Talk:Northern Football Netball League

• I have updated the infobox-- I hope this one is better. Cdlw93 07:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

3 Divisions

I believe the league is creating a third division for the 2009 season, article needs to be edited appropriately. CTDU (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. They've been talking about a third division for years but it has never happened. Your belief doesn't equal fact. The article stays as is until we have sourced information confirming it. AFL-Cool (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well sir, I can tell you it's fact. I am involved with the league, probably more so than your good self. Regards CTDU (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR - so don't add it. Provide a third party independent source please, although if you are involved in the league perhaps you should back away from it per WP:COI. AFL-Cool (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I will not be backing away, it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to have people like me editing relevant articles which they know a little bit about. In relation to 3rd division please read the following PDF : [1] CTDU (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you weren't there in 1986 when the exact same thing was happening and being planned.....and then fell over. Don't get ahead of yourself. There is nothing in that PDF other than plans. I want to see evidence of action, not just talk which is what plans amount to and nothing more. "Talk" is not encyclopaedic and therefore should not be added. In fact it amounts to WP:CBALL. AFL-Cool (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, we will wait for an official media release then. CTDU (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

this article confirms the introduction of a 3rd division in 2009. CTDU (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The way I read it, it confirms a process to shift to three divisions full time in 2010 and not 2009. It says that if there isn't another senior team in 2010 they won't be going to three divisions full time. Interim move and not a proper one IMO. And it can still fall over as it did in 1986. Let's wait and see what happens between now and February. AFL-Cool (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You may need to re-read the article as it clearly states the changes will take place in 2009. "At the completion of Round 13 – Division 2 is to be split to form a Division 3." Feel free to edit the article appropriately. CTDU (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you should re-read it, because a divisional change mid season is not a divisional change as such. That has never been recognised as such in the history of the game. Also, it makes it clear that if a new club is not admitted in 2010 - there will be no permanent third division. For it to be a proper third division, it must be three divisions from April - not July (assumed without a 2009 fixture). I won't be touching the article. AFL-Cool (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Article is to long

The article is far to long and has to much information with little significance . —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Living God (talk • contribs) 05:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you give us an example? You say it's too long well I think its comprehensive - which is what an encyclopedic article should be. Your edits butchered the article and only made it worse. CTDU (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the IP that reverted my edit was our friend above not logged in. Cluebot put it back - bless it! I've left a message for him to discuss the matter here and reminded him of consensus. AFL-Cool (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the information for the clubs from the bottom of the atricle to the top, changed the division 2 club information to be the same as the div 1 information and merged the DVFL and NFL section of the premiers as they are not seperated anywhere else.

Reverted. There was nothing wrong with the previous version. Please discuss the issues you have before editing please. AFL-Cool (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok Im discussingit.

1. The Club information is fairily important and should be near the top of the article

2. The formating for the information about te division 2 clubs should be consistent with the division 1 clubs

3. Nowhere else is it seperated between DVFL and NFL, the premier should be changed to be consistent with the rest of the atricle.

1. This article is about the league so that gets priority - the clubs are at the bottom for this reason.

2. There is a possibility of a Division 3 at present so this is not to be touched until we have something solid about that.

3. If so, the rest of the article is wrong (as such) because there HAS to be recognition that the DVFL and the NFL are the same thing. On that we need a third view.

And please use the four tildes at the end of each message you post. AFL-Cool (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

1. The clubs are part of the league, the most important part. Also other leagues, AFL, WAFL SANFL and NRL have the clubs listed first.

2. The possibility of a third division doesn't change anything, the format should be the same for the 1st and 2nd divison or the 2nd and 5th division. If a 3rd division does happen its simply a matter of splitting 2nd divison.

3. It has to be either merged or serprate in the entire article. I vote it keep everything together, make up your mind I will be changing it one way or the other.A Living God (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Each club in those leagues are notable. This is not the case with this league.

2. Not it is not that simple, because the third division will only go ahead full time if more clubs come in. Another point - the number of clubs is different and the history is also different.

3. No you will not change it until we have a consensus. 1 to 1 is not a consensus. Wait until we have more opinions. Until then any changes will be reverted. AFL-Cool (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Life Members

What about the updating of life members beyond 2004.Selegie (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Division 3

A note. The third division is provisional only. It should only be added once it becomes permanent. It will not be permanent if at least two clubs who are presently fielding Under 19's (Keon Park and St.Marys) do not field senior teams in 2010. The addition of a third division section should wait until then. AFL-Cool 03:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

FTR at this stage it is unlikely that division three will continue in 2010 given the unlikelihood of new clubs joining the league. CTDU (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It means that the D3 premiership will mean nothing. AFL-Cool 00:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

To the IP that added the speculation in the DV Leader newspaper - whilst there may be a chance that St.Marys may be fielding a team in 2010, it is also the case that Panton Hill may be leaving for the YVMDFL. Either way - it's crystal balling that will only be settled when the 2010 draw comes out. AFL-Cool 23:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As it is a statement of fact a primary source is sufficent 60.240.231.203 (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Panton Hill may be going to the YVMDFL - so it is NOT a statement of fact. It is WP:CBALL by you, because it's crystal balling by the league. Division 3 has fallen over before (in 1986). Third party source - or a Division 3 fixture. Until then - leave it. Any further reverts without a third party source will be treated as vandalism from now. AFL-Cool 09:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No you are Crystal balling, At this point in time St Marys will play, Panton Hill is still in the NFL anf their will be a divison 360.240.231.203 (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You are unable to confirm Panton Hill's status. Prove that they are staying with a source please. Until then.... AFL-Cool 10:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ARGH! 3RR! Someone help me out here! AFL-Cool 10:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont need to prove that their staying, you need prove that there leaving 60.240.231.203 (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong - read up here (where a claim is made about a third party - in your case St.Marys coming in and Panton Hill not possibly leaving) and here. The onus is on you and as the source is questionable and fails WP:SELFPUB you need a third party source. AFL-Cool 10:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I never mention Panton Hill moving. It is your claim that Divsion 3 won't ahead because Panton Hill, a claim you have backed by no evidence. Their is the NFL and the DV leader providing evidence of St Mary and Division 3. Until you can show evidence that Panton Hill won't be staying in the NFL or a Division 3 won't happen the only postion is that their will be Division 3 because it is the only postion supported by evidence 60.240.231.203 (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The DV Leader article speculates - which disqualifies it as a third party source. Besides, I never said Panton Hill were definitely leaving. I said they were possibly leaving - and that is something that is actually true of all clubs; until the fixture is published that is. At present - there is no proof under WP rules (that I have pointed you to) that Division 3 is going ahead. AFL-Cool 10:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field." The NFL source is a self-published source. It is a legitimate source and I havee meet the wikipedia burden of proof. Panton Hill leaving is orginal research so has no bearing on this article. 60.240.231.203 (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahem; Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: it does not involve claims about third parties;. There is a claim about a third party (St Marys). And as long as you can't prove that Panton Hill is definitely staying (I was never definite about their status) that point remains true as well. AFL-Cool 11:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Then we agree on keeping third division because that information published about themselves which can be included but removee St Mary’s until confirmed by somebody else. I don't have show anything about Panton Hill. It is impossible to prove a negative, until you can show evidence that they may be leaving they are irrelevant to this discussion irrelevant. 60.240.231.203 (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No we don't because this Division 3 has an effect on 14 or 15 third parties (those slated for D3 and those slated for D2 because they may or may not be meeting the other clubs depending on what eventually happens). I'm not trying to prove a negative - I am providing a doubt factor that will always exist until a final fixture is released. That is what happened in 1986 and there's no reason why it couldn't happen again now. You would have to eliminate that doubt, and that requires a third party source as already explained. AFL-Cool 12:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The fixture is exactly the same as the announcement of a third division, published by the NFL about the NFL. While the announcement affect the 15 clubs they are not making claims about thirds party. I can show evidence that a third division will go ahead, saying there is a chance it won't is Crystal Balling and therefore irrelvant. 60.240.231.203 (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It most certainly is not. You are assuming that the clubs have no influence over the matter of the thrid division and are unaffected. This is completely untrue, therefore there is a claim about third parties - that eight are playing in Division 2 and seven (or six) are playing in Division 3. Saying that it might not is not crystal balling, because there is a historical reference where that actually happened - 1986. Are you saying that the clubs have absolutely no say in their futures? Come on!

As it has been more than 24 hours now...... AFL-Cool 08:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

http://diamond-valley-leader.whereilive.com.au/sport/story/nfl-third-division-gets-go-ahead/ A third party soure 60.240.231.203 (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's better. You should have waited for this in the first place, but now it's there. Let's see what happens now if anything. AFL-Cool 07:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 Division 3 Premership

In 2009 the was a division 2 premiers and a division 3 premiers. There was none of this 2a and 2b premiers bullshit According to club they was division 3 premiers in 2009 http://www.sportingpulse.com/club_info.cgi?c=1-3913-48184-0-0&sID=48046&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=10032783&sectionID=48046 According to the league Parkside was division 3 premiers in 2009 http://nfl.org.au/Football-Division-2-3/finally.html "Elsewhere, Parkside were able to overcome a one goal half-time deficit to win the inaugural Division 3 premiership. Having been the favourite going into the game, Parkside continued their excellent 2009 form and ran out 16 point winners, 12.9 (81) to Hurstbridge's 8.17 (65)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.231.203 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

And were NEVER promoted to Division 2 in 2010 as required by the Constitution of the Northern Football League. Therefore the premiership was NOT a proper premiership. For half the 2009 season, Parkside played in Division 2. The club is wrong. To claim it is to violate the NFL constitution. It is NOT a full premiership and never will be. Leave the page as is, unless you can provide evidence that the Constitution has changed so that premiership teams no longer HAVE to be promoted to a higher division. 121.214.59.64 (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

An update - in fact it's not the Constitution, but rather the By Laws. Under Rule 5.3 "a club shall be entitled to participate in the division in which it participated in the previous season PROVIDED THAT the club whose A Grade team were premiers in Division 2 in the previous season shall be promoted to Division 1 and the club whose A Grade team finished bottom in Division 1, shall be relegated to Division 2. The same shall apply between Division 2 and Division 3."[2]. Now unless one of the provisions under the above quote applied, Parkside should have played in Division 2 in 2010, and they did not. If one of those three provisions applied, please provide evidence of this. 121.214.59.64 (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have provided evidence that Parkside won the 2009 Division 3 Premership. Find a single source that claims Parkside won the anything other than the Division 3 premership in 2009? The club calls it Division 3 premership, the NFL calls it a Division 3 premership.60.240.231.203 (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

And I have provided evidence that the claim is impossible under the by laws. Prove that the by laws have been upheld with such a premiership. The evidence that you have provided do not do this. 121.214.59.64 (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not evidence, the orginal research. I have provided two sources claiming Parkside won the 2009 premership. 60.240.231.203 (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

He provided evidence, lack brain!! That's not original research! Are you saying there are no such rules? Screw your head on properly, jerk off!! 203.17.215.26 (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• A refresher on conduct would benefit you, 203. Now, to both 60 and 121 - you both bring up valid points that are clearly clashing. Neither violate WP:OR. I must say that I share 121's concern over an apparent violation of the by laws, but there has to be a reason which I think 60 may have an idea of but won't prove it. So I took the bit between the teeth this morning and went physically to the NFL office to sort this out at the source. I have been told that there was a temporary rule change in 2009 to allow for an exception for that year only to apply to the Division 3 premiers. Now I know that proof of this is required so I won't revert to 60's version of the page for now (and 60, I suggest you leave it as well) until Delwyn has added the appropriate information to the NFL website so it can be added and 121's concerns will have been explained in proper WP form. I have been assured that this will be done - it's just a question of when. Hopefully it will be this week. Footy Freak7 (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A temporary rule?? I never heard of such a thing! Sorry, but I don't believe it. Let's see the proof. 121.214.59.64 (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

See NFL 2011 Annual report,page 47. "NFL Division 3 Premiers 2009 Parkside". http://nfl.org.au/images/records/2011%20NFL%20Annual%20Report.pdf60.240.231.203 (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That proves nothing. We need proof that there was a temporary rule change in 2009, and nothing else as 121 said. Until then, the claim is invalid under the NFL By Laws. Footy Freak7 (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It is better proof than you can find to the contrary. If you don't want the changes be made you find sources to support your opinion. I can find two sources that states that Parkside won the 2009 division 3 premership.Hornberger1 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The source of the present opinion is the NFL By Laws. We have a clash of valid sources, so the status quo remains until such time as the clash is sorted out. Footy Freak7 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No we don't. You are relying on the 2009 NFL by-laws. You have not provided the 2009 by-laws therefore have no leg to stand on. Even if you could provide the 2009 by-laws to support your argument you argument is wrong. Official NFL records as per the NFL annual report have Parkside winning the Division 3 premiership in 2009. That is a far stronger authority than your argument revolving the lack of promotion meaning it can't be a true premiership. I have evidence to support my opinion, you do not. Until you do have evidence then my edits stand60.240.231.203 (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.nfl.org.au/images/downloads/2011bylaws/by%20laws%2024%2002%2010%20new%20copy.doc It is strongly recommended that you read rule 5.3. (a) directs that any premier team from Division 2 or Division 3 shall be promoted to a higher division, unless the provisions of (b) apply. They don't, so Parkside should have been promoted and they were not. This is a serious breach of the by laws. The question remains, why? As long as this question remains unanswered in a form that is acceptable under WP rules, my edit must remain. This temporary rules change that I found out about needs to be verified under WP rules. I can't just add it on my own word because that is original research and neither can anyone else for the same reason. Leave it alone if you can't provide evidence of a temporary change to the NFL By Laws.

I also suspect that you are using your own IP logged out to avoid the 3RR rule. If you revert again I will seek a checkuser. Footy Freak7 (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

See the date on the first page,"As adopted December 14th 2010." The 2009 season was not played under the the 2011 by-laws, it was played under the 2009 by-laws. To substantiate your argument require you to provide the 2009 NFL by-laws. Even then your agrument in wrong. The NFL offical records as per the NFL annual report has Parkside winning the 2009 division 3 premership. In this case the only NFL offical records are the ulitmate authority.60.240.231.203 (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That by law has been in place since the introduction of Division 2 in 1981. The only change that was made in the current edition was the addition of Division 3 to the by law (it wasn't there in 2009 naturally). I know this because I was involved with the league for a number of years and they were VERY strict on promotion and relegation. Only one club ever avoided promotion (Watsonia) because they fulfilled part (b) of that by law. Under present verifiable evidence, the league has violated it's own by laws. This needs to be sorted out and in the correct manner under WP rules. The way to do it is to find verifiable evidence that there was a temporary rule in place in 2009. You called on me to provide the 2009 by laws. In fact it should be you who should be chasing them because they will include the temp change. Footy Freak7 (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No I don't. I have sources that claim that Parkside won the 2009 Premership (The Parkside Football Club Website, the NFL website and the NFL annual report. You are claiming that it didn't happen based on the 2009 by-laws. The onus is on you to prove my sources wrong, and your memory does not count as a verifiable source. Until you do so, my edits stand.60.240.231.203 (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No the onus is on you to prove that the by laws weren't violated. As your edits stand, they were and the premiership is invalid. You must prove that the by laws weren't violated. Proof exists that they were and I have linked you to that evidence. Until then, my edits stand. Footy Freak7 (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No I don't. I have a reliable source claiming parkside won the division3 premership, the NFL offical records as per the NFL annual report. If you believe that is wrong then the onus is on you to prove that is wrong. It is your opinion that it couldn't of happened because it would have been a violation of the NFL by-laws, in order to prove your opinion you are required to provide the by-laws as they existed at the time. This entire argument is so all irrelvant because your opinion is just plain wrong. Are the records in the NFL annual report not offical NFL records? Is not the NFL the highest authority on this issue? The NFL considers Parkside to have been the 2009 division 3 premiers then they were the 2009 division 3 premiers.60.240.231.203 (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

They were not under the by laws. I have a copy of the 2000 by laws and they were the same as the 2011 with the exception of the addition of Division 3. The nFL and Parkside's claim is in violation of the by laws. That is a fact and that is the clash of evidence that requires additional proof. Proof that YOU must provide. Prove that the by laws were upheld. At present, they were not. Further edits by you will be regarded as vandalism and with your record you will almost certainly be blocked from editing. Footy Freak7 (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The 2000 by-laws are not the 2009 by-laws. Until you can provide the 2009 by-laws you have no evidence.60.240.231.203 (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Also the NFL didn't exist in 2000. You have the 2000 DVFL by-laws, they are even less relevant.60.240.231.203 (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The by laws carried over upon the name change. As I said, the by laws are the same (I read them against each other) with the exception of hte addition of Division 3. YOU have to provide the 2009 by laws to prove that there was a temporary rule change to allow Parkside to stay in Division 3 despite winning a premiership. As long as that proof does not exist, the claim is invalid and a clash of verifiable evidence exists. Footy Freak7 (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

My argument does not depend on the NFL by-laws. It is your argument that depends on the 2009 by-laws therefore it is you who are required to produce them. Your argument can only be substantiated by the 2009 by-laws. Until you provide it, it is only your opinion. Even if you can provide the 2009 by-laws that only means you can support you opinion with evidence, it doesn't mean your opinion is correct. As it stands now I have evidence, you do not so my edits stand. If you can provide evidence then we can discuss the relatitive merits of our respective arguments60.240.231.203 (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The by laws are your saviour from 2009, not mine. I have evidence that contradicts yours - that Parkside should have been promoted after the 2009 premiership. Per the by laws from 2000 and 2011. And they were not, so it was not a proper premiership. This invalidates your evidence. All we have otherwise is this temporary rule change, which at present can not be verified beyond original research. That's why the 09 by laws (which should contain that rule change) are what YOU need to produce. Your evidence at present is no good unless you can prove that the by laws weren't violated. Footy Freak7 (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

They are not my saviour, they are your entire argument.60.240.231.203 (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

They are not my entire argument. The 2009 by laws will include the temporary rule change, that YOU need to prove that the 2011 and 2000 by laws are not relevant. Footy Freak7 (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Section 5.3 (b)The Board may otherwise promote, relegate or refuse to promote any club in the event that: (iii) there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be promoted, relegated or refused promotion, including those clubs that have not met their financial commitments to the NFL. Promition/Relegation can be determined at the discretion of the board, Promotion is not a prerequisite to be recongised as an offical premiership.60.240.231.203 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that the 2009 version of the by laws? Footy Freak7 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can rely on the 2011 by-laws then so can I, if I can not then can not either therefore you have no evidence to support your agrument.60.240.231.203 (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The comment Promition/Relegation can be determined at the discretion of the board, Promotion is not a prerequisite to be recongised as an offical premiership is not part of the 2011 by laws. There were NO other circumstances that REFUSED Parkside promotion. The requirement is that they be promoted. That part is exactly the same in the 2000 by laws. For the record it was 5.3(b)(i) that applied to Watsonia. Footy Freak7 (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 NFL By-Laws
Section 5.3
(b)The Board may otherwise promote, relegate or refuse to promote any club in the event that:
(iii) there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be promoted, relegated or refused promotion, including those clubs that have not met their financial commitments to the NFL.60.240.231.203 (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The pretty clearly means Promition/Relegation can be determined at the discretion of the board. Therefore promotion is not a prerequisite to be recongised as an offical premiership as the NFL board may choose to vary the terms of Promition/Relegation as they see fit. Therefore the absence of promition does exclude parkside from being the offical 2009 division 3 premiers.60.240.231.203 (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And the precedent is that the board promotes and relegates every year without exception. Like I said, Watsonia was the only exception because (i) applied. On every other occasion the premier team has been promoted. If your interpretation was right, why was there a temporary rule change in 2009? There was, and you need it to prove your point. Without it, Parkside HAD to play Division 2 in 2010 and they did not. Footy Freak7 (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What tempory rule? I have never claimed that it either existed or not. Does the league introduce a new division every year?60.240.231.203 (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

