FINALS 2010 - ALL grades

[words of wisdom]

Well it appears a decision has been reached with MV U18's having their premiership stripped from them and being fined. The club takes responsibility for what appears a complete misunderstanding of the rules. Like stated earlier by ASERT, the club was under the impression the lad could play whilst the B Grade was still playing, backed up by the fact he was not selected for the 2nd final, after the b grade won their first final, earning the week off. Rules are rules, and they were broken regardless of the misunderstanding.

What is an absolute crock of s#!t, is the fact that the league appears to have awarded the premiership to cove. What do Edwardstown and Brighton think about this decision? Pretty sure if Brighton had been given the opportunity, they would have been a real chance at beating cove, given the fact they had beaten them during the year.
Whilst MV will accept their part of the responsibilty, the league seems to have accepted none of the responsibilty for the fact the lad played in 2 previous finals unqualified, with nothing said. Surely, with all the technology these days, it would be an easy thing to avoid if things were done properly.
Example: A MV B grader was suspended in the preliminary final and couldnt play the GF. When the team manager put the GF team in on the thursday night, that players name had been taken from the available list of players to choose from, making it impossible for him to be chosen. Why cant this process be applied to all unqualified players? Too much work maybe? Too hard maybe? Well its time the league took some responsibility and got the right people in the right places so things like this dont happen again. It is embarrasing for everyone involved, not to mentioned absolultely shattering for the players.

As embarrasing as it is, the right decision would surely be to make this years U18 comp a no result. Nothing against the cove side but they are not the only team involved.
Once again, MV accept responsibilty and the penalty. Its about time the league did too.

Stupid rule. If the kid is under 18 but good enough to play at a higher grade and the higher grade does not make the finals, he should be able to drop back to the 18's, even if he's only played a couple of matches with them. So much for development. I know this rule isn't the case in the Gsfl & Rmfl.

[White Line Fever]

Poor lads.

That really sucks.

If your age is correct you should be eligible.

It's not the AFL and now they get penalised for trying to play at the highest possible level.

[AFLflyer]

Poor lads.

That really sucks.

If your age is correct you should be eligible.

It's not the AFL and now they get penalised for trying to play at the highest possible level.

going on that theory, you could pull player from god knows where to play finals, this clearly wouldnt be fair.

It wouldn't feel like a victory from Cove players, wouldn't a hefty fine and / or a penalty carried over next year be a more approproiate penalty?

interesting scenario, hope wedgie isnt reading and is still arranging my tipping prize

[White Line Fever]

Poor lads.

That really sucks.

If your age is correct you should be eligible.

It's not the AFL and now they get penalised for trying to play at the highest possible level.

going on that theory, you could pull player from god knows where to play finals, this clearly wouldnt be fair.

It wouldn't feel like a victory from Cove players, wouldn't a hefty fine and / or a penalty carried over next year be a more approproiate penalty?

interesting scenario, hope wedgie isnt reading and is still arranging my tipping prize

Yes that's true so eligability should be based on club games.

If they played over say 10 games for MVFC then should be available for all games that age entitles them too including finals.

[Axle Rose]

Poor lads.

That really sucks.

If your age is correct you should be eligible.

It's not the AFL and now they get penalised for trying to play at the highest possible level.

going on that theory, you could pull player from god knows where to play finals, this clearly wouldnt be fair.

It wouldn't feel like a victory from Cove players, wouldn't a hefty fine and / or a penalty carried over next year be a more approproiate penalty?

interesting scenario, hope wedgie isnt reading and is still arranging my tipping prize

Yes that's true so eligability should be based on club games.

If they played over say 10 games for MVFC then should be available for all games that age entitles them too including finals.

Brilliant. Give this man a maroon coat. No, that would make too much sense.

[Zelezny Chucks]

I think the main point is that he was playing at MVFC in an above grade. Had he been away at South for the year and not played a game for us fair enough but to penalise a kid who wasn't quite in the mix for the senior finals campaign and make him sit out is ridiculous!

Seems the league has taken no responsibility for the cock up either imposing the maximum fine possible for an error that was partly their fault!

Maybe Brighton and Edwardstown should ask for all fees back for the year from the league, as they were unable to contest the 2010 U18 Premiership?

[AFLflyer]

What rules do other leagues run with AR? quick to jump on the SFL, when it looks like they are following guidelines, which need to be strict?

[Zelezny Chucks]

What rules do other leagues run with AR? quick to jump on the SFL, when it looks like they are following guidelines, which need to be strict?

Going by WoW's post RMFL and GSFL don't even require the senior teams to be in finals to drop them back...

[Axle Rose]

What rules do other leagues run with AR? quick to jump on the SFL, when it looks like they are following guidelines, which need to be strict?

Rules are not the main issue here. We broke them, we'll take the penalty. More about everyone taking responsilbilty for something that could have been avoided or at the very least stopped after just 1 final.

[AFLflyer]

What rules do other leagues run with AR? quick to jump on the SFL, when it looks like they are following guidelines, which need to be strict?

Going by WoW's post RMFL and GSFL don't even require the senior teams to be in finals to drop them back...

yeah right - good reading by me
can anyone clarify this?

[asert]

Has any judgement been made on this yet

[Zelezny Chucks]

Has any judgement been made on this yet

Really?

[asert]

I'll simplify it for you zc. Has the sfl decided what they will be doing about it.

[asert]

Sorry mate I missed a post on the previous page. My bad

[words of wisdom]

I think the main point is that he was playing at MVFC in an above grade. Had he been away at South for the year and not played a game for us fair enough but to penalise a kid who wasn't quite in the mix for the senior finals campaign and make him sit out is ridiculous!

Seems the league has taken no responsibility for the cock up either imposing the maximum fine possible for an error that was partly their fault!

Maybe Brighton and Edwardstown should ask for all fees back for the year from the league, as they were unable to contest the 2010 U18 Premiership?

Agree ZC. He's playing at your club, he hasn't walked in off the street so therefore the kid is/should be qualified to drop back and play 18's. Stupid rule and what about the other 20 kids who miss out on a flag now...

[Cheese Twisties]

What an absolute farce. Surely the SFL should be providing clubs/teams with a list of who is eligable to play sometime in grand final week??

So let me get this straight... Morphies have copped the same punishment a team would get for fielding a complete random ring in player (who may not even be U18) - when all we have done is play a kid who is U18 and has played at Morphies all year and we thought was eligable...???

Ridiculous SFL! Finally get some good press for a decently run GF day, then go back to be a laughing stock.

[pale ale]

Cant believe the SFL is so unprofessional

Am I right by saying that M/Vale asked a SFL Director if he could play and he said yes

If so what happens to this Director now

To Cove do you want the premiership or do you want a replay without the so called unqualified player who surely didnt make that much difference.

[reppoh_eht]

What an absolute farce. Surely the SFL should be providing clubs/teams with a list of who is eligable to play sometime in grand final week??

So let me get this straight... Morphies have copped the same punishment a team would get for fielding a complete random ring in player (who may not even be U18) - when all we have done is play a kid who is U18 and has played at Morphies all year and we thought was eligable...???

Ridiculous SFL! Finally get some good press for a decently run GF day, then go back to be a laughing stock.

I wasn't going to post about this incident but I feel as though some of you have missed the point...

Firstly the SFL and all other Leagues have Qualifying Rules in place, some leagues have the same rules, others have different. But at the end of the day every league has a set of rules which are there to be adheared to.

In this case the M.Vale Football Club broke those rules (whether they knew it or not does not matter), and whether you agree with the rules or not does also not matter.

As for the post above... you say that 'all' Morphies have done is play a kid who you thought was eligable! All it would have taken was a simple phone call to Malcolm from the SFL to get a clarification on the ruling and he could have then and there stated that this played was infact not allowed to play in the final(s).

Lastly it is not the SFL's job to make sure that every single player that takes to the field week in week out is qualified as that would be a huge job, rather I beleive it comes down to the Team Manager & Coaching Staff of the team to identify the issue who would then take it to the SFL.

The way I see it, M.Vale broke the rules, they paid the ultimate price, but I don't see any justice in giving Cove the premiership. Should definately been a no result.

(Also in regards to technology to fix this problem, this could be implemented, but as the system the League uses now is proprietry it would cost a lot of money to develop, but I do see this as the ultimate solution for all of these type's of problems...)

[footy1992]

What an absolute farce. Surely the SFL should be providing clubs/teams with a list of who is eligable to play sometime in grand final week??

So let me get this straight... Morphies have copped the same punishment a team would get for fielding a complete random ring in player (who may not even be U18) - when all we have done is play a kid who is U18 and has played at Morphies all year and we thought was eligable...???

Ridiculous SFL! Finally get some good press for a decently run GF day, then go back to be a laughing stock.

I wasn't going to post about this incident but I feel as though some of you have missed the point...

Firstly the SFL and all other Leagues have Qualifying Rules in place, some leagues have the same rules, others have different. But at the end of the day every league has a set of rules which are there to be adheared to.

In this case the M.Vale Football Club broke those rules (whether they knew it or not does not matter), and whether you agree with the rules or not does also not matter.

As for the post above... you say that 'all' Morphies have done is play a kid who you thought was eligable! All it would have taken was a simply phone call to Malcolm from the SFL to get a clarification on the ruling and he could have then and there stated that this played was infact not allowed to play in the final(s).

Lastly it is not the SFL's job to make sure that every single player that takes to the field week in week out is qualified as that would be a hige job, rather I beleive it comes down to the Team Manager & Coaching Staff of the team to identify the issue who would then take it to the SFL.

The way I see it, M.Vale broke the rules, they paid the ultimate price, but I don't see any justice in giving Cove the premiership. Should definately been a no result.

(Also in regards to technology to fix this problem, this could be implemented, but as the system the League uses now is proprietry it would cost a lot of money to develop, but I do see this as the ultimate solution for all of these type's of problems...)

100% aggree

[Kart Horse]

Cant believe the SFL is so unprofessional

Am I right by saying that M/Vale asked a SFL Director if he could play and he said yes

If so what happens to this Director now

To Cove do you want the premiership or do you want a replay without the so called unqualified player who surely didnt make that much difference.

I dont believe the cove players want the premiership this way! I also know that Cove didnt complain or bring this matter up. Didnt make much difference well I dont know who it was but the difference was number 2 he was brilliant! I hope it wasnt him. Morphett Vale UNDER 18s were best on the day. They were all 18 or under.