AFL player eligibility for SANFL finals

[Big Phil]

As we know, to qualify for SANFL finals, any AFL listed player has to play the minimum of 3 games to be eligible to participate.

The SANFL announced today that for season 2010, this rule will now change to 5 games as the minimum required to qualify.

I think it is a good decision and one that has been a long time coming.

[CoverKing]

As we know, to qualify for SANFL finals, any AFL listed player has to play the minimum of 3 games to be eligible to participate.

The SANFL announced today that for season 2010, this rule will now change to 5 games as the minimum required to qualify.

I think it is a good decision and one that has been a long time coming.

Totally agree BP. Altho more often then not, those playes that play between less then 5 games are usually unavailable for finals anyways! But still, something that had to happen!

[bloods08]

As we know, to qualify for SANFL finals, any AFL listed player has to play the minimum of 3 games to be eligible to participate.

The SANFL announced today that for season 2010, this rule will now change to 5 games as the minimum required to qualify.

I think it is a good decision and one that has been a long time coming.

Agree.

I would go even further to suggest that they should only be available if they play more SANFL games than AFL in any given season.

Only problem with my thinking is for a player who has spent the majority of the year injured.

[Big Phil]

That's one rule change that has taken place years after I reckon it needed changing...

The other one, for mine, that needs to happen is the introuduction of a 4 man interchnage bench...

[CoverKing]

That's one rule change that has taken place years after I reckon it needed changing...

The other one, for mine, that needs to happen is the introuduction of a 4 man interchnage bench...

Still a joke we dont have 4 people on the bench! Cant believe we dont yet!

[Voice]

That's one rule change that has taken place years after I reckon it needed changing...

The other one, for mine, that needs to happen is the introuduction of a 4 man interchnage bench...

I agree with both your suggestion and the rule change from the SANFL. Has to be frustrating for any player dropped for an AFL listed player that hasn't really contributed to your team getting there in the first place.

[JK]

You would think that somewhere along the line the 2 local AFL clubs will clash with SANFL clubs as a result of this

[Sojourner]

That's one rule change that has taken place years after I reckon it needed changing...

The other one, for mine, that needs to happen is the introuduction of a 4 man interchnage bench...

If the SANFL are going to do that and place the extra salary burden on the SANFL clubs to pay an additional player in both the League and Reserves Side, I would prefer that they got thier priorities modified somewhat and left the interchange as it is and in the meantime increased the Reserves Match payment fee in line with inflation which has been left static for a number of years now and is one of the reasons why its difficult for SANFL sides to get the right players into the Reserves sides.

[Big Phil]

From the SANFL web site...

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/1041/

[Grahaml]

I don't think we need to change the number of interchange players. And not because of this mysterious horrific cost factor sojourner has invented, but because I don't think it's necessary. I don't believe in changing just because we can, but because there is a good reason to do so. I see no good reason to change the bench rules. Losing players for the game is hard luck, but part of the game and far from the game changing scenario we see in the AFL.

All having another player on the bench will do is mean teams will either play an extra midfielder and so rotations will increase and the best players will be forced to spend less time in the guts. Not only that but an increase in speed will force our game to be more like the AFL style of play. The other option SANFL clubs might take is to put a bloke who might act as back up if a big man goes down. That would end the chance of seeing a guy valiantly battle against a guy with a superior size advantage.

I actually quite enjoyed watching Trent Goodrem battle against Ruory Kirkby this year and do his best. With another bench option Roy might have put a taller guy on the bench and could have changed that match up. IMHO the slower speed (and advantage it gives to the more skilled players) and the fact we don't see perfect matchups all the time is part of the game at this level. Adding another player on the bench won't change the game enormously, but it will a little, and perhaps once that change starts we won't be able to stop it and end up a clone comp to the AFL.

[CoverKing]

That's one rule change that has taken place years after I reckon it needed changing...

The other one, for mine, that needs to happen is the introuduction of a 4 man interchnage bench...

If the SANFL are going to do that and place the extra salary burden on the SANFL clubs to pay an additional player in both the League and Reserves Side, I would prefer that they got thier priorities modified somewhat and left the interchange as it is and in the meantime increased the Reserves Match payment fee in line with inflation which has been left static for a number of years now and is one of the reasons why its difficult for SANFL sides to get the right players into the Reserves sides.

Soj, from my understanding the $$$ for a reserves match has increased as of this year! Correct me if im wrong but iv been told this is the case

[Pseudo]

I don't think we need to change the number of interchange players. And not because of this mysterious horrific cost factor sojourner has invented, but because I don't think it's necessary. I don't believe in changing just because we can, but because there is a good reason to do so. I see no good reason to change the bench rules. Losing players for the game is hard luck, but part of the game and far from the game changing scenario we see in the AFL.

All having another player on the bench will do is mean teams will either play an extra midfielder and so rotations will increase and the best players will be forced to spend less time in the guts. Not only that but an increase in speed will force our game to be more like the AFL style of play. The other option SANFL clubs might take is to put a bloke who might act as back up if a big man goes down. That would end the chance of seeing a guy valiantly battle against a guy with a superior size advantage.

I actually quite enjoyed watching Trent Goodrem battle against Ruory Kirkby this year and do his best. With another bench option Roy might have put a taller guy on the bench and could have changed that match up. IMHO the slower speed (and advantage it gives to the more skilled players) and the fact we don't see perfect matchups all the time is part of the game at this level. Adding another player on the bench won't change the game enormously, but it will a little, and perhaps once that change starts we won't be able to stop it and end up a clone comp to the AFL.

[JK]

I agree, nice post Graham

[nickname]

I don't think we need to change the number of interchange players. And not because of this mysterious horrific cost factor sojourner has invented, but because I don't think it's necessary. I don't believe in changing just because we can, but because there is a good reason to do so. I see no good reason to change the bench rules. Losing players for the game is hard luck, but part of the game and far from the game changing scenario we see in the AFL.

All having another player on the bench will do is mean teams will either play an extra midfielder and so rotations will increase and the best players will be forced to spend less time in the guts. Not only that but an increase in speed will force our game to be more like the AFL style of play. The other option SANFL clubs might take is to put a bloke who might act as back up if a big man goes down. That would end the chance of seeing a guy valiantly battle against a guy with a superior size advantage.

I actually quite enjoyed watching Trent Goodrem battle against Ruory Kirkby this year and do his best. With another bench option Roy might have put a taller guy on the bench and could have changed that match up. IMHO the slower speed (and advantage it gives to the more skilled players) and the fact we don't see perfect matchups all the time is part of the game at this level. Adding another player on the bench won't change the game enormously, but it will a little, and perhaps once that change starts we won't be able to stop it and end up a clone comp to the AFL.

Agreed.
Some people in my football circles actually think we could wind back a lot of the flooding and zoning by reverting to 'reserves', rather than the interchange, so that once you came off, that's it. I'd like to see it myself. If this interchange rule had been in 30 years ago we'd never have seen Buff Tyrell's heroics in the goal square at Woodville.

[whufc]

Great rule change to make it 5 IMHO, alot of players have played just the 3 games pull put anyway due to saying they don't feel part of it.

Leave the bench at 3, we shouldn't just hand out league games, it adds to the prestige of playing league football.