SANFL U18s

[MagareyLegend]

This year the SANFL legislated that all clubs have to play thier U18s in the U18s Macca's Cup until after the U18s National Championships in July unless:
* an individual player has played (I think) six senior games in the prior season or
* due to extenuating circumstances.

They legislated this in 2010 because it was a guideline last season and several clubs refused to be "guided".

Now one club, which has culled many "you have got to be joking" players from its senior list and are therefore short on Reserves players, will play its better U18s in the Reserves. This will mean that their U18s will be non-competitive because the majority of their good U18s will be playing reserves or league come round one.

As a result this club will be formally requesting tonight to the SANFL to be considered for "extenuating circumstances".

Other clubs are NOT happy to say the least.

Anyone able to confrim this?

[redandblack]

I think you're right, ML.

To be short on numbers for Round 20 of a season is understandable, but it's ridiculous for Round 1.

A club out North, but not North?

[ca]

Do they ware red and blue? Even though it could be my club I don't think it should be allowed.

[bloods08]

A ridiculous ruling. If they are good enough to play league/reserves why shouldnt they.

[redandblack]

Do they ware red and blue? Even though it could be my club I don't think it should be allowed.

Yes they do, ca, but I wouldn't worry.

[MagareyLegend]

A ridiculous ruling. If they are good enough to play league/reserves why shouldnt they.

Well that is the rule that all clubs agreed to.

[Country Cousin]

A ridiculous ruling. If they are good enough to play league/reserves why shouldnt they.

I agree with you, but I guess you know the answer to your own question as well as I do. It's because the AFL wants it that way. They don't give a toss about the SANFL clubs. The U18 competitions throughout the country are central to their recruiting system and that's all they care about.

[heater31]

Interesting to note a Senior Coaches opinion on the subject

Just a thought

Hello,

I spent Sunday afternoon watching our underage players trial against Port at Alberton and it got me thinking about the rule regarding those that are eligible to play under 18's.

As it stands any player who is in this category cannot play higher, unless he has already played league football or 5 reserves games, until about the beginning of June.

This is when the under 18 championships start and effectively about half way through the home and away season.

As the players are under 17 or less the year before when they would need to qualify, the reality of it happening, unless it is deliberately manufactured, is at high odds.

To manufacture this would certainly compromise the value of league football.

One of the advantages of underage boys playing higher was that they competed against men who aided their development and we could see how they stood up at the higher level.

Prospective Championship players would also benefit from playing at the higher level against men in preparation for their state campaigns.

The rule now means that often players are competing at reserves level who are not up to it because better underage footballers are not allowed to.

This can then compromise the value of reserves football.

What would happen when the players are available then, is that all the good performers will play higher if a club has decided that they are better than those that have been playing reserves or league.

The remainder of the under 18 competition would then become compromised.

In fact a team that was top at the half way mark of the season may fall away and miss the finals completely if a club chooses to promote its best players and bring its best under 16’s up in to their under 18 team.

I am beginning to think there needs to be a better way.

We have a situation in the under 18 competition where up to 6 overage players are allowed to play down at any one time.

Perhaps a good compromise may be that up to a certain number of under 18 players are able to play up at any one time too.

This would be for the full season and avoid any confusion which would benefit all involved as against the present rule which benefits only a few.

It would also make all grades competitive for the whole season and compromise none.

Just a thought.

Ron Fuller

[NO-MERCY]

Confusion alright, bring back the 17s & 19s.

[bayman]

Confusion alright, bring back the 17s & 19s.

spot on 100% NM

[NSP]

Interesting to see that Daniel Menzel ex centrals now geelong player's younger brother who is only 15 years old has been having a run with their 18's just wondering if someone could shed some light on how he is going

[am Bays]

Interesting points by Ron, pity he didn't articulate them more strongly when his former club rolled over when it counted two years ago....

