2025 Adelaide Footy League - Division 2

[jo172]

That the coaches declined to remove him from the ground after that isn't great either ...

[AdelaideSaint73]

To borrow an old Rex Hunt-ism, that was sheizenhausen.

Absolute dog shot.

Can not believe he wasn't carded in the moment. Ump is right there. Then following the dog act he gets a goal for his trouble.

One of the biggest sooks, and most selfish players I've ever come across in the game. And a filthy sniper as it turns out.

[whufc]

To borrow an old Rex Hunt-ism, that was sheizenhausen.

Absolute dog shot.

Can not believe he wasn't carded in the moment. Ump is right there. Then following the dog act he gets a goal for his trouble.

One of the biggest sooks, and most selfish players I've ever come across in the game. And a filthy sniper as it turns out.

Another one of those blokes.....4 clubs in 5 years.

When you see that it has to be the biggest red flag ever, its normally not ones football ability that sees them move around that much. Yet clubs still get sucked in.

[marbles]

6 goals up at 3/4 time sharks went bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, kicked 6 in the last in an otherwise good contest with flinders park

[marbles]

An even game at Pertaringa Oval where both teams kicked around 3 goals per quarter, except for the third quarter where the sharks went bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, kicked 6 goals to get ahead in an otherwise good contest with TTG

[locky801]

An even game at Pertaringa Oval where both teams kicked around 3 goals per quarter, except for the third quarter where the sharks went bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, kicked 6 goals to get ahead in an otherwise good contest with TTG

your going to get stuck soon, surely no side will have a game in the same week of not kicking 6 in a quarter

[mighty hounds]

Hey DTH, this question would be up your alley.
Can players be cleared after June 30 for any reason?
Heard on the grapevine that a Port top up player, who was playing in the BLG was cleared on Friday to an Old
scholars team in this div. Apparently was pushed through with the help of HQ and clubs have been told a told a different excuse for the approval.

Said club must have used the same approach Scotch did when they wanted a player approved for finals who hadn’t qualified.

[Down the Hill]

But it wasn’t a clearance MH. Even as a Port or Crows top up player it means the player gets transferred to Port or Crows when he first became a top up and any footy he plays at community level is on a Permit whilst still on the top up list. This is how the whole SANFL has operated for 3 or more years for U18 upwards. Take a look at many U17.5 team lists on PlayHQ and you will see plenty of lads with SP next to their name for that very reason.

So this may have created some unintended consequences with long established transfer rules. But SANFL clubs will quite rightfully want their players playing somewhere at all times of the season if they don’t get picked at SANFL level. If for whatever the reason the original permit club and Port and/or player had cause to cancel the permit then there currently appears to be no proper grounds for a community league to prevent a permit with another club even if after 30 June because the whole 30 June thing is based around transfers not permits. But this has clearly created a loophole that doesn’t seem to pass the pub test and maybe should be addressed ahead of next season. The club in question lost to the bottom team on Saturday with the Permit player on the park so maybe a bit of karma at play.

[whufc]

But it wasn’t a clearance MH. Even as a Port or Crows top up player it means the player gets transferred to Port or Crows when he first became a top up and any footy he plays at community level is on a Permit whilst still on the top up list. This is how the whole SANFL has operated for 3 or more years for U18 upwards. Take a look at many U17.5 team lists on PlayHQ and you will see plenty of lads with SP next to their name for that very reason.

So this may have created some unintended consequences with long established transfer rules. But SANFL clubs will quite rightfully want their players playing somewhere at all times of the season if they don’t get picked at SANFL level. If for whatever the reason the original permit club and Port and/or player had cause to cancel the permit then there currently appears to be no proper grounds for a community league to prevent a permit with another club even if after 30 June because the whole 30 June thing is based around transfers not permits. But this has clearly created a loophole that doesn’t seem to pass the pub test and maybe should be addressed ahead of next season. The club in question lost to the bottom team on Saturday with the Permit player on the park so maybe a bit of karma at play.

Also.....

And not that its anything like the above scenario but players can get a transfer after the June 30 deadline if they are moving interstate for work reasons.

[Hack]

Hey DTH, this question would be up your alley.
Can players be cleared after June 30 for any reason?
Heard on the grapevine that a Port top up player, who was playing in the BLG was cleared on Friday to an Old
scholars team in this div. Apparently was pushed through with the help of HQ and clubs have been told a told a different excuse for the approval.

Said club must have used the same approach Scotch did when they wanted a player approved for finals who hadn’t qualified.

In my experience the only reasons clearances like that/magic qualifications for finals get approved is because an Old Scholars team pulled some strings with the league to get it done.

[Mr Beefy]

3.7.4 In exceptional circumstances a State Body may approve an intrastate Transfer (or the relevant State
Bodies may jointly approve an interstate Transfer) after 30 June in each year
3.17 24 MONTH RULE
3.17.1 A player who has not played competitive football in the previous 24 months and wishes to play at
another Club can apply for registration with that Club at any time. The player’s Former Club cannot
object to the Transfer under any circumstances.
3.17.2 Should the player or, where the player is a Junior Player, that player’s parent or legal guardian lodge
the relevant Transfer Request within the Transfer Periods, the player will be registered with the
Destination Club using the normal Competition Management Platform Transfer process.
3.17.3 Should the player or, where the player is a Junior Player, that player’s parent or legal guardian lodge
the relevant Transfer Request outside of the Transfer Periods, only the destination League that the
player intends to register with can process the registration using the Competition Management
Platform Transfer process

[mighty hounds]

But it wasn’t a clearance MH. Even as a Port or Crows top up player it means the player gets transferred to Port or Crows when he first became a top up and any footy he plays at community level is on a Permit whilst still on the top up list. This is how the whole SANFL has operated for 3 or more years for U18 upwards. Take a look at many U17.5 team lists on PlayHQ and you will see plenty of lads with SP next to their name for that very reason.

So this may have created some unintended consequences with long established transfer rules. But SANFL clubs will quite rightfully want their players playing somewhere at all times of the season if they don’t get picked at SANFL level. If for whatever the reason the original permit club and Port and/or player had cause to cancel the permit then there currently appears to be no proper grounds for a community league to prevent a permit with another club even if after 30 June because the whole 30 June thing is based around transfers not permits. But this has clearly created a loophole that doesn’t seem to pass the pub test and maybe should be addressed ahead of next season. The club in question lost to the bottom team on Saturday with the Permit player on the park so maybe a bit of karma at play.

Interesting regarding the loopholes DTH. I thought said loopholes were closed after Westminster exploited them a
Couple seasons ago. Guess that’s one advantage for old scholar clubs

[Down the Hill]

Some of you are missing the point. A Permit is not a Transfer/Clearance. Any rule or regulation that makes reference to a Transfer is completely different to any rules (or lack of rules) relating to Permits. Mighty Hounds asked me about a player being 'cleared' after 30 June but the facts are that he hasn't been cleared/transferred anywhere. He has had a Permit changed from one club to another and this is where some of the Rules and Regs across community footy in SA may have some gaps when it comes this type of Permit scenario.

[Old Red]

But it wasn’t a clearance MH. Even as a Port or Crows top up player it means the player gets transferred to Port or Crows when he first became a top up and any footy he plays at community level is on a Permit whilst still on the top up list. This is how the whole SANFL has operated for 3 or more years for U18 upwards. Take a look at many U17.5 team lists on PlayHQ and you will see plenty of lads with SP next to their name for that very reason.

So this may have created some unintended consequences with long established transfer rules. But SANFL clubs will quite rightfully want their players playing somewhere at all times of the season if they don’t get picked at SANFL level. If for whatever the reason the original permit club and Port and/or player had cause to cancel the permit then there currently appears to be no proper grounds for a community league to prevent a permit with another club even if after 30 June because the whole 30 June thing is based around transfers not permits. But this has clearly created a loophole that doesn’t seem to pass the pub test and maybe should be addressed ahead of next season. The club in question lost to the bottom team on Saturday with the Permit player on the park so maybe a bit of karma at play.

Interesting regarding the loopholes DTH. I thought said loopholes were closed after Westminster exploited them a
Couple seasons ago. Guess that’s one advantage for old scholar clubs

You mean the one where the league took the match off them and then Westminster took the league to court over it ? That was a real good example of HQ doing them a favour and your conspiracy theories.

[scottroo]

Permits after June 30 are nothing new. Austin Harris quit north Adelaide and was permitted to kilburn in round 15 last year and ended up a premiership player

[Down the Hill]

With Westminster my recall is the league went down swinging on that one and it was a higher authority that overruled the leagues decision to take points off WOS for a 'dodgy permit'.

[wenchbarwer]

With Westminster my recall is the league went down swinging on that one and it was a higher authority that overruled the leagues decision to take points off WOS for a 'dodgy permit'.

Was the the loophole where you couldn't get a permit if your original league has a bye that round?

[Down the Hill]

It was 2022 and despite all the messaging around not being able to play someone on a Permit when all the country leagues had a BYE for Country Champs - WOS were of the opinion that because the South Augusta player played for them the season before then it was OK to play him on a Permit provided South Augusta and the SGL approved it - which they did.

The 'loophole' ended up being a court deciding that a PlayHQ setting that Auto-Approved Permits at the AdFL end of the Permit approval process was good enough to overrule the AdFL Rules and Regs. Pretty sure things have been put in place since then that can't allow that to happen again.

And this is no different to the many country leagues that have an odd number of teams and have a team with a BYE every week. You just can't bring in a bloke on a Permit for a one-off game in that situation whether he's played for you previously or not.

[Lightning McQueen]

An even game at Pertaringa Oval where both teams kicked around 3 goals per quarter, except for the third quarter where the sharks went bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, kicked 6 goals to get ahead in an otherwise good contest with TTG

your going to get stuck soon, surely no side will have a game in the same week of not kicking 6 in a quarter

It will just be bang, bang, bang, bang.

[AdelaideSaint73]

But it wasn’t a clearance MH. Even as a Port or Crows top up player it means the player gets transferred to Port or Crows when he first became a top up and any footy he plays at community level is on a Permit whilst still on the top up list. This is how the whole SANFL has operated for 3 or more years for U18 upwards. Take a look at many U17.5 team lists on PlayHQ and you will see plenty of lads with SP next to their name for that very reason.

So this may have created some unintended consequences with long established transfer rules. But SANFL clubs will quite rightfully want their players playing somewhere at all times of the season if they don’t get picked at SANFL level. If for whatever the reason the original permit club and Port and/or player had cause to cancel the permit then there currently appears to be no proper grounds for a community league to prevent a permit with another club even if after 30 June because the whole 30 June thing is based around transfers not permits. But this has clearly created a loophole that doesn’t seem to pass the pub test and maybe should be addressed ahead of next season. The club in question lost to the bottom team on Saturday with the Permit player on the park so maybe a bit of karma at play.

His club in the BLG league told him they couldn't fit him in their points anymore, after recruiting a player out of Div 1 footy just before June 30. So he would have been left without anywhere to play.

He's not getting a game at Port as their list is healthy. So he applied for a new permit. He's actually played 2 games, if you look at previous week it looks like Iggies played 20 players, as his name dropped off for some reason.

Can't have good young players not being able to play anywhere. Permit in this case makes sense.