by Afterthesiren » Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:30 pm
by Bat Pad » Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:23 pm
Afterthesiren wrote:What part of this don't you understand BP? It's all about giving kids a game of footy and hopefully that can exist at a neighbouring club in the same division so travel isn't a huge issue.If a child and parent want to stay at a club with large numbers then that's fine but he probably won't get a game. He will learn to become a professional spectator. Being a parent myself I'd travel the extra kms for my son if it meant he got a game on a weekly basis and was having fun. I'd get a buzz and be proud out the fact he's playing and enjoying himself. I guess some parents don't go the extra mile (so to speak) for their kids, there's a word for that SELFISH. And that word can be attached to a number of clubs in the HFL.
by Afterthesiren » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:55 pm
Bat Pad wrote:Afterthesiren wrote:What part of this don't you understand BP? It's all about giving kids a game of footy and hopefully that can exist at a neighbouring club in the same division so travel isn't a huge issue.If a child and parent want to stay at a club with large numbers then that's fine but he probably won't get a game. He will learn to become a professional spectator. Being a parent myself I'd travel the extra kms for my son if it meant he got a game on a weekly basis and was having fun. I'd get a buzz and be proud out the fact he's playing and enjoying himself. I guess some parents don't go the extra mile (so to speak) for their kids, there's a word for that SELFISH. And that word can be attached to a number of clubs in the HFL.
How can you make the bolded statement while being in support of a cap on player numbers? The whole point of a cap is that it's not fine. Like I have said, if they choose to leave due to not getting a game all well and good (although most clubs with say 30 kids play them on a rotational basis until finals). They can do that now, and would be able to with a cap. What they wouldn't be able to do with a cap is choose to stay at that club if they aren't in the first 30 (if that was the maximum) to tough it out and try to crack the side. Now you may think thats not a good decision for the player, but that is not your decision to make, nor the HFL's. Most kids won't do that anyway, but it should not be mandated against.
by ftandsq » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:16 pm
Afterthesiren wrote:Bat Pad wrote:Afterthesiren wrote:What part of this don't you understand BP? It's all about giving kids a game of footy and hopefully that can exist at a neighbouring club in the same division so travel isn't a huge issue.If a child and parent want to stay at a club with large numbers then that's fine but he probably won't get a game. He will learn to become a professional spectator. Being a parent myself I'd travel the extra kms for my son if it meant he got a game on a weekly basis and was having fun. I'd get a buzz and be proud out the fact he's playing and enjoying himself. I guess some parents don't go the extra mile (so to speak) for their kids, there's a word for that SELFISH. And that word can be attached to a number of clubs in the HFL.
How can you make the bolded statement while being in support of a cap on player numbers? The whole point of a cap is that it's not fine. Like I have said, if they choose to leave due to not getting a game all well and good (although most clubs with say 30 kids play them on a rotational basis until finals). They can do that now, and would be able to with a cap. What they wouldn't be able to do with a cap is choose to stay at that club if they aren't in the first 30 (if that was the maximum) to tough it out and try to crack the side. Now you may think thats not a good decision for the player, but that is not your decision to make, nor the HFL's. Most kids won't do that anyway, but it should not be mandated against.
Well if the lad wants to stay around until someone quits or gets a season ending injury that would allow him to fit in the cap. Reality is 8 or 9 kids still miss out on a game each week anyway. Rotations will work with this number ok but you can't properly rotate 15+ kids week in week out. So that's why a cap is necessary BP. And we all know the competitive side of a coach will get the better of him and young Tommy who struggles skills wise will get the bad end of the stick with rotations. So a cap should be seen as a positive for the child, parent, the clubs and the HFL.
by grasshopper22 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Afterthesiren wrote:Bat Pad wrote:Afterthesiren wrote:What part of this don't you understand BP? It's all about giving kids a game of footy and hopefully that can exist at a neighbouring club in the same division so travel isn't a huge issue.If a child and parent want to stay at a club with large numbers then that's fine but he probably won't get a game. He will learn to become a professional spectator. Being a parent myself I'd travel the extra kms for my son if it meant he got a game on a weekly basis and was having fun. I'd get a buzz and be proud out the fact he's playing and enjoying himself. I guess some parents don't go the extra mile (so to speak) for their kids, there's a word for that SELFISH. And that word can be attached to a number of clubs in the HFL.
