The SANFL Preliminary Final fiasco

[monoccular 17,613]

So what IS the current AFL* rule on this - remember too that AFL is highly regulated and has I believe interchange stewards one per team.

There are also the emergence maggots looking at the interchanges (as Ducker Sellwood now well knows)

My understanding is that now there is a free kick plus 50 m at the time it is detected and paid from the point of play.  I believe that the stripping of all scores to the time of the detection has been dropped, at least at AFL level.

In SANFL are there interchange stewards for each team, and is there a stated rule for breach?

In a game decided by fewer points than were scored by the offending team during the breach period, common sense and natural justice would surely dictate that at very least any scores made by the offending team should be void, and some sort of additional penalty added such as stripping say double the number of points scored during that time would seem reasonable.

*Still, were it to happen at AFL level I am certain that Gillon and Shocking would jump to arrive at a considered and very fair conclusion that would satisfy all, and follow the terms of natural justice. :-)))))

Edited September 18, 2018 by monoccular

[Coobs 174]

8 minutes ago, monoccular said:

So what IS the current AFL* rule on this - remember too that AFL is highly regulated and has I believe interchange stewards one per team.

There are also the emergence maggots looking at the interchanges (as Ducker Sellwood now well knows)

My understanding is that now there is a free kick plus 50 m at the time it is detected and paid from the point of play.  I believe that the stripping of all scores to the time of the detection has been dropped, at least at AFL level.

In SANFL are there interchange stewards for each team, and is there a stated rule for breach?

In a game decided by fewer points than were scored by the offending team during the breach period, common sense and natural justice would surely dictate that at very least any scores made by the offending team should be void, and some sort of additional penalty added such as stripping say double the number of points scored during that time would seem reasonable.

*Still, were it to happen at AFL level I am certain that Gillon and Shocking would jump to arrive at a considered and very fair conclusion that would satisfy all, and follow the terms of natural justice. :-)))))

May not be what you wanted but this was said on 360 last night

"AFL 360 co-host Gerard Whateley said on Monday night that the AFL workshopped this exact scenario on Monday and would, if this happened at AFL level, overturn the result to allow the Eagles into the Grand Final."

[daisycutter 29,807]

2 hours ago, tiers said:

Deduct the score during the period when 19 were on the ground. Given that it was at the start of the quarter the time and score should be easy to deduce.

Simple, fair and just. Tough on North Adelaide but it's the integrity of the game that counts, not the feelings of club.

And who was the match steward? If appointed by SANFL then easier to adjudicate. A free kick and 50m against the SANFL.

if it had been done by a captain's call for a count.....

then.....how would the umpire (on the spot) necessarily know how long the extra player was on the ground and even if he did what had been scored. remember this would be in real-time

so....the only option that makes sense in this scenario is to wipe the whole score of the offending team. this is what happens in most other jurisdictions

if decided after the game the afl at least has precedents to alter the final outcome of a game and i don't see a problem as long as it is just and fair

it matters not a whit whether it was intentional or not

[daisycutter 29,807]

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

 

 

 

In the current situation, the team that offended should have whatever they scored while they had 19 men on the ground deducted from the score.

2 problems could arise here, jack

1. how do we know the exact time the extra player was on the ground - you may or you may not

2. how do we know the potential scoring impact during this period. i.e. an extra defender could have prevented a possible score to the offended team. likewise an extra mid could have too......etc etc etc.... all dynamics changed. 

penalty has to be more than just the score of the offending side during time of extra player

[Wolfgang219 73]

It just shows the difference in opinions. I would not reverse the result as I believe there are rules to accomodate this scenario in game and if it didn’t happen(ie the head count or free kick) then so be it. 

 

Where Is the line to change a result? 19 men? What about a gaff style king hit in the first minute to the oppositions best player? 

 

The only result/matches that should be altered are for drug offences as the officials can’t defect those infringements on the day/during in play. 

 

[Pates 9,661]

Should’ve been a replayed match, only fair and logical outcome as reversing a match result is a very dangerous precedent to set. 

SANFL have embarrassed themselves during this whole saga, putting it on one person to make a ruling with only limited power. Surely they will have change the rules of interchange after this fiasco. 

[bush demon 2,120]

5 hours ago, Jibroni said:

 

Hey GV,

 

I was at the game supporting the Roosters and yes it has been a messy couple of days, it’s fair to say opinions have been divided.

 

To provide some background at the end of the 3^rd quarter a North player (Tropeano) went down the race for treatment and was supposed to start on the bench for the last quarter; yet the match steward did not advise him of this and he started the last qtr on the field. The total time North have 19 players was approx. 3.45 for which they scored 2 points; with another player having a shot on goal when the “19^th player” came off the field. But why it took 3.45 minutes to figure this out I have no idea and just shows how inept the SANFL competition is managed. 

