Rule for AFL players to qualify for SANFL finals

[Big Phil]

Hi Guys...

Over on the Central v Sturt thread, the conversation starting talking about Brent Reilly and whether he will play Saturday night for Sturt thus qualifying for SANFL finals. Of course, it brought up the point about the SANFL game qualification rule for the AFL players to be eligable to play in our finals. Of course, we all know it is 3 games but I'm interested to see what you guys think the rule should be, so vote away...

Here's what I had to say about it over on the other thread...

Although the 3 game qualification rule has worked in favour of thw Dogs in a couple of premiership years gone by with the likes of Stuart Dew and Stuart Cochrane only playing the bare minimum minor round games, spending the majority of the year in the AFL, then coming into SANFL finals, I don't think the requirement of just 3 games is a good one.

There has been talk in years gone by of increasing the finals qualification number to 5 minor round games and I think it's something that the SANFL need to seriously address once again. I actually don't have a problem with Reilly playing for Sturt in the finals this year, assuming he does qualify on Saturday night, because he has had an injury interrupted AFL season with the Crows and it's not like he played EVERY game in the Adelaide side up until the last 2 or 3 minor round SANFL games and came in just to qualify, it's also been about finding form for him.

I think that changing the rule to 5 games is alright but IMO, I think it should be even more than that, I'd say 8 or 10 games. It's really unfair that a young kid, or in some scenarios in years gone by club veterans, miss out on selection in finals and even Premiership sides because they have had to make way for someone that has hardly played in the sid all year but is an AFL player and makes the cut ahead of them. There has been discussions in many seasons gone by about the SANFL addressing it but nothing has ever come of it. It needs to change I reckon...

In fact, I feel like creating a poll to see what other fans think out there think. maybe i'll then send it to the SANFL and that will give them some food for thought to perhaps seriously look at it ?

[TigerBoss]

I think three games is too few for qualification...somewhere in the five-to-eight range would be appropriate.

The fact that Peter Burgoyne can line up for Port in their finals (if they make it) gives me the sh1ts.

Glenelg have no one coming back from the Power that has qualified, and if the Crows go out this week, we have no one that has qualified from them either...sometimes the AFL-listed blokes can upset structures and stability by stepping into the fold at finals time, while other times it is the AFL-listed blokes that are the difference between a side getting over the line in a final.

Another argument would be that there has not been a tremendous amount of controversy over this rule in recent times, or at least that I can remember off the top of my head, so perhaps it is best to leave it alone. The "don't fix what isn't broken" adage applies in this situation.

[smac]

I wouldn't expect too many Port Power players in the SANFL finals, I have heard that they have booked every available operating theatre to ensure their players are ready for training the week after the AFL GF.

But agree with TB that about 6 or more games should be the minimum.

[doggies4eva]

I think that if a player has played more AFL games than SANFL games then he is an AFL player and should be ineligible for finals.

[TigerBoss]

I think that if a player has played more AFL games than SANFL games then he is an AFL player and should be ineligible for finals.

Seems practical, but what about a bloke that plays 5 AFL games, and 4 SANFL games and is injured the rest of the year? Hardly seems fair to disallow this bloke a spot in a finals side...

[CUTTERMAN]

It all gets blown out the window if a player has both his SANFL and AFL teams playing finals footy, he can play in the SANFL finals without playing one game all year if he is dropped by his AFL team.

[wycbloods]

I think three games is too few for qualification...somewhere in the five-to-eight range would be appropriate.

The fact that Peter Burgoyne can line up for Port in their finals (if they make it) gives me the sh1ts.

Glenelg have no one coming back from the Power that has qualified, and if the Crows go out this week, we have no one that has qualified from them either...sometimes the AFL-listed blokes can upset structures and stability by stepping into the fold at finals time, while other times it is the AFL-listed blokes that are the difference between a side getting over the line in a final.

Another argument would be that there has not been a tremendous amount of controversy over this rule in recent times, or at least that I can remember off the top of my head, so perhaps it is best to leave it alone. The "don't fix what isn't broken" adage applies in this situation.

Curnow and Sellar are available aren't they .

[Wedgie]

Either all in or all out is my preference, make it clear cut and everyone knows where they stand at the start of the year.

[HeartBeatsTrue]

The option I would vote for isnt up there.

If you play more SANFL games than AFL in minor round, then you are eligible.

[fester69]

The option I would vote for isnt up there.

If you play more SANFL games than AFL in minor round, then you are eligible.

Fair call, but what if for example Burton gets over his Knee and plays 3 for the eagles and 3 for the cows? Eligible?

My option isn't there to vote for I think 7 minimum (effectively 1/3rd of the season), and 7 where you ACTUALLY play, not byes or bottom placed ressies appearances (although this could help Norwood with Massie! ) In the end I voted for 5 games.

Has Burgoyne qualified? He only played 2 I thought, but probably wrong.

[TigerBoss]

I think three games is too few for qualification...somewhere in the five-to-eight range would be appropriate.

