However, the Bombers will front a meeting with AFL Riverina and AFL NSW/ACT next week on the recommendation of the appeals panel chairman, Peter Friedlieb.

His report said Marrar appeared to have used the rules to their advantage but noted they're entitled to do so, whether it was against the spirit of the game or not.

Bombers president John Carroll strongly defended his club.

"We're happy. We believe we've done the right thing," Carroll said.

"These boys were eligible. If we didn't have them we'd have struggled for numbers, and they were within the rules - they played the games.

"We're not about being dishonest or stacking sides to win premierships. That's not what we're about as a club."

Carroll said their younger players are the future of their club and they look after them. He said many who played first grade during the year also played earlier games to help with numbers. The club believes the rules weren't meant to punish first grade standard players by preventing them playing finals with their mates.

East Wagga-Kooringal raised the issue before the grand final, saying by-law 10.7.2 prevented anyone who has played eight senior games from playing under 17.5s. That could've ruled out Marrar's Drew Beavan, Toby Lawler and Adam Whyte.

But by-law 10.7.6 appears to overrule that in the case of under 17.5s. It indicates anyone who plays four under 17.5 games has qualified no matter how many senior games he plays.

Mr Friedlieb found the by-laws contradictory and confusing - and has recommended they be rewritten.

But he said it was his belief the trio was eligible to play under rule 10.7.6. He noted that he was unable to physically check their participation in under 17.5 games and relied on the team sheets.

Nathanael Mooney wasn't reviewed because he didn't play in the grand final.

Carroll said he felt for the Bombers players, saying they faced unfair scrutiny, and is relieved that question marks over their involvement have been erased.

"The pressure the kids have been under has been ridiculous especially while they're doing their HSC," Carroll said.

"And they were all qualified. Whytey and Drew were also playing for GWS during the year. It says in the rules, playing for GWS qualfies as club games."

EWK made it clear at the time - and have reiterated again this week - that they were never questioning the integrity of the players and weren't casting any aspersions against them.

They say the finals criteria wasn't clear and needed to be clarified before the game. They appealed an original decision by AFL Riverina but insist they've never questioned the result -- because they appealed before the game even took place.

Their suggestion that the by-laws were open to vastly different interpretations has certainly been backed up by the appeal.

"Out of Peter's review of the situation, he stated that the by-laws are contradictory and need to be looked at prior to next season," AFL NSW-ACT's Paul Habel said.

"They're reviewed every year but when you get scenarios like this, it needs to be clear and the clubs and AFL Riverina need to have a general discussion in the way the by-laws reflect eligibility for finals."

Habel said their meeting with Marrar is a general one but they will discuss the spirit of the by-laws.

The Bombers are adamant that they acted with integrity, meeting league rules, their club commitments and looking after their players' best interests. They say the rules need to keep players playing not shut them out.

In comparison, in the Riverina League rules, players are eligible for under 17.5 finals so long as they have played four games for the club in any grade, and they meet the age restriction.

RELATED: