Admin Notice S37 Rules & Tribunal Thread

[ClarkeM]

Ok, One and three look open and shut.

The second one I'm not so sure, I think you're reaching there, but we'll see.

Will jump on tonight after dinner and get involved, can hardly wait.

Regardless, the rules need to be clearer to avoid this grey area.

 

[Cadsky]

Regardless, the rules need to be clearer to avoid this grey area.

Just worded better

 

[ClarkeM]

Just worded better

Tomato

 

[Cadsky]

Tomato

Orange

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

I think a new player is clearly different to a returning player in the regard of having to post.

But having proof of consent via PM or some such is a different matter. My view is if you can produce consent evidence, it should be ok.

I agree the wording needs to change, and will get Bearly Legal or some similarly reputable organisation to work on that.

 

[Mobbs]

serial_thrilla do you have an official league capacity or is it fine to put you on ignore and give a **** only when actual league delegates bring up issues relevant to my team?

 

[AnUltimateRessie]

serial_thrilla do you have an official league capacity or is it fine to put you on ignore and give a * only when actual league delegates bring up issues relevant to my team?

just a dobber

 

[Cadsky]

Let's not forget the old boys were put through the ringer last season even though there was a vagueness in the wording of the rule at the time. I'm sure Elton Johns Wig remembers. I don't see this any different. The precedent has been set. Common sense says the Hawks should have been aware of the requirements of signing a new player and covered themselves by following the process. They didn't and unfortunately there's a penalty for not doing so.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

The president has been set.

 

[Cadsky]

You beat my ninja edit lol

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

Let's not forget the old boys were put through the ringer last season even though there was a vagueness in the wording of the rule at the time. I'm sure Elton Johns Wig remembers. I don't see this any different. The precedent has been set. Common sense says the Hawks should have been aware of the requirements of signing a new player and covered themselves by following the process. They didn't and unfortunately there's a penalty for not doing so.

There is no specific reference to returning players having to post. It is definitely a grey area as they are by definition not a new player.

 

[Cadsky]

There is no specific reference to returning players having to post. It is definitely a grey area as they are by definition not a new player.

A new player would surely be anyone who was not listed immediately prior to agreeing to join said club?

 

[Cadsky]

As serial_thrilla pointed out. If a returning player is not classed as a new player, then they are not afforded the same rights of protection from being signed against their will.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

A new player would surely be anyone who was not listed immediately prior to agreeing to join said club?

No, a new player is someone who has never played in the SFA.

Someone who has played SFA and had a break is a returning player.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

As serial_thrilla pointed out. If a returning player is not classed as a new player, then they are not afforded the same rights of protection from being signed against their will.

Which is why my proposed amendment will focus on proof of consent to re-join. I agree there needs to be protections.

 

[serial_thrilla]

There is no specific reference to returning players having to post. It is definitely a grey area as they are by definition not a new player.

Option #2 is my preference. Reword the rules for the future, stating that both new and returning players need to post on the subforum prior to (re)listing. Then ensure that the four Hawks breaches are rectified ASAP, with no penalty (I believe a couple have posted today already) .

 

[Cadsky]

No, a new player is someone who has never played in the SFA.

Someone who has played SFA and had a break is a returning player.

Then I'll go find all the Royals greats that are retired and drag them back, kicking and screaming against their will because there is no ruling to stop me.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

A new player would surely be anyone who was not listed immediately prior to agreeing to join said club?

A new player is one that has never played a game in the Sweet FA. Clear as day, hence the qualification elsewhere between new and returning.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

Then ensure that the four Hawks breaches are rectified ASAP, with no penalty (I believe a couple have posted today already) .

You went retroactive on the OOBs and demanded penalty, but want to let the Hawks off.

Hypocrite.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

A new player is one that has never played a game in the Sweet FA. Clear as day, hence the qualification elsewhere between new and returning.

Exactly.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

Then I'll go find all the Royals greats that are retired and drag them back, kicking and screaming against their will because there is no ruling to stop me.

Which is why my proposed amendment will focus on proof of consent to re-join. I agree there needs to be protections.

I addressed this.

 

[serial_thrilla]

You went retroactive on the OOBs and demanded penalty, but want to let the Hawks off.

Hypocrite.

True. By the spirit of the rules they should be punished...

 

[Headless]

True. By the spirit of the rules they should be punished...

Not really. By the spirit of the rules, returning players are very clearly not new players.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Not really. By the spirit of the rules, returning players are very clearly not new players.

Serial probably classes Leigh Brown a Fremantle premiership player as well, such are the wonderful bows he draws.

 

[serial_thrilla]

Not really. By the spirit of the rules, returning players are very clearly not new players.

The spirit of the rules suggests that no player should be listed against their will.
The rules as they are written states only new players get this protection.