Will be interesting to see who votes to support the club in question, if it is any clubs other than the ones who stood side by side with them in opposing the change two years ago, forgive if I find them a tad hypocritical.... Surely the interst of a players developement is more important than a compromised competition (this from a posters whose club won the bloody thing last year)

[supercoach]

Nice one Ron. Was it not your old club, one of the clubs making the big stink of how wonderful 18's would be. At least you now acknowledge a huge mistake has occured. One that can be fixed with the removal of a certain person who has too much to say at 18's level and is treated with disdain from interstate. Has a touch of blue in his old veins.

[spell_check]

Really, supercoach?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15840

We do not however support all underage players playing at the junior level until the Under 18 Championships are complete. Players should be able to play at the level that they are capable and get the most benefit, and that is the highest level available.

It's a pity that proposal could not be voted on, eh, am Bays?

[supercoach]

Spell_check,

Your club voted to scrap 17 and 19's and play 18's - that is the core fabric that was broken. Nothing more nothing less. The fabric of football as it was known was tarnished forever - no one can ever deny that. explain that to the 40 players not at league clubs now as they are not required. Don't for 1 minute be fooled that they are at local clubs. You may find that many have been lost to the sport -It is nice to have an elite competition but when the clubs and yours included deminish its value by playing kids out of age groups etc in the name of development that is when the cracks appear. That may be why the vics don't even rate our 18 comp and maybe why only 3 got drafted from our elite comp in 2009. those facts don't lie. Don't count rookie listings as my dog got one of those to be training fodder with the sudanise kid who got here yesterday.

[85 WAS A GOOD YEAR]

A ridiculous ruling. If they are good enough to play league/reserves why shouldnt they.

I agree with you, but I guess you know the answer to your own question as well as I do. It's because the AFL wants it that way. They don't give a toss about the SANFL clubs. The U18 competitions throughout the country are central to their recruiting system and that's all they care about.

The SANFL currently videos all U18s games, then each club's Development Manager has to go through and find each players highlights for them on the Monday/Tuesday.
These are then sent through to the SANFL and AFL scouts so they can rate and assess players in preparation for the U18 State Teams Championships and AFL Drafts.

The quick answer to why they want them in the U18s comp
1. Not all Reserves games are videoed, so if not kept in 18s clubs wouldn't have the ability to send through their players highlight reels, so the scouts would have to do their own homework

2. If all prospective players they kept together in 18s teams, the scouts don't have to spread themselves so thinly to cover only 4 grounds each week.

An I being sceptical? You bet.
It seems to me to be all about keeping it simple for the Scouts, not about the individual Players development and opportunities for them to play higher

[spell_check]

Spell_check,

Your club voted to scrap 17 and 19's and play 18's - that is the core fabric that was broken. Nothing more nothing less. The fabric of football as it was known was tarnished forever - no one can ever deny that. explain that to the 40 players not at league clubs now as they are not required. Don't for 1 minute be fooled that they are at local clubs. You may find that many have been lost to the sport -It is nice to have an elite competition but when the clubs and yours included deminish its value by playing kids out of age groups etc in the name of development that is when the cracks appear. That may be why the vics don't even rate our 18 comp and maybe why only 3 got drafted from our elite comp in 2009. those facts don't lie. Don't count rookie listings as my dog got one of those to be training fodder with the sudanise kid who got here yesterday.

Of course that was the vote, but only because that proposal could not be voted on. It certainly was not what you said:

Was it not your old club, one of the clubs making the big stink of how wonderful 18's would be.

Was it?

And even if the vote was to keep the 19s and 17s, it would not have made a difference. It would have been 5-5 and you know how the casting vote would have went.

[supercoach]

Spelly that is the response one would expect from you. Waste of time debating. In 5 years when the SANFL is a smaller minnow and totally irrelavent please don't be the first to complain.

[redandblack]

supercoach, welcome to the real world

[spell_check]

Spelly that is the response one would expect from you. Waste of time debating. In 5 years when the SANFL is a smaller minnow and totally irrelavent please don't be the first to complain.

I was one of the first to complain when the whole thing was put forward and long before any vote was taken, for the reasons you state. So it's too late to ask me not to complain.