SAAFL Div 5 & 5R (2010)

[zedman]

Just wondering LM do we get the tip for tipping Plympton in round 1 because they won the game and Elizabeth didn't?

We'll wait and see if their appeal is successful.

I reckon the appeal will be successful! I think its a joke that saafl actually did what they did! Ben or Benjamin its still the same f---in person! commonsense would prevail one would think! If not saafl need to take a good hard look at themselves!!

tbh..if you lose the game over that its insane..im in elizabeths corner for this one..its not like they were trying to play him unregistered..common sense must prevail here..or it will open a can of worms

[EddieV]

Just wondering LM do we get the tip for tipping Plympton in round 1 because they won the game and Elizabeth didn't?

We'll wait and see if their appeal is successful.

I reckon the appeal will be successful! I think its a joke that saafl actually did what they did! Ben or Benjamin its still the same f---in person! commonsense would prevail one would think! If not saafl need to take a good hard look at themselves!!

tbh..if you lose the game over that its insane..im in elizabeths corner for this one..its not like they were trying to play him unregistered..common sense must prevail here..or it will open a can of worms

I just hope they didnt register a new player under the new name with the slightly different spelling for the name and a slightly different birth date.

If they were clearing a player from a different club you actually choose the player from their list dont you? This then goes to the other club to be cleared before being approved by the league.


At this point these players appear on your available players list so they can be selected in iscore and put onto a team sheet.

[boozehound]

We would have absolutely no reason to do this....Everyone knew Ben Halliday was playing at Elizabeth after having a year off. There was never a danger of Salisbury North not clearing him....

In all honesty it would be a joke if the decision stands but hopefully if it does (which will not surprise me with the morons running the league) it will not effect our position on the ladder come round 18.

[dee man]

Plympton vs Blackfriars (Plympton) - a loss and a draw at plympton so time for a win
Hectorville vs Smithfield (Daly Oval)
Elizabeth vs Rosewater (Argana Park)
Hope Valley vs Adelaide Lutheran (Hope Valley)
Brahma Lodge vs North Haven (Brahma Lodge)

plympton
smithfield
elizabeth
hope valley
lodge

[barbs]

We would have absolutely no reason to do this....Everyone knew Ben Halliday was playing at Elizabeth after having a year off. There was never a danger of Salisbury North not clearing him....

In all honesty it would be a joke if the decision stands but hopefully if it does (which will not surprise me with the morons running the league) it will not effect our position on the ladder come round 18.

By the same token wouldn't everyone have known he was a registered Salisbury North player? Also whoever does the clearances would know it's a straight registration after 2 years off not just 1. Surely it would raise alarm bells?

[woodublieve12]

We would have absolutely no reason to do this....Everyone knew Ben Halliday was playing at Elizabeth after having a year off. There was never a danger of Salisbury North not clearing him....

In all honesty it would be a joke if the decision stands but hopefully if it does (which will not surprise me with the morons running the league) it will not effect our position on the ladder come round 18.

By the same token wouldn't everyone have known he was a registered Salisbury North player? Also whoever does the clearances would know it's a straight registration after 2 years off not just 1. Surely it would raise alarm bells?

you wouldn't lose points just for a spelling error... obviously someone stuffed up!!!

[Jabber]

We would have absolutely no reason to do this....Everyone knew Ben Halliday was playing at Elizabeth after having a year off. There was never a danger of Salisbury North not clearing him....

In all honesty it would be a joke if the decision stands but hopefully if it does (which will not surprise me with the morons running the league) it will not effect our position on the ladder come round 18.

By the same token wouldn't everyone have known he was a registered Salisbury North player? Also whoever does the clearances would know it's a straight registration after 2 years off not just 1. Surely it would raise alarm bells?

I cant believe the SAAFL's "incompetence" is under scrutiny when clearly there was only one party out of Plympton, Elizabeth, and SAAFL, that made an error.

We're talking about the same club that wasnt aware how many were allowed on the bench of a C5 game in round 1, and the team manager came into the centre to speak with the umps to ask why plympton had so many on the bench.

It seems as if admin is afterthough for the eags.

[NO-MERCY]

Rumours are rife Rosewater behind the scenes are still approaching Seaton players, another was offered $$ to leave Seaton recently & sign but declined.
We'll give you our C grade rejects but other than that P!SS OFF.

No Rosewater rep is coming forward, just letting you know the player you are chasing is yours if you pay his subs of around $450.
That fee being for last year & this.

[lovetotalkfooty]

Plympton vs Blackfriars (Plympton)
Hectorville vs Smithfield (Daly Oval)
Elizabeth vs Rosewater (Argana Park)
Hope Valley vs Adelaide Lutheran (Hope Valley)
Brahma Lodge vs North Haven (Brahma Lodge)

[boozehound]

We would have absolutely no reason to do this....Everyone knew Ben Halliday was playing at Elizabeth after having a year off. There was never a danger of Salisbury North not clearing him....

In all honesty it would be a joke if the decision stands but hopefully if it does (which will not surprise me with the morons running the league) it will not effect our position on the ladder come round 18.

By the same token wouldn't everyone have known he was a registered Salisbury North player? Also whoever does the clearances would know it's a straight registration after 2 years off not just 1. Surely it would raise alarm bells?

you wouldn't lose points just for a spelling error... obviously someone stuffed up!!!

Found out the full story tonight....

Hallidays registration form was submitted as Ben Halliday and not Benjamin Halliday and the date of birth was the days date he signed it (he signs and dates things repetatively at work daily). His previous clubs section was filled out correctly, listing Salisbury North as his previous club. Amatuer league excepted the clerical error and registered Ben as an infant who has played Div 1 footy.

Now obviously a clerical error has been made on our behalf, however first and foremost the punishment does not at all fit the error and secondly SAAFL appears to have registered a new born to play senior footy.

EFC would have no reason to intentionally mis-manage Ben's registration. We were in no danger of him not being cleared by S/North. After all isn't cheating the reason the rule is there. Now I ask all what would be a reasonable outcome resulting from this should my information be correct. Plympton idiots who are arguing with this simply to preserve their undeserving victory need not weigh in....

[boozehound]

We would have absolutely no reason to do this....Everyone knew Ben Halliday was playing at Elizabeth after having a year off. There was never a danger of Salisbury North not clearing him....

In all honesty it would be a joke if the decision stands but hopefully if it does (which will not surprise me with the morons running the league) it will not effect our position on the ladder come round 18.

By the same token wouldn't everyone have known he was a registered Salisbury North player? Also whoever does the clearances would know it's a straight registration after 2 years off not just 1. Surely it would raise alarm bells?

I cant believe the SAAFL's "incompetence" is under scrutiny when clearly there was only one party out of Plympton, Elizabeth, and SAAFL, that made an error.

We're talking about the same club that wasnt aware how many were allowed on the bench of a C5 game in round 1, and the team manager came into the centre to speak with the umps to ask why plympton had so many on the bench.

It seems as if admin is afterthough for the eags.

Registering a baby to play senior footy and not having any sort of system that doesn't pick up that a Ben and a Benjamin Halliday that are both listed as having played for S/North are actually possibly the same person is not an error on SAAFL's behalf. Come on idiot. In any case if he has stated on his form that he played for S/North (all be it prior to being born) should a request for clearance be sent to them anyway?

I understand your club wanting the decision to remain but the fact is your integrity must come in to question if your club or players would accept a victory based on these circumstances. Would make it a very hollow victory should you go on to do anything this year (which I doubt)....

[Robran]

Plympton vs Blackfriars (Plympton)
Hectorville vs Smithfield (Daly Oval)
Elizabeth vs Rosewater (Argana Park)
Hope Valley vs Adelaide Lutheran (Hope Valley)
Brahma Lodge vs North Haven (Brahma Lodge)

same for me thanks L.M

[Jabber]

Surely you can understand that laws must be followed because if you start judging them on a case-by-case basis it opens an entirely new can of worms.

