SA Footy

Is that the article referring to the eligibility of the PAFC AFL players in Sundays SANFL final?

If yes, isn't that a reflection of the rules put in place by the SANFL?

Booney wrote:Is that the article referring to the eligibility of the PAFC AFL players in Sundays SANFL final?

If yes, isn't that a reflection of the rules put in place by the SANFL?

Maybe read the article and find out at a guess.


The article refers to the fact PAFC are going to change their team for Sunday's SANFL game due to the result of the west coast game.


Which I believe was raised years ago before this bs was approved.

And Keith Thomas assured us all "they will always play to the line" no matter what.

UK Fan wrote:

Booney wrote:Is that the article referring to the eligibility of the PAFC AFL players in Sundays SANFL final?

If yes, isn't that a reflection of the rules put in place by the SANFL?

Maybe read the article and find out at a guess.

The article refers to the fact PAFC are going to change their team for Sunday's SANFL game due to the result of the west coast game.

It's behind a paywall, but I worked around it.

Yes, that's right they will have to do so as Trengove, Broadbent and Young have not qualified to play SANFL finals once the AFL side is eliminated.

THE SANFL RULES state that if Port Adelaide lose on Saturday night these 3 are not eligible to play on Sunday as they have not met the qualification criteria.

It's not KT lying, it's not Port Adelaide not playing to the line, it's in accordance with the rules set down by the SANFL and you sir are a goose.

One word Booney


Why?

Brodlach wrote:One word Booney

Why?

Education.

Edumacation

UK Fan wrote:

Booney wrote:Is that the article referring to the eligibility of the PAFC AFL players in Sundays SANFL final?

If yes, isn't that a reflection of the rules put in place by the SANFL?

Maybe read the article and find out at a guess.


The article refers to the fact PAFC are going to change their team for Sunday's SANFL game due to the result of the west coast game.


Which I believe was raised years ago before this bs was approved.

And Keith Thomas assured us all "they will always play to the line" no matter what.

sold the biggest lemon in the history of football.

UK Fan wrote:Keith Thomas "we promise to always play to the line"

You are a liar and a disgrace to the SANFL KT.

Who else is surprised they paid lip service to their promise

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... cfb3a1ab12

Just for prosperity.

So, why did Port get a different set of rules to the Crows as part of their entering the SANFL?
My recollection is that their bid fell flat on its face, they then sat back and let the Crows do the heavy lifting, then, riding on their coat tails, ended up with a better deal than the Crows did.
I somehow missed the reason for this.
I am also not completely conversant with what special exceptions Port are allowed.
I do know that they are allowed Summerton, as a regular Magpie (perhaps the last "true Magpie"?) whereas the Crows have to rely on top ups. The Crows top ups have to fail certain criteria which, for all practical purposes, ensures that they are not too good.
Port also have a reserves side which is kicking ass, and some of those ass kickers get promoted/ demoted into the SANFL league, depending on numbers of Power players. I think I recall that Port also have top ups, but only need to use them if there are spots left in the Magpies league side after Summerton and the reserves Magarey Medallist and the runner up are included.
Do I have that bit right? If so, it means that Port are compromised chiefly of AFL reserves players, and if one or two of them are injured, then get to supplement their list with three players that would probably be counted within the best dozen or half dozen at any other SANFL side.
Very good for those three lads of course, not having a go at them, but I am having a bit of trouble getting my head around this set of rules, and the reasons for it.

Ben hooks article today about the sanfl proves he has nfi

The rule didn't apply last week dickhead

UK Fan wrote:Ben hooks article today about the sanfl proves he has nfi

The rule didn't apply last week dickhead

Couldnt find it online can you post it here

UK Fan wrote:Ben hooks article today about the sanfl proves he has nfi

The rule didn't apply last week dickhead

Didnt see it. But a letter to the editor should be sent in i reckon....see if it gets printed

Good result today Slaven?
Professionals in a GF, twice in four years. The sanfl or sanfull or what ever their marketing/afl has dictated it is, is such a pathetic farcical "competition". Hope the power smash whatever bend over club they play in a fortnight.

No contest against the Professionals SANFL still a joke and a FARCE after FOUR years of this compromised competition.

And so it begins. This is what I was afraid of all along. Looks like it could be Crows v Power GF every season and the rest of us playing to see who finishes 3rd.

NO OFFAL IN THE SANFUL

Wont power send a lot of players for surgery? Prob be 4-5 omissions

The line trotted out by Rucci and some of the others is that the sky hasn't fallen in because neither the crows or the power 2's have won a flag yet. However:
This is the second gf in four years port have been in.
Three of the four years one of the teams have made at least the prelim final.
Peel won the wafl flag last year and are about to make another gf by beating subi even though subi were 19-1 and peel 12-8 during the season.
This will be the third year on four one of the 2's sides have made the gf over there, with East Perth in 2014.
East Perth also finished third in 2015.
Peel have made the finals every year, east perth the first three but not this year

It's the sole reason I and many others don't go to SANFL games like we used to, having said that as I mentioned before I'll be at the GF but only because I get paid and the more spending money for Thailand the better.

MW wrote:Wont power send a lot of players for surgery? Prob be 4-5 omissions

Will be interesting from here, if they play all their AFL players that means they start their pre-season 2 weeks later than the 22 that played last night, not something Ken would like, especially from his younger players

Dutchy wrote:

MW wrote:Wont power send a lot of players for surgery? Prob be 4-5 omissions

Will be interesting from here, if they play all their AFL players that means they start their pre-season 2 weeks later than the 22 that played last night, not something Ken would like, especially from his younger players

I suspect a shocking run with soft tissue injuries this week