SA Footy

oldman wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:If a players comes back on early and doesn't kick a goal, would anyone know?

Possibly not and that's the issue. I don't believe the fact that he kicked a goal is relevant. One could argue that the player who replaced him could have kicked the goal. If Port Districts are to be penalised I don't believe taking the goal off them is an appropriate penalty.

I'm sure the powers to be will make the correct decision. My thoughts are the only suitable penalty is to disallow the goal as that's the only outcome which is fair to Henley who are the innocent victim I'm this case.

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

oldman wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:If a players comes back on early and doesn't kick a goal, would anyone know?

Possibly not and that's the issue. I don't believe the fact that he kicked a goal is relevant. One could argue that the player who replaced him could have kicked the goal. If Port Districts are to be penalised I don't believe taking the goal off them is an appropriate penalty.

I'm sure the powers to be will make the correct decision. My thoughts are the only suitable penalty is to disallow the goal as that's the only outcome which is fair to Henley who are the innocent victim I'm this case.

If Port Districts have a case to answer (I'm not convinced they do) and a penalty has to be applied, taking the goal off their score is not a sustainable solution. What happens if next week their full back gets a yellow card and returns early? What penalty are you going to apply in a scenario where the player hasn't scored?

amber_fluid wrote:
Treat it as an extra player on the field.
Same penalty should apply.

S Demon wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:
Treat it as an extra player on the field.
Same penalty should apply.

So give Henley a free kick and 50m penalty? In what game should they do that in?

S Demon wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:
Treat it as an extra player on the field.
Same penalty should apply.

So give Henley a free kick and 50m penalty? In what game should they do that in?

jo172 wrote:Accepting that it's amateur footy and that shit will from time to time happen also seems likely.

By all means learn from it and improve the processes, but this wouldn't strike me as a crisis worthy of any intervention*

*unless there was some kind of deliberate mal-intent on the part of the Club/Yellow Carded player

Lightning McQueen wrote:

S Demon wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:
Treat it as an extra player on the field.
Same penalty should apply.

So give Henley a free kick and 50m penalty? In what game should they do that in?

They can all suit up and head out there tonight.

jo172 wrote:I'm tending to think this is all a bit storm meet tea cup.

Yeah it's D1, yeah it would appear to have had the potential to alter the match, and perhaps consequentially the final 5.

Ultimately it's still amateur footy. Shit will at times happen for no other reason than accident.

LMA wrote:

jo172 wrote:I'm tending to think this is all a bit storm meet tea cup.

Yeah it's D1, yeah it would appear to have had the potential to alter the match, and perhaps consequentially the final 5.

Ultimately it's still amateur footy. Shit will at times happen for no other reason than accident.

How many touched of the boots get paid a mark that result in a goal, how many contentious goal umpire decisions are there. Its amateur league not the Pros, not that they can get it right. Massive storm in a teacup

oldman wrote:

LMA wrote:

jo172 wrote:I'm tending to think this is all a bit storm meet tea cup.

Yeah it's D1, yeah it would appear to have had the potential to alter the match, and perhaps consequentially the final 5.

Ultimately it's still amateur footy. Shit will at times happen for no other reason than accident.

How many touched of the boots get paid a mark that result in a goal, how many contentious goal umpire decisions are there. Its amateur league not the Pros, not that they can get it right. Massive storm in a teacup

If it doesn't bother you that much then why doesn't your club admit again they got it wrong and agree to have the score for that quarter or even just that goal removed. I mean it's only amateur league.

amber_fluid wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

S Demon wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:
Treat it as an extra player on the field.
Same penalty should apply.

So give Henley a free kick and 50m penalty? In what game should they do that in?

They can all suit up and head out there tonight.

Nah just give Marbles a penalty kick over on the soccer field tonight instead.

jo172 wrote:Advertiser reporting Henley have been awarded the game.

If Henley wanted to take the point which evidently they did (and I suppose fair enough in their circumstances) right result.