How can you make the bolded statement while being in support of a cap on player numbers? The whole point of a cap is that it's not fine. Like I have said, if they choose to leave due to not getting a game all well and good (although most clubs with say 30 kids play them on a rotational basis until finals). They can do that now, and would be able to with a cap. What they wouldn't be able to do with a cap is choose to stay at that club if they aren't in the first 30 (if that was the maximum) to tough it out and try to crack the side. Now you may think thats not a good decision for the player, but that is not your decision to make, nor the HFL's. Most kids won't do that anyway, but it should not be mandated against.
Well if the lad wants to stay around until someone quits or gets a season ending injury that would allow him to fit in the cap. Reality is 8 or 9 kids still miss out on a game each week anyway. Rotations will work with this number ok but you can't properly rotate 15+ kids week in week out. So that's why a cap is necessary BP. And we all know the competitive side of a coach will get the better of him and young Tommy who struggles skills wise will get the bad end of the stick with rotations. So a cap should be seen as a positive for the child, parent, the clubs and the HFL.
by Champ » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:28 pm
by rock » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:33 pm
by Bat Pad » Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:02 am
by shake'n'bake » Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:09 am
by rock » Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:13 am
Bat Pad wrote:And what about the kid up from under 13's who can't play at the same club as his brother? What if the parents can't drive both children to seperate trainings because they are a single parent?
What if their parents work afternoons and can't drop their child off at training, so they either play at the town they live in or they can't play at all. This is exactly the situation I would have been in my first year up from U12's (and belive me, my parents went the extra mile for my sport). If my club then didn't have a second side, I couldn't have played anywhere. But a cap of 30 players obviously stops any club from having a second side (which this year would reduce the junior sides in Country Div, a good thing do you think?).
This assumption that any child who is between the 30th and 42nd player in their age group at a club is going to definitely play for another club where they have no mates, no family connection and extra travel is very optimistic, most likely to the point of being naive. Many will just be lost to the sport. The ones who are willing to do it, are most likely going to do it regardless of a cap.
All clubs with an excess of players around the 8-9 kid mark do or at least attempt to make deals with struggling country division clubs to rotate some players through their side. A lot of those kids will just stop playing if they can't still train with their mates and play with them still throughout the year. A cap would actually make the problem worse.
And all so kids can be told they can't choose where they can play if they aren't in the best 28 or 30 kids at the club, which will probably be over 50% of kids coming up from the age group below. Awesome situation.
by The Gimp » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:20 pm
by Bat Pad » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:34 pm
rock wrote:Bat Pad wrote:And what about the kid up from under 13's who can't play at the same club as his brother? What if the parents can't drive both children to seperate trainings because they are a single parent?
What if their parents work afternoons and can't drop their child off at training, so they either play at the town they live in or they can't play at all. This is exactly the situation I would have been in my first year up from U12's (and belive me, my parents went the extra mile for my sport). If my club then didn't have a second side, I couldn't have played anywhere. But a cap of 30 players obviously stops any club from having a second side (which this year would reduce the junior sides in Country Div, a good thing do you think?).
This assumption that any child who is between the 30th and 42nd player in their age group at a club is going to definitely play for another club where they have no mates, no family connection and extra travel is very optimistic, most likely to the point of being naive. Many will just be lost to the sport. The ones who are willing to do it, are most likely going to do it regardless of a cap.
All clubs with an excess of players around the 8-9 kid mark do or at least attempt to make deals with struggling country division clubs to rotate some players through their side. A lot of those kids will just stop playing if they can't still train with their mates and play with them still throughout the year. A cap would actually make the problem worse.
And all so kids can be told they can't choose where they can play if they aren't in the best 28 or 30 kids at the club, which will probably be over 50% of kids coming up from the age group below. Awesome situation.
As I understand in other leagues there is a father/son rule and a sibling rule as well. Obviously meaning if your Dad played 100 games or more you can therefore play at that club outside the cap. Also if you have a brother playing junior football you can play outside the cap.
A shift working parent always finds it hard no matter what, I am one. But I have found with my kids that there is always another parent, relative, coach or friend that will pick my kids up. So your arguments other than raising points have no substance.
