SA Footy

As we are begining another SANFL season I feel that it is time that the SANFL took another look at this issue. The season before last Nathan Lonie did not play for North in the finals and last season Brett Reilly informed the Sturt Football Club that he would not be available to play in the finals. Both clubs did not win the premiership, so what influence either player would have made is hard to gauge, I do think Sturt could have done better with Reilly in the side though.

My feeling is that doing that shows contempt for the colours and the jumper of the SANFL club that you are aligned to. It also sends a pretty clear message of what the player concerned thinks of the SANFL competition in general and I feel that is unhelpful as opposed to what the SANFL managament is trying to do to promote the competition in the community.

I feel that if you agree to play for an SANFL club in the league side then you are also commiting yourself to play in the SANFL finals if the side makes it, if you really do not want to play in the finals then the player should be required to let the club know prior to the season starting, so that the club can make a decision whether to keep the player in the league side or to play that player in the Reserves and give another player from the club that is commited to the club and the jumper to have their chance play at SANFL level.

I don't think its fair to pigeon hole all players.
For eg Lonie was devestated at missing out on the GF side for the Power and felt he wasn't mentally right to line up for the Roosters taking the spot of a player who was.
I thought his decision was very selfless and the correct one for all concerned.
If it wasn't for him I don't think we would have made it past the first 2 finals and would have come 4th.

Agree Wedgie that there are that many variables. As you said, how the player fares with his AFL club, no 1 priority, has a big impact. Look at Shattock in 2006 - whether it was his of Fuller's decision to leave him out, it was the right one.

Also, if the player has played earlier or later in the season, and the number of games, would affect how he feels about the club, as would whether he came thourgh the SNAFL club's ranks or was allocated by mini-draft.

However, I do agree Sojourner, that it has been a bit of a worrying trend over the last couple of years. Probably the ones that are more connerning would have been Massie and Campbell, where they had been at Norwood for a number of years and contributed to the club when it was going through rough times, but then rejected the opportunity to play finals.

agree with Wedgie, the decision to not play is usually a positive for the SANFL clubs rather than a negative....who really wants a player (not matter what their ability is) to be playing in finals for their club if they are either injured or mentally exausted, remembering that most qualified players have had pretty tough years if they have been in and out of the AFL system

Well said,

If an AFL player is available (Club not playing in AFL Finals), and according to the SANFL club doctor, not the AFL doctor, you can play if selected in finals, that's it, you play. Failure to do so means you miss the first 4 games of the AFL the following year.

Last year we had an exoduse of AFL players from our side just before the finals all of which would have made a huge difference to where we finished, it created ill feeling between them and the club, members and supporters.

We gave them every opportunity to regain form in the league side, to get back into their reespective AFL sides, even though some didn't deserve a position in the SANFL side ahead of a form player.

I have been on record on our own club page as saying the AFL recruits when dropped from the AFL should have a run in the 2's to earn their spot in the league side not automatically selected, and a bad performance in the league earns a relegation, just like everyone else in the SANFL league.

They play well for the club they will earn AFL selection again, but must earn respect of everyone else in their SANFL club first.

Taylor Walker played his first 3 games for Norwood in season 2008 in the 2's, he earned the respect of the club and selection into the league side the right way.

Cheers

FWIW, I would like to see qualification increase to 5 games, but if has been injured and hasn't played 5 games, then he needs to play at least half with SANFL club, eg if played 6, 3 AFL & 3 SANFL would qualify, but 3/7 wouldn't.

what about limiting AFL listed players to home-grown clubs only (for finals)?
ie Phil Davis (NA Home-grown) plays 3 games for NA, the rest for the Crows, yet gets dropped for the finals, he's eligible to play for NA
ie 2 Nathan Lonie plays 3 games for NA, the rest for the Power, yet gets dropped for the finals & is not eligible
ie 3 Gavin Grose plays 50% of the year for NA, 50% for the Power, & is eligible

I totally agree with the majority of posts on here and certainly agree about the qualification criteria needing to be increased.

FWIW, I think that as a whole, most individual cases in seasons psts have been handled fairly well and the right outcome has prevailed.

In Reilly's case, he had only just played the 3 qualifying minor round games under his belt (from memory, he only played 2 games, 1 of the qualifying games came when Sturt had a bye) so the lad has played in the side only 2 times in the whole season.

The players themselves that pull out of the finals series often make 1 very valid point that hasn't been mentioned on this thread as yet. These players say that don't feel right about taking the spot of a young lad or a league regular that has played in the side all year only to have to miss out because they are a similar player to that coming in from the AFL system.

Punk Rooster wrote:what about limiting AFL listed players to home-grown clubs only (for finals)?
ie Phil Davis (NA Home-grown) plays 3 games for NA, the rest for the Crows, yet gets dropped for the finals, he's eligible to play for NA
ie 2 Nathan Lonie plays 3 games for NA, the rest for the Power, yet gets dropped for the finals & is not eligible
ie 3 Gavin Grose plays 50% of the year for NA, 50% for the Power, & is eligible

I agree PR, I think that's an idea worth trialling at least.

FlyingHigh wrote:Agree Wedgie that there are that many variables. As you said, how the player fares with his AFL club, no 1 priority, has a big impact. Look at Shattock in 2006 - whether it was his of Fuller's decision to leave him out, it was the right one.

Also, if the player has played earlier or later in the season, and the number of games, would affect how he feels about the club, as would whether he came thourgh the SNAFL club's ranks or was allocated by mini-draft.

However, I do agree Sojourner, that it has been a bit of a worrying trend over the last couple of years. Probably the ones that are more connerning would have been Massie and Campbell, where they had been at Norwood for a number of years and contributed to the club when it was going through rough times, but then rejected the opportunity to play finals.

Fair call about Massie but wrong with Campbell. His shoulder was stuffed, he's just had an operation a few weeks ago to fix it, and was still a Cows player and they stopped him from playing.

Reilly was no loss for us. His heart wasn't in it and he was even told by MacGowan that if it's the case then he shouldn't continue.

I'd only be disappointed if a bloke who came through the clubs ranks decided to pull the pin.

I agree with all the posts on this topic.

For what its worth I think the eligibility for SANFL finals should be changed. One thing is I believe is that a guy who plays the first few weeks in the SANFL, then gets promoted to the Crows or Power and cements a place in their side (a la Justin Westhoff in 2007) should not be eligible for SANFL finals.

My suggested proposal would be that any player who plays 3 or more AFL games during the year must play at least 3 games for his SANFL club (and I mean play, not a phantom listing on a bye weekend) AFTER 30 June to be eligible for finals.