SA Footy

Magellan wrote:

matt35 wrote:The bottom line here is that this was an absolutely common sense decision by the SANFL. CEY has missed two SANFL games all season and replaced a suspended player otherwise it would have been one. The permit system is in place for exactly this sort of situation, so it is completely within the rules and by no means an abuse of the system. Absolutely the right and logical call.

Logical if you see things purely from a Crows point of view.

Moreover, what are the criteria that the SANFL have to consider in making such a decision, and more importantly, what is the league's justification for overturning CEY's ineligibility? Surely it's not an automatic approval simply based on the request of the Crows. Centrals must have some right of reply. They must be afforded procedural fairness, the right to at least plead their case that the addition of CEY is unwarranted given the Crows must be presumed to have known the effect of picking him against West Coast, and now want to have their cake and eat it too.

Now that would be common sense

MatteeG wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Ahhhh, so the people who actually support the SANFL have to pay, while AFL supporters get a free ride for a bit of entertainment when the big boys don't have a game.

SACA members get in for free too.

Do they have to wear a collar?

No, but it's best to at least get them microchipped.

Centrals should submit a permit for Lee Spurr to play, about as fair as this.

RB wrote:

MatteeG wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Ahhhh, so the people who actually support the SANFL have to pay, while AFL supporters get a free ride for a bit of entertainment when the big boys don't have a game.

SACA members get in for free too.

Do they have to wear a collar?

No, but it's best to at least get them microchipped.

And spayed. They can get up to all sorts of shenanigans after an afternoon on the PImm's.

Before I get howled down by the masses - I agree the SANFL have been spineless through out this whole ordeal since the Reserves sides came in and I don't like that they are in..

However, surely logic prevails in this situation.. CEY has played 2 AFL games all year, and 18 SANFL games. People cant feel hard done by that he is playing this week. He has played all year, he was a suspension replacement and would have been dropped this week if the AFL hadn't stupidly scheduled a bye after round 23 and we had AFL finals to watch this weekend.. I know its the rules that you are ineligible if you played AFL in the last round, but I think CEY qualifies for the extenuating circumstances in this case.

Seedsman, Sloane and Smith would be different cases as they all played majority of AFL, Seedsman only having played a couple of SANFL games. I don't think they should play this week

human_torpedo wrote:Before I get howled down by the masses - I agree the SANFL have been spineless through out this whole ordeal since the Reserves sides came in and I don't like that they are in..

However, surely logic prevails in this situation.. CEY has played 2 AFL games all year, and 18 SANFL games. People cant feel hard done by that he is playing this week. He has played all year, he was a suspension replacement and would have been dropped this week if the AFL hadn't stupidly scheduled a bye after round 23 and we had AFL finals to watch this weekend.. I know its the rules that you are ineligible if you played AFL in the last round, but I think CEY qualifies for the extenuating circumstances in this case.

Seedsman, Sloane and Smith would be different cases as they all played majority of AFL, Seedsman only having played a couple of SANFL games. I don't think they should play this week

But what are these 'extenuating circumstances'? There are a set of rules in place, to ensure the Crows don't stack sides in finals, which the Crows are (presumably) aware of. They picked CEY in full knowledge of the consequences of doing so - this includes the consequences for both of their teams. He's replacing a suspended player? That's not good enough grounds for overturning his ineligibility. That's the Crows own fault (by extension), because Rory Sloane didn't have to clobber Ebert in the Showdown and get rubbed out for a week. Sloane keeps his fist to himself, he plays against the Eagles, and CEY stays in the twos and qualifies under the rules. By trying to overturn something that was entirely within their control the Crows want their apricot slice and to eat it too.

The rules are there for a reason. Unless the permit is a rubber stamp upon request, the onus is on the Crows to demonstrate what the extenuating circumstances are to justify eligibility. We're yet to know what these circumstances are.

The other issue here is not just this 'get into the SANFL finals free card' for ineligible players, but the fact that under the rules (as I understand it) Sloane, Seedsman, and Smith have qualified simply because they didn't play last week. The fact they've played the majority of games at AFL levels this year (as HT pointed out) suggests they should also be ineligible, not merely considered unavailable at the coach's discretion. In all honesty, I'm thankful Younie hasn't opted to pick these players when he is full within his rights to do so.

matt35 wrote:Seedsman is eligible as he did not play AFL last week. So now who is the flog?

The point is that one should be ineligible after playing virtually the whole season in the SANFL, the other should be eligible after playing virtually no footy in the SANFL. ONE rule would balance those situations, yet the Crows have requested conflicting interpretations of the same set of rules in order that BOTH players are eligible.
Does that make sense now?

Is there a football League in Australia where Ellis-Yolmen wouldn't have gotten a permit in similar circumstances? I mean 2 games at the "higher" level and 18 in the "lower"?

Seems pretty cut and dry.

Magellan wrote:

human_torpedo wrote:Before I get howled down by the masses - I agree the SANFL have been spineless through out this whole ordeal since the Reserves sides came in and I don't like that they are in..

However, surely logic prevails in this situation.. CEY has played 2 AFL games all year, and 18 SANFL games. People cant feel hard done by that he is playing this week. He has played all year, he was a suspension replacement and would have been dropped this week if the AFL hadn't stupidly scheduled a bye after round 23 and we had AFL finals to watch this weekend.. I know its the rules that you are ineligible if you played AFL in the last round, but I think CEY qualifies for the extenuating circumstances in this case.

