areaman wrote:Dols wrote:was a quiet bottle of red, dam forgot to set my alarm!!!!!!
Since when did Port fans start drinking quiet bottles of red?
Next you'll say you've been up all night reading poetry or something.
He means a cask of goon
by bennymacca » Fri May 23, 2014 12:29 pm
areaman wrote:Dols wrote:was a quiet bottle of red, dam forgot to set my alarm!!!!!!
Since when did Port fans start drinking quiet bottles of red?
Next you'll say you've been up all night reading poetry or something.
by SimonH » Fri May 23, 2014 5:38 pm
Have a look at rule 2.1. The laws are binding on, and give certain powers in relation to Controlling Bodies. A Controlling Body is defined to include:kickinit wrote:You do realise the laws of the game that the SANFL play under are written by the AFL. Also if the SANFL want to change any rules for their competition (e.g. 50mtr rule to 25mtr) they have to apply to the AFL to change it. Below is the link from the SANFL page laws of the game. You will notice on the front page the big AFL logo just above the Laws of Australian football 2014. You should also read rule 2.3.
http://www.sanfl.com.au/umpires/laws_of_the_game/
.any league, association or body responsible for the organisation
and conduct of Matches of Australian Football, who has
determined to play such Matches in accordance with these Laws
by johntheclaret » Fri May 23, 2014 6:06 pm
SimonH wrote:Have a look at rule 2.1. The laws are binding on, and give certain powers in relation to Controlling Bodies. A Controlling Body is defined to include:kickinit wrote:You do realise the laws of the game that the SANFL play under are written by the AFL. Also if the SANFL want to change any rules for their competition (e.g. 50mtr rule to 25mtr) they have to apply to the AFL to change it. Below is the link from the SANFL page laws of the game. You will notice on the front page the big AFL logo just above the Laws of Australian football 2014. You should also read rule 2.3.
http://www.sanfl.com.au/umpires/laws_of_the_game/.any league, association or body responsible for the organisation
and conduct of Matches of Australian Football, who has
determined to play such Matches in accordance with these Laws
That means, 'those bodies that choose to be bound by these Laws, are bound by these Laws'. And state leagues (and other sub-state league comps) choose to be bound by them, because the AFL would stamp its feet and threaten to turn off the money tap if they didn't. In terms of legitimacy, it's simply 'we're here because we're here'.
There is actually great accuracy in the title page: they truly are the 'AFL Laws of Australian Football' and not the official and only laws of Australian football, because there is no such thing. There is only a private body, with no particular mandate other than that it's the successor to the VFL, is based in the most populous football-playing state, and it controls the cash—plus with the abolition of the ANFC/NFC by about the 1980s, it has no meaningful competitor as the entirely self-appointed 'guardian of the game'. But if the AFL went belly-up tomorrow, then the game of Australian Rules football would hardly cease to exist; and the broad agreements, and slight regional differences, in how it's played wouldn't change, either.
Cricket realised quite a few decades ago that there was an inherent conflict in having the game worldwide administered by a private club ('Marylebone Cricket Club') that also had the interests of the private club to look after. (As a nice historical aside, the rump function of the MCC which is still delegated to it by the ICC, is to amend and control the laws of cricket.) Hopefully the AFL will come to that same realisation in our lifetime, and there will be a demerger/split and a new body created. The AFL is either the successor to the VFL where it's looking after the interests of the VFL clubs plus a few franchises that have been brought in to prop them up and expand the value of the TV rights, or it's the custodian of the game in Australia and worldwide. It can't be both.
by kickinit » Fri May 23, 2014 7:09 pm
SimonH wrote:Have a look at rule 2.1. The laws are binding on, and give certain powers in relation to Controlling Bodies. A Controlling Body is defined to include:kickinit wrote:You do realise the laws of the game that the SANFL play under are written by the AFL. Also if the SANFL want to change any rules for their competition (e.g. 50mtr rule to 25mtr) they have to apply to the AFL to change it. Below is the link from the SANFL page laws of the game. You will notice on the front page the big AFL logo just above the Laws of Australian football 2014. You should also read rule 2.3.
http://www.sanfl.com.au/umpires/laws_of_the_game/.any league, association or body responsible for the organisation
and conduct of Matches of Australian Football, who has
determined to play such Matches in accordance with these Laws
That means, 'those bodies that choose to be bound by these Laws, are bound by these Laws'. And state leagues (and other sub-state league comps) choose to be bound by them, because the AFL would stamp its feet and threaten to turn off the money tap if they didn't. In terms of legitimacy, it's simply 'we're here because we're here'.
There is actually great accuracy in the title page: they truly are the 'AFL Laws of Australian Football' and not the official and only laws of Australian football, because there is no such thing. There is only a private body, with no particular mandate other than that it's the successor to the VFL, is based in the most populous football-playing state, and it controls the cash—plus with the abolition of the ANFC/NFC by about the 1980s, it has no meaningful competitor as the entirely self-appointed 'guardian of the game'. But if the AFL went belly-up tomorrow, then the game of Australian Rules football would hardly cease to exist; and the broad agreements, and slight regional differences, in how it's played wouldn't change, either.
