SA Footy

mighty hounds wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:

Fools Gold wrote:I have no doubt that the club would have done the correct thing here and got the Crows to clear the players

Unfortunately it's not the Crows final say though, they don't run the league . Will be interesting to see how it pans out in any case.

I'm trying to remember if there is a precedent... @Jetters, did something similar happen with Angus Clarke recently?

Just heard a rumor that GG have lost the match

Did anything end up happening or is it still being decided?

Jetters wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:

Fools Gold wrote:I have no doubt that the club would have done the correct thing here and got the Crows to clear the players

Unfortunately it's not the Crows final say though, they don't run the league . Will be interesting to see how it pans out in any case.

I'm trying to remember if there is a precedent... @Jetters, did something similar happen with Angus Clarke recently?

Norwood league side played the Crows, ressies had the bye, so Gus didnt play another game that weekend.

Which is how all SANFL clubs handle the Reserves bye. Unless the player wants to rest or the medical team has the same opinion then they will be released back to local football. Usually the majority of the Reserves play a game.

Can't see too many sides knocking off Athelstone in Div 3, they were good in their trial vs us and big results so far. Athelstone vs Phos GF.[/quote]

I think Pembroke and Golden Grove may have a say in this. Only early but they seem to be the top 4 sides at this stage.

beef wrote:

mighty hounds wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:

Fools Gold wrote:I have no doubt that the club would have done the correct thing here and got the Crows to clear the players

Unfortunately it's not the Crows final say though, they don't run the league . Will be interesting to see how it pans out in any case.

I'm trying to remember if there is a precedent... @Jetters, did something similar happen with Angus Clarke recently?

Just heard a rumor that GG have lost the match

Did anything end up happening or is it still being decided?

Confirmed I'm led to believe, Flinders park footy director received a phone call Sunday morning. GG score was wiped

sporting pulse shows no such thing. Investigation was still pending yesterday.

Footy Chick wrote:sporting pulse shows no such thing. Investigation was still pending yesterday.

FP have been told it's confirmed which is why the players were informed.

mighty hounds wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:sporting pulse shows no such thing. Investigation was still pending yesterday.

FP have been told it's confirmed which is why the players were informed.

Will Sportsbet be refunding all bets?

mighty hounds wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:sporting pulse shows no such thing. Investigation was still pending yesterday.

FP have been told it's confirmed which is why the players were informed.

Golden Grove's players were told at training last night they had lost the points so i guess its confirmed

beef wrote:

mighty hounds wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:sporting pulse shows no such thing. Investigation was still pending yesterday.

FP have been told it's confirmed which is why the players were informed.

Golden Grove's players were told at training last night they had lost the points so i guess its confirmed

Yeh we got the run down of it last night as well. The saafl were all over it quickly. The call came in to FP Sunday morning at 9am that GG score would be wiped.

Essen Grove

Lightning McQueen wrote:Essen Grove

Lucky ASADA wasnt investigating it, GG Still would be awaiting the outcome in 3 years time lol

Essengrove? Fair go, they didn't hire Dr Dank

mighty hounds wrote:

beef wrote:

mighty hounds wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:sporting pulse shows no such thing. Investigation was still pending yesterday.

FP have been told it's confirmed which is why the players were informed.

Golden Grove's players were told at training last night they had lost the points so i guess its confirmed

Yeh we got the run down of it last night as well. The saafl were all over it quickly. The call came in to FP Sunday morning at 9am that GG score would be wiped.

Who's WE? (assuming FP) I didn't even realise you were playing back in town

I see the scores have been wiped but womens intuition tells me that this may not be the last we hear of it.

Footy Chick wrote:
Who's WE? (assuming FP) I didn't even realise you were playing back in town

I see the scores have been wiped but womens intuition tells me that this may not be the last we hear of it.

only the last couple of years!

That's why I knew what happened, we were told about it Sunday, Why won't it be the last we hear of it? The rule is there in black and white!

mighty hounds wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:
Who's WE? (assuming FP) I didn't even realise you were playing back in town

I see the scores have been wiped but womens intuition tells me that this may not be the last we hear of it.

only the last couple of years!

That's why I knew what happened, we were told about it Sunday, Why won't it be the last we hear of it? The rule is there in black and white!

Nothing here says they broke a rule:

16 SANFL PLAYERS PLAYING IN SAAFL
16.1 A player who is registered in accordance with Clause 10.2 and whom plays for a team competing in the SANFL competition shall not require a transfer to resume playing for the Member Club to whom they are registered provided they have previously been transferred to their Member Club from their immediate last Australian Football club.
16.2 A player who is listed on an SANFL club’s 1 - 35 player list in the current playing season shall submit written permission from his SANFL club to The League prior to him playing for his Member Club.
16.3 When a registered player of a Member Club plays a league or reserves match for an SANFL club, which then has a bye in the following SANFL minor round, such player shall not play (with the exception of The League Under 18’s Divisions) in that round for such player’s Member Club or for any other Member Club unless the player has played a combined minimum total of twenty five (25) or more Senior and Junior matches with such Member Club.
(a) The player shall submit written permission from his SANFL Club to The League prior to him playing for his Member Club.
(b) Junior football is deemed as matches played from the year in which the player turns 13 years of age.
16.4 On a SANFL bye round, players playing in SANFL Under 18’s may play with their Member Club in any Division after advising in writing and receiving approval from The League prior to him playing for his Member Club.
16.5 An SANFL state match where the SANFL clubs do not play is considered as a SANFL club bye.

16.1 - no transfer needed, resuming playing for existing member club
16.2 - not on 1-35 player list as they are top-up players
16.3 - there was no bye, so this is not relevant
16.4 - not U/18 or bye, so not relevant
16.5 - no state match

Is there another rule?

Look Good In Leather wrote:

mighty hounds wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:
Who's WE? (assuming FP) I didn't even realise you were playing back in town

I see the scores have been wiped but womens intuition tells me that this may not be the last we hear of it.

only the last couple of years!

That's why I knew what happened, we were told about it Sunday, Why won't it be the last we hear of it? The rule is there in black and white!

Nothing here says they broke a rule:

16 SANFL PLAYERS PLAYING IN SAAFL
16.1 A player who is registered in accordance with Clause 10.2 and whom plays for a team competing in the SANFL competition shall not require a transfer to resume playing for the Member Club to whom they are registered provided they have previously been transferred to their Member Club from their immediate last Australian Football club.
16.2 A player who is listed on an SANFL club’s 1 - 35 player list in the current playing season shall submit written permission from his SANFL club to The League prior to him playing for his Member Club.
16.3 When a registered player of a Member Club plays a league or reserves match for an SANFL club, which then has a bye in the following SANFL minor round, such player shall not play (with the exception of The League Under 18’s Divisions) in that round for such player’s Member Club or for any other Member Club unless the player has played a combined minimum total of twenty five (25) or more Senior and Junior matches with such Member Club.
(a) The player shall submit written permission from his SANFL Club to The League prior to him playing for his Member Club.
(b) Junior football is deemed as matches played from the year in which the player turns 13 years of age.
16.4 On a SANFL bye round, players playing in SANFL Under 18’s may play with their Member Club in any Division after advising in writing and receiving approval from The League prior to him playing for his Member Club.
16.5 An SANFL state match where the SANFL clubs do not play is considered as a SANFL club bye.

16.1 - no transfer needed, resuming playing for existing member club
16.2 - not on 1-35 player list as they are top-up players
16.3 - there was no bye, so this is not relevant
16.4 - not U/18 or bye, so not relevant
16.5 - no state match

Is there another rule?

FE posted this on the last page

Rule 23.30 of the SAAFL Rules

23.30
No Member Club player shall play for any other club prior to or after a match of The League in any one
round with the exception of The League’s Under 18 Division matches and any school matches.

Footy Smart wrote:

Look Good In Leather wrote:

mighty hounds wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:
Who's WE? (assuming FP) I didn't even realise you were playing back in town [emoji38]

I see the scores have been wiped but womens intuition tells me that this may not be the last we hear of it.

only the last couple of years!

That's why I knew what happened, we were told about it Sunday, Why won't it be the last we hear of it? The rule is there in black and white!

Nothing here says they broke a rule:

16 SANFL PLAYERS PLAYING IN SAAFL
16.1 A player who is registered in accordance with Clause 10.2 and whom plays for a team competing in the SANFL competition shall not require a transfer to resume playing for the Member Club to whom they are registered provided they have previously been transferred to their Member Club from their immediate last Australian Football club.
16.2 A player who is listed on an SANFL club’s 1 - 35 player list in the current playing season shall submit written permission from his SANFL club to The League prior to him playing for his Member Club.
16.3 When a registered player of a Member Club plays a league or reserves match for an SANFL club, which then has a bye in the following SANFL minor round, such player shall not play (with the exception of The League Under 18’s Divisions) in that round for such player’s Member Club or for any other Member Club unless the player has played a combined minimum total of twenty five (25) or more Senior and Junior matches with such Member Club.
(a) The player shall submit written permission from his SANFL Club to The League prior to him playing for his Member Club.
(b) Junior football is deemed as matches played from the year in which the player turns 13 years of age.
16.4 On a SANFL bye round, players playing in SANFL Under 18’s may play with their Member Club in any Division after advising in writing and receiving approval from The League prior to him playing for his Member Club.
16.5 An SANFL state match where the SANFL clubs do not play is considered as a SANFL club bye.

16.1 - no transfer needed, resuming playing for existing member club
16.2 - not on 1-35 player list as they are top-up players
16.3 - there was no bye, so this is not relevant
16.4 - not U/18 or bye, so not relevant
16.5 - no state match

Is there another rule?

FE posted this on the last page

Rule 23.30 of the SAAFL Rules

23.30
No Member Club player shall play for any other club prior to or after a match of The League in any one
round with the exception of The League’s Under 18 Division matches and any school matches.

In other words dual registered players can't play SAAFL and SANFL in the same weekend. I know it used to happen in the 80's but it's 2015.

mighty hounds wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:
Who's WE? (assuming FP) I didn't even realise you were playing back in town

I see the scores have been wiped but womens intuition tells me that this may not be the last we hear of it.

only the last couple of years!

That's why I knew what happened, we were told about it Sunday, Why won't it be the last we hear of it? The rule is there in black and white!

youre right...its black and white but technically I think they might have a couple of rights to appeal. Not sure itll get them far but theyre still there.

Better Call Saul....

Isn't "The League" classed as the SAAFL in earlier parts of the rules?

If so thats what they should be using as a defence