Ecky wrote:bloodybouncer wrote:Ecky wrote:bloodybouncer wrote:interesting point though......do paralowie be happy to stay in div 1 and try again next year, or risk losing to rose park in the second innings and finish last...and be relegated to div 2 ??????
There would be no point in considering that as ladder positions are only used as a guide when working out divisions for next season.
thats the most frustrating thing about this association. All i see/hear in rules/constitution are buzz words like "intent" , "guide", "should". Rediculous as this is open to interpretations of the exec at that time.
The exec do all they can, but toughen up fellas. Use words like "will", "must", "shall".....
Bottom team SHALL be relegated, top team SHALL come up, unless the team coming up opts not to.
In an ideal world, that would be how it is done, BUT...
Unfortunately we are an amateur association where the strength of teams can change a lot from year to year depending on who is available, so such a clear cut rule would never work in practice.
For example last year Adelaide Lutheran finished 5th in Div 1, and Rose Park finished 6th. Adelaide Lutheran lost 3 of their better players to Brooklyn Park and the availability of a number of other players was uncertain, so we requested to be dropped to Div 2. On the other hand, Rose Park felt that they could be competitive in Div 1 this season, so they requested to remain in Div 1.
The result? The most even Div 1 competition in many years, with Rose Park right in the finals mix, and Adel Luth struggling to make the finals in Div 2. If Rose Park were forced to go down and Adelaide Lutheran were forced to stay up, nobody would be happy and the games would be much more one-sided, prompting even more complaints!
Also, Brooklyn Park finished bottom of Div 4, but were promoted to Division 3 knowing that they would have a stronger team, and they have been very competitive in that division. If they were forced to be relegated to Div 5, then that division would become very uneven.
So surely you can't argue that the current policy has proven to be the correct one for this season?
why dont we go for an ideal competition instead of "ifs' and "buts"???
i can tell you that we, at the start of every season, would say we are capable of filling at least 3 teams, probably 2 of them A-grade, with a myriad of players who will all top the charts. The reality is that we havent done this, and our Div3 team has struggled. Do we tell the exec that "hey, we will have a solid div3 team next year"given we ..have struggled for the past 2? we should be relegated because we finished bottom.
For every example you have to support your "intentions" of making the comp even and fair, i could cite several against where it has failed. Sorry mate.
When the rules are in place, there is no dispute. As phantom said, reward for success, demotion for failure. Simple rule....no misinterpretations.
heres another one for ya......lol.......do we follow the Suburban format of making Div 1 more overs, diff starting time etc. i quite like the idea. thoughts all ???
Eastside penalised 6 match points (which makes Div 3 very interesting)
worth the watch ROFL!