 

It was a clear error by North but I don’t believe they cheated like some have described. The penalty should have been either North play the GF or they don’t. I am also convinced North still would have scored 1.2 if it were 18 v 18; but acknowledge that is not the point.

 

Gives a new meaning to +1.

[Jibroni 5,035]

16 minutes ago, bush demon said:

Gives a new meaning to +1.

yes it does BD

[Chook 15,022]

I subscribe to the old Leigh Matthews rule: 1 goal to the opposition team for every minute you have 19 men on the field.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,101]

Mmm... be careful about automatically replaying the match. If a team is down by 100 points with 1 minute to go, what is to stop them "accidentally" having 19 players on the ground and thus forcing the match to a replay? The more I think about, the best option seems to be scrub the entire score if detected during the game. If it is only detected afterwards, as in the SANFL game, then it is much harder to adjudicate. It seems to be either punish the guilty club in some way (like fines or penalty points for next year), or declare them losers of the game, which could only be done if there was a clear rule stating this in place before the game, IMHO.

I think it is time to revise the captain's count part of the rule ...

[Sir Why You Little 37,242]

Yes this latest SANFL decision could open a serious can of worms. 

The winning side was allowed 19 men for a period of time. Points deducted next year... so what. 

They made the GF 

Very Dangerous and utterly stupid ruling

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,725]

6 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What an absolute disgrace. Any score during that 4 minutes should be deducted. 

Simple and Fair. 

18 players are on the ground at ANY time. 

This disgraceful decision should be appealed. 

 

Smash them Norwood..

Dont Worry they will? Up the might legs.

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,725]

7 hours ago, Redleg said:

Apparently they have the Count Rule which must be instigated by the opposition Captain. This did not happen. The offending player left the field before this could be instigated. 

What has happened now is a post game review of an incident. There are precedents galore that can arise. A touched goal in a close win. A blatant free kick error that gifts the winning goal. A post game positive drug test.  A goal after the siren that wins the game with umpires not hearing it due to crowd noise, etc etc. 

It is a dangerous precedent post game to change the result. There will always be a loser in these instances, but it shouldn’t be the game itself.

I was actually watching the game on TV, there were conflicting reports as too what happened. 

A Boundary radio rider for a local radio station had picked up on it and told the head runner for the eagles, who the blew up at the 4th umpire about the situation.

Josh Carr Coach of North Adelaide, overheard the conversation taking place and pulled a player from the ground before a count could be conducted.

So if the boundary rider didnt pick up on it god knows how long it would have went on for.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Win4theAges

[daisycutter 29,807]

and who is to say the extra player was purely accidental and not deliberate?

after all if it was deliberate then it's not unrealistic for a perp to claim it was accidental

just saying

[Pates 9,661]

36 minutes ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

Mmm... be careful about automatically replaying the match. If a team is down by 100 points with 1 minute to go, what is to stop them "accidentally" having 19 players on the ground and thus forcing the match to a replay? The more I think about, the best option seems to be scrub the entire score if detected during the game. If it is only detected afterwards, as in the SANFL game, then it is much harder to adjudicate. It seems to be either punish the guilty club in some way (like fines or penalty points for next year), or declare them losers of the game, which could only be done if there was a clear rule stating this in place before the game, IMHO.

I think it is time to revise the captain's count part of the rule ...

If it’s got no bearing on the result than the team that were on the other side wouldn’t bother appealing. Taking the game to a replay should only happen after it’s been exhausted and determined that it provided an advantage that affected the game. Just as if the team that was belting the opposition by 100 points had the player on for two minutes, it wouldn’t after the result so no need to consider a replay. 

Having the captain responsible for the count is very archaic and cumbersome for them to enforce. The time it would take for the runner to get the message then run it out to the captain at an opportune time is too much. 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Pates

[Red and Bluebeard 2,101]

1 minute ago, Pates said:

If it’s got no bearing on the result than the team that were on the other side wouldn’t bother appealing. Taking the game to a replay should only happen after it’s been exhausted and determined that it provided an advantage that affected the game. Just as if the team that was belting the opposition by 100 points had the player on for two minutes, it wouldn’t after the result so no need to consider a replay. 

Having the captain responsible for the count is very archaic and cumbersome for them to enforce. The time it would take for the runner to get the message then run it out to the captain at an opportune time is too much. 

I see your point. I agree that the captain's count is outdated and needs to be changed. But I am also old-fashioned enough to think that it is about obeying the rules, and if you don't, the effect on the game is basically irrelevant. If you have more than 18 on the field, then it doesn't matter to me whether you now get beaten by 150 points rather than 100, or go from 1 point up to 1 point down. You pay the price no matter what.