SA Footy

Dog Day Afternoon wrote:

Jim05 wrote:This is where the whole system is wrong. Once you have played a set number of AFL games you should be unable to play SANFL finals then you dont have all this crap to work out

Crap Your club voted for this.

His club voted for it, doesn't mean he agrees with it or that he had any say in which way his club voted.

This "your club voted for it" is just a load crap

johntheclaret wrote:

Dog Day Afternoon wrote:

Jim05 wrote:This is where the whole system is wrong. Once you have played a set number of AFL games you should be unable to play SANFL finals then you dont have all this crap to work out

Crap Your club voted for this.

His club voted for it, doesn't mean he agrees with it or that he had any say in which way his club voted.

This "your club voted for it" is just a load crap

So you say he is a victim? A club is owned and controlled by the members of that club. About time the victims on this site stood up for what they believe in. Just my opinion.

What did you do to persuade you club not to vote yes Dog Day?

CUTTERMAN wrote:What did you do to persuade you club not to vote yes Dog Day?

Mini protests at each home game last year once the debate came up for one

Dog Day Afternoon wrote:

johntheclaret wrote:

Dog Day Afternoon wrote:

Jim05 wrote:This is where the whole system is wrong. Once you have played a set number of AFL games you should be unable to play SANFL finals then you dont have all this crap to work out

Crap Your club voted for this.

His club voted for it, doesn't mean he agrees with it or that he had any say in which way his club voted.

This "your club voted for it" is just a load crap

So you say he is a victim? A club is owned and controlled by the members of that club. About time the victims on this site stood up for what they believe in. Just my opinion.

Not saying he's a victim at all. But how many members actually had a say in which way their club voted.
Did any of the SANFL clubs hold a vote with their members?

Squawk wrote:

SANFLnut wrote:O'Shea not qualified after playing Rd 22.

He was an emergency only. He didn't play.

O'Shea played AFL RD 22 and had 18 touches v Carlton. It was the Port website that have the list and said that if he played Rd 22 then he'd be ineligible.

#1 Steven Summerton
#2 Cameron Hitchcock
#3 Campbell Heath
#4 Brent Renouf*
#6 Jake Johansen
#7 Louis Sharrad
#8 Danny Butcher
#9 Angus Bruggemann
#10 Ben Haren
#11 John Butcher
#12 Matt Venter
#13 Cam O’Shea^
#14 Paul Stewart
#15 Lewis Stevenson
#16 Nathan Krakouer
#17 Tom Clurey
#18 Ben Sawford
#20 Henry Slattery
#22 Mason Shaw
#23 Sam Gordon
#26 Andrew Moore
#29 Anthony Biemans
#30 Sam Colquhoun*
#31 Mitch Harvey
#32 Jake Neade
#33 Darcy-Byrne Jones
#37 Kane Mitchell
#38 Ben Newton
#41 Brendon Ah Chee
#42 Zac Hawkins
#43 Karl Amon
#44 Tom Logan
#45 Daniel Flynn
#46 Sam Gray
#47 Sam Russell
#50 Robbie Young
#54 Aseri Raikiwasa

* in long-term injury rehabilitation
^ will no longer qualify if named to play AFL in Round 22

SANFLnut wrote:

Squawk wrote:

SANFLnut wrote:O'Shea not qualified after playing Rd 22.

He was an emergency only. He didn't play.

O'Shea played AFL RD 22 and had 18 touches v Carlton. It was the Port website that have the list and said that if he played Rd 22 then he'd be ineligible.

They mis-spoke, to use the current jargon. Round 22 had already been played when that list was published. They were referring to round 23 (which was each AFL club's 22nd match of the H&A season due to everyone having a bye at some stage). Having played in neither place last weekend, he remains at the moment on 10 SANFL and 9 AFL games. So presuming the rules are actually applied as written (i.e. they don't cease operating just 'cos the minor round is finished), he will not have "played... the majority of his football at SANFL level" if he plays AFL this weekend and it becomes 50:50. (Of course all sorts of permutations could follow if, e.g. Pahhhhhr AFL win, Pahhhhhr SANFL lose, he gets dropped and then plays a SANFL prelim final while Pahhhhhr AFL remain alive—he would then qualify for the SANFL GF if they make it.)

BTW, it's meaningless to publish the 'eligible players' list in the form that Port Adelaide published it. Gee, their SANFL-contracted players who are not on an AFL list, are eligible to play SANFL finals. Who knew? The point of the exercise should have been to identify only the AFL-listed players who were eligible.

Rising Power wrote:

Squawk wrote:Plus Moore - 8 SANFL and 6 AFL, qualifies

Even though the PAFC website lists him as qualified with no disclaimers, if my reading of the wording of the rule is right—it doesn't say "during the minor round" and in fact directs attention to the period during which the AFL side is alive—then Andrew Moore could yet be disqualified from the SANFL GF if Port Adelaide reserves make it. He plays AFL this weekend, the Pahhhhhr win, plays AFL the next weekend (the Pahhhhr must lose otherwise the whole debate is redundant because they'll still be playing on SANFL GF weekend), then he's on 8:8, hasn't played the majority of his footy in the SANFL, and would not be eligible for selection in the SANFL GF.

SimonH wrote:

Rising Power wrote:

Squawk wrote:Plus Moore - 8 SANFL and 6 AFL, qualifies

Even though the PAFC website lists him as qualified with no disclaimers, if my reading of the wording of the rule is right—it doesn't say "during the minor round" and in fact directs attention to the period during which the AFL side is alive—then Andrew Moore could yet be disqualified from the SANFL GF if Port Adelaide reserves make it. He plays AFL this weekend, the Pahhhhhr win, plays AFL the next weekend (the Pahhhhr must lose otherwise the whole debate is redundant because they'll still be playing on SANFL GF weekend), then he's on 8:8, hasn't played the majority of his footy in the SANFL, and would not be eligible for selection in the SANFL GF.

No biggy. Apparently our top ups are too good so that will overcome the loss of any AFL players being ruled ineligible.

Rising Power wrote:No biggy. Apparently our top ups are too good so that will overcome the loss of any AFL players being ruled ineligible.

If the PAFC website hype is right and Port Adelaide have 42 AFL-listed players to choose from this weekend, then it's a pretty safe bet that a couple of short strides will be put in, in 'holding back' AFL emergencies who are unlikely to be needed on Sunday (with late withdrawals of first- or second-year AFL-listed players from the SANFL side for 'general soreness' being a solid 2nd option). Because if only 22 were allocated to the AFL side, that would leave 20 AFL-listed players in the SANFL team. That's right: captain Steve Summerton alone among the 'top ups'. The chop would come to vice-captain and official 'leadership player' Henry Slattery (I'm sure he'll provide awesome leadership from the sidelines), Angus Bruggemann (with no Haren either, good luck in the ruck) and Nathan Krakouer. It'd be irrelevant whether Jake Johansen was fit for selection, 'cos he couldn't be picked.

Because Port won't drop AFL-listed players from its 2nds side in favour of mere 'top-ups', will it?

It's quite interesting. The amount of time you lot spend working on excuses for not being able to beat Port, when clearly the coaches of your clubs spend time on actually beating us, as evident in a few games this year.

Booney wrote:It's quite interesting. The amount of time you lot spend working on excuses for not being able to beat Port, when clearly the coaches of your clubs spend time on actually beating us, as evident in a few games this year.

Gee, you've obviously been paying close attention to the results this year if you think we're not able to beat Port.

BTW, I'm a supporter. My role in beating Port is confined to supporting from the sidelines. You'd be amazed how many people who post on SA Footy have such a modest role to play. If you have a larger role to play in beating Norwood, shouldn't you get back to work and stop messing around on the internet?

SimonH wrote:

Booney wrote:It's quite interesting. The amount of time you lot spend working on excuses for not being able to beat Port, when clearly the coaches of your clubs spend time on actually beating us, as evident in a few games this year.

Gee, you've obviously been paying close attention to the results this year if you think we're not able to beat Port.

BTW, I'm a supporter. My role in beating Port is confined to supporting from the sidelines. You'd be amazed how many people who post on SA Footy have such a modest role to play. If you have a larger role to play in beating Norwood, shouldn't you get back to work and stop messing around on the internet?

Gee, you obviously can't read.

As for how I spend my time, very, very wisely. Thanks.

SimonH wrote:

Rising Power wrote:No biggy. Apparently our top ups are too good so that will overcome the loss of any AFL players being ruled ineligible.

If the PAFC website hype is right and Port Adelaide have 42 AFL-listed players to choose from this weekend, then it's a pretty safe bet that a couple of short strides will be put in, in 'holding back' AFL emergencies who are unlikely to be needed on Sunday (with late withdrawals of first- or second-year AFL-listed players from the SANFL side for 'general soreness' being a solid 2nd option). Because if only 22 were allocated to the AFL side, that would leave 20 AFL-listed players in the SANFL team. That's right: captain Steve Summerton alone among the 'top ups'. The chop would come to vice-captain and official 'leadership player' Henry Slattery (I'm sure he'll provide awesome leadership from the sidelines), Angus Bruggemann (with no Haren either, good luck in the ruck) and Nathan Krakouer. It'd be irrelevant whether Jake Johansen was fit for selection, 'cos he couldn't be picked.

Because Port won't drop AFL-listed players from its 2nds side in favour of mere 'top-ups', will it?

You forgot to mention that Campbell Heath being given a light run after 8 weeks out with a busted knee takes precedence over Slattery or Krakouer providing experience and leadership to a relatively young team in a SANFL League Semi Final.

Where are those advocates of the reserves debacle that were claiming port would come back to the pack, as injuries started to take their toll later in the season. Port have 19 full time professionals to choose from this weekend. They've probably got the smallest injury list of any sanfl club. As Roy laird said the advantage of not having to work and being able to recover has massive advantages (as well as afl facilities).

Anyway go power, hope you thrash the bendover club. Pickard can't lose regardless.

Yep because Port are completely dominant and unbeatable, just as their record of winning 2 of their last 7 games suggests.

matt35 wrote:Yep because Port are completely dominant and unbeatable, just as their record of winning 2 of their last 7 games suggests.

Missed the point.

Here's an idea. Howabout the opposition coach selects Port's team for them? Better take that one to the next SANFL committee meeting.

How about they just **** off