SA Footy

therisingblues wrote:

robranisgod wrote:

boot camp wrote:Interesting that the free kick rule in place for out of bounds against last team kicking - refer video 2.45 min.

That free was from a kick in from the full back after a point had been scored. It has always been a free to the opposition in that circumstance if the ball goes out of bounds without it being touched.

Spot on Barrie.

He's not Barrie. And it would be Mr Robran to you.

I was actually going to call him Robbie, then realised that it should actually be Robbrie, which sounds too much like robbery...
Then my head exploded and after I put the pieces together I discovered I was blogging with a North supporter from Almost Scotland and I had no idea how to respond to the last thing he typed. After pondering something abusive I decided that none of this is really happening because it is the off season and no one is reading this and who the hell supports North and lives in bloody Almost Scotland anyway?
Send Bazza my love!

therisingblues wrote:I was actually going to call him Robbie, then realised that it should actually be Robbrie, which sounds too much like robbery...
Then my head exploded and after I put the pieces together I discovered I was blogging with a North supporter from Almost Scotland and I had no idea how to respond to the last thing he typed. After pondering something abusive I decided that none of this is really happening because it is the off season and no one is reading this and who the hell supports North and lives in bloody Almost Scotland anyway?
Send Bazza my love!

when you live as far north as I do being a North supporter seemed apt my nippon friend.
I’ll pass on your love to Mr R

johntheclaret wrote:when you live as far north as I do being a North supporter seemed apt my nippon friend.
I’ll pass on your love to Mr R

Dirty Northern Bastard...

Are there moves afoot to create a TAC-type set-up in SA and do away with the under 18s at club level?

Not on the discussion board

Dogwatcher wrote:Are there moves afoot to create a TAC-type set-up in SA and do away with the SANFL seniors?

There all fixed
Its the way its heading.

Peel’s bid to win a premiership hat-trick next year has been made much tougher after a cut to the number of Fremantle players eligible to play finals.
The Thunder and East Perth will be restricted to 12 AFL-listed players in any final next season, down from the 15 that caused a major controversy in the WAFL this year.

And those AFL players must play at least five league matches — including three after June 30 — to qualify for WAFL finals.
The WA Football Commission has changed WAFL finals eligibility for the two AFL-aligned clubs in response to the bitter fallout from Peel’s two premierships in the past two seasons.

The Thunder fielded 17 Dockers in their maiden grand final win in 2016 and used the maximum 15 this year when they beat Subiaco for the second consecutive season.

Nine Peel locals were dropped to make way for returning Fremantle players in the qualifying final this season, prompting a backlash from WAFL fans who raised concerns about the integrity of the State league. WAFL clubs were last night told of the changes following lengthy consultations that involved written feedback from all nine clubs as well as the Eagles and Dockers.

The key changes were:
A maximum of 12 AFL players in any WAFL final.
Five league matches to qualify for finals, including three league games after June 30.
But the WAFC confirmed that the new eligibility rules would not apply if West Coast or Fremantle were playing on the same weekend. The rules are designed to force Peel and East Perth to play more locally developed footballers while better reflecting the proportion of AFL players used during the home-and-away season.

And they will stop players using reserves games to qualify for league finals, a loophole that allowed Harley Balic to feature in the 2016 grand final.

WAFC chief executive Gavin Taylor said the new criteria was based on data collected during the first four years of the AFL alignment and was designed to better reflect the make-up of the home-and-away season.

“We want to ensure that there is a close and competitive finals series, with consistency between team make-up in the home-and-away season and the finals,” Taylor said.
“We’re confident these changes will help us deliver that.”
Taylor confirmed that concerns about the development of locals at Peel and East Perth had played a role in the rule changes.
“The decision to reduce the AFL-listed player cap to 12 was based on four years of data that showed each WAFL partner club had averaged 12 AFL players in the home-and-away matches,” he said.

The WA Football Commission showing some balls. For a change.

Magellan wrote:The WA Football Commission showing some b alls. For a change.

How many years worth of data has SANFL............oh forget it.

Imagine a club having to play but not to the same rules as the other clubs...hang on...

MW wrote:Imagine a club having to play but not to the same rules as the other clubs...hang on...

Are you talking different salary caps, training facilities, I know - we all feel your pain

Spargo wrote:

MW wrote:Imagine a club having to play but not to the same rules as the other clubs...hang on...

Are you talking different salary caps, training facilities, I know - we all feel your pain

Yes, and participating in a National Draft, having the entire competition scheduled around your particular needs. OH YEAH! We hear you MW!

Spargo wrote:

MW wrote:Imagine a club having to play but not to the same rules as the other clubs...hang on...

Are you talking different salary caps, training facilities, I know - we all feel your pain

North Melbourne do exactly the same in the VFL.

DOC wrote:

Spargo wrote:

MW wrote:Imagine a club having to play but not to the same rules as the other clubs...hang on...

Are you talking different salary caps, training facilities, I know - we all feel your pain

North Melbourne do exactly the same in the VFL.

You’re kidding, right?

You don't have your reserves playing in the VFL in 2018?

SANFL have caved

http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2 ... s-for-2018


Both Crows and Port are allowed a Marquee player that can every game. Port have also recruited players from Interstate which I thought was against the rules

Not against the rules. Both clubs are doing it.

DOC wrote:Not against the rules. Both clubs are doing it.

Wouldn’t matter if it was. They would just change the rules to suit.