who will win c6 flag in 2010

[TEX07]

Yes, I can honestly say that we would not play two A grade footballers in the D grade to get them into a Grand Final, what you dont understand is we are a club that plays our best players in the A grade, the next lot in the B grade, then the C grade, get the drift? We had our B grade already in the GF so we had the opportunity to do the same with some blokes that had not played any finals yet but chose not to. There is no way our A grade or B grade coach for the matter would risk players like this. I know it is in the rules, you have played by them, you won, good for you. My only point is that this is a rule that should be changed becuase what you guys did was just not fair and in my opinion not what the rule was intended for. Moving on rules are rules they are there for a reason, not sure what reason this one was and it has hit the lads in the D grade hard becuase in my honest opinion you would not have won the game without them, but we will never know.

[Jimmy_041]

Yes, I can honestly say that we would not play two A grade footballers in the D grade to get them into a Grand Final, what you dont understand is we are a club that plays our best players in the A grade, the next lot in the B grade, then the C grade, get the drift? We had our B grade already in the GF so we had the opportunity to do the same with some blokes that had not played any finals yet but chose not to. There is no way our A grade or B grade coach for the matter would risk players like this. I know it is in the rules, you have played by them, you won, good for you. My only point is that this is a rule that should be changed becuase what you guys did was just not fair and in my opinion not what the rule was intended for. Moving on rules are rules they are there for a reason, not sure what reason this one was and it has hit the lads in the D grade hard becuase in my honest opinion you would not have won the game without them, but we will never know.

Actually we do get the drift - that's why we had 3 sides finish top and have 4 sides in the GF

But actually you complaint about the rules are unfounded

1. John Waltham played B Grade in Round 18 and has not played in a final, and therefore, under last year's Rules & Regulations, he would have been entitled to play yesterday as well as he could drop a grade per week
2. Max Clarke has not played for about 2 months so he would have been entitled to play under last year's Rules and Regulations as well

(Please correct me if I'm wrong EM)

So, to be perfectly honest, you have NO basis for complaint about the rule - they would have played last year under the same circumstances.

We requested permits to make sure we were correct and we were.

[Choccies]

Clarke's last game was round 18 jimmy........ In the B's. Let's not try polish a turd here..

Still morally wrong and I hope the guys who stepped aside for them had a great day.

[Who's Ball?]

So you wouldn't pick the best available players? You'd bring guys into an A or B grade Grand final side who hadn't played footy for a month, and not really played for about 3? And were coming back from injury? Big call to make there. Yes, Waltham and Clarke are both capable of playing up in higher grades and have for our club this year, but to bring them into a grand final underdone would be a huge risk.

[Trader]

So let me get this straight.....PAOC sat out two players for basically the entire finals campaign just so they could drop them back to knock Golden Grove out of a Prelim?

Why would the A's, B's and C's all risk their season just to try and knock Golden Grove's C6 side out of the finals?

I've got no idea about a rivalry between the Burras and the Reds, but that just seems ridiculous to me.

I hope the guys who stepped aside for them had a great day.

If Clarke and Waltham hadn't played D's I assume that they would have been named in the squads higher, pushing two C-graders down to play D's yesterday. Therefore there aren't any guys who "stepped aside", simply stated, they wouldn't have gotten a game anyway. Bottom line, there is only 94 spots between 4 sides, where those 94 land doesn't change who #95 and 96 are.

[The Bartman]

At the end of the day the lower grades are depth for the A grade which is what its all about so if they need to get some footy into some players by playing them in the lower grades then so they should! Tough titties to the other team!

[Jimmy_041]

Sorry choccies, I didnt realise he played in the last round as I didnt watch that game - so same conditions apply as Waltham. It doesnt change anything, so who's polishing anything?

The 2 guys had a great day, and night last night, knowing they'll get a shot at a GF next week - as if any of you really care what they think anyway. I'm sure you had a disappointed player when you promoted the D Grade full forward for last year's GF

and as for morals: pffftt.

[Choccies]

So let me get this straight.....PAOC sat out two players for basically the entire finals campaign just so they could drop them back to knock Golden Grove out of a Prelim?

Why would the A's, B's and C's all risk their season just to try and knock Golden Grove's C6 side out of the finals?

I've got no idea about a rivalry between the Burras and the Reds, but that just seems ridiculous to me.

I hope the guys who stepped aside for them had a great day.

If Clarke and Waltham hadn't played D's I assume that they would have been named in the squads higher, pushing two C-graders down to play D's yesterday. Therefore there aren't any guys who "stepped aside", simply stated, they wouldn't have gotten a game anyway. Bottom line, there is only 94 spots between 4 sides, where those 94 land doesn't change who #95 and 96 are.

