A Section Premier section 2022

[Over The Post]

WILLIAM BUCK PREMIER FINALS 2022 2nd SEMIFINAL ELSTERNWICK 2pm SAT 3/9	PRELIMINARY FINAL ELSTERNWICK 2:15pm SUN 11/9	GRAND FINAL TREVOR BARKER 2:30pm SUN 18/9
St Kevins
Collegians	Collegians	St Kevins
1st SEMIFINAL TREVOR BARKER 2:30pm SUN 4/9	vs	vs
Old Xaverians	Old Brighton	Old Brighton
Old Brighton

WILLIAM BUCK PREMIER RESERVE 2022 2nd SEMIFINAL TREVOR BARKER 12pm SUN 4/9	PRELIMINARY FINAL ELSTERNWICK 11:40am SUN 11/9	GRAND FINAL TOORAK PARK 1pm SUN 18/9
Old Xaverians
Old Melburnians	Old Melburnians	Old Xaverians
1st SEMIFINAL ELSTERNWICK 11:40am SAT 3/9	vs	vs
Old Scotch	Old Scotch	Old Scotch
St Bernards

 

[XXXXAFL]

Exactly it should be points awarded to the opposition and they should have a 25% reduction for their points next year, so they should be

Exactly it should be points awarded to the opposition and they should have a 25% reduction for their points next year, so they should be playing with 34 points

34+ Points or 45+ Points or 66+ points is a moot point if they can do whatever they want.

 

[HedgeFund]

They win 2-3 games and their safe.

Very lucky results weren’t reversed.

One of the only teams they didn’t infringe against was Old Trinity which now sits 2 wins ahead of UB. Awarding the points to the opposition sides won’t change that.

St Bernard’s is a different story - they should’ve been allocated 4 more points, which would put them a game ahead of UB.

Basically even if the points were awarded to their opponents, Blues would still only need to win 2 more games than OT and 1 more than St Bernard’s in the next 7, to stay up.

Entirely likely that will happen.

 

[Jimmyjack]

What are their grounds for appeal then, anyone have any ideas? Clearly they were over the "bar". Whats to appeal?
The VAFA should reconsider their penalty and give the 4 points to the losers in every game......

For having the audacity to roll this out as excuse they should be relegated and made to play for no points next season.

"According to the Blues, the club were told in 2019 that they were OK to have players from other clubs in the same competition come in and play under the same points rating. Therefore when ex-Old Melburnian Jeremy Goddard and ex-Old Scotch footballer William Carrington joined the club this season, the club had kept them as four and three-point players respectively".

Seriously, as if Uni Blues would be given special dispensation above every other club in the state. It is clearly stated in the rules that any player transferring and playing against their previous club incurs and extra point. End of story. They got away with enough in 2019. To expect another special clause to be applied for them and them only just reeks of entitlement.

 

[Penski]

For having the audacity to roll this out as excuse they should be relegated and made to play for no points next season.

"According to the Blues, the club were told in 2019 that they were OK to have players from other clubs in the same competition come in and play under the same points rating. Therefore when ex-Old Melburnian Jeremy Goddard and ex-Old Scotch footballer William Carrington joined the club this season, the club had kept them as four and three-point players respectively".

Seriously, as if Uni Blues would be given special dispensation above every other club in the state. It is clearly stated in the rules that any player transferring and playing against their previous club incurs and extra point. End of story. They got away with enough in 2019. To expect another special clause to be applied for them and them only just reeks of entitlement.

Yeah, not sure how they can bring up 2019 as part of their reasoning when we know what went on in 2019 was also against the rules.

This could also bring an audit into their 2019 list if they really want to take it to extremes. Something they definitely will not want to occur.

 

[Penski]

One of the only teams they didn’t infringe against was Old Trinity which now sits 2 wins ahead of UB. Awarding the points to the opposition sides won’t change that.

St Bernard’s is a different story - they should’ve been allocated 4 more points, which would put them a game ahead of UB.

Basically even if the points were awarded to their opponents, Blues would still only need to win 2 more games than OT and 1 more than St Bernard’s in the next 7, to stay up.

Entirely likely that will happen.

Which is why stripping their percentage should also have been part of the ruling, as well as awarding four points to the opposition.

The punishment, while punishing UB specifically, is also meant to be a deterrent to all to prevent this from happening again. Letting them keep their percentage, and not rewarding the opposition teams the points hardly acts as a deterrent. More of an inconvenience.

 

[HedgeFund]

Which is why stripping their percentage should also have been part of the ruling, as well as awarding four points to the opposition.

The punishment, while punishing UB specifically, is also meant to be a deterrent to all to prevent this from happening again. Letting them keep their percentage, and not rewarding the opposition teams the points hardly acts as a deterrent. More of an inconvenience.

Totally agree.

Should’ve wiped all UB scores in the games they were over the cap, with opposition scores retained.

Their percentage would be horribly low as a result, but it would effectively give OT and SB another win up their sleeve.

 

[Mr Platinum]

Now that would ensure the matter ended up in court.

Whoever is giving them legal advice should hand their licence in, they are desperate.

The extra point rule is not a VAFA rule but a Football Victoria rule, under which all statewide competitions are governed.

So their 2019 claim is a furphy which will hopefully see them stripped of that premiership as well.

The threat of court action is also pathetic, Football Vic and all VAFA clubs will stand behind the competiton to hold up the integrity of our game over these w***ers.

 

[bedford]

Whoever is giving them legal advice should hand their licence in, they are desperate.

The extra point rule is not a VAFA rule but a Football Victoria rule, under which all statewide competitions are governed.

So their 2019 claim is a furphy which will hopefully see them stripped of that premiership as well.

The threat of court action is also pathetic, Football Vic and all VAFA clubs will stand behind the competiton to hold up the integrity of our game over these w***ers.

Probably no better your mob .

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Precedent would matter - have they submitted players without applying the additional point in 2019 or 2021?

 

[Mr Platinum]

Probably no better your mob .

That's a pretty serious accusation Mr Bedford, do you care to elaborate? With 18 SKC boys who qualified as 1 pointers in the team that day, I'm sure even you will come to the conclusion that SKOB played within the rules.

 

[Mr Platinum]

Precedent would matter - have they submitted players without applying the additional point in 2019 or 2021?

More interested in the points they gave to each player, eg the ex GFL players, AFL players and VFL players.

 

[darwinderwin]

We live in interesting times.




HeraldSun 11/07/2022

To think this whole situation could have been avoided had University Blues shown the same academic rigor and mathematical prowess calculating their senior teams actual points as they have in calculating the speculative points they’ve awarded to their under 19 team.

 

[Penski]

So according to Brian/Joey on 'for the love of the game', the reason that the points weren't awarded to the other team is that the VAFA determined that the players in question were eligible to play, just on the incorrect points allocation. Had these players not been registered with the VAFA, then the points would have been awarded to the opposition as well, but there's nothing in the rules to specifically state that points get awarded to the opposition for incorrect points allocation where all players are correctly registered (i.e., if they just alter the points allocation on the team sheet then there's no issue on these players, as happened in the game against St Bernards).

The example from the other grade from a couple of months ago was because the player was not registered (the transfer hadn't come through yet) so they played an ineligible player.

Sounds like the VAFA needs to tighten their definition of eligible/ineligible players to include those players allocated on incorrect points for a specific game in question, and not just around their general 'eligibility' on whether they are registered correctly or not.

 

[God Yeah]

At the end of the day, Uni Blues will most likely win 3 of the remaining 6 games and continue to play in Premier Division. We close the books on season 2022 and hope that these silly clerical errors don't happen again.

Seems like nothing really happened at all.

 

[flat footy]

At the end of the day, Uni Blues will most likely win 3 of the remaining 6 games and continue to play in Premier Division. We close the books on season 2022 and hope that these silly clerical errors don't happen again.

Seems like nothing really happened at all.

Pretty much.....Uni B were never going to make the Finals, and were never going to get relegated.
With the penalty imposed, that scenario remains the same (less $11000. which I suppose is something)

 

[man in outer]

Any thoughts on the top 25 fro SKOB in the HS?

Enjoyed it but no Gilham was a strange one. Huge in getting the club back to A section.

 

[Gun Island]

Any thoughts on the top 25 fro SKOB in the HS?

Enjoyed it but no Gilham was a strange one. Huge in getting the club back to A section.

A wank .


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mr Platinum]

Any thoughts on the top 25 fro SKOB in the HS?

Enjoyed it but no Gilham was a strange one. Huge in getting the club back to A section.

Who would you have left out? Also no Mr T McCann was a suprise?

 

[Mr Platinum]

A wank .


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

But you read it Mr Island? The HS would suggest that all they want is another click.

 

[bedford]

Any thoughts on the top 25 fro SKOB in the HS?

Enjoyed it but no Gilham was a strange one. Huge in getting the club back to A section.

Did Brian make it , his off field work is legendary .

 

[Mike Olotripo]

Who would you have left out? Also no Mr T McCann was a suprise?

I was disappointed Shaun Kennedy was not in this best 25 players list.

 

[Mappa]

So according to Brian/Joey on 'for the love of the game', the reason that the points weren't awarded to the other team is that the VAFA determined that the players in question were eligible to play, just on the incorrect points allocation. Had these players not been registered with the VAFA, then the points would have been awarded to the opposition as well, ....

Had those players not been registered with the VAFA, they wouldn't have even been able to be added to the teamsheet.

Just out of interest, does the SportsTG site alert you if you are over the points allowance when submitting the teamsheet?

 

[MortlockWatcher]

Had those players not been registered with the VAFA, they wouldn't have even been able to be added to the teamsheet.

Just out of interest, does the SportsTG site alert you if you are over the points allowance when submitting the teamsheet?

When I was a team manager for Melville in the WA Ammo's, SportsTG was set up so that you could not save a team sheet if it was over the points limit.
I should think that any competition using player points would be set up the same way.

 

[bedford]

Had those players not been registered with the VAFA, they wouldn't have even been able to be added to the teamsheet.

Just out of interest, does the SportsTG site alert you if you are over the points allowance when submitting the teamsheet?

Yes

 

[Mr Platinum]

I was disappointed Shaun Kennedy was not in this best 25 players list.

So was he