Counting Players

SANFL statement




NEW SANFL RULES FOR COUNTING OF PLAYERS

The SA Football Commission has today adopted new regulations relating to the counting of players following the 19th player incident in the 2018 SANFL preliminary final.

The new regulations to take effect in the SANFL Statewide Super League from next season are:

• Calling for a count: the capacity to call for a head count has been extended from the captain to include the vice-captain and runner.

• In-game penalty: if deemed by the umpire following a head count that a team has more than 18 players on the field, the team in breach will not lose any points scored in the match. Instead, the field umpire will pay a free kick and 50 metre penalty and report the circumstances (including the time that the breach occurred in the game and the score line) to SANFL for post-match consideration.

• Post-match review: a review may be instigated either by a report from a field umpire where a head count has occurred in-game as described above, or a club, league or other match official can request a review by SANFL within 24 hours of the conclusion of the match. If a breach is established, SANFL can determine the penalty – by way of a fine, reversal of the match result or any other sanction as deemed appropriate. SANFL management will have the authority to deal with any minor indiscretion. However, any breach that may have had an impact on the result of the match will be referred to the SANFL Tribunal.

• Match day procedure: whilst the responsibility for ensuring that there are 18 players on the field of play and three interchange players will remain with clubs, SANFL will implement new game day procedures to remove the potential for error by club officials, particularly to ensure that a match/quarter does not commence until all interchange players have been accounted for.

SANFL General Manager of Football Adam Kelly said that regulation change was deemed necessary following the events of the SANFL Preliminary Final in which North Adelaide Football Club was found guilty of having 19 players on the field for a period of 3 minutes and 39 seconds at the commencement of the final quarter.

“After our experience in dealing with the 19th player incident in the preliminary final and a full review of procedures, SANFL believes that the changes approved by the SA Football Commission provide a more reasonable in-game penalty and appropriately broaden the powers to investigate post-match, along with greater flexibility of sanctions to deal with breaches on a circumstantial basis,” Mr Kelly said.

“The appointment of an additional match day official will also ensure compliance with all regulations and procedures, including that a match does not commence until interchange players from each team have been accounted for.”

So would the SANFL have considered that NA "lost" the PF under these rules? And from where is the free kick & 50 metre penalty taken?

• Match day procedure: whilst the responsibility for ensuring that there are 18 players on the field of play and three interchange players will remain with clubs, SANFL will implement new game day procedures to remove the potential for error by club officials, particularly to ensure that a match/quarter does not commence until all interchange players have been accounted for.

I thought that's what the interchange stewards were for. I soccer a player coming on and off needs to see the side linesman who records it.

Also I thought the 50m free already exists or is this only AFL. SANFL think they can make their own rules. We need a national rule structure,

I can't accept this.

After match review is useless. It offers no fairness to the game at hand. So at worst a side will cough up 6 points as a result of the free and 50m penalty.

What if, as was the case in the PF, the points scored during the time 19 players were on the ground is >6 points?

I don't see that it offers integrity of result to the match at hand.

Basically, it seems very similar to what they did anyway. Which, in my view failed the pub test. You would get a unanimous verdict down at the Woodville Hotel.

You would get the impression that the sanfl doesn't see this as much of an issue in the integrity of the game. I would venture to say that regular punters see it differently.

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:I can't accept this.

After match review is useless. It offers no fairness to the game at hand. So at worst a side will cough up 6 points as a result of the free and 50m penalty.

What if, as was the case in the PF, the points scored during the time 19 players were on the ground is >6 points?

I don't see that it offers integrity of result to the match at hand.

Basically, it seems very similar to what they did anyway. Which, in my view failed the pub test. You would get a unanimous verdict down at the Woodville Hotel.

You would get the impression that the sanfl doesn't see this as much of an issue in the integrity of the game. I would venture to say that regular punters see it differently.

With you Chambo.
A max possible 6 points as a result of the free and 50m penalty. Could be less. What if the free is in the backlines.

If we take the PF as an example NA scored 8pt in the 19 man period but they also stopped WWT from scoring in that period by having a loose man. How do you put a points value on this.

Also the VC or runner able to call for a count. A smart coach could cause bedlam if a side has a run on. I can see a count many times in a game.

I kind of agree Chambo, although I assume the review after the match can take into account if the offending team scored more than 6 points during the infringement period, and could then decide to reverse the result (if the offending team won).

I would have thought the simplest formula, in an after match review, would be to deduct from the offending team's score the amount they scored during the time of the infringment and adjust the final scores accordingly, although that doesn't take into account the momentum swing that the offending team might have gained from having the extra player.

I'm not sure if there already is but to discourage tactical calls for a count there should be some penalty if a team calls for a count that doesn't then show an infringement.

I would have thought the simplest penalty is to negate the score of the offending team for the quarter the offence is discovered in up to the time of the discovery. Plus the non-offending team gets a free kick from the centre of the ground when play restarts.

That would cover the impact of additional scoring for the offending team and also make an allowance that the other team would have found it harder to score against extra men.

UncleHuey wrote:I would have thought the simplest penalty is to negate the score of the offending team for the quarter the offence is discovered in up to the time of the discovery.  Plus the non-offending team gets a free kick from the centre of the ground when play restarts.

That would cover the impact of additional scoring for the offending team and also make an allowance that the other team would have found it harder to score against extra men.

You make too much sense. Simple. On the other hand the SANFL ????

From what I understood from the article in the Advertiser, the last two posts describe what the AFL is doing: keep it simple and unambiguous, without having "interpretations" put on the offence at a later stage. Remove the potential involvement of vested interests in (maybe) keeping/discarding the result of a game after the fact.

whybother wrote:From what I understood from the article in the Advertiser, the last two posts describe what the AFL is doing: keep it simple and unambiguous, without having "interpretations" put on the offence at a later stage. Remove the potential involvement of vested interests in (maybe) keeping/discarding the result of a game after the fact.

+1
KISS

Oh My first internet date

whybother wrote:Oh   My first internet date

Sounds like it.
When I worked at Holden sour elimination of waste and making things easy to we would always use the acronym "KISS keep it simple st.…..." in discussions on improvements. Don't overcomplicate things.