LMA wrote:Aerie wrote:Magellan wrote:Who was the extra player?
Jarrod Allmond
He must be going nuts
he's now a mere shell of a man
by GMcG » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:22 am
LMA wrote:Aerie wrote:Magellan wrote:Who was the extra player?
Jarrod Allmond
He must be going nuts
by Wedgie » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:27 am
by Senor Moto Gadili » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:31 am
wild dog wrote:I can't understand how the SANFL is being labelled as the chief villain. The main party at fault is Norf, it is their responsibility to have the correct number of players on the field. The Eagles should have looked at the rule book and demanded the count, but the SANFL is the last of the 3 parties (or 4 if you want to include the umpires as separate) to be held responsible.
by daysofourlives » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:34 am
by Psyber » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:43 am
by GMcG » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:52 am
Psyber wrote:I'd favour cacelling any scores by North in that period. It is their responsibility to get their player management right regardless of technical and procedural debate above.
by FlyingHigh » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:53 am
Psyber wrote:I'd favour cacelling any scores by North in that period. It is their responsibility to get their player management right regardless of technical and procedural debate above.
by FlyingHigh » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:53 am
Senor Moto Gadili wrote:wild dog wrote:I can't understand how the SANFL is being labelled as the chief villain. The main party at fault is Norf, it is their responsibility to have the correct number of players on the field. The Eagles should have looked at the rule book and demanded the count, but the SANFL is the last of the 3 parties (or 4 if you want to include the umpires as separate) to be held responsible.
Agree SANFL have set the rules are they are in black and white. North failed to comply by having too many players on the ground. Eagles didn't follow the correct process. Play on.
by bulldogproud » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:56 am
by Dutchy » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:57 am
by Jim05 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:58 am
Psyber wrote:I'd favour cacelling any scores by North in that period. It is their responsibility to get their player management right regardless of technical and procedural debate above.
by tipper » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:59 am
The two on the bench were injured werent they? May have been receiving treatment, or down in the rooms and not noticedGMcG wrote:Psyber wrote:I'd favour cacelling any scores by North in that period. It is their responsibility to get their player management right regardless of technical and procedural debate above.
Yep, the interchange steward obviously cheated, so did the 2 sitting on the bench, SURELY they wondered where the 3rd player was??
by StrayDog » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:00 pm
Psyber wrote:I'd favour cacelling any scores by North in that period. It is their responsibility to get their player management right regardless of technical and procedural debate above.
by Half Back Flanker » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:09 pm
StrayDog wrote:Psyber wrote:I'd favour cacelling any scores by North in that period. It is their responsibility to get their player management right regardless of technical and procedural debate above.
Would be a popular choice I'd say, considering an attacking advantage for that period. Perhaps an additional scoring penalty might apply considering that there was a potential effect on the opponent's ability to score as well Food for thought.
Through a friend that was listening to the ABC this morning, I heard that the Eagles only became aware of the extra man when C7 alerted them to it. Can anyone confirm this? Not sure if it's already been mentioned.
by Spargo » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:14 pm
by StrayDog » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:19 pm
Half Back Flanker wrote:StrayDog wrote:
Through a friend that was listening to the ABC this morning, I heard that the Eagles only became aware of the extra man when C7 alerted them to it. Can anyone confirm this? Not sure if it's already been mentioned.
100% not true
by Aerie » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:30 pm
by locky801 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:32 pm
Aerie wrote:For 115 minutes when it was 18 vs 18, Eagles 95 to North 92.
For 5 minutes when it was 19 vs 18, North 8 to Eagles 0.
The only solution that sits right with me, is a full replay next Sunday.
by RB » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:00 pm
Bit unfair on Norwood, making them wait three weeks between games.Aerie wrote:For 115 minutes when it was 18 vs 18, Eagles 95 to North 92.
For 5 minutes when it was 19 vs 18, North 8 to Eagles 0.
The only solution that sits right with me, is a full replay next Sunday.
by Half Back Flanker » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:00 pm
RB wrote:Bit unfair on Norwood, making them wait three weeks between games.Aerie wrote:For 115 minutes when it was 18 vs 18, Eagles 95 to North 92.
For 5 minutes when it was 19 vs 18, North 8 to Eagles 0.
The only solution that sits right with me, is a full replay next Sunday.
Having said that I don't think either NA or WWT could complain too much if a replay was ordered.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |