The Daily Advertiser has learned that the Hawks specifically questioned the eligibility of four Marrar players days before the Farrer League grand final, subsequently won by the Bombers.

AFL Riverina gave the green light to Marrar's selection of regular first graders Toby Lawler, Drew Beavan and Adam Whyte in their under 17.5 team, as well as Nathanael Mooney, who focussed on rugby union this year (and was a late withdrawal from the Bombers on grand final day), declaring they met the Farrer League criteria.

EWK made it clear they were not questioning the integrity of any individual players. But they didn't accept Marrar's team selection was within the rules.

The Hawks don't believe the players played the required four under 17.5 games during the year.

They tried to appeal AFL Riverina's decision before the grand final, but there was insufficient time for it to be considered less than 24 hours from the game.

Five weeks later, EWK's appeal is with an independent investigations officer who will determine whether it will go to a full hearing.

"It's in the hands of the investigation officer now and we expect that there'll be an outcome very shortly... they decide whether there is scope for this to go to an appeal hearing, or there's not scope for an appeal hearing," AFL Southern NSW community football manager, Paul Habel, said.

"The grounds of (EWK's) appeal is the qualification status of certain players playing in the grand final.

"They appealed against an administrative decision to allow the players to play. They haven't appealed against the grand final.

"It was an administration process through AFL Riverina and AFL Riverina made a decision in relation to it. Then, under our by-laws and regulations, the club (EWK) had the chance to appeal that decision."

Habel said he couldn't comment on possible penalties, or whether Marrar could be stripped of the title if found to be in breach of the by-laws.

"I can't comment on that because I can't say what the decision will be. We'll see what the appeals chairperson says in the first instance. If it does go to an appeals panel, well, that's where ramifications might be discussed. If it doesn't, we move on," Habel said.

The case primarily stems from confusing and seemingly contradictory by-laws. For example, one by-law says a player whose name is on a team sheet is deemed to have played a game. Another by-law seems to indicate that specifically doesn't apply to the under 17.5 comp.

"By-laws can be interpreted in different ways by different people. It depends how you see it so they do sometimes throw up some challenges," Habel said.

"We continually monitor by-laws because sometimes it can be contradictory... there's a lot to go through and that's why we get an independent person with a legal background to look at it."

READ MORE: