AFL De-registration Policy

[Mr.Craig]

I saw today that Craig Parry of Woodville-West Torrens has been de-registered from playing football due to him incurring 16 weeks worth of suspensions over the course of his career.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/woodville-west-torrens-in-push-to-save-craig-parry-from-national-life-football-ban/story-fnii0667-1226700120541

I don't think I'd heard about the policy before so I googled it and had a read...

http://www.vcfl.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Resources/DeRegistration_Policy_May_2011.pdf

This made me wonder if any AFL players may be near the 16 game threshold for de-registration. I immediately thought of Campbell Brown given his poor record. While player's tribunal histories are seemingly difficult to locate (at least for me, FF does have info but it's out of date) I believe Brown has been suspended for a total of 25 games over the course of his career.

3.2.2
Criteria for Deregistration (a) Players i) Players shall be automatically deregistered and not allowed further registration with the same or another League if the Player has accumulated a combined total of sixteen (16) weeks Suspension (or greater) in a football career
(including AFL career, subject to section 3.2.2(a)(iii) below).

It goes on to say...

iii) Any Suspension period served by a Player during his AFL career shall carry over, however such Suspension period shall be halved for the purposes of this Deregistration policy. For example, if a Player receives a total of six (6) weeks Suspension whilst playing in the AFL, only three (3) weeks shall carry over for the purposes of this Deregistration policy.

However this sounds like the 50% carry over reduction is for officials/coaches etc. who remain a part of the AFL system after they have finished playing.

Maybe some of Campbell's games aren't counted due to them being part of "suspended sentences" or early pleas but I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least 16 games even after taking any of that in to account.

So, am I missing something? Why hasn't Campbell Brown been de-registered? Has the AFL developed this policy, advising all leagues to adopt it to but then gone ahead and not implemented it for the national competition? ???

[Capper]

This came up the other week when someone had a go at Barry Hall and he took things in to his own hands.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/former-afl-star-barry-hall-reported-in-country-football-match-edging-closer-to-lifetime-ban/story-e6frf3e3-1226672514616#.UhIXY9JHLcw

I did also hear that Steven Baker as well
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/former-st-kilda-tagger-steven-baker-cops-life-ban-from-football/story-e6frf9n6-1226607554667

There was another one last year or the year before but i cant remember his name

[JBs-Hawks]

But a clause in the policy allows former AFL players to halve their suspensions, meaning Hall's 26 weeks is reduced to 13.

from tabs article

[Ziplock]

I dont think it's applied to the AFL.

the games you get banned from in AFL get halved though for lower competitions (kind of sort of makes sense, since it's easier to be pinged at AFL level).

I'm personally not a fan of the rule.

a mate of mine when he was like 14 or 15swore at an umpire, and copped a 1 match ban (fair enough), then when he was like 19, he got reported again (asked the ref if he was flowering mentally challenged or some shower). Because of his prior record, they slapped him with a 16 week ban, which would have meant he wouldnt have been able to play footy ever again. It was a bit of an overreaction, and they ended up over turning it- he was banned for 12 months (instead of a set game number) instead, and had to do umpiring as like a volunteer or something.

anyway, it's a dodgy rule. Like a couple of years back there was a bloke in WA who got banned for like... he was like in his mid 40s, and had been playing seniors footy since he was 15... so over 30 years he'd gotten 16 weeks worth of suspensions... a bit harsh to ban someone for life for just accidentally doing something once every two years that results in a one match suspension.

[JBs-Hawks]

Its to stop fights and king hits in amatuer footy.

Tbh if you are getting reported 16 times in amateur footy you deserve to be de-registered.

[Mr.Craig]

But a clause in the policy allows former AFL players to halve their suspensions, meaning Hall's 26 weeks is reduced to 13.

from tabs article

That's interesting, from reading the rule it sounded like the 50% off only applied to those who were still involved in the game but not as a player. I guess that's not the case.

Still leaves me wondering about Brown and how it is he hasn't been de-registered...

I dont think it's applied to the AFL.

the games you get banned from in AFL get halved though for lower competitions (kind of sort of makes sense, since it's easier to be pinged at AFL level).

I'm personally not a fan of the rule.

a mate of mine when he was like 14 or 15swore at an umpire, and copped a 1 match ban (fair enough), then when he was like 19, he got reported again (asked the ref if he was flowering mentally challenged or some shower). Because of his prior record, they slapped him with a 16 week ban, which would have meant he wouldnt have been able to play footy ever again. It was a bit of an overreaction, and they ended up over turning it- he was banned for 12 months (instead of a set game number) instead, and had to do umpiring as like a volunteer or something.

anyway, it's a dodgy rule. Like a couple of years back there was a bloke in WA who got banned for like... he was like in his mid 40s, and had been playing seniors footy since he was 15... so over 30 years he'd gotten 16 weeks worth of suspensions... a bit harsh to ban someone for life for just accidentally doing something once every two years that results in a one match suspension.

I think it's overly harsh too but for the AFL to create a policy and say to the state leagues "you need to implement this" but then not have the same standards in its own league is hypocritical. It's certainly true that AFL players get pinged with a lot of BS suspensions that they would get away with in lower leagues. I guess if the AFL hasn't adopted the code it says a lot about how the tribunal system is being administered too harshly in the first place making it far too likely that undeserving players will get caught up in it.

[JBs-Hawks]

But a clause in the policy allows former AFL players to halve their suspensions, meaning Hall's 26 weeks is reduced to 13.

from tabs article

That's interesting, from reading the rule it sounded like the 50% off only applied to those who were still involved in the game but not as a player. I guess that's not the case.

Still leaves me wondering about Brown and how it is he hasn't been de-registered...

Im guessing he can get upto 32 weeks then he is de-registered?

[Mr.Craig]

Im guessing he can get upto 32 weeks then he is de-registered?

That whole 50% off thing is a bit ambiguous but then you have to ask what happened with Parry getting de-registered after 16? Brown has received all his suspensions at AFL level as far as I know so the limit should be 16 with him too but as we've been discussing, it appears the AFL might not be adhering to the policy at national level. :-\

[CrowsFan]

The way I see it is once you hit 16 games suspended then you get deregistered. But since the AFL is the elite competition you are allowed twice as many before getting deregistered. So with that being the case at an AFL level they have to have been suspended for 32 weeks before this occurs. The other way you can look at it is each suspended game in the AFL is only worth half a game for the purposes of the degregistration policy. If Brown gets suspended for another 7 weeks I assume he would be gone!

[Mailman the 2nd]

Looks pretty clear to me

Brown gets 50% taken off so he has 12-13 = not breaking rule

Parry doesn't get 50% take off = he gets banned.

I'm going out on a limb and say Parry is much worse than Brown anyway. It's much easier to get caught and stricter at an AFl level than what the SANFL is.

[Mr.Craig]

If Brown gets suspended for another 7 weeks I assume he would be gone!

I wonder if Sportsbet have odds on that. :P

It should really be a discretionary thing anyway rather than X amount of games and then forcing players to go through an appeals process (as it appears Parry will be doing).

[Rusty00]

Dustin Fletcher has been suspended for 20 games in his career  :o

Found an article about the topic here http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/1712177/why-a-player-like-essendons-dustin-fletcher-would-have-faced-a-life-ban-long-ago-in-country-footy/

[JBs-Hawks]

Looks pretty clear to me

Brown gets 50% taken off so he has 12-13 = not breaking rule

Parry doesn't get 50% take off = he gets banned.

I'm going out on a limb and say Parry is much worse than Brown anyway. It's much easier to get caught and stricter at an AFl level than what the SANFL is.

Not sure what his suspensions have been for but hes not that dirty of a player.

[Mailman the 2nd]

Looks pretty clear to me

Brown gets 50% taken off so he has 12-13 = not breaking rule

Parry doesn't get 50% take off = he gets banned.

I'm going out on a limb and say Parry is much worse than Brown anyway. It's much easier to get caught and stricter at an AFl level than what the SANFL is.

Not sure what his suspensions have been for but hes not that dirty of a player.

Well according to the code, if he can prove that then he's free to play