The fact that Peter Burgoyne can line up for Port in their finals (if they make it) gives me the sh1ts.

Glenelg have no one coming back from the Power that has qualified, and if the Crows go out this week, we have no one that has qualified from them either...sometimes the AFL-listed blokes can upset structures and stability by stepping into the fold at finals time, while other times it is the AFL-listed blokes that are the difference between a side getting over the line in a final.

Another argument would be that there has not been a tremendous amount of controversy over this rule in recent times, or at least that I can remember off the top of my head, so perhaps it is best to leave it alone. The "don't fix what isn't broken" adage applies in this situation.

Curnow and Sellar are available aren't they .

Sellar is playing footy in our 2s at the moment...a lot of difference with that going up against a Peter Burgoyne returning from the Power, where he played in their final game of the season, to play finals for the Magpies.

[wycbloods]

I think three games is too few for qualification...somewhere in the five-to-eight range would be appropriate.

The fact that Peter Burgoyne can line up for Port in their finals (if they make it) gives me the sh1ts.

Glenelg have no one coming back from the Power that has qualified, and if the Crows go out this week, we have no one that has qualified from them either...sometimes the AFL-listed blokes can upset structures and stability by stepping into the fold at finals time, while other times it is the AFL-listed blokes that are the difference between a side getting over the line in a final.

Another argument would be that there has not been a tremendous amount of controversy over this rule in recent times, or at least that I can remember off the top of my head, so perhaps it is best to leave it alone. The "don't fix what isn't broken" adage applies in this situation.

Curnow and Sellar are available aren't they .

Sellar is playing footy in our 2s at the moment...a lot of difference with that going up against a Peter Burgoyne returning from the Power, where he played in their final game of the season, to play finals for the Magpies.

I am sure you said you had no one who had qualified . I don't remember the 'how good they are' clause.

[TigerBoss]

I think three games is too few for qualification...somewhere in the five-to-eight range would be appropriate.

The fact that Peter Burgoyne can line up for Port in their finals (if they make it) gives me the sh1ts.

Glenelg have no one coming back from the Power that has qualified, and if the Crows go out this week, we have no one that has qualified from them either...sometimes the AFL-listed blokes can upset structures and stability by stepping into the fold at finals time, while other times it is the AFL-listed blokes that are the difference between a side getting over the line in a final.

Another argument would be that there has not been a tremendous amount of controversy over this rule in recent times, or at least that I can remember off the top of my head, so perhaps it is best to leave it alone. The "don't fix what isn't broken" adage applies in this situation.

Curnow and Sellar are available aren't they .

Sellar is playing footy in our 2s at the moment...a lot of difference with that going up against a Peter Burgoyne returning from the Power, where he played in their final game of the season, to play finals for the Magpies.

I am sure you said you had no one who had qualified . I don't remember the 'how good they are' clause.

I meant "no one good has qualified".

[wycbloods]

I think three games is too few for qualification...somewhere in the five-to-eight range would be appropriate.

The fact that Peter Burgoyne can line up for Port in their finals (if they make it) gives me the sh1ts.

Glenelg have no one coming back from the Power that has qualified, and if the Crows go out this week, we have no one that has qualified from them either...sometimes the AFL-listed blokes can upset structures and stability by stepping into the fold at finals time, while other times it is the AFL-listed blokes that are the difference between a side getting over the line in a final.

Another argument would be that there has not been a tremendous amount of controversy over this rule in recent times, or at least that I can remember off the top of my head, so perhaps it is best to leave it alone. The "don't fix what isn't broken" adage applies in this situation.

Curnow and Sellar are available aren't they .

Sellar is playing footy in our 2s at the moment...a lot of difference with that going up against a Peter Burgoyne returning from the Power, where he played in their final game of the season, to play finals for the Magpies.

I am sure you said you had no one who had qualified . I don't remember the 'how good they are' clause.

I meant "no one good has qualified".[/quote]

Good, problem solvered .

[JK]

4

[am Bays]

I think this is an annual discussion point for we SAFootiers...

http://www.safooty.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10273&start=0

[ca]

I think three is alright. A lot of the time the AFL clubs won't release the player and I'd expect that to become even more common as the years go on. If you increase it any more you will have players who might finish the year with the SANFL club but not be eligable for finals.

[Psyber]

I favour 5+ like TigerBoss.

[eaglehaslanded]

I would be happy with min qualification of 5. To me 10 games is too harsh because you will always have players missing time through injury. The other way to do it maybe to have played more sanfl games than afl. Whether that be 1 more or 2 wouldn't matter.

[Dirko]

I voted 3, mainly as Glenelg apart from Sells won't have any available blokes that the Crows/Port can drop so it won't affect our team structure.

Didn't include Eduardo as he's in the Ressies anyway, and is only a rookie.

When was the last time, since the Crows/Power a side made the GF without an AFL listed player...If Glenelg make the GF it'd have to be close to being the first time....