mighty hounds wrote:only the last couple of years!
That's why I knew what happened, we were told about it Sunday, Why won't it be the last we hear of it? The rule is there in black and white!
Nothing here says they broke a rule:
16 SANFL PLAYERS PLAYING IN SAAFL 16.1 A player who is registered in accordance with Clause 10.2 and whom plays for a team competing in the SANFL competition shall not require a transfer to resume playing for the Member Club to whom they are registered provided they have previously been transferred to their Member Club from their immediate last Australian Football club. 16.2 A player who is listed on an SANFL club’s 1 - 35 player list in the current playing season shall submit written permission from his SANFL club to The League prior to him playing for his Member Club. 16.3 When a registered player of a Member Club plays a league or reserves match for an SANFL club, which then has a bye in the following SANFL minor round, such player shall not play (with the exception of The League Under 18’s Divisions) in that round for such player’s Member Club or for any other Member Club unless the player has played a combined minimum total of twenty five (25) or more Senior and Junior matches with such Member Club. (a) The player shall submit written permission from his SANFL Club to The League prior to him playing for his Member Club. (b) Junior football is deemed as matches played from the year in which the player turns 13 years of age. 16.4 On a SANFL bye round, players playing in SANFL Under 18’s may play with their Member Club in any Division after advising in writing and receiving approval from The League prior to him playing for his Member Club. 16.5 An SANFL state match where the SANFL clubs do not play is considered as a SANFL club bye.
16.1 - no transfer needed, resuming playing for existing member club 16.2 - not on 1-35 player list as they are top-up players 16.3 - there was no bye, so this is not relevant 16.4 - not U/18 or bye, so not relevant 16.5 - no state match
Is there another rule?
FE posted this on the last page
Rule 23.30 of the SAAFL Rules
23.30 No Member Club player shall play for any other club prior to or after a match of The League in any one round with the exception of The League’s Under 18 Division matches and any school matches.
SANFL were playing Round 3, SAAFL were playing Round 2.
The two players should be ineligible this coming week, not the week just been
As someone with a slight tendency to have blown things like this out of proportion with the League I would counsel Golden Grove to drop it and take the lesson (particularly given it's a much better lesson to learn in Round 2 then it is in Round 18). Losing one match in Div 3 shouldn't prevent success. See Kilburn in 2012.
Also, given the definition of "Member Club" and the reference to Under 18s and School the interpretation advocated for above is likely correct.
However, if you really want a lawyer to take your money PM me
mighty hounds wrote:only the last couple of years!
That's why I knew what happened, we were told about it Sunday, Why won't it be the last we hear of it? The rule is there in black and white!
Nothing here says they broke a rule:
16 SANFL PLAYERS PLAYING IN SAAFL 16.1 A player who is registered in accordance with Clause 10.2 and whom plays for a team competing in the SANFL competition shall not require a transfer to resume playing for the Member Club to whom they are registered provided they have previously been transferred to their Member Club from their immediate last Australian Football club. 16.2 A player who is listed on an SANFL club’s 1 - 35 player list in the current playing season shall submit written permission from his SANFL club to The League prior to him playing for his Member Club. 16.3 When a registered player of a Member Club plays a league or reserves match for an SANFL club, which then has a bye in the following SANFL minor round, such player shall not play (with the exception of The League Under 18’s Divisions) in that round for such player’s Member Club or for any other Member Club unless the player has played a combined minimum total of twenty five (25) or more Senior and Junior matches with such Member Club. (a) The player shall submit written permission from his SANFL Club to The League prior to him playing for his Member Club. (b) Junior football is deemed as matches played from the year in which the player turns 13 years of age. 16.4 On a SANFL bye round, players playing in SANFL Under 18’s may play with their Member Club in any Division after advising in writing and receiving approval from The League prior to him playing for his Member Club. 16.5 An SANFL state match where the SANFL clubs do not play is considered as a SANFL club bye.
16.1 - no transfer needed, resuming playing for existing member club 16.2 - not on 1-35 player list as they are top-up players 16.3 - there was no bye, so this is not relevant 16.4 - not U/18 or bye, so not relevant 16.5 - no state match
Is there another rule?
FE posted this on the last page
Rule 23.30 of the SAAFL Rules
23.30 No Member Club player shall play for any other club prior to or after a match of The League in any one round with the exception of The League’s Under 18 Division matches and any school matches.
SANFL were playing Round 3, SAAFL were playing Round 2.
The two players should be ineligible this coming week, not the week just been
You're interpretation would make life pretty hard for blokes who play in the Northern Territory League in the off-season
mighty hounds wrote:only the last couple of years!
That's why I knew what happened, we were told about it Sunday, Why won't it be the last we hear of it? The rule is there in black and white!
