turn reject that case, the week will be served, people won't be happy, life goes on.

[Lightning McQueen]

I'm happy to clarify things but I reckon we're rehashing old ground here.

I'm sure HB will put their case to the league, who will in turn reject that case, the week will be served, people won't be happy, life goes on.

Absolutely, you beer swilling drunkard, flogging a dead horse that wont change until at least next season.
There are too many grey area's to find any resolution short term.

[OnSong]

In other news, Balaklava's Aaron Cocks did his AC joint at training on Tuesday night.

In for surgery this week I reckon. Possibly season ending. Unlucky for the young fella.

[Lightning McQueen]

Who's playing who this week?

[OnSong]

Who's playing who this week?

Balak v TW
HWE v United
HB v Mallala