SA Footy

And when they have played for another junior club for the entirety of their junior career, we either convince them at 17 to come to us or they will be points if they don't? So essentially we have a pool of 20-25 zero point kids to recruit per year, if they go elsewhere in the mean time then come back to us in the future, then that's bad luck for us?

human_torpedo wrote:And when they have played for another junior club for the entirety of their junior career, we either convince them at 17 to come to us or they will be points if they don't? So essentially we have a pool of 20-25 zero point kids to recruit per year, if they go elsewhere in the mean time then come back to us in the future, then that's bad luck for us?

I thought they are "juniors" for life for both clubs (ie) if a kid plays 25 junior games for both Iggies and Athelstone, he is always zero points for either of those clubs.
If the same kid joins Golden Grove as his first senior club, he is also zero points for them, but that's it, he cant claim zero points for any other club than Old Iggies, Athelstone or GG (if he subsequently plays 25 senior games for them)

Is that right jo?

Jimmy_041 wrote:

human_torpedo wrote:And when they have played for another junior club for the entirety of their junior career, we either convince them at 17 to come to us or they will be points if they don't? So essentially we have a pool of 20-25 zero point kids to recruit per year, if they go elsewhere in the mean time then come back to us in the future, then that's bad luck for us?

I thought they are "juniors" for life for both clubs (ie) if a kid plays 25 junior games for both Iggies and Athelstone, he is always zero points for either of those clubs.
If the same kid joins Golden Grove as his first senior club, he is also zero points for them, but that's it, he cant claim zero points for any other club than Old Iggies, Athelstone or GG (if he subsequently plays 25 senior games for them)

Is that right jo?

So long as he hasn't had a detour at Norwood along the way that's my understanding.

Now let's say the hypothetical kid got expelled from St Ignatius, and then played 25 games at Rostrevor too. He's now zero points for four clubs!

jo172 wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:

human_torpedo wrote:And when they have played for another junior club for the entirety of their junior career, we either convince them at 17 to come to us or they will be points if they don't? So essentially we have a pool of 20-25 zero point kids to recruit per year, if they go elsewhere in the mean time then come back to us in the future, then that's bad luck for us?

I thought they are "juniors" for life for both clubs (ie) if a kid plays 25 junior games for both Iggies and Athelstone, he is always zero points for either of those clubs.
If the same kid joins Golden Grove as his first senior club, he is also zero points for them, but that's it, he cant claim zero points for any other club than Old Iggies, Athelstone or GG (if he subsequently plays 25 senior games for them)

Is that right jo?

So long as he hasn't had a detour at Norwood along the way that's my understanding.

Now let's say the hypothetical kid got expelled from St Ignatius, and then played 25 games at Rostrevor too. He's now zero points for four clubs!

He'd be a PNU junior as well then

Can anyone tell the finer details of the 2 years out of the game and become a zero pointer when you start again?
Is it 2 years from your last game or 2 full seasons missed?
for eample a player injured in say June of 2014, does he become eligible to be a zero pointer in June 2016 or does he have to wait until start of the 2017 season?

daysofourlives wrote:Can anyone tell the finer details of the 2 years out of the game and become a zero pointer when you start again?
Is it 2 years from your last game or 2 full seasons missed?
for eample a player injured in say June of 2014, does he become eligible to be a zero pointer in June 2016 or does he have to wait until start of the 2017 season?

It's hadn't been registered anywhere for 2 years, so2017.

Would still be 2 less points since that year though

The APPS is a dogs breakfast !

jo172 wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Can anyone tell the finer details of the 2 years out of the game and become a zero pointer when you start again?
Is it 2 years from your last game or 2 full seasons missed?
for eample a player injured in say June of 2014, does he become eligible to be a zero pointer in June 2016 or does he have to wait until start of the 2017 season?

It's hadn't been registered anywhere for 2 years, so2017.

Would still be 2 less points since that year though

If a player has not played football at any level for
24 months or more before resuming as a player he will
automatically have a Player Points Rating of zero (0).

Mr Beefy wrote:

jo172 wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Can anyone tell the finer details of the 2 years out of the game and become a zero pointer when you start again?
Is it 2 years from your last game or 2 full seasons missed?
for eample a player injured in say June of 2014, does he become eligible to be a zero pointer in June 2016 or does he have to wait until start of the 2017 season?

It's hadn't been registered anywhere for 2 years, so2017.

Would still be 2 less points since that year though

If a player has not played football at any level for
24 months or more before resuming as a player he will
automatically have a Player Points Rating of zero (0).

Ok so which one is it? Do clubs just make their own decision as to what suits them?

Give Tony at the League a call, he'll tell you definitively

24 months since they last played.

Example john smith last played 18th April 2014 and you register him 19th April 2016 he is a zero point player. Had this discussion with john and tony last year

scottroo wrote:24 months since they last played.

Example john smith last played 18th April 2014 and you register him 19th April 2016 he is a zero point player. Had this discussion with john and tony last year

Cheers
I know of a guy who is fit and ready to play now but is sitting out the first month or two of the season to qualify as a zero pointer for his new team

A thought with the college sides and the points system...

Why do we judge a college player's point eligibility on games played for the school?? Surely a player's attachment to the school is primarily determined by the amount of time they spent there??

It would be a better solution and also make for simpler administration of the points system if 0 point eligibility was determined by years of enrollment. I suggest a player must have attended the college for 3 years of senior school (between yr 8-12) to be eligible for 0 points. Who cares if they played basketball or soccer, go there for 3 years in senior school and fair enough you are connected to that school.