You obviously haven't got it straight then Trader........ you're missing the entire point I'm making.....

[Choccies]

At the end of the day the lower grades are depth for the A grade which is what its all about so if they need to get some footy into some players by playing them in the lower grades then so they should! Tough titties to the other team!

Yeah that's it Bart..... The D grade are there to supply players for the A's.....

[TEX07]

Sorry choccies, I didnt realise he played in the last round as I didnt watch that game - so same conditions apply as Waltham. It doesnt change anything, so who's polishing anything?

The 2 guys had a great day, and night last night, knowing they'll get a shot at a GF next week - as if any of you really care what they think anyway. I'm sure you had a disappointed player when you promoted the D Grade full forward for last year's GF

and as for morals: pffftt.

That is ridculous Jimmy, you said it yourself, we promoted him. I never once said you played outside the rules, I dont agree with the rules. Waltham played 13 A grade games this year am I correct? What other than reason would you play him and Clarke in the D grade this week than to get the D grade into a GF and then you can come tell the world how good you are at getting all 4 grades into the GF. What would they have got out of yesterday apart from a cold? Anyway, it is done now and i stand by what i feel is that the decision by PAOC to play these guys in the D grade yesterday was not what the rules were implemented for, maybe they were I dont know.

[TEX07]

If Clarke and Waltham hadn't played D's I assume that they would have been named in the squads higher, pushing two C-graders down to play D's yesterday. Therefore there aren't any guys who "stepped aside", simply stated, they wouldn't have gotten a game anyway. Bottom line, there is only 94 spots between 4 sides, where those 94 land doesn't change who #95 and 96 are.[/quote]

Trader, we would never have been upset if a guy was dropped from the C grade to the D grade, that is what happens. We were fortunate to have three guys get dropped to the C grade during the last two finals games, unfortunate for them because they wanted to be in the B grade, this is what happens.

[Trader]

If Clarke and Waltham hadn't played D's I assume that they would have been named in the squads higher, pushing two C-graders down to play D's yesterday. Therefore there aren't any guys who "stepped aside", simply stated, they wouldn't have gotten a game anyway. Bottom line, there is only 94 spots between 4 sides, where those 94 land doesn't change who #95 and 96 are.

Trader, we would never have been upset if a guy was dropped from the C grade to the D grade, that is what happens. We were fortunate to have three guys get dropped to the C grade during the last two finals games, unfortunate for them because they wanted to be in the B grade, this is what happens.

Agreed, just shows Choccies comment (about the players that "stepped aside") was irrelevant.


A2M, any word yet on the likes of Forby, Wade and Rus?? All playing I assume??

[Jimmy_041]

Sorry choccies, I didnt realise he played in the last round as I didnt watch that game - so same conditions apply as Waltham. It doesnt change anything, so who's polishing anything?

The 2 guys had a great day, and night last night, knowing they'll get a shot at a GF next week - as if any of you really care what they think anyway. I'm sure you had a disappointed player when you promoted the D Grade full forward for last year's GF

and as for morals: pffftt.

That is ridculous Jimmy, you said it yourself, we promoted him. I never once said you played outside the rules, I dont agree with the rules. Waltham played 13 A grade games this year am I correct? What other than reason would you play him and Clarke in the D grade this week than to get the D grade into a GF and then you can come tell the world how good you are at getting all 4 grades into the GF. What would they have got out of yesterday apart from a cold? Anyway, it is done now and i stand by what i feel is that the decision by PAOC to play these guys in the D grade yesterday was not what the rules were implemented for, maybe they were I dont know.

Well, you guys are so concerned about how our guys are feeling about getting replaced, you can go and ask that bloke. Makes no difference coming up or going down - to say you feel for the guys who missed out is bull$hit. You could not give a stuff.

I didnt say we were good at getting into 4 GF's, I just answered the comment "what you dont understand is we are a club that plays our best players in the A grade, the next lot in the B grade, then the C grade, get the drift?" I'll say it again - we do get the drift and have played our best players in our sides all year. Is that not what we did yesterday?

I am yet to see a valid point in any of the arguments.

They both played B Grade, not A Grade, 3 weeks ago
We will play our best available team in any final
As I have previously stated, in my opinion, they would have qualified under last years rules as well. If Im wrong, then Im quite happy to admit it but my reading of the rule (and I have them all here in front of me) is you could drop consecutive grades last year. Under those rules B -> D is 2 weeks from R18. I might add they only didn't play last week coz they were still injured, not because we decided to keep them for yesterday

So, its just bad luck because there was no rule broken or even bent and to say it is morally wrong is carp too. They have not played since R18 and have every right to play in any final once fit

[teaoby]

agree to disagree lads. no one from GG will ever agree with what we did. and 90% of pac blokes will never have an issue with it.
some will and thats their choice.

the club saw it as a chance at getting all 4 teams in and giving all player a chance to play in a GF. whether you think it right or wrong thats how we went about it because we were in the position too. if GG feel slighted, that sucks but its done. issue over.

good luck too GG in the A's this week hopefuuly you belt pooraka. because lets be honest no one likes them.

