Now it's died down

Hi all. Thanks for a rational & constructive discussion. Not like some NA supporters who seem to gloat that they got away with it. As can be seen by my previous comments, it appears that under the current rules (ambiguously worded to me) the balance is in favour of the "culprit" rather than the "innocent". This is the balance that I think that needs to be tightened up, and maybe in the first instance in the 2019 season, tightened up vigorously if what Oldfella says is the apparently lax observance in 2018 and previously. A few rather hard wacks all round will certainly get the SANFL teams attention. Fear & punishment is a strong survival instinct.

On a lighter not: how do I change my username?
It was meant to be

Whybother.... as in why bother to follow a team through thick & thin only to have this happen

As they used to say on comic radio shows years ago:   Answers please on the back of a postcard

My choice for the change to the law (which the AFL should be taking care of over the summer)

For a club to detect a breach:
the club runner notifies the interchange steward of a possible breach, who in turn
- notifies the emergency field umpire, to stop play at the next break in play
- or the nearest umpire (field or boundary) should there be no emergency field umpire, at the next break in play
- the relevant umpire blows whistle to stop play from recommencing

For the steward to detect a breach, take the first step out

Players are counted...should there be too many on the field, the current procedure of free kick and 50 metre penalty shall apply
The scores scored by the offending team throughout the quarter of the count, to the point of the count, should be removed, plus an additional penalty of the same score eg. 2.4 (16) and not just the nominal 1.2 ( 8 )

I suggest the additional penalty, because the whole score rubbed out is a bit excessive, however, there should be enough deterrent for a club to not get it wrong

Should this penalty exceed the score scored to that point in the match, it should be conveyed to the relevant parties - goal umpires, timekeepers, scoreboard attendant - to make a note of this penalty for it to be applied

If the steward requests a count, and there are actually are the correct players on the field (provided it's known that no one rushed off the ground between detection and count), then no further action is required

Wouldn't it be easier to count the numbers on the bench? Or accounted for by injury?

That is, account for 3 players, not maybe 19.

I think that was the problem in the PF, when NA thought that there was a player in the rooms getting treatment, when he was on the ground. Confusion reigned.

Lee wrote:Wouldn't it be easier to count the numbers on the bench?  Or accounted for by injury?

That is, account for 3 players, not maybe 19.

Lee I'm not invovled with the Eagles just a fan.
I've read posts by an eagle person saying allegedly the fourth umpire was told and did nothing .
I said allegedly not wishing legal action .
If an umpire was told why didn't that umpire act ?

Off course if it didn't happen it didn't happen .

Lee wrote:Wouldn't it be easier to count the numbers on the bench?  Or accounted for by injury?

That is, account for 3 players, not maybe 19.

Yes. But as whybother said, you would have to find out for sure if there was another player in the rooms, rather than assume they were there.

There are a number of interchange rules not mentioned.

As at 2 years ago, if a player is injured and not counted as an interchange, the steward is notified, so he is aware of that. Players were no longer required to be identified by number, just how many interchanges there were.

Champion Data might have been aware of interchanges and the 'Board Assistant' to the Coach would eventually realise something wasn't right.

In the end, North are premiers and 10 minutes into the 3rd quarter of the Prelim you would have got 100/1 on that.

Lee wrote:There are a number of interchange rules not mentioned.

As at 2 years ago, if a player is injured and not counted as an interchange, the steward is notified, so he is aware of that.  Players were no longer required to be identified by number, just how many interchanges there were.

Champion Data might have been aware of interchanges and the 'Board Assistant' to the Coach would eventually realise something wasn't right.

In the end, North are premiers and 10 minutes into the 3rd quarter of the Prelim you would have got 100/1 on that.

And whatever went down if North cheated or didn't cheat . They did win the flag .
However they have been fined and penalised with the loss of two games .

That is not why I started this topic .
I started it to get the answer to what compensation the Eagles are getting .
And at no time is this topic meant to cause fights with North fans .

Lee wrote:There are a number of interchange rules not mentioned.

As at 2 years ago, if a player is injured and not counted as an interchange, the steward is notified, so he is aware of that.  Players were no longer required to be identified by number, just how many interchanges there were.

Champion Data might have been aware of interchanges and the 'Board Assistant' to the Coach would eventually realise something wasn't right.

In the end, North are premiers and 10 minutes into the 3rd quarter of the Prelim you would have got 100/1 on that.

I'm not using this thread as a vehicle to push forward disappointment of the outcome of the match (or the season). Though that's not what this topic is for - they often go of course anyway. At least on this site, it doesn't degenerate into a page of puns.

I'm putting forward a suggestion for a specific change in the law, in this case, an (as quoted) "anachronistic" one.  An archaic one.

On reading all this info about the operations of the interchange steward's recording of players, it seems a bit inconsistent to me,

Maybe some of that process needs change, even a more electronic means (Ipad style) to record who is on and who is off. Maybe even a more formalised notification by clubs to the steward at the start of each quarter too.

If clubs cock up those notifications (even when there aren't 19+ men on the field) then maybe penalties should apply in that scenario too.

Yes, after reading all the discussion, I think that the League is "guilty" of not keeping up with the times. The rules that are being used are from the days before interchange, when there were only 2 reserves, and once a starting player had left the field (usually because of an injury) and replaced, then that was it. Players were hard in those far off times, and kept on playing: on one leg, or even (horror) with concussion. Now that we have 60 or so interchanges during a game, it becomes very hard to keep track of the changes. There must be some modern technology that can be sensibly used, even if only at SANFL league level.

I think the antiquated system clearly needs an overhaul. Better to have a system that removes the possibility for the infringement to occur again.

As for this case, I don’t think North should face any punishment personally.

My thoughts that the Eagles do need get compensated

1. The they shouldn't of blown a 47 point lead mid way during the third quarter
2. Would we be talking about it if North didn't have 19 men on field. If anything they should get 20 grand that's all

The only compensation you could possibly hand out is a direct route to the grand final, obviously that wont happen but that is the beef, had it been round 3 I wonder what would have happened?

It’s time for North to enjoy & the rest of us to be optimistic about next year

bayman wrote:The only compensation you could possibly hand out is a direct route to the grand final, obviously that wont happen but that is the beef, had it been round 3 I wonder what would have happened?

It’s time for North to enjoy & the rest of us to be optimistic about next year

I just asked about the compensation.
Everything else is other posters
Next year whatever happens or has happened in 2018 is in the past .
The only thing going from 2018 to 2019 so far is North starting behind the other sides . That's part of the fine that happened in 2018.

Yep, I know what you asked & it’s been an interesting read ever since.....do not bank on North starting 2 games behind yet, a protest against it is I believe on

I thought that both parties to the QC Tribunal agreed that his verdict would be final and not disputed ??

hybother wrote:I thought that both parties to the QC Tribunal agreed that his verdict would be final and not disputed ??

Exactly the sanfl mentioned that on the news

Not that I necessarily agree with an appeal. The verdict, the result of the game, is not being appealed. The penalty may be. Technically 2 separate parts of the process. I could be wrong but that is how I see it.

kingrooster wrote:Not that I necessarily agree with an appeal. The verdict, the result of the game, is not being appealed. The penalty may be. Technically 2 separate parts of the process. I could be wrong but that is how I see it.

Dont think your wrong about the compensation I agree with your thoughts re that.
An appeal of The decision by either party was mentioned by the sanfl on 7 News no appeal. That doesn't mean either side cant or won't . If the sanfl is fair dinkum it means the decision / verdict stands .
Otherwise I think the league will be in and out of court cases for years.
That's not a dig at you or North or the Eagles !
Honestly other than the appeal I am more interested in a new coach and new players coming into the Eagles.

These were the words used in the SANFL press release about the Tribunal

In accordance with the SANFL Constitution, Rules and Regulations the
decision of the independent Tribunal is final.

The QC "ordered" that 4 points be deducted from NA's 2019 premiership tally.

So surely there is no room to appeal anything?

hybother wrote:These were the words used in the SANFL press release about the Tribunal

In accordance with the SANFL Constitution, Rules and Regulations the
decision of the independent Tribunal is final.

The QC "ordered" that 4 points be deducted from NA's 2019 premiership tally.

So surely there is no room to appeal anything?

Thats My understanding as a fan .

The SANFL made it that the Eagles couldn't appeal. It was a non negotiable.

Super Gonz wrote:The SANFL made it that the Eagles couldn't appeal. It was a non negotiable.

My thoughts are that the Eagles had no further SANFL avenues to appeal under, BUT I think they may have been able to bring a civil action. Wouldn't have been surprised if the SANFL said if you don't take any further action we will look after you.

The statement made by the SANFL which I posted above doesn't specify one particular team, only that the

decision of the independent Tribunal is final.