For the point of clarity what exactly is your agrument?60.240.231.203 (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The temporary rule that the NFL added in 2009 to allow for the Division 3 premier to remain in Division 3 in 2010 (per my conversation with Delwyn Barry at the NFL office as referred far above). They needed it to overcome the issue I'm talking about. To clarify - the argument is that Parkside's premiership was not a full premiership because they were not promoted as required by the by laws and because Division 3 did not take place over a full season. That was the argument of the IP that started this whole debate as I understand it. I sought to sort the issue out because both of you had a point, and that's how I found out about the temp rule. I'm disappointed that Delwyn hasn't had the proof uploaded (and thereby help YOU, not me). The situation is that under the by laws as they always have been, Parkside HAD to be promoted and there were no special circumstances under the existing precedent that could have been applied. They were not, and the reason why they weren't is the core issue here. The by laws say they should have. Yet the club and the NFL say there wasn't a problem (per your links) - when in fact there is. Footy Freak7 (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The rules don't state that they must be promoted. 5.3(b)(iii) clearly gives the board the power to promote and relegate clubs at their discretion. It is possible officially win a premiership and not get promoted under the NFL by-laws therefore Parkside not getting promoted is not evidence they didn't offical win a premiership. In which case the offical records in the NFL annual report is the only evidence we have and that says parkside did win the D3 premiership.60.240.231.203 (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

PRECEDENT dictates that they must be promoted. If you were right there would have been no need for a temporary rule. But there was. Explain that. Footy Freak7 (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Precedent does not applly where the case can be differentiated on the facts. For seasons 1981 - 2011 (excluding 2009) there was no structal change to the NFL/DVFL. In 2009 there was structal change therefore the precedent set for seasons 1981 - 2011 (excluding 2009) does not apply. What temporary rule? You have provided no evidence of the existance of this temporary rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.231.203 (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Precedent does apply because that's the core of the by law interpretation. There WAS a structural change in 1986, until it fell through. The temporary rule I was told about by a league official that was REQUIRED to allow the 2009 Division 3 premier to remain in Division 3 in 2010. It was in the 2009 version of the by laws. The facts you claim defy the by laws as they stand now and stood in 1981 (presumably) and 2000. Do you understand yet? Footy Freak7 (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand the law of precedent. There was an attempt as structal change in 1986 but it didn't happen, even then it doesn't matter. What happened in 2009 was different to what happened in any other year so there is no requirement for the laws to be applied the same.60.240.231.203 (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand the way the NFL (or even the DVFL) works. Footy Freak7 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have quoted the NFL by-laws exactly and you have the gall to tell me my argument some how defies the NFL by-laws?60.240.231.203 (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If a temporary rule existed than it was an offical D3 premership, if no temporary rule existed then 5.3(b)(iii) allowed them to win the premiership without getting promoted therefore as per the NFL annual report it was an offical D3 premiership. Either way I am right.60.240.231.203 (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

NO! 5.3 (b)(iii) does NOT allow for the situation from 2009. Precedent is that the promotion MUST take place. Are you involved with the league, or have you been involved with the league? I have and I can tell you that promotion under 5.3 is COMPULSORY. You need to verify the temporary rule. Footy Freak7 (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Does 5.3 (b)(iii) not give the board the discretion to alter the promotion/relegation provision in 5.2? The fact they haven't used the power in past doesn't mean the can't use the power when the fell it to be apporiate.60.240.231.203 (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. They can't use it to defy existing by laws, including precedents and interpretations. Footy Freak7 (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

They are not defying the existing law. Section 5.2 gives the clubs rights to be promoted/relegated. Section 5.3 modifies that right. This is exactly what rule 5.3 states in regards to this case: "The Board may otherwise refuse to promote any club in the event that there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, requires a club to be refused promotion."60.240.231.203 (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring established precedent and interpretation. 5.2 is compulsory. 5.3 only provides for certain circumstances, which 2009 did not fulfil (the temporary rule change would not have been needed if it did). Now are you going to pay attention to these facts or not? Footy Freak7 (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"in the event that there are any other circumstances"; how does something not meet the definition of any other circumstances.60.240.231.203 (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ask the NFL. They saw the need for a temporary rule change to overcome the issue of that NOT being covered for. Get it yet? Footy Freak7 (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You have provided no proof of the existence of this temporary rule change and as I said so earlier if it does exist it also supports my argument. The NFL annual report supports my argument, the Parkside Football club website supports my argument, the NFL website supports my argument and the 2011 NFL by-laws does not support your argument.60.240.231.203 (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no point continuing this conversation because you are not paying attention to the facts. The 2011 by laws are strict and do not provide for Parkside's 2009 premiership. That is the end of it until you provide the 2009 by laws. That is all. Footy Freak7 (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

How does: "The Board may otherwise refuse to promote any club in the event that there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, requires a club to be refused promotion." not allow for Parkside premiership?60.240.231.203 (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Because Parkside never applied as required! Will you get it?? Get the 2009 by laws, and until you do, stop editing! Footy Freak7 (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Again do you have any proof to support any of your claims? I have the NFL annual to support my argument. All you appear to have is 1)Somebody told me something at some point in time and 2) I have been around the DVFL/NFL longer than you therefore I must know better.60.240.231.203 (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have the 2000 and 2011 by laws and the knowledge from within of the precedents and interpretations of said by laws. You are interpreting them incorrectly and you won't admit it. It doesn't matter now - I see you've been blocked for a week for violating the 3RR rules. It serves you right. Meanwhile, I'll do your job before Christmas and seek out those 2009 by laws. Footy Freak7 (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"The Board may otherwise refuse to promote any club in the event that there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, requires a club to be refused promotion." It doesn't require alot if interpreting to understand what that means. The NFL board can deny a club promotion for any reason that it think necessary. That means it is possible for a club to win the premiership and not got promoted hence refuting your agrument that it can't be a proper premership because they weren't promoted. That just leaves us with the NFL annual report which clearly state that Parkside won the D3 A grade premiership, Hurstbridge won the D3 B Grade premership and Robbie Wise win the D3 League BNF in 2009.Hornberger1 (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, 60 IP. Sock puppetry is not permitted. For there to be a rejection there has to be an application. Parkside never applied. That's worth an instant boot from the comp, and it's what nearly happened to Watsonia before their player numbers issues came to light (fulfilling another part of 5.3). A premier MUST apply for promotion. Footy Freak7 (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

2009 issue Part 2

It looks like the current edit has to stay as is. I spoke to the NFL at their office again, and I was told that the 2009 By Laws were no longer available as they had been updated at the beginning of 2010 and no record was kept. That means that unless the existence of the temporary rule can be verified by other means, the current verifiable evidence leaves the clash intact. Just to review;

• On the one hand we have verifiable evidence of Parkside's claim to a full premiership by two primary sources - the club itself and the NFL.
• On the other hand we have verifiable evidence that the by laws state that Parkside's premiership meant that they had to play Division Two in 2010 - and we all know that they did not (and that can be verified as well as they have lost the last two grand finals since).

It has been pointed out to me that independant third party sources would now be needed. Until then, under WP rules the current edit has to stay. The gentleman I spoke to at the NFL told me that he would keep his eyes open for something that will help, but neither of us were very confident. After all, who would keep old by laws that have been superceded? It's very frustrating and exposes a hole in WP rules, but I doubt anything can be done about it. Footy Freak7 (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Except we dont have a verifiable evidence Parkside's premiership meant that they had to play Division Two in 2010.

• 5.3 Promotion/Relegation
• (a) Subject to clauses 5.1 and 5.2 above, a club shall be entitled to participate in the division in which it participated in the previous season PROVIDED THAT the club whose A Grade team were premiers in Division 2 in the previous season shall be promoted to Division 1 and the club whose A Grade team finished bottom in Division 1, shall be relegated to Division 2. The same shall apply between Division 2 and Division 3.
• (b) The Board may otherwise promote, relegate or refuse to promote any club in the event that:
  • (i) the club cannot field a full complement of teams for the forthcoming season;
  • (ii) playing facilities of the club are not of a sufficient standard for the division in which the team is to compete in the next season;
  • (iii) there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be promoted, relegated or refused promotion, including those clubs that have not met their financial commitments to the NFL.

A club is entitled to be promoted unless;

• 1) The club is unable to field both a Seniors and Reserves.
• 2) The club facilities are good enough for the higher division
• 3) The club has not meet its financial commitments to the league
• 4) For any other reason the board deems a grounds to deny promotion.

A Living God (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Uhh Living God, read it again. It says "the club whose A Grade team were premiers in Division 2 in the previous season shall be promoted to Division 1" (with the same applying between 3 and 2). That's the compulsory promotion that you believe isn't there, and that's the league's interpretation that has been in place since 1981, with only Watsonia avoiding it due to clause 1. None of the four clauses noted applied to Parkside in 2009 under the current by laws. That's why we need the 2009 by laws including that temporary rule change I spoke of. That's what can't be verified at the moment. Footy Freak7 (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You are seriously retarded. Section 5.3(a) give the clubs the right to promoted. Section 5.3(b) modifies that right by creating exceptions listed in sub-section (i), (ii) and (iii). 5.3(b)(iii) say the board can deny a club promotion for "any" reason for the boards deems necessary.60.240.231.203 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Kindly moderate your language thank you. Your interpretation is not correct. Footy Freak7 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Just copying some of the note that I left at User talk:Footy Freak7 -

For a dispute like this, where both sides are making their case with verifiable evidence, there's no reason why these discussions can't be incorporated onto the actual article.

I see that the current version states that Parkside's "Premiership won in 2009 (was won) in a part season only". No reason why that couldn't be expanded as a footnote, I think it's of interest to the reader and of relevance. Something like, for example -

"Halfway through the 2009 season, (insert number) clubs, including Parkside, split from Division 2 in preparation for a third division in 2010. These clubs competed against each other for the rest of the season and Parkside defeated Hurstbridge in a grand final. The league lists Parkside as having won the 2009 Division 3 premiership, however the NFL by laws state that any premiership won in that division would mean that club would be promoted the following season and Parkside did not make the move to Division Two in 2010."

Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have now changed the article per Jevansen's suggestion, by replacing the asterisks with supercripted "note"s linked to a new section called "Footnote", and added an edited version of Jevansen's suggestion with the number of clubs, Hurstbridge's reserve win and one other word edit to align with the wording of the by laws added. Naturally with the footnote linked the notes at the end of each section have been removed as they are no longer needed. Thanks to Jevansen for the solution to this issue, where he has rightly IDed as I have a clash of verifiable evidence. Footy Freak7 (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"however the NFL by laws state that any premiership won in that division would mean that club would be promoted the following season and Parkside did not make the move to Division Two in 2010."
The NFL By-laws does not say that at all. The by-laws quiet cleary says a club can be refused promotion if there are any circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be refused promotion. This shouldn't be up for debate. The meaning is quiet clear. Footyfreak is just being obtuse trying to deny the obivious because it doesn't agree with his opinion. Once you disgread the argument about the by-laws all you have left is the NFL offical histroy and that says Parkside won the division 3 premiership. I would have no objections have a note saying the 2009 division 3 premership was won in a part season but any way you look at it was a division 3 premiership60.240.231.203 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You must provide independent third party evidence of your claim that the by laws were followed correctly. Your claim is original research. Footy Freak7 (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, no I don't. I have independent third party evidence third party that Parkside won the division 3 premiership in 2009 (the offical NFL history). Your argument is that the NFL by-laws require Parkside to have been promoted for it have an offical premiership. This is 100% factually wrong. The NFL by-laws clearly state: The Board may otherwise promote, relegate or refuse to promote any club in the event that there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be promoted, relegated or refused promotion, including those clubs that have not met their financial commitments to the NFL. If you won't argue the the NFL by-laws weren't followed correctly then you find independent third party evidences of your claim 60.240.231.203 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It says "the club whose A Grade team were premiers in Division 2 in the previous season shall be promoted to Division 1" (with the same applying between 3 and 2)." You must provide evidence that shows that 5.3 was applied in the manner you suggest. At present you have not. You are not listening to reason and a review if WP:HEAR would be prudent at this point. Footy Freak7 (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't just look at 5.3(a) will ignoring section 5.3(b). They must be read together. When read together they say.

• 5.3 Promotion/Relegation

A club shall be entitled to participate in the division in which it participated in the previous season PROVIDED THAT the club whose A Grade team were premiers in Division 2 in the previous season shall be promoted to Division 1 and the club whose A Grade team finished bottom in Division 1, shall be relegated to Division 2. The same shall apply between Division 2 and Division 3. The Board may otherwise promote, relegate or refuse to promote any club in the event that there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be promoted, relegated or refused promotion.
It is your opinion that the Parkside premiership was not with in accordance to the NFL by-laws then it is up to you to prove it. I have evidence that Parkside won the division 3 premiership (the NFL official by-laws.)60.240.231.203 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 1) Does section 5.3(b)(iii) give the NFL board the power to refuse a club a promition for any reasons the board deem necessary? Yes or No. 2) Given you answer for Question 1, Is it possible for a club to win a premiership and not be granted promition? Yes or No.60.240.231.203 (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have already answered these questions previously. You must provide evidence that an instance of 5.3(b)(iii) occurred in Parkside remaining in Division 3. Until you do, the rule was not applied. It is compulsory under the by laws for a premier team to be promoted. If an instance occurred to prevent it, provide that instance. With sources. That is my final word on the matter. Footy Freak7 (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

I take no side in this dispute (see WP:WRONGVERSION) but backwards and forwards edit warring is only being disruptive to the encyclopaedia. You will need to resolve this on the talk page or find an independent person to determine the best way forward. Moondyne (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not possible to resolve this on the talk page, Moondyne. We have a case of WP:HEAR going on in the case of this IP. If you look above on this talk page you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm done talking to this user until he provides verifiable evidence of the accuracy of his edits. Thanks for locking the page for now. Footy Freak7 (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

http://nfl.org.au/Football-Division-2-3/finally.html
Elsewhere, Parkside were able to overcome a one goal half-time deficit to win the inaugural Division 3 premiership. Having been the favourite going into the game, Parkside continued their excellent 2009 form and ran out 16 point winners, 12.9 (81) to Hurstbridge's 8.17 (65).
http://nfl.org.au/History/league-premiers.html
Division 3 2009 Parkside
http://nfl.org.au/images/records/2011%20NFL%20Annual%20Report.pdf
Division 3 2009 Parkside
http://www.sportingpulse.com/club_info.cgi?c=1-3913-48184-0-0&sID=48046&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=10032783
Parkside FC - 2009 NFL Div 3 Premiers.

I have multiple sources that say Parkside won the division 3 premiership in 2009. Footy Freak's entire argument is that the NFL by-laws requires a club to promoted as Parkside was not promoted it couldn't have been an offical premiership. This factually incorrect, this can be confirmed by anybody who reads the NFL by-laws. The NFL by-laws state the board can refuse to promote a club for any reason which the board deems necessary. Making it possible for a club to win a premership and not get promoted without breaching the NFL by-laws. Therefore Parkside not getting promoted does not form evidence that it was not an offical premiership. It was announced by league prior to the 2009 season and then again when division 2 was spilt that the winner of division would not get promoted.
http://nfl.org.au/Football-Division-2-3/division-23-recap.html
The league consider Parkside as the offical division 3 premiers, the club consider themselves division 3 premiers. The only person that disagree is Footy Freak and he has no evidence to support his agrument.60.240.231.203 (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

For other readers only - The IP is misinterpreting the by laws by ignoring the compulsory promotion clause and the fact that he must provide evidence of the reason why Parkside were not promoted to Division 2 in 2010 under the by laws. He can not just give his interpretation as that is a violation of the rules of original research. His refusal to provide verifiable and independent proof of this invalidates all otherwise verifiable evidence. The fact remains that Parkside were not promoted to Division 2 and he is yet to provide evidence to back his claim as to the reasons for this - and he refuses to do so claiming that anyone can read the by laws and see this. Section 5.3 (b)(iii) is very general and requires specifics to be a valid argument. Until these specifics are provided and with verifiable citations, it can not be argued that this part of the by laws was applied. And as this section was not applied, the by laws therefore rule that Parkside should have played in Division 2 in 2010. And they did not. This can not be denied as fact because Parkside lost both the 2010 and 2011 Division 3 grand finals. There is yet to be a specific (not general) and verifiable explanation as to why this occurred. Anecdotally I have been told by the league that there was a temporary rule change in 2009, but until we have verifiable evidence of this then that view can not be used in the article either. For IP 60 to claim that his evidence is enough is to ignore the clear message in the by laws and the inconsistency that exists within the verifiable evidence on both sides of the argument. More evidence is needed and until that is provided the current edit of the article has to be taken as correct under the Wikipedia rules of verifiability. Footy Freak7 (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me the meaning off:

5.3 (b)(iii) The Board may otherwise promote, relegate or refuse to promote any club in the event that there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be promoted, relegated or refused promotion, including those clubs that have not met their financial commitments to the NFL.

I read it as saying the board can promote, relegate or refuse promotion to any club for any reason they deem necessary. If you agree with my definition please explain how Parkside not getting promoted doesn't meet the criteria of "any circumstances"60.240.231.203 (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You interpreted it incorrectly. Your definition is incorrect. Footy Freak7 (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If my interpretation is incorrect, what do you believe the correct one to be?60.240.231.203 (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is irrelevant. The NFL's interpretation is what counts. Footy Freak7 (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

And in the NFL's opinion, as per the NFL offical history, Parkside was to 2009 division 3 premiers.60.240.231.203 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting this whole thing, and intentionally in order to follow a specific agenda. I repeat - for the last time - prove with evidence that the league actually used 5.3(b)(iii) to allow Parkside to remain in Division 3 in 2010. Until you do, we have a clash of verifiable evidence that shows that Parkside should have been promoted to Division 2 in 2010 and were not. I know (yes this is WP:OR but in discussion I can make this point) that the league had to implement a temporary rule change to enable them to stay. I can't verify it under WP rules and so add it to the article, but I have been told this by the league personally. Why would they need such a change if 5.3(b)(iii) covered it? I'll tell you why - because it doesn't. That's why you need to prove that it was implemented, and bluntly I know you won't be able to because I know they didn't. The temporary rule change is your out so I suggest you go and find a copy of the 2009 by laws before commenting again. Footy Freak7 (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

So if you are choosing to ignore the NFL offical history are you saying the NFL opinion doesn't matter?60.240.231.203 (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not paying attention. I'm done talking to you. Footy Freak7 (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So does the NFL opinion matter or not? If NFL opinion matters then we should go by whats in the NFL annual report/history page. If the NFL opinion does matter, than whos opinions does matter?60.240.231.203 (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I really am interested in hearing how my interptation is wrong. I would love to hear what you think "the board can refuse a club promotion for any circumstances that they deem necessary" means."60.240.231.203 (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

hey doofus! dont you know an emergency rule when you see one? what was the emergency? parkside won nothing in 09 and havent won any real ones since! go the bridge! 203.17.215.23 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The NFL does not agree with you, they list parkside as the 2009 premiers. There also zero evidence of the existance of an emergency rule.60.240.231.203 (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I just want to point out that I thought the by laws were a valid source to contradict the claims to the premiership. The origin of the view that I agreed with was the other IP (not the 203 just above by the way - the other one). It has now been established that the by laws can't be used as a source at all. This I did not know, so the clash is now no longer valid and I have been accidentally and honestly misled - unless that other IP can come up with a valid third party source. All my visits to the NFL (I already knew this and I haven't at any stage used that info in the article - like the temporary rule that overcame the issue with the by laws anyway) were OR. So I will seek to have the page unlocked and I'll fix it up. To the other IP (not the 203) if you want to reverse it all again, YOU are the one that has to provide the source to show specifically that Parkside should have been promoted and were not. And it has to come from outside both the NFL and Parkside, and it has to be a reliable source. Footy Freak7 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Additionally though, to IP 60 - you have conducted yourself rather poorly throughout this. I strongly recommend that you review WP:BAIT as you did upset me greatly during this debate with your repeats and so on. It doesn't matter if you were right. The way you conducted yourself was far from above board and you constantly drew me back to make your point - which actually when it came to the by laws you were just as wrong as I was. There were no specifics as to the application of 5.3(b)(iii). Mind you as has been pointed out to me, there is no reliable evidence of any application of the by laws full stop, which is where I was in the wrong as indeed was that other IP (not 203, although he was wrong as well). So I suggest you don't use this experience as the correct way to go about things - even if as I said you were right all along about Parkside's claim under WP rules. However, what can't be disputed is the fact that they spent part of 2009 in Division 2 (as did the other teams) so we do still need the footnote for that at least. Footy Freak7 (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Unprotected per request and comments from mediator [3]. I expect that parties will abide by the mediator's guidance, with which I concur. Moondyne (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And I have now restored the statistic edits of IP 60, but I kept my version (Jevansen's with edits) of the footnote, with the reference to the by laws removed completely and replaced with a simple reference to the lack of promotion and no verifiable reasons behind it. As I said in the edit summary, that should be an end to it. Footy Freak7 (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Name Change

The NFL is now the NFNL as it has incorporated Netball. Is there a way to amend the title of the page or would a new page be required? (sorry only new to this but need page correct as all clubs link to this page) ACH0505 (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

References