Adelaide Plains Football League

[Lightning McQueen]

Who's playing who this week?

Balak v TW
HWE v United
HB v Mallala

United would have to be in with a big sniff to causing an upset at Port Wakefield, Hamley have their best chance at knocking off the more fancied Mallala aswell.

[OnSong]

Who's playing who this week?

Balak v TW
HWE v United
HB v Mallala

United would have to be in with a big sniff to causing an upset at Port Wakefield, Hamley have their best chance at knocking off the more fancied Mallala aswell.

United without Banton and Mills. HWE without everyone.

HB will have a fair battle on its hands without Heberle. Plenty of depth at Mallala

[Lightning McQueen]

United without Banton and Mills. HWE without everyone.

HB will have a fair battle on its hands without Heberle. Plenty of depth at Mallala

Thach to turn it on big time, his mate Hanson will give him the support and kick a bag. The Mallala depth must surely be getting tested, they were semi depleted against Virginia and capitalized on the Rams' poor disposal.

[jumbo]

“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.”

He we go again - I have been trying to stay out of it but couldn't help but put my 2c worth in - again.

Can someone please explain to me (and everyone else) in the example of injured players (and specifically in Heberle's case) where the negligence and refusal is? Inability to train or play due to injury is neither neglect or refusal on the players behalf. I am sorry but Andy cannot sit out and take no responsibility for this, he has been association coach now for 3 campaigns (maybe 4) and should know how the dill's running the show will interpret this rule. He should have told all players to hit the track because he knows what the ridiculous rulings will be, as we have seen the past few years.

It is time the ruling was challenged, I don't have an issue with the wording, I have an issue with the interpretation.

Any potential player who has been told not to train by the coach is neither negligent or refusing anything and the 1 week suspension of such a player using the rule above is un-constitutional.

One more thing - I hope you transcribed it wrong On Song, surely there is not a spelling mistake in the constitution!!

[norm11]

Well jumbo I don't normally agree with to much u have to say but this time I have to congratulate u on a fantastic post

[OnSong]

“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.”

He we go again - I have been trying to stay out of it but couldn't help but put my 2c worth in - again.

Can someone please explain to me (and everyone else) in the example of injured players (and specifically in Heberle's case) where the negligence and refusal is? Inability to train or play due to injury is neither neglect or refusal on the players behalf. I am sorry but Andy cannot sit out and take no responsibility for this, he has been association coach now for 3 campaigns (maybe 4) and should know how the dill's running the show will interpret this rule. He should have told all players to hit the track because he knows what the ridiculous rulings will be, as we have seen the past few years.

It is time the ruling was challenged, I don't have an issue with the wording, I have an issue with the interpretation.

Any potential player who has been told not to train by the coach is neither negligent or refusing anything and the 1 week suspension of such a player using the rule above is un-constitutional.

One more thing - I hope you transcribed it wrong On Song, surely there is not a spelling mistake in the constitution!!

Well, I would call it a grammatical error and not a spelling error but yeah, I copied it from Wangas post I reckon.

Think I may have edited it somewhere along the line.

How's this for a twist, Feast not suspended. I'm giving up trying to understand it but I reckon this will be the end of the rule.

[Dizzee Rascal]

Balak -39
Mallala 40+
HWE -39

[hanno_7]

Balak 40+
hamley -39
HWE -39

[Swamp Donkey]

If Feast doesn't get a week that is a joke.

On a side note, who is currently on the APFL board and which clubs do they originate. I know there has been a few changes over the last year or two.

[OnSong]

If Feast doesn't get a week that is a joke.

On a side note, who is currently on the APFL board and which clubs do they originate. I know there has been a few changes over the last year or two.

President: Brad Busch
VP: Rocco Musolino
Directors:
Andy Seccafien
Martyn Bell
Colin Jenner
Mick Coe

[OnSong]

If Feast doesn't get a week that is a joke.

I heard he had a doctor's certificate and didn't play the week before through injury.

I think this will be the last year this rule applies.

[Lightning McQueen]

If Feast doesn't get a week that is a joke.

I heard he had a doctor's certificate and didn't play the week before through injury.

I think this will be the last year this rule applies.

Does a note from your mum count?

[norm11]

Only If ur one if the under 21s.

[alabama slammer]

balak 1-39
tigers 1-39
pies 40+

[Mythical Creature]

Two Wells 1-39
United 1-39
Mallala 40+

[OnSong]

Balak 1-39
HWE 1-39
Mallala 40+

[Bob Loblaw]

Balak 1-39
United 1-39
Mallala 40+

[Scratched]

Feast missed the week before last because he was at the Sturt Premiership reunion.. not because of any injury.

[Swamp Donkey]

Feast missed the week before last because he was at the Sturt Premiership reunion.. not because of any injury.

So his Doctor put that on his medical certificate?

[jumbo]

Two Wells 1-39
United 1-39
Mallala 40+