HFL Division 1 (Central)

[Afterthesiren]

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.

[Bat Pad]

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.

[Afterthesiren]

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.

[ftandsq]

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!

[grasshopper22]

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.

After reading all these posts recently I agree with you ATS,

[Champ]

I think you all need (HFL included) to decide what is more important, participation or competition strength.

The bottom line is that if juniors are not shared around then put simply clubs end up dying.

Isnt it just a little silly for parents to pay for a full season of fees for their kid to play only a handful of games (rotational or otherwise)

End of the day we are losing kids to other sports regardless of who they're playing for no kid wants to be the last bloody kid picked.

If hills central are happy with the HFL being reduced to Hills central only plus a handful of stronger/bigger country clubs that they decide to let in after that comp dies then play on. But dont put up playing for the family club that bla bla played for before me on one hand when on the other you're taking away from kids being able to do that at Gumeracha and other clubs without juniors for one reason or another.

[rock]

Why doesn't it work ftandsq? It's already working quite well in other leagues. I think you'll find the smaller clubs already work harder than the big town clubs but geographically they'll always be up against it. So I'm guessing your from a big town club with everything at your doorstep. Well done.

[Bat Pad]

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.

[shake'n'bake]

Just a Thought...

But if the HFL doesn't do something like implement the cap and clubs start to die off. Then Kids will be lost to the sport irrespective of where they play because the Hills junior competition may cease to exist as we know it!

Also if clubs nominate two teams then their cap would increase to 56 or 60 players.

[rock]

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.

[The Gimp]

What other leagues have got this junior cap? Please don't say a metro league.

[Bat Pad]

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.

Those rules, while good and clearly necessary should a cap be in place, will almost make the cap obsolete, because due to travel issues in the country, they will surely need to also have a zoning rule so local kids can play for the town they live in. Out of the Mt Barker U15's sides for example, how many kids do you think would not fit into those 3 catergories? If the cap is 30, then it would need to be more than 30 for it to work. Because you just sit every kid who doesnt qualify in the cap, because the rest can play from outside it anyway.

My argument has no basis because situations, exclusive to you, has not caused you issues personally? Is that a serious comment?

Good luck for the kid who needs to get picked up from Mt Barker for training at his new (not first choice club) of Ironbank. I hope his parents have friends/relatives as helpful. But it may be a problem considering all his mates are playing at Mt Barker and training the same night, and his connections for footy are there.

The first bolded comment is completely baseless.

Selfish by who? The child or the parent. Unless you can name an instance of a junior player who was not being given a game at a club having a clearence denied (for non financial reasons) then it can't possibly be the clubs. They aren't forcing the kids to stay.

Hahndorf, Mt Barker and Onkas are three clubs I know share/or have shared excess players with country clubs allowing those teams to fill sides and kids to play every week. In fact, all of those clubs have lost players to those country clubs due to this. And you're saying they are selfish?

[Bat Pad]

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

[shake'n'bake]

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

[Bat Pad]

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

I haven't seen any posts accusing any club of not working hard enough.

This is not a club vs club issue.

Should kids be able to be registered at whichever club they choose?

I can't believe we are actually having an argument about the answer

[shake'n'bake]

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!

[Bat Pad]

Fair enough

But that's certianly not what I believe for what it's worth

[overthehill]

I think this blends into part of why the changed div 1 and div 2 to Central and Country. In Central div i think Ironbank will always be the one pushing s*** up hill, here are some population figures to consider:

Mt Barker - 11,121
Mt Lofty (Inc Stirling, Aldgate, Crafers, Heathfield) - 10,378
Onkas (Balhannah, Oakbank, Verdun, Woodside) - 5,440
Hahndorf (inc Littlehamtpon) - 3,946
Bridgewater - 3,466
Uraidla (inc summerton, Ashton, basket range) - 3405
Lobethal (inc Charlston) - 2,855

These figures are current as at December 2011

Ironbank is considered rural, Torrens Valley doesn't matter because there not a real club and Blackwood have all the metro area which is about 1,000,000

[From The Outer]

This has been one of the best discussions I have seen on any forum. Lots of valid points from some very passionate football people. Probably highlights why it needs to be taken out of the hands of clubs who all have self interest and be assessed by a neutral panel who sole focus is looking at what is best for junior football and Hills football in general.

[afc9798]

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

SFL does not have a capping system, but some clubs such as Brighton have self imposed this due to the huge number of kids that can't get a game. Don't think it would ever be a mandated capping system though. I do believe that the SFL have capped the number of junior teams a club can enter though. Brighton and Happy Valley both used to have 3 x U14 teams, but believe in both sub-juniors and juniors it is now capped at two teams in each age group.

Common sense eventually works with this situation and the kids realise that they may have to change clubs to get a game or they get frustrated at too many times being rotated in and out of the side despite there being clubs in the district which they are from.