Cricket realised quite a few decades ago that there was an inherent conflict in having the game worldwide administered by a private club ('Marylebone Cricket Club') that also had the interests of the private club to look after. (As a nice historical aside, the rump function of the MCC which is still delegated to it by the ICC, is to amend and control the laws of cricket.) Hopefully the AFL will come to that same realisation in our lifetime, and there will be a demerger/split and a new body created. The AFL is either the successor to the VFL where it's looking after the interests of the VFL clubs plus a few franchises that have been brought in to prop them up and expand the value of the TV rights, or it's the custodian of the game in Australia and worldwide. It can't be both.
The AFL is recognised by the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) as the governing body responsible for the management and development of Australian Football in Australia
by StrayDog » Fri May 23, 2014 8:59 pm
kickinit wrote:The AFL is recognised by the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) as the governing body responsible for the management and development of Australian Football in Australia
http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20 ... Policy.pdf
by twosheds » Sat May 24, 2014 12:16 am
bennymacca wrote:So what is Andy otten's priority when he plays reserves?
And how does that differ from what the club wants for him?
by bennymacca » Sat May 24, 2014 2:22 am
by JK » Sat May 24, 2014 3:42 am
bennymacca wrote:That already happened last year when he would have been playing for another club...
by twosheds » Sat May 24, 2014 8:39 am
bennymacca wrote:That already happened last year when he would have been playing for another club...
by bennymacca » Sat May 24, 2014 10:13 am
JK wrote:bennymacca wrote:That already happened last year when he would have been playing for another club...
So you're trying to change the direction of the discussion back to last year when there were no AFL clubs in the comp? Exactly what do you want again??
by tipper » Sat May 24, 2014 11:42 am
bennymacca wrote:JK wrote:bennymacca wrote:That already happened last year when he would have been playing for another club...
So you're trying to change the direction of the discussion back to last year when there were no AFL clubs in the comp? Exactly what do you want again??
A rational discussion about this and for people to stop making stupid statements.
Saying they won't try to win for whatever reason is stupid. Particularly with the way port are going. Why didn't they take the foot off the gas against glenelg when they were 10 goals up?
And I want an afl reserves comp
by Apachebulldog » Sat May 24, 2014 12:02 pm
by topsywaldron » Sat May 24, 2014 2:42 pm
by CedeNullis » Sat May 24, 2014 8:04 pm
by Wedgie » Sat May 24, 2014 8:19 pm
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by wild dog » Sat May 24, 2014 8:46 pm
bennymacca wrote:JK wrote:bennymacca wrote:That already happened last year when he would have been playing for another club...
So you're trying to change the direction of the discussion back to last year when there were no AFL clubs in the comp? Exactly what do you want again??
A rational discussion about this and for people to stop making stupid statements.
Saying they won't try to win for whatever reason is stupid. Particularly with the way port are going. Why didn't they take the foot off the gas against glenelg when they were 10 goals up?
And I want an afl reserves comp
by wild dog » Sat May 24, 2014 8:55 pm
topsywaldron wrote:Just emailed this to Chris Davies.
The challenge for the decision makers at the SANFL over the last few years has been to subtly reposition the competition as a community based, affordable alternative to the AFL. The example of Phil Herden at The Eagles should have been your template for community engagement and involvement.
by daysofourlives » Sat May 24, 2014 9:31 pm
wild dog wrote:bennymacca wrote:JK wrote:bennymacca wrote:That already happened last year when he would have been playing for another club...
So you're trying to change the direction of the discussion back to last year when there were no AFL clubs in the comp? Exactly what do you want again??
A rational discussion about this and for people to stop making stupid statements.
Saying they won't try to win for whatever reason is stupid. Particularly with the way port are going. Why didn't they take the foot off the gas against glenelg when they were 10 goals up?
And I want an afl reserves comp
Come on Benny answer twosheds.
Did you go to todays game Benny?
by klaan » Sat May 24, 2014 11:27 pm
wild dog wrote:topsywaldron wrote:Just emailed this to Chris Davies.
The challenge for the decision makers at the SANFL over the last few years has been to subtly reposition the competition as a community based, affordable alternative to the AFL. The example of Phil Herden at The Eagles should have been your template for community engagement and involvement.
by Dols » Sat May 24, 2014 11:36 pm
because no one cares what you have to say.klaan wrote:wild dog wrote:topsywaldron wrote:Just emailed this to Chris Davies.
The challenge for the decision makers at the SANFL over the last few years has been to subtly reposition the competition as a community based, affordable alternative to the AFL. The example of Phil Herden at The Eagles should have been your template for community engagement and involvement.
Nice work Topsy, pity you didn't send it to Tripode and the other directors who voted yes, Olson and Whicker and the rest of the commission. As much as the decision annoys me, at least Davis fronts unlike the rest of them. We haven't heard boo from anyone else which shows the lack of leadership in SA football.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |