FINALS 2010 - ALL grades

[Bag The Points]

Cant believe the SFL is so unprofessional

Am I right by saying that M/Vale asked a SFL Director if he could play and he said yes

If so what happens to this Director now

To Cove do you want the premiership or do you want a replay without the so called unqualified player who surely didnt make that much difference.

Who was this SFL Director?
Under what rule has the SFL stripped the premiership from MVFC?
As I understand it MVFC have played and won 3 finals that they shouldn't have.
How could the flag possibly be awarded to Cove?

Reckon the reason for that particular decison might have more to do with the Premiership Table than who played them in the Grand Final.
In many comps unforeseen circumstances (i.e. (in the case of cricket) rain, a life-threatening storm (as occurred at Port last year), or even a draw, means the higher-placed team gets awarded the match.)
I reckon they probably decided its too big a mess and awarded Premiership to the minor premier. (not saying its right, but that's what I reckon they've done)
My personal opininion is it should have been picked up after the Elim, so SFL is at fault

[Look Good In Leather]

The SFL must take some responisbility for this.

SFL never takes responsibility in this situation

1973 - Player was cleared from Port Adelaide to Christies Beach, late in season it becomes apparent that the player was cleared from the wrong club (should have been his country team, not SANFL team) - SFL Administration Error.
CBFC stripped of prem points for games played by that player - miss finals (note CB premiers 1971, 72 & 74)

[XR8Ute]

It is very plain and simple!
Junior and senior finals qualification have nothing to do with each other.
There is only one guideline/rule that must be fullfilled for a junior player to play in the juniors finals series, and that is play a minimum of 6 MINOR ROUND games in that grade!!!!!

Ever since valleys got caught out in 2006, every club should know the simple rule and also took notice of the possible penalties as were handed down to valleys that year as a deterrent. I know at our club we are aware and always look out for it.
It astounds me that no one invoved with the MVale 18s or at the club would not know it, it is black and white!

- Whether the kid plays 3, 5, 12 or even all 18 games in the seniors = IRRELEVANT
- Whether the A, B or C grade are still in the finals also = IRRELEVANT
- Whether the A, B or C grade are all out of the finals t the time = IRRELEVANT

The only simple rule that matters is as long as he has played 6 minor round matches in their junior grade (18s in this case) they can play finals. Its so simple.

Other points: -If the lad played all finals in the 18s, why was it not picked up in an earlier game? especially considering one was against Brighton who were the side that realised and complained about valleys in 2006?
-I personally dont know what punishment should be handed down for the crime?
-If as said someone did ask a SFL rep. on the day "is he qualified"? well that just smacks of someone not being sure in the first place?, If you wern't sure or had doubts, surely prior to the game or finals series, you would have got OFFICIAL confirmation from the league on his status
- I also encourage younger players to play seniors and better themselves, and there are still ways within the rules for them to still play junior finals (if seniors get knocked out, or tough to get selected in seniors come finals time), you just have to be smart and forward thinking, and get them played in 6 MINOR round junior games!

[White Line Fever]

Someone from Happy Valley has a computer

[KungFu Panda]

I dont disagree there XR,what im saying is the rule is shite.If a kid plays up all year and comes down to play in his age group come finals time who cares as long as there all club games i cant see the problem.No one is saying M/Vale havent done anything wrong.I think we all love seeing kids playing A grade while there still a junior,its great for the club but i would hate to see a situation where a kid lets say at Hackham(im not bashing hackham here)plays up all year because hes good enough to make there A grade.The A grade dont make finals but the kids age group does,he now cant play with his mates and try to get some sucess at the club due to not playing 6 games in that age group i think suxs.

[Down the Hill]

It comes down to where do we draw the line with this concept of "playing with his mates" in finals.

Here's a scenario. Brighton has a lad in the Glenelg Under 18's. He's a regular but due to BYE's and return from injury he ends up playing 6 games for Brighton. We decide for his development and at Glenelg's request is better off playing A or B grade so he plays his 6 matches in Seniors only. Glenelg Under 18's miss finals so he is available for SFL finals at Brighton. The A & B grade coach decide he doesn't make their teams. Should he be able to play in our Under 18. Personally I say NO.

This is different than Carpenter from MV because he has been with MV all year but where do you draw the line. If the rule is re-wriiten to allow for Carpenter to play Under 18 finals then how do you not allow the other scenario.

Going back to HV in 2006 to set the record straight. HV Under 18's doctored team sheets to show that a certain player played 6 games and qualified for finals. Their Under 18 coach was so stupid because the lad played Under 17 for Glenelg and knew alot of Brighton lads. The Brighton lads knew he played Under 17 all year (in fact he won their B & F) and knew there is no way he could have physically played 6 games for HV. SANFL already had online data by then and we were able to download his Under 17 playing record from the SANFL website which proved he played for the Bays on days he was listed as playing for HV.

This was not a case of mis-interpreting rules like the Emu's did. It was blatant cheating and they got caught.

[watchdog]

I dont disagree there XR,what im saying is the rule is shite.If a kid plays up all year and comes down to play in his age group come finals time who cares as long as there all club games i cant see the problem.No one is saying M/Vale havent done anything wrong.I think we all love seeing kids playing A grade while there still a junior,its great for the club but i would hate to see a situation where a kid lets say at Hackham(im not bashing hackham here)plays up all year because hes good enough to make there A grade.The A grade dont make finals but the kids age group does,he now cant play with his mates and try to get some sucess at the club due to not playing 6 games in that age group i think suxs.

Surely the main person responsible for this is the U18 coach. Every club that has juniors playing in the seniors always makes sure that all there kids are qualified for finals, even in some cases sitting them on the bench in the U18 game and playing seniors on the same day. Agree its not fair on the kids to strip them of a flag, but generally speaking even the kids know the rules. Whether the rule is fair or not is irrelavent. Although the SFL should have picked up on this well before it got to this stage.

[BIG RED DELICIOUS 2]

ok where to start.....?

After pondering what i may write and who i will name from the SFL its probably better if i didnt comment, alot has already been said and the decision will not change!

one thing is for sure and majority of people agree on - THIS RULE NEEDS TO CHANGE IMMEDIATELY!!

It turns out M/Vale have broken the rules.... and as a m/vale person and very aware of this situation im telling everyone on this forum that after clarification from the SFL our club was unaware this player was not qualified and we have not cheated intentionally.

We are a proud club and would never do such a thing.

SFL you need to take some of the blame and the questions need to be asked how on earth has this situation come about? There are policies in place and if you dont police them or follow them through then you set yourself up for failure!

[Dig]

Here's a scenario. Brighton has a lad in the Glenelg Under 18's. He's a regular but due to BYE's and return from injury he ends up playing 6 games for Brighton. We decide for his development and at Glenelg's request is better off playing A or B grade so he plays his 6 matches in Seniors only. Glenelg Under 18's miss finals so he is available for SFL finals at Brighton. The A & B grade coach decide he doesn't make their teams. Should he be able to play in our Under 18. Personally I say NO.

I would say yes. Why should he miss out in playing for his age group tho just because he is good enough to play seniors and for Glenelg? If he has played 6 games for his SFL club regardless of what level, it's still 6 games representing his SFL club. Whoever heard of missing out because you are too good? Sure an U18's battler who has played all year may miss out, but if in the end you're not good enough, well you're not good enough. It's harsh, but that's the way it goes. Isn't the aim to put your best side on the park to give you the best chance of winning?

[reppoh_eht]

ok where to start.....?

After pondering what i may write and who i will name from the SFL its probably better if i didnt comment, alot has already been said and the decision will not change!

one thing is for sure and everybody does agree on - THIS RULE NEEDS TO CHANGE IMMEDIATELY!!

It turns out M/Vale have broken the rules.... and as a m/vale person and very aware of this situation im telling everyone on this forum that after clarification from the SFL our club was unaware this player was not qualified and we have not cheated intentionally.

We are a proud club and would never do such a thing.

SFL you need to take some of the blame and the questions need to be asked how on earth has this situation come about? There are policies in place and if you dont police them or follow them through then you set yourself up for failure!

I don't agree that the rules need to change! If a junior player is good enough to play up in the seniors for a long enough period of time (i.e they cannot fulfill the required 6 games in Juniors), then I see no reason why the rules should be changed so they can come back to play in the Juniors come finals time.

All season they would have been a part of the A's or B's and as such should be treated that way, if they have a rough patch and get dropped for finals well then thats stiff, and that is the club/players choice for playing beyond their age group.

As a couple of people have stated, if you want gun Junior to play seniors and still be legally qualified for juniors then make sure they play 6 junior games, it's very very simple!

[XR8Ute]

ok where to start.....?

After pondering what i may write and who i will name from the SFL its probably better if i didnt comment, alot has already been said and the decision will not change!

one thing is for sure and everybody does agree on - THIS RULE NEEDS TO CHANGE IMMEDIATELY!!

It turns out M/Vale have broken the rules.... and as a m/vale person and very aware of this situation im telling everyone on this forum that after clarification from the SFL our club was unaware this player was not qualified and we have not cheated intentionally.

We are a proud club and would never do such a thing.

SFL you need to take some of the blame and the questions need to be asked how on earth has this situation come about? There are policies in place and if you dont police them or follow them through then you set yourself up for failure!

Everybody doesnt agree, I think the rule is fine, and is there for a few reasons.
I agree with DTH last post, some reasons explained there.
How can you keep saying you guys were unaware he was qualified or not!!!!!!!!!! Its so simple!!!!!!!! Did he play 6 minor round games in the 18s?? if the answer is NO, then he cant play, simple!!! How hard is that to work out!!!!!!!!

[BIG RED DELICIOUS 2]

ok where to start.....?

After pondering what i may write and who i will name from the SFL its probably better if i didnt comment, alot has already been said and the decision will not change!

one thing is for sure and everybody does agree on - THIS RULE NEEDS TO CHANGE IMMEDIATELY!!

It turns out M/Vale have broken the rules.... and as a m/vale person and very aware of this situation im telling everyone on this forum that after clarification from the SFL our club was unaware this player was not qualified and we have not cheated intentionally.

We are a proud club and would never do such a thing.

SFL you need to take some of the blame and the questions need to be asked how on earth has this situation come about? There are policies in place and if you dont police them or follow them through then you set yourself up for failure!

Everybody doesnt agree, I think the rule is fine, and is there for a few reasons.
I agree with DTH last post, some reasons explained there.
How can you keep saying you guys were unaware he was qualified or not!!!!!!!!!! Its so simple!!!!!!!! Did he play 6 minor round games in the 18s?? if the answer is NO, then he cant play, simple!!! How hard is that to work out!!!!!!!!

ask the SFL that one XR8ute, apparently its not that simple!

[Zelezny Chucks]

ok where to start.....?

After pondering what i may write and who i will name from the SFL its probably better if i didnt comment, alot has already been said and the decision will not change!

one thing is for sure and everybody does agree on - THIS RULE NEEDS TO CHANGE IMMEDIATELY!!

It turns out M/Vale have broken the rules.... and as a m/vale person and very aware of this situation im telling everyone on this forum that after clarification from the SFL our club was unaware this player was not qualified and we have not cheated intentionally.

We are a proud club and would never do such a thing.

SFL you need to take some of the blame and the questions need to be asked how on earth has this situation come about? There are policies in place and if you dont police them or follow them through then you set yourself up for failure!

Everybody doesnt agree, I think the rule is fine, and is there for a few reasons.
I agree with DTH last post, some reasons explained there.
How can you keep saying you guys were unaware he was qualified or not!!!!!!!!!! Its so simple!!!!!!!! Did he play 6 minor round games in the 18s?? if the answer is NO, then he cant play, simple!!! How hard is that to work out!!!!!!!!

All enquiries made to an SFL official pointed to him being able to play. After playing the first final and nothing being said I would have thought no one gave it a second thought.

I don't think a junior should be able to play if the senior team he qualified for is out of finals but if he is dropped from a B Grade side and can't play U18's it doesn't give the kid much of a chance to earn his spot back in the side.

[Down the Hill]

A 19 year old B grader can't work his way back into form if the club doesn't have C grade finals team in action so I'm not sure if that theory is sound either.

One point missing here if one looks at the "open selection" rule hence why Mardigan played in the B grade Prelim. There's a grade called C grade which was the next grade down from B grade for 7 clubs in 2010. So technically the lad was playing 2 grades below B grade and thats the lowest grade he had properly qualified.

Going around in circles guys. Main point I do agree on though. MV played him once. Team Sheet goes to SFL. Nothing gets said, so rightful to assume everything is above board.

[Down the Hill]

My last word on this and I am still sympathetic to MV situation.

But can any of you Emu people answer this.

Liam Green was listed as playing 5 matches for MV Under 18 during July and August. No goals or best players - yeah sure, he really played. Tell me this wasn't an absolute fabrication of team sheets. A spy tells me that this was detected by a rival club and MV pulled the pin on trying to qualify him or face another HV 2006 situation.

[Mister Footy]

Ruling is pretty simple to understand - he did not play the 6 games so should not have played and the MV club and Secretary, Team Manager & Coach should go and apologise to every single one of those lads from both teams

Dont know why Brighton didnt pick it up in the Prelims - werent they the ones that alerted the SFL to the mistake Valley made years ago?

However the big problem here is the SFL - and yes they are volunteers who are getting on in their years and very busy as many would no doubt hold down full time jobs elsewhere BUT they should have given the correct advice in writing. To say the SFL told MV it was OK is hearsay.

Just goes to show that you should always get something in writing and if MV were querying the ruling and the lad's eligibility they should have sought clarification from the secretary of the league in writing - yes you shouldnt have to do this but it is the golden rule of covering your butt......

[frenzy]

Everybody doesnt agree, I think the rule is fine, and is there for a few reasons.
I agree with DTH last post, some reasons explained there.
How can you keep saying you guys were unaware he was qualified or not!!!!!!!!!! Its so simple!!!!!!!! Did he play 6 minor round games in the 18s?? if the answer is NO, then he cant play, simple!!! How hard is that to work out!!!!!

Apparently very hard Mr Revhead - although i would like to take out the rev and insert something else!!! ESPECIALLY AS A SFL BOARD MEMBER GOT THE RULING WRONG!!!

Idiot!

[Dig]

warman and his constabulary should be arrested for their decision

[frenzy]

Ruling is pretty simple to understand - he did not play the 6 games so should not have played and the MV club and Secretary, Team Manager & Coach should go and apologise to every single one of those lads from both teams

Dont know why Brighton didnt pick it up in the Prelims - werent they the ones that alerted the SFL to the mistake Valley made years ago?

However the big problem here is the SFL - and yes they are volunteers who are getting on in their years and very busy as many would no doubt hold down full time jobs elsewhere BUT they should have given the correct advice in writing. To say the SFL told MV it was OK is hearsay.

Just goes to show that you should always get something in writing and if MV were querying the ruling and the lad's eligibility they should have sought clarification from the secretary of the league in writing - yes you shouldnt have to do this but it is the golden rule of covering your butt......

If you know the whole story like most people on here DON"T the SFL was handed i believe Statutory Declarations from people that heard or asked the question. So Hearsay - UM NO!

[recruiter 10]

Ruling is pretty simple to understand - he did not play the 6 games so should not have played and the MV club and Secretary, Team Manager & Coach should go and apologise to every single one of those lads from both teams

Dont know why Brighton didnt pick it up in the Prelims - werent they the ones that alerted the SFL to the mistake Valley made years ago?

However the big problem here is the SFL - who are geand yes they are volunteers tting on in their years and very busy as many would no doubt hold down full time jobs elsewhere BUT they should have given the correct advice in writing. To say the SFL told MV it was OK is hearsay.

Just goes to show that you should always get something in writing and if MV were querying the ruling and the lad's eligibility they should have sought clarification from the secretary of the league in writing - yes you shouldnt have to do this but it is the golden rule of covering your butt......

So is the under 18s coach etc