Seedsman, Sloane and Smith would be different cases as they all played majority of AFL, Seedsman only having played a couple of SANFL games. I don't think they should play this week

But what are these 'extenuating circumstances'? There are a set of rules in place, to ensure the Crows don't stack sides in finals, which the Crows are (presumably) aware of. They picked CEY in full knowledge of the consequences of doing so - this includes the consequences for both of their teams. He's replacing a suspended player? That's not good enough grounds for overturning his ineligibility. That's the Crows own fault (by extension), because Rory Sloane didn't have to clobber Ebert in the Showdown and get rubbed out for a week. Sloane keeps his fist to himself, he plays against the Eagles, and CEY stays in the twos and qualifies under the rules. By trying to overturn something that was entirely within their control the Crows want their apricot slice and to eat it too.

The rules are there for a reason. Unless the permit is a rubber stamp upon request, the onus is on the Crows to demonstrate what the extenuating circumstances are to justify eligibility. We're yet to know what these circumstances are.

The other issue here is not just this 'get into the SANFL finals free card' for ineligible players, but the fact that under the rules (as I understand it) Sloane, Seedsman, and Smith have qualified simply because they didn't play last week. The fact they've played the majority of games at AFL levels this year (as HT pointed out) suggests they should also be ineligible, not merely considered unavailable at the coach's discretion. In all honesty, I'm thankful Younie hasn't opted to pick these players when he is full within his rights to do so.

As you stated the rules are in place so the Crows cant essentially just play there best AFL 22 in the SANFL finals.. However, IMO the rule wasn't bought in to stop a player of CEY's case that he has played 18 SANFL and 2 AFL, one just happened to be in round 23.. I don't see this as a case of the Crows stacking their side.. Had CEY had a 10 SANFL - 8 AFL split then or something similar then I would have far more reservations.. but 18 - 2 IMO should allow him to play

jo172 wrote:Is there a football League in Australia where Ellis-Yolmen wouldn't have gotten a permit in similar circumstances? I mean 2 games at the "higher" level and 18 in the "lower"?

Seems pretty cut and dry.

But it's okay for Seedsman to play, where the situation is reversed?
Which way do you want it? If the rule is wrong it should be disputed at the beginning. Picking which rule you'll abide by to suit particular situations? Come on!

therisingblues wrote:

jo172 wrote:Is there a football League in Australia where Ellis-Yolmen wouldn't have gotten a permit in similar circumstances? I mean 2 games at the "higher" level and 18 in the "lower"?

Seems pretty cut and dry.

But it's okay for Seedsman to play, where the situation is reversed?
Which way do you want it? If the rule is wrong it should be disputed at the beginning. Picking which rule you'll abide by to suit particular situations? Come on!

The Rule is you can apply for permits (and always has been).

The Clubs do it regularly at Reserve level.

The Crows applied for a permit, it was unsurprisingly granted.

1. The crows decided to select CEY to play v West Coast last friday night.
When they did so, unless they were dumb,stupid or ignorant- or all of those, they would have known at the time that the standing [u]rules[/u] of the SANFL meant that he would be ineligible to play this week against Centrals.

2. The crows then lodged an appeal to the SANFL appeals committee for him to play. The appeal for whatever reason was upheld.

The sanfl are gutless spineless and just bloody weak for allowing this. But really what more can we expect from this lot.

I wonder if any players will line up for Norwood, North or Glenelg in the Reserves finals this weekend who played in the League side last week? Im sure no one would have any issue with a permit being granted if a player played 16 ressies games, but played his second league game in the last round

Essentially the rule was bought in to stop free interchange of players so the Crows couldn't play the exact 22 that played AFL in the SANFL this weekend.. If Seedsman gets a permit then I would expect this sort of blow up given he has basically played the reverse amount of games.. That I would understand

human_torpedo wrote:I wonder if any players will line up for Norwood, North or Glenelg in the Reserves finals this weekend who played in the League side last week?

What if they played in an entirely separate competition last week?

Like a Country league or Amateur league?

I hope CEY gets BOG so this whinge can continue into a second week

human_torpedo wrote:I wonder if any players will line up for Norwood, North or Glenelg in the Reserves finals this weekend who played in the League side last week? Im sure no one would have any issue with a permit being granted if a player played 16 ressies games, but played his second league game in the last round

Essentially the rule was bought in to stop free interchange of players so the Crows couldn't play the exact 22 that played AFL in the SANFL this weekend.. If Seedsman gets a permit then I would expect this sort of blow up given he has basically played the reverse amount of games.. That I would understand

From the Advertiser - http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 261676ba58


CROWS linebreaker Paul Seedsman — if fit — will play in the SANFL elimination final on Saturday. But not All-Australian-contending midfielder Rory Sloane or rebound specialist Brodie Smith.

The Crows today gained a special permit for midfielder Cam Ellis-Yolmen — a Magarey Medal favourite — to be allowed to slip from the AFL to the SANFL knockout final against Central District at Adelaide Oval.

Adelaide will do the same for Seedsman, who has played 15 AFL games and just two in the SANFL this season, but needs match practice after being on the sidelines for the past three weeks.

Agree...the anger towards the Seedsman selection is warranted.

The positive to all of this is that we have a matchday link on the Wednesday before the game with 4 pages and the game itself is getting more than the usual amount of publicity in other media forms. Even if it is for the wrong reason!

If Seedsman gets the green light to play I can't wait for Roy Laird's reaction!