Sorry but the simple fact is that if you hadn't made the error you wouldnt be in this situation.

Get it right the first time. How hard is it?

We would have absolutely no reason to do this....Everyone knew Ben Halliday was playing at Elizabeth after having a year off. There was never a danger of Salisbury North not clearing him....

In all honesty it would be a joke if the decision stands but hopefully if it does (which will not surprise me with the morons running the league) it will not effect our position on the ladder come round 18.

By the same token wouldn't everyone have known he was a registered Salisbury North player? Also whoever does the clearances would know it's a straight registration after 2 years off not just 1. Surely it would raise alarm bells?

I cant believe the SAAFL's "incompetence" is under scrutiny when clearly there was only one party out of Plympton, Elizabeth, and SAAFL, that made an error.

We're talking about the same club that wasnt aware how many were allowed on the bench of a C5 game in round 1, and the team manager came into the centre to speak with the umps to ask why plympton had so many on the bench.

It seems as if admin is afterthough for the eags.

Registering a baby to play senior footy and not having any sort of system that doesn't pick up that a Ben and a Benjamin Halliday that are both listed as having played for S/North are actually possibly the same person is not an error on SAAFL's behalf. Come on idiot. In any case if he has stated on his form that he played for S/North (all be it prior to being born) should a request for clearance be sent to them anyway?

I understand your club wanting the decision to remain but the fact is your integrity must come in to question if your club or players would accept a victory based on these circumstances. Would make it a very hollow victory should you go on to do anything this year (which I doubt)....

[Jabber]

I dont give a **** if plympton get the points or not, i didnt play in the game, and plympton were junk on the day.

But from an administration point of view, and for credibility of the rules in place and the rule-makers, the rules must be followed and penalties must apply.

Unlucky, some say yes, i'd say no, it was lazy, how about get the forms right!

We would have absolutely no reason to do this....Everyone knew Ben Halliday was playing at Elizabeth after having a year off. There was never a danger of Salisbury North not clearing him....

In all honesty it would be a joke if the decision stands but hopefully if it does (which will not surprise me with the morons running the league) it will not effect our position on the ladder come round 18.

By the same token wouldn't everyone have known he was a registered Salisbury North player? Also whoever does the clearances would know it's a straight registration after 2 years off not just 1. Surely it would raise alarm bells?

I cant believe the SAAFL's "incompetence" is under scrutiny when clearly there was only one party out of Plympton, Elizabeth, and SAAFL, that made an error.

We're talking about the same club that wasnt aware how many were allowed on the bench of a C5 game in round 1, and the team manager came into the centre to speak with the umps to ask why plympton had so many on the bench.

It seems as if admin is afterthough for the eags.

Registering a baby to play senior footy and not having any sort of system that doesn't pick up that a Ben and a Benjamin Halliday that are both listed as having played for S/North are actually possibly the same person is not an error on SAAFL's behalf. Come on idiot. In any case if he has stated on his form that he played for S/North (all be it prior to being born) should a request for clearance be sent to them anyway?

I understand your club wanting the decision to remain but the fact is your integrity must come in to question if your club or players would accept a victory based on these circumstances. Would make it a very hollow victory should you go on to do anything this year (which I doubt)....

[S Demon]

Found out the full story tonight....

Hallidays registration form was submitted as Ben Halliday and not Benjamin Halliday and the date of birth was the days date he signed it (he signs and dates things repetatively at work daily). His previous clubs section was filled out correctly, listing Salisbury North as his previous club. Amatuer league excepted the clerical error and registered Ben as an infant who has played Div 1 footy.

Now obviously a clerical error has been made on our behalf, however first and foremost the punishment does not at all fit the error and secondly SAAFL appears to have registered a new born to play senior footy.

EFC would have no reason to intentionally mis-manage Ben's registration. We were in no danger of him not being cleared by S/North. After all isn't cheating the reason the rule is there. Now I ask all what would be a reasonable outcome resulting from this should my information be correct. Plympton idiots who are arguing with this simply to preserve their undeserving victory need not weigh in....

I'm not convinced the punishment fits the crime as it was a genuine error, rather than blatantly cheating, however I must add that filling out forms correctly must come into play somewhere if the excuse of, "oops I made a mistake" is grounds for no action being taken! Why fill out the forms in the first place if they have no meaning?

Black and White - Wrong Name, wrong birth date.

What do you think the SAAFL should have done, boozehound?

[Lightning McQueen]

We would have absolutely no reason to do this....Everyone knew Ben Halliday was playing at Elizabeth after having a year off. There was never a danger of Salisbury North not clearing him....

In all honesty it would be a joke if the decision stands but hopefully if it does (which will not surprise me with the morons running the league) it will not effect our position on the ladder come round 18.

By the same token wouldn't everyone have known he was a registered Salisbury North player? Also whoever does the clearances would know it's a straight registration after 2 years off not just 1. Surely it would raise alarm bells?

I cant believe the SAAFL's "incompetence" is under scrutiny when clearly there was only one party out of Plympton, Elizabeth, and SAAFL, that made an error.

We're talking about the same club that wasnt aware how many were allowed on the bench of a C5 game in round 1, and the team manager came into the centre to speak with the umps to ask why plympton had so many on the bench.
It seems as if admin is afterthough for the eags.

That's poor form mate, it was the first time Elizabeth have fielded a C grade in the SAAFL, it was the first game of the season to go with that, I wouldn't have known about the rule without reading through this forum in the C grade sections.

[Executive Member]

We would have absolutely no reason to do this....Everyone knew Ben Halliday was playing at Elizabeth after having a year off. There was never a danger of Salisbury North not clearing him....

In all honesty it would be a joke if the decision stands but hopefully if it does (which will not surprise me with the morons running the league) it will not effect our position on the ladder come round 18.

By the same token wouldn't everyone have known he was a registered Salisbury North player? Also whoever does the clearances would know it's a straight registration after 2 years off not just 1. Surely it would raise alarm bells?

I cant believe the SAAFL's "incompetence" is under scrutiny when clearly there was only one party out of Plympton, Elizabeth, and SAAFL, that made an error.

We're talking about the same club that wasnt aware how many were allowed on the bench of a C5 game in round 1, and the team manager came into the centre to speak with the umps to ask why plympton had so many on the bench.
It seems as if admin is afterthough for the eags.

That's poor form mate, it was the first time Elizabeth have fielded a C grade in the SAAFL, it was the first game of the season to go with that, I wouldn't have known about the rule without reading through this forum in the C grade sections.

First time we have had a C Grade as well LM - but we knew we could have 25

[Lightning McQueen]

First time we have had a C Grade as well LM - but we knew we could have 25

Yeah but you know everything

[Executive Member]

First time we have had a C Grade as well LM - but we knew we could have 25

Yeah but you know everything

incorrect
I just know most things

[Dragons]

We would have absolutely no reason to do this....Everyone knew Ben Halliday was playing at Elizabeth after having a year off. There was never a danger of Salisbury North not clearing him....

In all honesty it would be a joke if the decision stands but hopefully if it does (which will not surprise me with the morons running the league) it will not effect our position on the ladder come round 18.

By the same token wouldn't everyone have known he was a registered Salisbury North player? Also whoever does the clearances would know it's a straight registration after 2 years off not just 1. Surely it would raise alarm bells?

I cant believe the SAAFL's "incompetence" is under scrutiny when clearly there was only one party out of Plympton, Elizabeth, and SAAFL, that made an error.

We're talking about the same club that wasnt aware how many were allowed on the bench of a C5 game in round 1, and the team manager came into the centre to speak with the umps to ask why plympton had so many on the bench.
It seems as if admin is afterthough for the eags.

That's poor form mate, it was the first time Elizabeth have fielded a C grade in the SAAFL, it was the first game of the season to go with that, I wouldn't have known about the rule without reading through this forum in the C grade sections.

I must admit we (WOS) didnt know that rule either. Mind you we only had 19 blokes to chose from in Round 1 so it mattered not