TOPIC:

Yes Swan that's possible if Peelmantle place him on their team list for the required number of games to qualify, then not let him play so the 2's have to play 1 short. It's just farcical.

Senior Seagull wrote: Yes Swan that's possible if Peelmantle place him on their team list for the required number of games to qualify, then not let him play so the 2's have to play 1 short. It's just farcical.

So by extension they could name 10-15 players for 5 reserves' games and qualify all 10-15 for the WAFL finals.

ArkRoyal wrote: Which club sufferred at the hands of the aforementioned umpire's decision? Perhaps the other clubs did not close the loophole because they can also use it?

We did AR, in short Banfield was legged in our goal square the ball was picked up by Hackett who's snap hit the post just as the umpire blew his whistle for the Banfield free kick then unbelievably the umpire calls the "advantage" rule. Apparently Hackett must be telepathic and can read the umpires mind!
An umpiring decision that defied logic and lacked any sense of intelligence!

Nothing surprises me with these pieces of shit - they're just demonstrating just how far that Vicco game has sunk into to the sewer.
Everything is able to be rorted , rigged or carefully choreographed for the Telly

Can anyone see him playing another 4 WAFL games?? Surely he'll get another 2 and then be straight in. I see the Peel Reserves somehow won despite it.

ArkRoyal wrote: Which club sufferred at the hands of the aforementioned umpire's decision? Perhaps the other clubs did not close the loophole because they can also use it?

AR the only clubs that can use this loophole are the dockers and eagles second sides. Imagine if subi could use it to name say Daniel Rich in our ressies side for 5 weeks and then play him in the WAFL finals. It's a joke and should have been dealt with after last years finals series.

Did the clubs even get a vote on those? Surely they would have all voted against as there is no benefit to any of the non aligned clubs in this. Also the 15 afl player limit which was introduced after last year's finals , was there any vote on this either?? I don't think so otherwise who decided this??? Still too high in my opinion . 12 seems fairer to me.

It would be so easy for the WAFC to close the loophole on this. Firstly install a rule that only LEAGUE appearances would qualify a player for league finals. Then specify that the selected player MUST spend a certain amount of time on the ground (e.g 30 minutes). It's really just an AFL club putting the middle finger up at what is left of the credibility of the WAFL

There is no other way to describe it...this is cheating pure and simple. Just because there is a loophole in the rules doesnt mean its right exploit it. It's the equivalent of the tax cheats and businesses who use loopholes to avoid paying their correct share of tax. Ross Lyon's comment shows the lack of disrepect being shown to the WAFL by the Dockers.
The WAFL should have closed the loophole after last year by changing the wording to "The players named on the official team list must all be in the proper playing equipment and take to the field at the same time. If a player is named in the list but does not meet the formentioned requirements, then that player will be re"moved from the list and the game not counted in his overall totäl."
As for the 2 clubs involved in this...Peel you are and always have been a joke. If you were set up properly from the start you wouldnt be the disaster you have become. The premiership you "won" last year is in the same category as East Perth's 3 in a row from 2000-2002...as Donald Trump would call them...Fake flags.
To Fremantle, I am ashamed to say I was involved with you for the club's first 5 years. I stoppped supporting you after you calloulsy removed one of your staff who had been there since day 1 a few years ago. Loyalty means nothing to you, and neither does the WAFL.
To the WAFL, the only reason this was never changed after last year's debacle is that your lords and masters West Coast and Fremantle told you not to. The time has come to sell the licenses to the AFL for as much as you can possibly get, say $20 million each. After this year you wnt be receiving any ground rental from them. Sell the licenses, pay out the debts you have, each non aligned WAFL club in a poor financial situation gets $500,000 each to pay of their debts and get themselves on a sound financial footing. Invest half of any money left over to always have a revenue stream and look after the WAFL clubs instead of Fremantle and West Coast. Once you sell the licences you are no longer financially beholden to them and they can no longer run the show the way they have been If you dont, you might as well change the name to AFL WA.
This is probably the longest rant I've done either on Footygoss or Ozfooty. This current situation is one step too far. Hopefully I have made some sense.

Come to think of it I think your solution would work better than the one I suggested swansfanlife. Discounting reserves games as a qualification for a league finals series would disadvantage a traditional WAFL team who may want to promote reserves player in the finals because of injuries etc. Maybe just make the rule for AFL club aligned players?
Couldn't agree more with your sentiments about the disrespect being shown to our competition.