SA Footy

Big Phil wrote:Although the 3 game qualification rule has worked in favour of thw Dogs in a couple of premiership years gone by with the likes of Stuart Dew and Stuart Cochrane only playing the bare minimum minor round games, spending the majority of the year in the AFL, then coming into SANFL finals, I don't think the requirement of just 3 games is a good one.

There has been talk in years gone by of increasing the finals qualification number to 5 minor round games and I think it's something that the SANFL need to seriously address once again. I actually don't have a problem with Reilly playing for Sturt in the finals this year, assuming he does qualify on Saturday night, because he has had an injury interrupted AFL season with the Crows and it's not like he played EVERY game in the Adelaide side up until the last 2 or 3 minor round SANFL games and came in just to qualify, it's also been about finding form for him.

I think that changing the rule to 5 games is alright but IMO, I think it should be even more than that, I'd say 8 or 10 games. It's really unfair that a young kid, or in some scenarios in years gone by club veterans, miss out on selection in finals and even Premiership sides because they have had to make way for someone that has hardly played in the sid all year but is an AFL player and makes the cut ahead of them. There has been discussions in many seasons gone by about the SANFL addressing it but nothing has ever come of it. It needs to change I reckon...

In fact, I feel like creating a poll to see what other fans think out there think. maybe i'll then send it to the SANFL and that will give them some food for thought to perhaps seriously look at it ?

doggies4eva wrote:I think that if a player has played more AFL games than SANFL games then he is an AFL player and should be ineligible for finals.

TigerBoss wrote:I think three games is too few for qualification...somewhere in the five-to-eight range would be appropriate.

The fact that Peter Burgoyne can line up for Port in their finals (if they make it) gives me the sh1ts.

Glenelg have no one coming back from the Power that has qualified, and if the Crows go out this week, we have no one that has qualified from them either...sometimes the AFL-listed blokes can upset structures and stability by stepping into the fold at finals time, while other times it is the AFL-listed blokes that are the difference between a side getting over the line in a final.

Another argument would be that there has not been a tremendous amount of controversy over this rule in recent times, or at least that I can remember off the top of my head, so perhaps it is best to leave it alone. The "don't fix what isn't broken" adage applies in this situation.

HeartBeatsTrue wrote:The option I would vote for isnt up there.

If you play more SANFL games than AFL in minor round, then you are eligible.

wycbloods wrote:

TigerBoss wrote:I think three games is too few for qualification...somewhere in the five-to-eight range would be appropriate.

The fact that Peter Burgoyne can line up for Port in their finals (if they make it) gives me the sh1ts.

Glenelg have no one coming back from the Power that has qualified, and if the Crows go out this week, we have no one that has qualified from them either...sometimes the AFL-listed blokes can upset structures and stability by stepping into the fold at finals time, while other times it is the AFL-listed blokes that are the difference between a side getting over the line in a final.

Another argument would be that there has not been a tremendous amount of controversy over this rule in recent times, or at least that I can remember off the top of my head, so perhaps it is best to leave it alone. The "don't fix what isn't broken" adage applies in this situation.

Curnow and Sellar are available aren't they .

TigerBoss wrote:

wycbloods wrote:

TigerBoss wrote:I think three games is too few for qualification...somewhere in the five-to-eight range would be appropriate.

The fact that Peter Burgoyne can line up for Port in their finals (if they make it) gives me the sh1ts.

Glenelg have no one coming back from the Power that has qualified, and if the Crows go out this week, we have no one that has qualified from them either...sometimes the AFL-listed blokes can upset structures and stability by stepping into the fold at finals time, while other times it is the AFL-listed blokes that are the difference between a side getting over the line in a final.

Another argument would be that there has not been a tremendous amount of controversy over this rule in recent times, or at least that I can remember off the top of my head, so perhaps it is best to leave it alone. The "don't fix what isn't broken" adage applies in this situation.

Curnow and Sellar are available aren't they .

Sellar is playing footy in our 2s at the moment...a lot of difference with that going up against a Peter Burgoyne returning from the Power, where he played in their final game of the season, to play finals for the Magpies.

wycbloods wrote:

TigerBoss wrote:

wycbloods wrote:

TigerBoss wrote:I think three games is too few for qualification...somewhere in the five-to-eight range would be appropriate.

The fact that Peter Burgoyne can line up for Port in their finals (if they make it) gives me the sh1ts.

Glenelg have no one coming back from the Power that has qualified, and if the Crows go out this week, we have no one that has qualified from them either...sometimes the AFL-listed blokes can upset structures and stability by stepping into the fold at finals time, while other times it is the AFL-listed blokes that are the difference between a side getting over the line in a final.

Another argument would be that there has not been a tremendous amount of controversy over this rule in recent times, or at least that I can remember off the top of my head, so perhaps it is best to leave it alone. The "don't fix what isn't broken" adage applies in this situation.

Curnow and Sellar are available aren't they .

Sellar is playing footy in our 2s at the moment...a lot of difference with that going up against a Peter Burgoyne returning from the Power, where he played in their final game of the season, to play finals for the Magpies.

I am sure you said you had no one who had qualified . I don't remember the 'how good they are' clause.

wycbloods wrote:

TigerBoss wrote:

wycbloods wrote:

TigerBoss wrote:I think three games is too few for qualification...somewhere in the five-to-eight range would be appropriate.

The fact that Peter Burgoyne can line up for Port in their finals (if they make it) gives me the sh1ts.

Glenelg have no one coming back from the Power that has qualified, and if the Crows go out this week, we have no one that has qualified from them either...sometimes the AFL-listed blokes can upset structures and stability by stepping into the fold at finals time, while other times it is the AFL-listed blokes that are the difference between a side getting over the line in a final.

Another argument would be that there has not been a tremendous amount of controversy over this rule in recent times, or at least that I can remember off the top of my head, so perhaps it is best to leave it alone. The "don't fix what isn't broken" adage applies in this situation.

Curnow and Sellar are available aren't they .

Sellar is playing footy in our 2s at the moment...a lot of difference with that going up against a Peter Burgoyne returning from the Power, where he played in their final game of the season, to play finals for the Magpies.

I am sure you said you had no one who had qualified . I don't remember the 'how good they are' clause.