[Footy_Rulz]

At the end of the day our D-Grade only played a half of footy, an issue we had all year and it finally bit us in the bum. Had we played 4 quarters yesterday we would have beat PAOC with those guys in the team.

You can sit back and say well our team could have had about 5-6 more quality players in there (if selection night had gone a different way and a couple of borderline injured players actually played) and PAOC could have been 2 quality players down, unfortunately for us it turned out to be worst case scenario and we didn't get any of those 5-6 players.

We only lost by a point and I honestly believe there are a lot more obvious reasons and valid problems yesterday to explain why we did not win, with 2 A/Bs playing in the other team not being one of them.

[a2m]

If Clarke and Waltham hadn't played D's I assume that they would have been named in the squads higher, pushing two C-graders down to play D's yesterday. Therefore there aren't any guys who "stepped aside", simply stated, they wouldn't have gotten a game anyway. Bottom line, there is only 94 spots between 4 sides, where those 94 land doesn't change who #95 and 96 are.

Trader, we would never have been upset if a guy was dropped from the C grade to the D grade, that is what happens. We were fortunate to have three guys get dropped to the C grade during the last two finals games, unfortunate for them because they wanted to be in the B grade, this is what happens.

Agreed, just shows Choccies comment (about the players that "stepped aside") was irrelevant.

A2M, any word yet on the likes of Forby, Wade and Rus?? All playing I assume??

Mate for a Grand Final I dare say everyone will be putting their hands up...

[schimma]

player hitting a waterboy. what happened??? was the water boy angry as he did not get a game. So Golden Grove what happened. 5 weeks ago you lads were unbeatable. Agree 2 points and 1 point is tough but. Maybe next year you guys could get a new umpire one that does not assist you lads as much.

[TEX07]

agree to disagree lads. no one from GG will ever agree with what we did. and 90% of pac blokes will never have an issue with it.
some will and thats their choice.

the club saw it as a chance at getting all 4 teams in and giving all player a chance to play in a GF. whether you think it right or wrong thats how we went about it because we were in the position too. if GG feel slighted, that sucks but its done. issue over.

good luck too GG in the A's this week hopefuuly you belt pooraka. because lets be honest no one likes them.

Fair point, teaoby. You are right there no one was happy at ours and no one would have been unhappy at yours. Jimmy, I know you didnt break any rules nor bend them, I understand they are the rules. My only issue is that the rule seems flawed. Lets move on now hey? Best of luck to both sides this week. I think SMOSH will win this game, I have seen them play our D grade each time this year and they are a good side. PAOC I only saw on Saturday and my opinion is jaded as I think they had good service from the two guys who played down this week, I assume neither will play the GF in this grade so I tip SMOSH.

[schimma]

agree to disagree lads. no one from GG will ever agree with what we did. and 90% of pac blokes will never have an issue with it.
some will and thats their choice.

the club saw it as a chance at getting all 4 teams in and giving all player a chance to play in a GF. whether you think it right or wrong thats how we went about it because we were in the position too. if GG feel slighted, that sucks but its done. issue over.

good luck too GG in the A's this week hopefuuly you belt pooraka. because lets be honest no one likes them.

Fair point, teaoby. You are right there no one was happy at ours and no one would have been unhappy at yours. Jimmy, I know you didnt break any rules nor bend them, I understand they are the rules. My only issue is that the rule seems flawed. Lets move on now hey? Best of luck to both sides this week. I think SMOSH will win this game, I have seen them play our D grade each time this year and they are a good side. PAOC I only saw on Saturday and my opinion is jaded as I think they had good service from the two guys who played down this week, I assume neither will play the GF in this grade so I tip SMOSH.

game looks to be played at St Mary's. not sure the last time there was a game there. ground normally in good nick.

[TIRED TIGER]

[quote="schimma"][quote="TEX07"][quote="teaoby"]agree to disagree lads. no one from GG will ever agree with what we did. and 90% of pac blokes will never have an issue with it.
some will and thats their choice.




game looks to be played at St Mary's. not sure the last time there was a game there. ground normally in good nick.[/quote]

hope valley and adelaide lutheran c5 pleminary final there last sat and oval was very average as were most.personally i reckon the best thing about st marys oval is looking at it in the mirror as you drive off