The only way to save junior footy and struggling clubs is by introducing a cap. To say a club wants a team of 35-40 with the hope and promise (to player and parent) of sufficient game time is nothing other than SELFISH as it has been said before.
by Bat Pad » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:48 pm
The Gimp wrote:What other leagues have got this junior cap? Please don't say a metro league.
by shake'n'bake » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:59 pm
by Bat Pad » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:13 pm
shake'n'bake wrote:Smaller clubs don't expect clubs such as the three you just mentioned and Blackwood, Mt Lofty and Birdwood to understand. As you are all within throwing distance of a High School or have massive townships. But as hard as you may find it to believe, the clubs with smaller townships are working extremely hard to better their junior programs and bolster numbers. We are not looking for the easy way out, nor expecting these clubs to sacrifice their good fortune for others. However, alternatives do need to be discussed and possible solutions worked on.
IMO the best thing about our competition is the fact that all three colts games and both seniors games are played at the same venue on the same day. If we do not come up with solutions as an entire league to this growing problem, this may soon be gone. Even powerhouses at senior level such as Uraidla, struggled to fill sides last year. Maybe it will only be when a club such as that, can't fill a junior side that people will stand up and take notice. Or maybe we will just continue to bury our heads in the sand and point our fingers at these clubs with smaller townships who obviously aren't working hard enough
by shake'n'bake » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:19 pm
ftandsq wrote:Afterthesiren wrote:Bat Pad wrote:Afterthesiren wrote:What part of this don't you understand BP? It's all about giving kids a game of footy and hopefully that can exist at a neighbouring club in the same division so travel isn't a huge issue.If a child and parent want to stay at a club with large numbers then that's fine but he probably won't get a game. He will learn to become a professional spectator. Being a parent myself I'd travel the extra kms for my son if it meant he got a game on a weekly basis and was having fun. I'd get a buzz and be proud out the fact he's playing and enjoying himself. I guess some parents don't go the extra mile (so to speak) for their kids, there's a word for that SELFISH. And that word can be attached to a number of clubs in the HFL.
How can you make the bolded statement while being in support of a cap on player numbers? The whole point of a cap is that it's not fine. Like I have said, if they choose to leave due to not getting a game all well and good (although most clubs with say 30 kids play them on a rotational basis until finals). They can do that now, and would be able to with a cap. What they wouldn't be able to do with a cap is choose to stay at that club if they aren't in the first 30 (if that was the maximum) to tough it out and try to crack the side. Now you may think thats not a good decision for the player, but that is not your decision to make, nor the HFL's. Most kids won't do that anyway, but it should not be mandated against.
Well if the lad wants to stay around until someone quits or gets a season ending injury that would allow him to fit in the cap. Reality is 8 or 9 kids still miss out on a game each week anyway. Rotations will work with this number ok but you can't properly rotate 15+ kids week in week out. So that's why a cap is necessary BP. And we all know the competitive side of a coach will get the better of him and young Tommy who struggles skills wise will get the bad end of the stick with rotations. So a cap should be seen as a positive for the child, parent, the clubs and the HFL.
ATS, this does not work. You cannot cap junior clubs, if a kid wants to play footy with his mates from school or where a relative played they are more then happy to be rotated around than have to go and play else where. Where it botes is if you ahve a cap of 28 and a kid moves into town goes to local scholl and wants to play with his new friends, the club says no sorry mate you have to play elsewhere! THAT IS JUST DUMB. Then the kid goes and plays soccer or basketball instead.
Maybe the clubs with lesser numbers need to work harder in schools or with the there local community and encourage the kids to come to there club rather than hope someone sends them there. Although clubs were talking about are probably to focused on spending every dollar they got on buying imports in!
by Bat Pad » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:35 pm
by overthehill » Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:16 pm
by From The Outer » Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:30 pm
by afc9798 » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:36 pm
Bat Pad wrote:The Gimp wrote:What other leagues have got this junior cap? Please don't say a metro league.
Southern League I believe. It has just come in so not sure how it is working. Edit**Not sure if they do actually. Perhaps someone can clarfiy.
Not sure about the SAAFL
No country leagues that I am aware of
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |