Black Diamond AFL - 2010 season

[lotg]

There's currently a rumour going around that Cardiff played a number of players in the ressies semi final on the weekend that didn't qualify due to playing too many first grade games throughout the year.

Anyone got any info on that? Whats the rule if it's true?

 

[sexualninja]

There's currently a rumour going around that Cardiff played a number of players in the ressies semi final on the weekend that didn't qualify due to playing too many first grade games throughout the year.

Anyone got any info on that? Whats the rule if it's true?

mmm maybe nelson bay can do a little investigating on warners bays behalf after the debacle a few years back.....

Perhaps a rematch???

So far though season 2010 is going 100% according to the script.

 

[The Wanderer]

Surely they are smarter than that, a club with their experience should know better but if it were the case the League would be onto it in no time flat you would think.

 

[river]

There's currently a rumour going around that Cardiff played a number of players in the ressies semi final on the weekend that didn't qualify due to playing too many first grade games throughout the year.

Anyone got any info on that? Whats the rule if it's true?

I just had a look at the BDAFL web site under their by-laws. I think part a covers this.

8. Eligibility of Players for Finals​

(i) A player must play no less than one quarter of his club’s home and away matches in
any one season to be eligible to play in the clubs finals series matches subject to the
following:-
(a) to play in the Reserve Grade finals series, the number of home and
away matches he has played in the Black Diamond Cup in that
season must not exceed the number of such matches he has played
in Reserve Grade in that season.​

​

​

​

.( amended 14 March 2005)​

(b) An under age player only needs to qualify to play in finals for any Black
Diamond AFL team in his club to qualify to play in the Under 18’s finals.
(c) that providing the club has the two open age teams in the same final during
the finals series matches, the only restriction under this By-Law is that the
player must have played no less than one quarter of the home and away
matches for his club in that season to qualify for the finals series
open age matches.​

​

​

​

(amended 10 January 2005)​

(d) when deciding on the player’s eligibility for finals, Elimination Final &
Qualifying Final and, but separately, the first & second semi finals shall be
classed as same day match irrespective of when they are played. They
shall be known as a ‘finals same day match’.
1. An open age player can only play in one ‘finals same day match’ and his
club must be involved in both of the subject matches.
2. Under 18 players are an exception and can play in both the Under 18 and
Open Age matches subject to meeting the eligibility criteria as set out in
By-Law 8 (i)(b)​

​

​

​

(amended 15 March 2005)​

(e) Any player who plays in more than one (1) game on the one playing date
shall, for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to play in the finals series
matches, be deemed to have only played in the highest of the grades.
1. For eligibility purposes, in the case of an Under 18 player playing in
the Under 18 competition and also Open Age games, he will be
deemed to have played the Under 18 games as well as the highest
of the grades. (i.e​

​

​

​

. if an Under 18 player plays in all three (3)
games on the one day he will be deemed, for eligibility purposes to
have played Under 18’s and Black Diamond Cup) (amended 15 March 2005)​

.
(f) When a particular final is played on two different days both games shall be​

considered to be on the same day for the purposes of this by law.

 

[Big_Dave]

So how does a club like Cardiff (normally well run), stuff up so badly in playing ineligible players in the final ???

Especially of the BDAFL website is right and "It is understood that Cardiff had been warned not field the players in question."

 

[NATUEREISAMOTHER]

So how does a club like Cardiff (normally well run), stuff up so badly in playing ineligible players in the final ???

Especially of the BDAFL website is right and "It is understood that Cardiff had been warned not field the players in question."

The poor players must be devastated ! bahahahahah (evil suck s&%t u cocky F$%^s laugh)

 

[The Wanderer]

Really Dave it Beggars belief, there are only two possible outcomes, either the Club is wrong in its interpretation of the rules or the General Manager has it wrong.

The quicker the League appoints a local Manager to run the competition with a hands on approach the better it will be.

If he were local and available maybe this could have been discussed prior to the game being played and another farcical situation avoided,which in the eyes of supporters, officials and players looks stupid and amateurish, certainly not professional.

Furthermore if he were local I don't believe we would have had the debacle of a competition being cut short by virtue of the weather and grounds not being available to play catch up matches on, he would have been able to negotiate ground usage one on one.

I trust the League gets on with it and appoints a new G.M. as soon as possible, surely there is someone local that would embrace such a position.

 

[noodles81]

The league do need to appoint a local based GM and hopefully this happens soon. The other side is that Cardiff were app told not to field said players and did so they must should some blame. The players who played all yr in 2's have a right to feel cheated as they now have no chance (an appeal maybe) thats there season over! Had a quick look at there players and think there were 3 players who played more 1's than 2's, 1 or 2 were 18's but not all three, and thats not taking into account if you play both only highest grade counts!!

 

[noodles81]

Anyway theres always next yr and really they not going to beat Singo or prob Nelsons for that matter! Best of luck to the remaining clubs in finals

 

[Big_Dave]

Really Dave it Beggars belief, there are only two possible outcomes, either the Club is wrong in its interpretation of the rules or the General Manager has it wrong.

The quicker the League appoints a local Manager to run the competition with a hands on approach the better it will be.

If he were local and available maybe this could have been discussed prior to the game being played and another farcical situation avoided,which in the eyes of supporters, officials and players looks stupid and amateurish, certainly not professional.

Furthermore if he were local I don't believe we would have had the debacle of a competition being cut short by virtue of the weather and grounds not being available to play catch up matches on, he would have been able to negotiate ground usage one on one.

I trust the League gets on with it and appoints a new G.M. as soon as possible, surely there is someone local that would embrace such a position.

Wanderer,

Putting your hand up for the position ?

From my understanding its a job that pays part time money but demands more than full time hours (if done properly), at least during the season.

Also, I really dont know what the League could have done about the washouts, in most cases it is the local councils that close the grounds. It is unlikely that other (dry) grounds could be found that would not already be used every Saturday (not to mention the whinging that would have come from players, officials and supporters if they all had to troop off to Singleton or elsewhere to play a "home" game)

People come on here and bag the "League", well here is an idea, put your hand up for a position on the board or maybe even GM

 

[Re_Tardus]

So amateur hour strikes again at the BDAFL.

Any blind monkey who reads the by laws can see that Cardiff have followed the by laws correctly provided that the 3 who played on Saturday do not play 1's against City on the weekend.

The gimp who has already been fired once as GM has obviously wanted his 15 minutes of fame before he toddles off to his country vic league to F&*k it up as well. Thats now 2 GM's we've had that can't even apply their own by laws

As for the spineless, insipid board we have now, if there was an up yours emoticon i'd be typing it here now. Every decent administrator has been driven away by the incompetence of these clowns. I wouldn't want to be associated with them either. Granland, Chris Arnold, McMahon, Mcbain...all gone because they didn't want to be dragged down by the Shit these other blokes spin. No wonder none of the media outlets want to report on the game, its a F&*king farce in this region. When this decision gets overturned we will be agian a laughing stock

Might be worth giving a call to our old mate Gazza Burkinshaw to see if he can get these wallys dismissed and get some people in who know what they are doing.

And don't et me started on them idiots wearing the jaffa colours. How did those two blokes from the ressies game get on at the tribunal after being reported for not throwing a punch? Knowing the jaffas and the tribunal they probably got life

 

[The Wanderer]

If only you knew Dave if only you knew.

 

[Tardus]

I don't believe this!!!! First I had to put up with the _ Underscore impersonator. Now I have the Re impostor.

I don't know what game you are playing but I wish you would be creative enough to get your own name and stop using (and abusing) mine.

Really, there are some times I am glad I can go and visit other dimensions in time!!!

 

[weaglesman]

So amateur hour strikes again at the BDAFL.

Any blind monkey who reads the by laws can see that Cardiff have followed the by laws correctly provided that the 3 who played on Saturday do not play 1's against City on the weekend.

The gimp who has already been fired once as GM has obviously wanted his 15 minutes of fame before he toddles off to his country vic league to F&*k it up as well. Thats now 2 GM's we've had that can't even apply their own by laws

As for the spineless, insipid board we have now, if there was an up yours emoticon i'd be typing it here now. Every decent administrator has been driven away by the incompetence of these clowns. I wouldn't want to be associated with them either. Granland, Chris Arnold, McMahon, Mcbain...all gone because they didn't want to be dragged down by the Shit these other blokes spin. No wonder none of the media outlets want to report on the game, its a F&*king farce in this region. When this decision gets overturned we will be agian a laughing stock

Might be worth giving a call to our old mate Gazza Burkinshaw to see if he can get these wallys dismissed and get some people in who know what they are doing.

And don't et me started on them idiots wearing the jaffa colours. How did those two blokes from the ressies game get on at the tribunal after being reported for not throwing a punch? Knowing the jaffas and the tribunal they probably got life

The two players both got 4 weeks. Amazing considering Williams would never have been up before a tribunal before and would be one of the fairest blokes to have played the game. Even worse when he didnt throw a punch!

The issue is the best people in the league who SHOULD be on the board arent on it and dont want to be on it so we are left with people who put their hand up to be on. Good on em for having a crack but we have no credibility across the state as a footy league.

It amazes me how they say the grounds are shut, then during the week you open the paper and see League, Union and even bloody soccer get on the park. Maybe we have to bite the bullet and just play the games and worry about the consequences later. Maybe if we do play the councils will realise we dont do "irrepairable damage" to the grounds and let us get on with playing the games.

It promises to be an interesting off season thats for sure!

 

[NATUEREISAMOTHER]

I don't believe this!!!! First I had to put up with the _ Underscore impersonator. Now I have the Re impostor.

I don't know what game you are playing but I wish you would be creative enough to get your own name and stop using (and abusing) mine.

Really, there are some times I am glad I can go and visit other dimensions in time!!!

Wish you would stay there!

 

[lotg]

So amateur hour strikes again at the BDAFL.

Any blind monkey who reads the by laws can see that Cardiff have followed the by laws correctly provided that the 3 who played on Saturday do not play 1's against City on the weekend.

The gimp who has already been fired once as GM has obviously wanted his 15 minutes of fame before he toddles off to his country vic league to F&*k it up as well. Thats now 2 GM's we've had that can't even apply their own by laws

As for the spineless, insipid board we have now, if there was an up yours emoticon i'd be typing it here now. Every decent administrator has been driven away by the incompetence of these clowns. I wouldn't want to be associated with them either. Granland, Chris Arnold, McMahon, Mcbain...all gone because they didn't want to be dragged down by the Shit these other blokes spin. No wonder none of the media outlets want to report on the game, its a F&*king farce in this region. When this decision gets overturned we will be agian a laughing stock

Might be worth giving a call to our old mate Gazza Burkinshaw to see if he can get these wallys dismissed and get some people in who know what they are doing.

And don't et me started on them idiots wearing the jaffa colours. How did those two blokes from the ressies game get on at the tribunal after being reported for not throwing a punch? Knowing the jaffas and the tribunal they probably got life

Please explain?

It wasn't a same day match and how any sane person could read the by-laws to say that a first and second semi could be a same day match is beyond me.

"when deciding on the players eligibility for finals, Elimination Final & Qualifying Final and, BUT SEPERATELY, the first and second semi finals shall be classed as same day matches irrespective of when they are played. They shall be known as a "finals same day match"

later:

"when a PARTICULAR final is played on two different days both games shall be considered to be on the same day for the purposes of this law"

When these two clauses are read in conjunction with each other it is absolutely clear that a first and second semi aren't "same day matches".


The rule was designed to take the pressure off clubs who happened to qualify for the same semi final match across Firsts, Seniors and 18's..........

 

[Interstate]

with both sides fielding 3 players 'technically' ineligible it will be interesting

 

[Tardus_]

Please explain?

It wasn't a same day match and how any sane person could read the by-laws to say that a first and second semi could be a same day match is beyond me.

"when deciding on the players eligibility for finals, Elimination Final & Qualifying Final and, BUT SEPERATELY, the first and second semi finals shall be classed as same day matches irrespective of when they are played. They shall be known as a "finals same day match"

later:

"when a PARTICULAR final is played on two different days both games shall be considered to be on the same day for the purposes of this law"

When these two clauses are read in conjunction with each other it is absolutely clear that a first and second semi aren't "same day matches".


The rule was designed to take the pressure off clubs who happened to qualify for the same semi final match across Firsts, Seniors and 18's..........

Yes it is interesting that the by-laws are now being misinterpreted and this is all coming back to bite them on the you-know-whats since letting Roger leave. If I remember Roger telling we when we used to be in the same running club that previous presidents and committee memebers would always consult him on rules and by-laws, cause not only is he a good runner but he has a bloody good knowledge on the rules.

Ok now I'm heading back to my other time dimension. Warp Area 7G. lol

 

[Big_Dave]

So can someone enlighten me as to why they were deemed ineligble ?

Has the board interpreted the by-laws to mean that the 1st and 2nd Semi (ie last weeks Reserve Grade and this weeks Cup game) are to be treated as a "Same Day" match ? (or am I barking up the wrong tree altogether)

 

[deitzy]

with both sides fielding 3 players 'technically' ineligible it will be interesting

As far as I am aware if all 3 grades are in on the one day normal selection applies. If they are on different days the eligibility rules come into play, as many years back a number of clubs dropped their first grade side back to reserve grade, especially on the Central Coast. From what I remember in about 2000 or 2001 Cardiff put the arguement forward when sides play on the same day, that your 23rd best player who may play 9 first grade games and 8 reserve grade games for the year might not get picked for 1s due to everyone being available, and that same player could not play reserves due to having 1 extra game up. Thought it was a great point and one that showed the ridiculousness of the rule. Surely if a player played 6 or more games in reserve grade they should qualify for the 2s rather than the half/half rule. 6 out of 16 games is enough to say that the bloke isnt a regular first grader and should be able to play in the 2s.

So I believe it was put in to stop clubs stacking sides. In no way did Cardiff stack their side on Saturday, they were the better side by a mile. The league has made their call now, so I guess we will see over the next few days how it all pans out. Promises to be another interesting week in the BDAFL. Would be good if we could get through 1 week without something coming up!

 

[lotg]

So can someone enlighten me as to why they were deemed ineligble ?

Has the board interpreted the by-laws to mean that the 1st and 2nd Semi (ie last weeks Reserve Grade and this weeks Cup game) are to be treated as a "Same Day" match ? (or am I barking up the wrong tree altogether)

Hi Dave,

No, Cardiff interpreted it that way. They played three players who have played more first grade than reserve grade matches, which meant they were ineligible as it WASN'T a "same day" match. Cardiff had reserves in the first semi on Saturday and Firsts are playing the second semi this weekend - not same day matches.

Warners Bay had players who had played more firsts than reserves, too, but Warners Bay was playing "same day" matches across all grades, being the first semi finals thus making the players eligible under the by-law.

It seems confusing to those who haven't had experience in other leagues, but it is the way all competitions I've been involved in have done it.

I agree with Deitzy, too. Cardiff were the best team on the day and they probably would have won without those three players. Thats not the issue, though.

I could probably drive home shitfaced after the pub on Saturday night and not kill a pedestrian too..........but that doesn't mean I shouldn't lose my licence if I get caught.

 

[Re_Tardus]

Please explain?

It wasn't a same day match and how any sane person could read the by-laws to say that a first and second semi could be a same day match is beyond me.

"when deciding on the players eligibility for finals, Elimination Final & Qualifying Final and, BUT SEPERATELY, the first and second semi finals shall be classed as same day matches irrespective of when they are played. They shall be known as a "finals same day match"

later:

"when a PARTICULAR final is played on two different days both games shall be considered to be on the same day for the purposes of this law"

When these two clauses are read in conjunction with each other it is absolutely clear that a first and second semi aren't "same day matches".


The rule was designed to take the pressure off clubs who happened to qualify for the same semi final match across Firsts, Seniors and 18's..........

:Facepalm:

Let me slow it down for you:

when deciding on the players eligibility for finals, Elimination Final & Qualifying Final and, BUT SEPERATELY, the first and second semi finals shall be classed as same day matches irrespective of when they are played. They shall be known as a "finals same day match

Firstly, bunch Elimination and Qualifying finals together, then bunch first and second semi's together. As we don't have a 5 team finals series, we don't play Elimination & Qualifying finals.

We now have:
when deciding on the players eligibility for finals, the first and second semi finals shall be classed as same day matches irrespective of when they are played. They shall be known as a "finals same day match"

Therefore, if a team, as is the case with cardiff, qualifies for the first semi in one grade and the second semi in another, they are classed as same day matches, just as a team, in this case Warners Bay, qualifies both teams in the semi final on the same day, can choose whichever player they choose in either grade (provided they have of course played enough games throughout the season). This is called creating a level playing field


The other part of the By Law you quoted is of no relevance to this discussion

However the pertinent point is immediately under the first part of the by law that you quoted
" An open age player can only play in one ‘finals same day match’ and his
club must be involved in both of the subject matches"

Now if Cardiff were not in First Grade finals at all THEN those players would be ineligible (as we saw with Craig Bird a few years ago). The only other way that Cardiff would be in the wrong in this instance is if the players in question were then called up to play City this Saturday. City, if they read the team sheet, would by now have a clear idea of who is playing Saturday and can pick their match ups accordingly!

Oh and Tardus, I'm not impersonating you, i'm mocking you.

 

[Big_Dave]

Re_Tardus,

No I still dont get it, no sensible reading of that by-law could lead you to assume a 1st Semi and 2nd Semi could by classed as a same day match. Thats why the words "but Seperately" are in there.

Pretty badly worded I wil grant you, but it still doesnt explain why if they were advised prior to the match that the players were ineligible, they would play them. I guess they hoped that "Their" interpretation would win out if it comes to an appeal, but a big risk if you ask me (yeh I know, no one is asking me, but just want to put in my 2 cents in )

 

[Re_Tardus]

Dave, I'll grant you that the by law is very poorly written so i'll explain it as it was explained to me from the horses mouth.

Mcintyre Final Five works like this:
Wk1 - Elimination Semi Final (4v5)
Wk1 - Qualifying Semi Final (2v3)
Wk2 - First Semi Final (Winner EF V Loser QF)
Wk2 - Second Semi Final (1 V Winner QF)
Wk3 - Preliminary Final (Winner 1SF V Loser 2SF)
Wk4 - Grand Final (Winner 2SF V Winner PF)

IF the BDAFL ran a final 5, the by law would work by allowing teams that have a team in on seperate days in Wks 1 and 2 to pick their teams as if they were same day matches. The BUT SEPERATELY part of the by law refers to the fact that the Elimination/Qualifying and 1st/2nd semis are generally played on the same weekend and therefore the Elimination/Qualifying finals are one "same day match" and the 1st/2nd semis are a seperate "same day match"

Due to the number of teams in the comp, the BDAFL use the Mcintyre final 4 system that runs in the following manner (usually)

Wk1 - First Semi Final (3 V 4)
Wk1 - Second Semi Final (1 V 2)
Wk2 - Preliminary Final (Winner 1SF V Loser 2SF)
Wk3 - Grand Final (Winner 2SF V Winner PF)
For some reason, the BDAFL play their week 1 of this system over 2 weeks. Most other leagues would play this as a Saturday/Sunday fixture.

Under the by law, a club that has a team in the 1st semi in one grade and 2nd semi in the other is not restricted by "over qualified" players as the league deems it to be a "same day match" even though it (obviously) isnt on the same day. Cardiff have interprited the by law in the same way that they (and other clubs) have interprited the law in previous seasons. I am told that Warners Bay haven't appealed the Cardiff players playing, because they understand the by law and know that Cardiff are in the right. I assume this is because they may have used it in the past themselves, however I know for a fact that Newcastle City have, as well as Cardiff in previous years!

This whole saga has been brought about by the ******** ruling from afar. Since Garry Burkinshaw was in charge when the By law was written, the simple thing would have been to pick up the phone and say,

"Hey Gaz, what about this, is that the intention of the by law or not? You wrote it, help us out"
A simple yes/no would have sufficed and this bullshit wouldn't have eventuated.
Instead, Cardiff will appeal to NSW/ACT AFL, guess who will hear the appeal and send if off to the Independant arbiter? Garry Burkinshaw!

The WORST thing that has happened is that the GM put the "news" up on the website before Cardiff had the opportunity to appeal, which has led to the amateur hour farce that we have seen today.

Oh and Dave, I have it on VERY good authority that they were not informed before the match that they may have been ineligible, more BS from the GM.

As for the Tribunal...4 weeks for not throwing a punch? Absolute ******* disgrace. Someone has a real hate on for Cardiff at the moment! Must be because Mick Gray is back in town

 

[lotg]

Dave, I'll grant you that the by law is very poorly written so i'll explain it as it was explained to me from the horses mouth.

Mcintyre Final Five works like this:
Wk1 - Elimination Semi Final (4v5)
Wk1 - Qualifying Semi Final (2v3)
Wk2 - First Semi Final (Winner EF V Loser QF)
Wk2 - Second Semi Final (1 V Winner QF)
Wk3 - Preliminary Final (Winner 1SF V Loser 2SF)
Wk4 - Grand Final (Winner 2SF V Winner PF)

IF the BDAFL ran a final 5, the by law would work by allowing teams that have a team in on seperate days in Wks 1 and 2 to pick their teams as if they were same day matches. The BUT SEPERATELY part of the by law refers to the fact that the Elimination/Qualifying and 1st/2nd semis are generally played on the same weekend and therefore the Elimination/Qualifying finals are one "same day match" and the 1st/2nd semis are a seperate "same day match"

Due to the number of teams in the comp, the BDAFL use the Mcintyre final 4 system that runs in the following manner (usually)

Wk1 - First Semi Final (3 V 4)
Wk1 - Second Semi Final (1 V 2)
Wk2 - Preliminary Final (Winner 1SF V Loser 2SF)
Wk3 - Grand Final (Winner 2SF V Winner PF)
For some reason, the BDAFL play their week 1 of this system over 2 weeks. Most other leagues would play this as a Saturday/Sunday fixture.

Under the by law, a club that has a team in the 1st semi in one grade and 2nd semi in the other is not restricted by "over qualified" players as the league deems it to be a "same day match" even though it (obviously) isnt on the same day. Cardiff have interprited the by law in the same way that they (and other clubs) have interprited the law in previous seasons. I am told that Warners Bay haven't appealed the Cardiff players playing, because they understand the by law and know that Cardiff are in the right. I assume this is because they may have used it in the past themselves, however I know for a fact that Newcastle City have, as well as Cardiff in previous years!

This whole saga has been brought about by the ******** ruling from afar. Since Garry Burkinshaw was in charge when the By law was written, the simple thing would have been to pick up the phone and say,

"Hey Gaz, what about this, is that the intention of the by law or not? You wrote it, help us out"
A simple yes/no would have sufficed and this bullshit wouldn't have eventuated.
Instead, Cardiff will appeal to NSW/ACT AFL, guess who will hear the appeal and send if off to the Independant arbiter? Garry Burkinshaw!

The WORST thing that has happened is that the GM put the "news" up on the website before Cardiff had the opportunity to appeal, which has led to the amateur hour farce that we have seen today.

Oh and Dave, I have it on VERY good authority that they were not informed before the match that they may have been ineligible, more BS from the GM.

As for the Tribunal...4 weeks for not throwing a punch? Absolute ******* disgrace. Someone has a real hate on for Cardiff at the moment! Must be because Mick Gray is back in town

The first and second semi finals are not joined together as a "same day match". It is absolutely ludicrous to attempt an argument that they should be. (and I'm sure you think it's ludicrous for me to have my opinion lol)

Pretty sure the BDAFL appoints an independent arbiter in the first instance, too. I guess the higher appeal would be to NSW/ACT AFL if Cardiff isn't happy with that outcome.

Whatever the outcome, at least it should lead to the by-law being tidied up and no clubs in the future being able to twist words to suit their own argument either way.

It's good to see people generally talking about a football issue in here though.....and not just slagging off at each other.