SHOULD someone who has played the majority of the season in the seniors be allowed to play junior finals?
This is one of those debates where there probably isn’t a definitive answer and there are arguments for both sides.
At the moment, if a player is still eligible to play in an under-age competition they are only required to play one game in that grade to qualify for the finals.
This means they could play every match in their club’s senior side and then turn out for their junior team in the finals if they have played at least one match in that grade.
But is that fair?
In the reserves, if a player represents their club on five occasions at senior level in the one season, they have to play at least the same number of matches in the reserves to be eligible to play in the finals, unless the senior side is playing a final on the same day, then that is not a requirement.
In under-age football in the SFNL this is not the case.
All a player has to do to qualify is to play at least one match in that particular grade.
In this scenario, a player who is 17-years-old and plays all 18 games in the seniors, only has to double up on one weekend to be eligible for finals.
We saw this situation with Robinvale Euston’s Seamus Mitchell when they played Mildura in the second half of the year.
Mitchell sat in his tracksuit on the bench for most of the match before running on to the ground for the final few minutes of the under18s game.
When the siren sounded he headed into the change rooms and ran out with the senior side.
By playing that one match Mitchell can now play in Robinvale Euston’s under 18s finals series if the Eagles get knocked out of the seniors in this Saturday’s first semi and the juniors win.
The situation is no different for Mildura’s under-18 side.
They will be able to play Angus Cole, Lauchlan Wade, Blake McDonnell and Finn Ellis Castle on Saturday although they have played the majority of the season in the seniors.
Don’t get me wrong, these players and their clubs are not breaking any laws.
The SFNL clearly states what the rules are.
What I am questioning is whether it’s fair on sides like Ouyen United and Irymple who finished in the top two positions on the ladder and have achieved this with the same group of players for most of the season.
I know there are a number of Ouyen United kids who have played senior footy this year, but for the best part of the year they have played in the under-18s.
Irymple are no different.
This is the second successive year they have finished the home-and-away season on top of the ladder.
Last year they went out in straight sets, losing to Robinvale Euston and then Mildura, who had players like Jeremy Rodi and Kobe Brown back from their senior side.
I just think, in this situation, the rule needs to be looked at.
In other leagues around the state, if an under-age player plays more than seven games in a higher grade, they can’t play finals.
I know people will say why should a kid be banned from playing finals footy just because they are good enough to get a game in the seniors.
But with so much debate around giving everyone a fair go and trying to create an even playing field across our junior competitions, isn’t it a bit hypocritical to turn around and let clubs exploit a loophole in the rules, just so they can win a premiership.
I just don’t agree with it, but I’m sure there are plenty who do.
