SA Footy

Down the Hill wrote:Pretty sure that is out of date Oldman. The 2018 Handbook says after the 50 metre penalty bit that the field umpire shall report details to the league by 10am Monday and the league shall determine whether the offending team shall lose all points it had scored to that point in the match or any other penalty deemed appropriate. It seems not a major infringement from what has been mentioned above so the free plus 50 resulting in an easy goal is likely to be stand. Play on.

It does my head in how dumb some players are though. Unless the bloke thought it was a blood rule, why run on the ground. I still see blokes running off for rotations completely oblivious to the interchange gate despite playing the game for 10 plus years and watching hundreds of game on telly. Still happens every week that you hear the bench staff calling out "gate, gate" as a bloke is running off the field.

Yeah fair enough. I wonder if their was a stop to play and all the players lined up and counted?

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

oldman wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:TTG 12.15 d Henley 9.3. Henley started well kicking the first two goals but Gullies dominated thereafter. Henley kicked a few goals late to make the score respectable, including a cheapie when Gullies had 19 men on the ground. Menzel 4.6...got the hard ones and missed the easy ones. Great win by Gullies given they have some quality players missing.

Did TTG have their score to that point in the game wiped for having 19 players on the field?

No, I thought that rule was changed years ago. Now a free kick and 50 metre penalty, which is what was paid today. Nothing sinister from TTG. They had a player down injured and play stopped. He was being assisted from the ground by trainers when the interchange player ran on. Game was restarted before the injured player was off the ground. Count taken and free kick awarded to Henley for an easy goal.

Seriously?

Who honestly calls for a count in that situation

jo172 wrote:Seriously?

Who honestly calls for a count in that situation

Poor sportsmanship really

jo172 wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

oldman wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:TTG 12.15 d Henley 9.3. Henley started well kicking the first two goals but Gullies dominated thereafter. Henley kicked a few goals late to make the score respectable, including a cheapie when Gullies had 19 men on the ground. Menzel 4.6...got the hard ones and missed the easy ones. Great win by Gullies given they have some quality players missing.

Did TTG have their score to that point in the game wiped for having 19 players on the field?

No, I thought that rule was changed years ago. Now a free kick and 50 metre penalty, which is what was paid today. Nothing sinister from TTG. They had a player down injured and play stopped. He was being assisted from the ground by trainers when the interchange player ran on. Game was restarted before the injured player was off the ground. Count taken and free kick awarded to Henley for an easy goal.

Seriously?

Who honestly calls for a count in that situation

Tend to agree Jo.
Noticed you guys are starting to hits your straps. Early injuries or just a slow start?

oldman wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

oldman wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:TTG 12.15 d Henley 9.3. Henley started well kicking the first two goals but Gullies dominated thereafter. Henley kicked a few goals late to make the score respectable, including a cheapie when Gullies had 19 men on the ground. Menzel 4.6...got the hard ones and missed the easy ones. Great win by Gullies given they have some quality players missing.

Did TTG have their score to that point in the game wiped for having 19 players on the field?

No, I thought that rule was changed years ago. Now a free kick and 50 metre penalty, which is what was paid today. Nothing sinister from TTG. They had a player down injured and play stopped. He was being assisted from the ground by trainers when the interchange player ran on. Game was restarted before the injured player was off the ground. Count taken and free kick awarded to Henley for an easy goal.

Interestingly enough something similar happened to Waikerie last weekend and I'm pretty sure that was well after halftime, maybe even into the last quarter. Just found this in the rules and regulations on the SAAFL.

5.5.3 Players Exceeding Permitted Number
Where a Team has more than the permitted number of Players on the
Playing Surface, the following shall apply:
(a) a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick to the captain or acting
captain of the opposing Team, which shall be taken at the Centre
Circle or where play was stopped, whichever is the greater penalty
against the offending Team;
(b) a Fifty-Metre Penalty shall then be imposed from the position
where the Free Kick was awarded; and
(c) the Team shall lose all points which it has scored in the Match up
to the time of the count.

Oldman was looking at the 1996 Handbook

Try this one old fella, with the answer to your question in bold

34 COUNTING OF PLAYERS

34.1 The captain or acting captain of a team may at any time during a match request the field umpire count the number of players of the opposing team who are on the playing field.

34.2 Where such a request is made the field umpire shall stop play and signal Time-on at the first available opportunity and call into line, within the centre square, the players of both teams who are at that time on the playing field and count the number of players.

34.3 Time-on may be initiated in matches where Time-on is not played if this is the desire of either of the officiating Member Club timekeepers.

34.4 Where the team has more than the permitted number of players on the playing field the following shall apply

(a) Field umpire shall instruct both goal umpires to record the scores of both teams at the time of the player count.

(b) Upon completing the count the field umpire(s) shall ensure that each team has the permitted number of players on the field prior to recommencing the match.

(c) A field umpire shall award a free kick to the captain or acting captain of the opposing team which shall be taken at the centre circle or where play was stopped, whichever is the greater penalty against the offending team.

(d) A fifty (50) metre penalty shall then be imposed from the position where the free kick was awarded.

(e) The field umpire shall report details of the player count to The League by 10.00am on the Monday following the match.

(f) The League shall determine whether the offending team shall lose all points which it had scored in the match up to the time of the count, and if so determined, The League shall have power to vary the scores of the match and/or impose such other penalty as deemed appropriate by The League.

34.5 Where a count reveals that the opposing team has the correct permitted number of players on the playing field, the following shall apply

(a) A field umpire shall award a free kick to the captain or acting captain of the opposing team which shall be taken at the centre circle or where play was stopped, whichever is the greater penalty against the offending team.

(b) A fifty (50) metre penalty shall then be imposed from the position where the free kick was awarded.

(c) If a field umpire is of the opinion that the request was made primarily to delay play or such request did not have sufficient merit, the field umpire shall report the captain or acting captain who requested the count for Time Wasting as a Category “A” offence

laser wrote:

jo172 wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

oldman wrote:
Did TTG have their score to that point in the game wiped for having 19 players on the field?

No, I thought that rule was changed years ago. Now a free kick and 50 metre penalty, which is what was paid today. Nothing sinister from TTG. They had a player down injured and play stopped. He was being assisted from the ground by trainers when the interchange player ran on. Game was restarted before the injured player was off the ground. Count taken and free kick awarded to Henley for an easy goal.

Seriously?

Who honestly calls for a count in that situation

Tend to agree Jo.
Noticed you guys are starting to hits your straps. Early injuries or just a slow start?

Bit of both really. I think round 1 had 12 different faces from the grand final side

I've got no issues with the count being called.

Yes having a player injured is annoying, but everyone knows the rules.
The bench player had no right to come on the ground early and get involved in the play.

If you don't want to play 1 short while the injured guy is coming off, call for a stretcher and he can then stay off for the next 20 mins.

Why should Henley be expected to allow TTG to bring the replacement player on early?

Trader wrote:I've got no issues with the count being called.

Yes having a player injured is annoying, but everyone knows the rules.
The bench player had no right to come on the ground early and get involved in the play.

If you don't want to play 1 short while the injured guy is coming off, call for a stretcher and he can then stay off for the next 20 mins.

Why should Henley be expected to allow TTG to bring the replacement player on early?

Yeah not sure why people are blaming the umpires. If TTG wanted to stop the play and avoid being one down, call a stretcher.

Massive stuff up by the trainers and an overzealous player, which will cause a loss in a game that was pretty much over.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Who said TTG will likely lose the game. From all the above the league will probably issue a warning or a small fine. It appears the count was called almost immediately so the guy who ran on too early hasn't even influenced any play or scoring - other than being spotted and eventually causing his team to concede a gimme goal. Not sure what the bench staff were doing but I assume a few other rotations were occurring during the initial stop in play so maybe the player wasn't even sure who he was coming on for. No way you can blame trainers. Why call a stretcher if it isn't needed. They have no control over whether the umps decide to re-start play before player is fully off the ground.

Look Good In Leather wrote:

Trader wrote:I've got no issues with the count being called.

Yes having a player injured is annoying, but everyone knows the rules.
The bench player had no right to come on the ground early and get involved in the play.

If you don't want to play 1 short while the injured guy is coming off, call for a stretcher and he can then stay off for the next 20 mins.

Why should Henley be expected to allow TTG to bring the replacement player on early?

Yeah not sure why people are blaming the umpires. If TTG wanted to stop the play and avoid being one down, call a stretcher.

Massive stuff up by the trainers and an overzealous player, which will cause a loss in a game that was pretty much over.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

There has not been one post on here that blamed the umpires, they did their job. The TTG trainers did not stuff up - they tended an injured player and assisted him from the ground. They didn't feel it was necessary to call for stretcher. There was a bit of a misunderstanding on the interchange. The TTG player thought he had permission to come on for the injured player, who was in the hands of the trainers being escorted off the ground, when play resumed. I'd be surprised and disappointed if the hierarchy adjust the score as a result of this event.

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:There has not been one post on here that blamed the umpires, they did their job. The TTG trainers did not stuff up - they tended an injured player and assisted him from the ground. They didn't feel it was necessary to call for stretcher. There was a bit of a misunderstanding on the interchange. The TTG player thought he had permission to come on for the injured player, who was in the hands of the trainers being escorted off the ground, when play resumed. I'd be surprised and disappointed if the hierarchy adjust the score as a result of this event.

Did the umpires call for the player to come straight on?

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:There has not been one post on here that blamed the umpires, they did their job. The TTG trainers did not stuff up - they tended an injured player and assisted him from the ground. They didn't feel it was necessary to call for stretcher. There was a bit of a misunderstanding on the interchange. The TTG player thought he had permission to come on for the injured player, who was in the hands of the trainers being escorted off the ground, when play resumed. I'd be surprised and disappointed if the hierarchy adjust the score as a result of this event.

Did the umpires call for the player to come straight on?

You would think it would be highly unusual for the umpires to wave the player on, then pay a free and 50m against TTG had they done so.

Presumably not because why would they accept the Henley captains request to conduct a count then award a free kick plus a 50m penalty. Mountain out of a molehill this one. The correct penalty has already been applied and TTG and all clubs for that matter should just get a reminder about making 100% sure when a player should or shouldn't be coming on the ground in the event of blood, stretcher, assisted by trainers etc.

We had some bench staff get in a huff last year about an opposition player leaving the ground injured (assisted by trainers) in the forward pocket only for him to come back on the ground later in the match. Our guys assumed his day was done due to not exiting the ground through the gate. Turns out for the sake of getting the game moving the umpires allowed him to get off the ground at the nearest point and allow a player to come on the ground to replace him. What is wrong with that type of common sense approach rather than the player having to come off through the gate and the umpires having to decide "do we or don't we re-start play until he is off the ground through the gate". In some cases the gate is the nearest exit point but not always.

The "lose your whole score rule" is the most ridiculous rule in the laws of football and many leagues have modified it such as the AdFL. The SANFL Juniors also has a common sense approach in that a team only has its score taken back to what it was at the start of the qtr in which the breach occurred. So only the score they have accumulated in that qtr gets wiped.

Down the Hill wrote:We had some bench staff get in a huff last year about an opposition player leaving the ground injured (assisted by trainers) in the forward pocket only for him to come back on the ground later in the match. Our guys assumed his day was done due to not exiting the ground through the gate. Turns out for the sake of getting the game moving the umpires allowed him to get off the ground at the nearest point and allow a player to come on the ground to replace him. What is wrong with that type of common sense approach rather than the player having to come off through the gate and the umpires having to decide "do we or don't we re-start play until he is off the ground through the gate". In some cases the gate is the nearest exit point but not always.

Yeah, it's my understanding that an injured player can leave the ground anywhere, while assisted by a trainer, and the replacement player can then come on through the gates straight away.

The player that came off with the trainer has to remain off for a minimum of 20 minutes (just as if a stretcher was called onto the field), but is then free to resume playing, despite the fact they didn't use the gates when coming off.

That said, it's been a while since I've read the rules so the above could be wrong!

Trader wrote:You would think it would be highly unusual for the umpires to wave the player on, then pay a free and 50m against TTG had they done so.

Yeah, stupid question.

I always wave a player on to save time in similar circumstances or blood rule, but don't re-start until the injured player is off the ground and the replacement is where he is meant to be stationed.

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

Look Good In Leather wrote:

Trader wrote:I've got no issues with the count being called.

Yes having a player injured is annoying, but everyone knows the rules.
The bench player had no right to come on the ground early and get involved in the play.

If you don't want to play 1 short while the injured guy is coming off, call for a stretcher and he can then stay off for the next 20 mins.

Why should Henley be expected to allow TTG to bring the replacement player on early?

Yeah not sure why people are blaming the umpires. If TTG wanted to stop the play and avoid being one down, call a stretcher.

Massive stuff up by the trainers and an overzealous player, which will cause a loss in a game that was pretty much over.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

There has not been one post on here that blamed the umpires, they did their job. The TTG trainers did not stuff up - they tended an injured player and assisted him from the ground. They didn't feel it was necessary to call for stretcher. There was a bit of a misunderstanding on the interchange. The TTG player thought he had permission to come on for the injured player, who was in the hands of the trainers being escorted off the ground, when play resumed. I'd be surprised and disappointed if the hierarchy adjust the score as a result of this event.

Sorry, I had also been reading the comments on Facebook, a bit of anger there blaming the umpires and accusing Henley of unsportsmanlike conduct.

Regardless of fault, comments like the last sentence may come back to bite Adam on the arse. You think that wouldn't get used as fodder for the next meeting, or god forbid, a final?

Footy Chick wrote:Regardless of fault, comments like the last sentence may come back to bite Adam on the arse. You think that wouldn't get used as fodder for the next meeting, or god forbid, a final?

No one will see it.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:Regardless of fault, comments like the last sentence may come back to bite Adam on the arse. You think that wouldn't get used as fodder for the next meeting, or god forbid, a final?

No one will see it.

you mean no one of importance

Executive Member wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:Regardless of fault, comments like the last sentence may come back to bite Adam on the arse. You think that wouldn't get used as fodder for the next meeting, or god forbid, a final?

No one will see it.

you mean no one of importance

Its on here so every important person has seen it