Nothing here says they broke a rule:
16 SANFL PLAYERS PLAYING IN SAAFL 16.1 A player who is registered in accordance with Clause 10.2 and whom plays for a team competing in the SANFL competition shall not require a transfer to resume playing for the Member Club to whom they are registered provided they have previously been transferred to their Member Club from their immediate last Australian Football club. 16.2 A player who is listed on an SANFL club’s 1 - 35 player list in the current playing season shall submit written permission from his SANFL club to The League prior to him playing for his Member Club. 16.3 When a registered player of a Member Club plays a league or reserves match for an SANFL club, which then has a bye in the following SANFL minor round, such player shall not play (with the exception of The League Under 18’s Divisions) in that round for such player’s Member Club or for any other Member Club unless the player has played a combined minimum total of twenty five (25) or more Senior and Junior matches with such Member Club. (a) The player shall submit written permission from his SANFL Club to The League prior to him playing for his Member Club. (b) Junior football is deemed as matches played from the year in which the player turns 13 years of age. 16.4 On a SANFL bye round, players playing in SANFL Under 18’s may play with their Member Club in any Division after advising in writing and receiving approval from The League prior to him playing for his Member Club. 16.5 An SANFL state match where the SANFL clubs do not play is considered as a SANFL club bye.
16.1 - no transfer needed, resuming playing for existing member club 16.2 - not on 1-35 player list as they are top-up players 16.3 - there was no bye, so this is not relevant 16.4 - not U/18 or bye, so not relevant 16.5 - no state match
Is there another rule?
FE posted this on the last page
Rule 23.30 of the SAAFL Rules
23.30 No Member Club player shall play for any other club prior to or after a match of The League in any one round with the exception of The League’s Under 18 Division matches and any school matches.
SANFL were playing Round 3, SAAFL were playing Round 2.
The two players should be ineligible this coming week, not the week just been
I reckon "any one round" by definition means "the same weekend of football". Not the particular number that round is in each league
23.30 No Member Club player shall play for any other club prior to or after a match of The League in any one round with the exception of The League’s Under 18 Division matches and any school matches.
SANFL were playing Round 3, SAAFL were playing Round 2.
The two players should be ineligible this coming week, not the week just been
I reckon "any one round" by definition means "the same weekend of football". Not the particular number that round is in each league
In the HFL we all thought that finals didn't count towards relegation but were wrong on the interpretation, all depends on how good a lawyer they have.
23.30 No Member Club player shall play for any other club prior to or after a match of The League in any one round with the exception of The League’s Under 18 Division matches and any school matches.
SANFL were playing Round 3, SAAFL were playing Round 2.
The two players should be ineligible this coming week, not the week just been
I reckon "any one round" by definition means "the same weekend of football". Not the particular number that round is in each league
In the HFL we all thought that finals didn't count towards relegation but were wrong on the interpretation, all depends on how good a lawyer they have.
23.30 No Member Club player shall play for any other club prior to or after a match of The League in any one round with the exception of The League’s Under 18 Division matches and any school matches.
SANFL were playing Round 3, SAAFL were playing Round 2.
The two players should be ineligible this coming week, not the week just been
I reckon "any one round" by definition means "the same weekend of football". Not the particular number that round is in each league
One of the key problems with the Hills Rule was the Judge's interpretation of the purpose of the relegation rule which prompted him to take a purposive look at whether points were to be allocated to finals games.
Given the clear purpose of this rule it's a fantasy to think LGIL's argument would succeed.
I would of thought it better to work out how to beat Golden Grove next time they play them rather than win the game in the boardroom Let's hope no one else misinterperates what they are told.
The Cook wrote:I would of thought it better to work out how to beat Golden Grove next time they play them rather than win the game in the boardroom Let's hope no one else misinterperates what they are told.
You're assuming it was FP and not a league official or someone else that raised the issue.
The Cook wrote:I would of thought it better to work out how to beat Golden Grove next time they play them rather than win the game in the boardroom Let's hope no one else misinterperates what they are told.
You're assuming it was FP and not a league official or someone else that raised the issue.
FP didn't complain about it to my knowledge. Ando did say he was going to make a call Monday about it but HQ had been onto it already
jo172 wrote:One of the key problems with the Hills Rule was the Judge's interpretation of the purpose of the relegation rule which prompted him to take a purposive look at whether points were to be allocated to finals games.
Given the clear purpose of this rule it's a fantasy to think LGIL's argument would succeed.
The key problem with the HFL by-law was Echungas lawyer argued under contractual law so that meant even though it had been interpreted a certain way in the past (even by Echunga), it didn't matter.
The Cook wrote:I would of thought it better to work out how to beat Golden Grove next time they play them rather than win the game in the boardroom Let's hope no one else misinterperates what they are told.
More a case of don't make the same mistake twice.....
