TOPIC:

Thought this maybe of interest to all on this site. This week in the VFL, Williamstown a stand alone club play a Preliminary Final against the Box Hill Hawks, whom are aligned with AFL club Hawthorn. Last week with both Hawthorn & Box Hill playing on the same weekend, Box Hill had access to all Hawthorn players not playing at AFL level. Whilst Hawthorns' victory last week has provided them with this weekend off, their alligned team do not have that luxury. This means AFL listed players in order to qualify to play this week for Box Hill must have played a minimum of six games this year for the feeder club. Herein lies the problem for ruckman Ben McEvoy whom has has played only four games for Box Hill & therefore fails to qualfy. Harsh as that is on a player trying to press claims for a senior berth...rules are rules & he fails to qualify. NO.....under a discretionary rule 20.8 the CEO of VFL has granted McEvoy the right to play this weekend. What a bloody disgrace!!!Rewrite or interpret the rules to benefit an AFL club or AFL listed player.Debate on this site pre WAFL finals was robust on the availabilty of players for East Perth & with the Eagles in the AFL & Peel in the WAFL failing to qualify for finals this year the current VFL case scenario will not arise this season in the West, however it will happen at some stage in the near future. Williamstown are appealing the ruling & I hope for the integrety of the rules & competition they win!!!

Good input VF... PS there is already a topic on this on WAFL thread..HOW LONG BEFORE THIS STARTS HAPPENING HERE.. In fairness to you the heading doesnt take you to your point

Have a good off season mate... WP ressies let us down last week but sure they will turn it around this week...
I went along to the Reserves game but left after that and looking at the score in the League I am glad I did..

Might stay back this week as Subi v EF.. And as I see it this will be the WAFL GF game between 2 WAFL clubs the week after will be a BIG NOTHING.

I have put a Percy Johnson interview on WAFL thread under The finals are here
He is Angry about the whole deal and worth a listen

Actually I put the link on here as well

www.sportfm.com.au/20140908_percy_johnson.mp3

Clearly not a Hawks supporter Falcon??????

I didn't hear you complain last year when the same rule was bought in to allow Liam Shields to continue playing reserves while the Hawks were alive. Yes he didn't meet the criteria to qualify but was allowed to play for Box Hill while recovering from injury during the finals.

Cardy the boys were disappointing last week. Been following your posts & knew you had been to the game.Hopefully they bounce back this week, although Claremont will be a tough assignment. Premiership Hangover...no I am not a Hawthorn supporter & article was not intended to attack that Club specifically ...just the fact rules are being manipulated to suit an AFL club or player. No you did not hear me complain last year in relation to Liam Shields as I was overseas at the time & was unaware he was granted the same lenience. As I stated rules are rules & they should not be allowed to be relaxed...no matter what club or player!!!

but when the rules have been relaxed once, is that not then the rule going forward?

Why break that rule of allowing players to play but now following that rule the following year

The rule is still in place & has not been amended. It has been bypassed with discretionary decisions which only favour teams with an AFL alignment so is therefore not an even playing field for all competing teams in the League. Until a decision is made to change this rulle I believe the intention of the law should prevail & certainly should not be overridden.

premiership hangover wrote: but when the rules have been relaxed once, is that not then the rule going forward?

Why break that rule of allowing players to play but now following that rule the following year

So a kindly traffic Cop who let's you off a speeding ticket with a warning, means if caught again that will happen again ? I don't think so

I do see your point though PH, and do recall years back in SFL, a WAFL boss who many were happy to see depart, told SFL League delegates if a WCE players needed match practice through the finals and his WAFL team was out when the WCE were in finals, they had the authority for him to play SFL if necessary. As this would comprimise the SFL finals, you can guess what the SFL delegates told him what to do.

kirbs wrote:

premiership hangover wrote: but when the rules have been relaxed once, is that not then the rule going forward?

Why break that rule of allowing players to play but now following that rule the following year

So a kindly traffic Cop who let's you off a speeding ticket with a warning, means if caught again that will happen again ? I don't think so

I do see your point though PH, and do recall years back in SFL, a WAFL boss who many were happy to see depart, told SFL League delegates if a WCE players needed match practice through the finals and his WAFL team was out when the WCE were in finals, they had the authority for him to play SFL if necessary. As this would comprimise the SFL finals, you can guess what the SFL delegates told him what to do.

Interesting argument Kirbs, I don't know the answer as I have never been let of a speeding ticket, however I do know that if this was a case before a judge, based on past rulings, as recent as last year, when the same situation arose and was allowed there is now a legal precedence that the courts would follow.

PH you are presuming last years ruling would be deemed correct & state this years case is the same as last years. In McEvoys' case he has only played 4 of the required 6 games during the home & away season. Game 5 was played last week during the final series....so are they same? Discretionary powers seem to be stretched here!!!

Rules should be RIGID. Not flexible to suit some. If you have to play "X" number of games then that is the rule. Who cares if that players needs game time so he can play at a higher level next week. Administrators are piss weak. In previous years you had to play no more than "X" games in seniors to be eligible to play lower grade finals EXCEPT if the Seniors played on the same day.