Has a team ever forfeited?

[wittyfan]

I think the Warriors had defected to Super League by then, but had promised to field a team for that game with players from the local NZ competition.

 

[chunk]

It wasn't an all or nothing match - even in Balmain had won, it would not have won them the premiership - it would have triggered a second Final - in effect Balmain had to beat Souths twice - given Souths had only lost two games in the League's first two seasons, it was unlikely.

The "Balmainiacs" had other things on their mind:
http://www.RL1908.com/articles/balmain-1909.htm

That may be so but my understanding is that both teams agreed to forfeit, for the good of the game and Souths went back on their word.

However it did build a very healthy rivalry from then on.

 

[RL1908]

That may be so but my understanding is that both teams agreed to forfeit, for the good of the game and Souths went back on their word. However it did build a very healthy rivalry from then on.

That has been the legend passed down through the years, and no doubt it has greatly benefited the rich rivalry between the clubs.

However, from looking at the newspapers from 1909 and 1910 there is nothing to indicate Souths were ever in support of not turning up. In fact, Balmain officials went to the NSWRL offices on the Friday demanding the game be re-scheduled - Souths officials refused to become involved.

It was pretty clear they (Souths) were going to turn up for the match. Souths made no public noises against the match at all, and most of the Balmain team did in fact turn up in time for the kick-off, but instead of playing stood outside the ground picketing the entry gates. The NSWRL played a lot of double-headers in 1908 & 1909, so early games were not that unusual.

Full story in The Rugby Rebellion - available in the "Pioneers of Rugby League" book early August: http://www.RL1908.com/Pioneers/index.htm

 

[Mr Saab]

I think they had defected by then but named a third string team of no names by the ARL due date for team listings because they knew the Broncos would forfeit and they'd pick up the points. I could be wrong, it was over ten years ago, but that sounds familiar to me. Sneaky if true.

You are correct in what you say.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

with the 1909 grand final, didn't souths just have to kick the ball dead from the kick off to be awarded the game or something to that nature?

 

[wittyfan]

I think they kicked off, one player picked up the ball and scored and they claimed the win. It would have been interesting if they had kicked out on the full!

 

[pennywisealfie]

i remember chile won through to the football world cup, after the team they were meant to play never showed up.

 

[Canard]

You are correct in what you say.

My recollection of the Warriors reason for not forfieting was that they had a private ownership situation, (was it Eric Watson at that time?) this meant unlike all the other SL clubs that he could be personally sued by the ARL/Channel Nine etc. and that is why the didnt go through with the forfiet.

Ive never heard of this third string team etc. rumour.

 

[Timmah]

:|

Watson didn't come in until 2000

 

[Canard]

Well it wasnt Watson but it was something to do with the Ownership situation, and maybe specifically NZ law as well.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

:|

Watson didn't come in until 2000

Correct AFAIK the Warriors were only privately opwned after the Tainui buyout around 1998.

 

[t-ba]

I don't think NZ law would have made much of a difference. All of the NSWRL/ARL contracts were subject to New South Wales Law IIRC.

Weren't they owned by the A(uckland)RL at that stage?

Edit: The Tainui's...man, what a nightmare that was!

 

[Tom Shines]

So that's six all-up right?

 

[RL1908]

I think they kicked off, one player picked up the ball and scored and they claimed the win. It would have been interesting if they had kicked out on the full!

Under the rules at that time kicking out on the full would have resulted in a scrum, not a penalty - of course, having to form a scrum with only one team conjures all sorts of conundrums as to what would happen next.


There is a full copy of the NSWRL's 1908 playing laws/rules plus a "Referee's Challenge" (51 on-field scenarios with answers) in the Pioneers of Rugby League book. http://www.RL1908.com/Pioneers/index.htm

 

[RL1908]

So that's six all-up right?

Total number is 6 - one in 1909 Final, five in 1996 Rd 1.

 

[Canard]

Has a game ever been called off due to bad weather or other conditions, I remember Balmain playing Manly in the hail, and lightning striking the scoreboard at another, and the famous Canberra snow game.

None of those were cancelled, but what about in the days before TV ruled the schedules etc.

 

[gregstar]

i'm pretty sure that saints forfeited their first encounter against the sharks this season.


the only difference between this & the others is that the team showed up to make it more humiliating.

 

[Red Bear]

Round 1, 1996:

Illawarra 8 Wests 17
Wollongong Fri,22-Mar-1996 K.Jeffes 9744

Gold Coast 26 Norths 42
Carrara Sat,23-Mar-1996 T.Maksoud 8291

Sydney City 38 Sydney Tigers 10
S.F.S. Sat,23-Mar-1996 E.Ward 5631

Manly 44 Souths 6
Brookvale Sun,24-Mar-1996 D.Manson 6532

Canberra forfeited to South Queensland
Brisbane forfeited to Auckland
Penrith forfeited to Parramatta
Cronulla forfeited to Newcastle
Western Reds forfeited to St George
Canterbury v North Queensland cancelled

Information courtesy http://stats.rleague.com

wow i remember being at that game all those years ago

 

[*Paul*]

The Round 9, 1922 Souths v University game was never played, but I've never bothered to find out why. Perhaps it was postponed and they never got around to rescheduling.
It was first past the post in those days, neither Souths nor Uni were in contention by the finish.

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

My recollection of the Warriors reason for not forfieting was that they had a private ownership situation, (was it Eric Watson at that time?) this meant unlike all the other SL clubs that he could be personally sued by the ARL/Channel Nine etc. and that is why the didnt go through with the forfiet.

Ive never heard of this third string team etc. rumour.

Not sure about other details in regards to the ARL/Channel 9 but the Warriors definately picked up two points and they couldn't have done that without at least naming a team which they did using local players who weren't involved with the actual Warriors squad (at least not the starting squad) IIRC.