This would solve the issue of colleges not keeping good records of games played and also the League receiving potentially dubious statistics on this issue when requested. Also, 3 years would help fix the 0 point eligibility some players claim when they have a very limited attachment to the school, ie when they receive scholarships in yr 11 and 12 to bolster their first 18's side.

It does seem ridiculous that PAC for example have a number of '0 point 'juniors'' who are 0 points because they were on scholarship and effectively paid juniors. Obviously scholarships are not dished out to service the Old Col's side, but that's the result in reality.

Jetters wrote:A thought with the college sides and the points system...

Why do we judge a college player's point eligibility on games played for the school?? Surely a player's attachment to the school is primarily determined by the amount of time they spent there??

It would be a better solution and also make for simpler administration of the points system if 0 point eligibility was determined by years of enrollment. I suggest a player must have attended the college for 3 years of senior school (between yr 8-12) to be eligible for 0 points. Who cares if they played basketball or soccer, go there for 3 years in senior school and fair enough you are connected to that school.

This would solve the issue of colleges not keeping good records of games played and also the League receiving potentially dubious statistics on this issue when requested. Also, 3 years would help fix the 0 point eligibility some players claim when they have a very limited attachment to the school, ie when they receive scholarships in yr 11 and 12 to bolster their first 18's side.

It does seem ridiculous that PAC for example have a number of '0 point 'juniors'' who are 0 points because they were on scholarship and effectively paid juniors. Obviously scholarships are not dished out to service the Old Col's side, but that's the result in reality.

Why don't they just prove that they played 20 or more games since the year in which they turned 13 (or whatever the rule is)? Without proof, they are worth whatever their worth to anyone else who recruits them.

Mr Beefy wrote:

Jetters wrote:A thought with the college sides and the points system...

Why do we judge a college player's point eligibility on games played for the school?? Surely a player's attachment to the school is primarily determined by the amount of time they spent there??

It would be a better solution and also make for simpler administration of the points system if 0 point eligibility was determined by years of enrollment. I suggest a player must have attended the college for 3 years of senior school (between yr 8-12) to be eligible for 0 points. Who cares if they played basketball or soccer, go there for 3 years in senior school and fair enough you are connected to that school.

This would solve the issue of colleges not keeping good records of games played and also the League receiving potentially dubious statistics on this issue when requested. Also, 3 years would help fix the 0 point eligibility some players claim when they have a very limited attachment to the school, ie when they receive scholarships in yr 11 and 12 to bolster their first 18's side.

It does seem ridiculous that PAC for example have a number of '0 point 'juniors'' who are 0 points because they were on scholarship and effectively paid juniors. Obviously scholarships are not dished out to service the Old Col's side, but that's the result in reality.

Why don't they just prove that they played 20 or more games since the year in which they turned 13 (or whatever the rule is)? Without proof, they are worth whatever their worth to anyone else who recruits them.

Agree with this as the preferred system. Put every club in the state on a similar (if not the same because OC does not equal college) system and let the chips land where they fall.

Jetters wrote:It does seem ridiculous that PAC for example have a number of '0 point 'juniors'' who are 0 points because they were on scholarship and effectively paid juniors. Obviously scholarships are not dished out to service the Old Col's side, but that's the result in reality.

I'm not sure that's the case.

I was speaking to a SPOC committee member last week and he said those that only did years 11 and 12 at the school are worth points still.

Trader wrote:

Jetters wrote:It does seem ridiculous that PAC for example have a number of '0 point 'juniors'' who are 0 points because they were on scholarship and effectively paid juniors. Obviously scholarships are not dished out to service the Old Col's side, but that's the result in reality.

I'm not sure that's the case.

I was speaking to a SPOC committee member last week and he said those that only did years 11 and 12 at the school are worth points still.

I think it depends on whether the person filling the form in has an attack of honesty or not

You're average ISSA season goes for 11 games.

So you would need to be at school for at least 3 years to qualify (depending on whether you start counting Knock Out games, which in itself opens a new can of worms.

Factor in that some of the older Year 12s will turn 18 during football season and a couple of their school games won't come within the ages of 13-18 (or whatever the number is now?).

It gets messier the more you look into it which is why I suspect Sports Pulse is the eventual answer (with the use of local interchange permits etc. to enable school kids to play for clubs on Sunday).

I'm also in favour of re-jigging the system (for all clubs) a little bit, i.e:

50 games between 13 and 18 - Zero Point
25 games between 13 and 18 - One Point

I keep coming back to people not having to be around a place very long to hit 25 games.

Independent schools play 11 - 13 games on a rotating basis not including knockout cup (which is still administered by the peak body SAAS)
Some schools are already keeping records and the rule of thumb is minimum 3 years playing football at the school for those that dont have records
They are collectively working on a system for all schools to keep records that should be finalised this year

We had 3 brothers looking at returning to the club there dad played 140 games and the sons played a combined total of 300 junior games until they were 14. They then moved out of the area. Neither of them played enough games 13-18 to qualify as juniors.

Who should be the zero pointers, these lads or the college boy on scholarship who the schools loose records show they played 25 games

scottroo wrote:We had 3 brothers looking at returning to the club there dad played 140 games and the sons played a combined total of 300 junior games until they were 14. They then moved out of the area. Neither of them played enough games 13-18 to qualify as juniors.

Who should be the zero pointers, these lads or the college boy on scholarship who the schools loose records show they played 25 games

We had a bloke play 150 odd junior games, dad was the President of the Club, Mum Junior Co-Ordinator.

He was whisked away into SANFL/State U18 programs at around 14 and through them, and a series of injuries didn't manage to get 25 games between the right ages. Ended up playing state league football, 4 points thank you very much.

Whereas a bloke who goes to boarding school for a couple of years is worth zero points.

The system is clearly inadequate.