You'd think it'll be a long time before anyone makes the same mistake

Adelaide Footy League overturns result, hands win to Henley after Port District player breaches rule by returning to field

Look away, Eagles fans. The result of a footy game has been overturned after a team had a player on field when he should not have been, drawing comparisons to the SANFL preliminary final.

Matt Turner, Messenger Community News


The Adelaide Footy League has overturned the result of a game in which a team kicked two goals when one of its players was not supposed to be on the field.

Henley and Port District were level on 45 points – 7.3 to 6.9 – at the end of their division one match at Henley on Saturday but on Thursday, the league awarded the win to bottom-placed Sharks.

In shades of the 19th man saga from last year’s SANFL preliminary final, an Adelaide Footy League rules and regulations committee found Port District player James Batty had returned to the field too early from a yellow card send-off and that the Magpies booted two goals, including one by Batty himself, while he was meant to still be on the bench.

Port District’s James Batty (right) was found to have returned to the field too early after receiving a yellow card on Saturday. Picture: AAP/Mark BrakePort District’s James Batty (right) was found to have returned to the field too early after receiving a yellow card on Saturday. Picture: AAP/Mark Brake

Under league rules, players who receive a yellow card for misconduct must spend 10 minutes on the interchange before they can come back on but they can be replaced.

An umpire yellow-carded Batty at quarter-time and he re-entered the ground about seven minutes into the second quarter.

The league redacted the two goals (12 points) from Port District’s score, giving Henley the win.

Port District has until midday on Friday to appeal the league’s decision to overturn the result.

Henley football director Brian Leys believed the case was “pretty black and white”.

“If you punch someone in the face, you get suspended,” Leys said.

“If you go back on the field when you’re supposed to be off the field, your score gets taken off you.”

Awarding Henley the victory could have a huge bearing on the top-tier competition.

The Sharks (2-8-1) were bottom after Saturday but the win would move them up to eighth, and drop Adelaide University (3-8) into the relegation zone.

Port District stays fourth.

League chief executive John Kernahan said the Magpies acted in good faith but had broken the rules, which stated yellow-carded players needed to be off for 10 continuous minutes on the interchange steward’s clock and there was no stopping for time-on.

“Whilst unfortunate, we think our application of this rule is fair and reasonable and certainly in the spirit of the game,” Kernahan said.

“The fact this has resulted in a change to the outcome of the match is immaterial to our thinking.

“Not only was a player on the ground who shouldn’t have been, in a curious twist the player is the very player who scored one of the two goals scored whilst he was on the field.”

In the past two years, SA footy has had two well-known cases of a club breaching the rules by having a player on the ground who should not have been.

North Adelaide registered one goal and one behind with an extra man on the ground for three minutes and 39 seconds in the SANFL preliminary final against Woodville-West Torrens in September, and went on to beat the Eagles by five points.

North Adelaide players celebrate last year’s SANFL grand final win, which followed the 19th man saga in the preliminary final a week earlier. Picture: Sarah ReedNorth Adelaide players celebrate last year’s SANFL grand final win, which followed the 19th man saga in the preliminary final a week earlier. Picture: Sarah Reed

But a SANFL tribunal upheld the result of the game – instead fining North $10,000 and docking four premiership points from it for 2019 – allowing the Roosters to play in the following week’s grand final, which they won.

In May last year, Waikerie’s score – and 44-point lead – was wiped after mistakenly fielding an extra player in a Riverland Football League game and the club ended up sustaining its first loss in 30 matches.

“It’s not a new decision-making process for us,” Kernahan said.

“On occasion we have made the same determination of score adjustment if we have been able to determine what score was added to the scoreboard if there happened to be a 19th man type scenario.

“We believe applying the Laws of the Game are paramount to protecting the game’s integrity at all levels.”

Port District president Clayton Johnson did not want to comment.

The Bedge wrote:Should be like Rugby League and player sit with the time keeper or in a neutral monitored spot until their time has lapsed, rather then going straight to the bench.