SA Footy

Front & Centre wrote:Dutchy are you talking about a coach standing between the Under 8s or Under 10s games?
When my lad played Under 8s the coach was on the ground with them

This is their explanation below, trying to justify the major issue..more volunteers required -

It is believed that this will mean more players on the ground, and more players being more involved in the game. The volunteer issue was one of the first raised by the SFL when the new junior policies were released. To address this the SFL are asking for clubs when they nominate teams to indicate which teams are virtualy a split of one team into two and will require shared resources. These games will be programmed at the same location throughout the season. With smaller oval sizes all ovals will be capable of holding 2 under 8 games, or an under 8 and an under 10 game at the same time. Clubs will only be required to supply one co-ordinator and one trainer per location, not per team. The SANFL will supply free to each club a minimum of one new set of goalposts to enable them to host multiple games. Most teams at the moment will have a coach and an assistant coach. If that team breaks into 2 teams next season they can still train as one squad and with the games being at the same location the coach can coach one game and the assistant coach the other. It will also be less daunting for a new coach to come in and look after 12 players rather than 18. One team manager can also look after both games. The reason for the change is to give the players a better experience in football at the beginning. There has been multiple feedbacks from the 9 a side pilot of players who on a good day touch the ball once in an 18 a side game, but were getting 4-5 possessions per quarter in the 9 a side. A better football experience leads to a much greater chance that that player will stay in football rather than try something else from the wide range of activities available these days.

Im led to believe only Flaggy and Christies Beach voted against.

Dutchy wrote:

Front & Centre wrote:Dutchy are you talking about a coach standing between the Under 8s or Under 10s games?
When my lad played Under 8s the coach was on the ground with them

This is their explanation below, trying to justify the major issue..more volunteers required -

It is believed that this will mean more players on the ground, and more players being more involved in the game. The volunteer issue was one of the first raised by the SFL when the new junior policies were released. To address this the SFL are asking for clubs when they nominate teams to indicate which teams are virtualy a split of one team into two and will require shared resources. These games will be programmed at the same location throughout the season. With smaller oval sizes all ovals will be capable of holding 2 under 8 games, or an under 8 and an under 10 game at the same time. Clubs will only be required to supply one co-ordinator and one trainer per location, not per team. The SANFL will supply free to each club a minimum of one new set of goalposts to enable them to host multiple games. Most teams at the moment will have a coach and an assistant coach. If that team breaks into 2 teams next season they can still train as one squad and with the games being at the same location the coach can coach one game and the assistant coach the other. It will also be less daunting for a new coach to come in and look after 12 players rather than 18. One team manager can also look after both games. The reason for the change is to give the players a better experience in football at the beginning. There has been multiple feedbacks from the 9 a side pilot of players who on a good day touch the ball once in an 18 a side game, but were getting 4-5 possessions per quarter in the 9 a side. A better football experience leads to a much greater chance that that player will stay in football rather than try something else from the wide range of activities available these days.

Their explanation says a coach coaching one game and an assistant coach coaching the other. That sounds like it will still be one coach on the oval for each game, not one coach standing between 2 games.

Dutchy wrote:Im led to believe only Flaggy and Christies Beach voted against.

Christies Beach did not vote against, they just didn't vote.

There was not much point, the board had decided they wanted this in place so would have overruled the clubs to make sure it happened anyway, similar to another recent vote, had the majority of clubs not blindly gone along with it.

Sadly this is another effort to "dumb-down" our game to cater for the lowest denominator. We apparently need to make it easier for the lesser kids to get a kick, not that removing tackling, smothering, spoiling and shepherding is enough, we now need to reduce the number of players on the field so as to reduce the potential opponents.

What we get our kids playing on a Sunday morning is not our game, we have taken the contest out of it. We are not teaching young players how to win the ball in a contest, instead it will be given to them if it doesn't just happen to fall into their arms. This morning I saw numerous occasions where a player would take possession of the ball in the forward lines and would just weave his way past the players until he got to the goal line and tapped it through for a not counted goal (his opponents not allowed to do anything to stop him). The priority at the moment is to eliminate any defensive component of the game, on the off chance that a child might get upset because he too was not allowed to run into an open goal so that he can have his turn at kicking a goal.

The kids progressing to U/14s and onwards (if they have not got bored by that stage) do not have any instinct to go for a smother or a shepherd, but worst of all they have no sense how to protect themselves when going for the ball.

Our game is a physical, collision based game, we should stop pretending it is something it is not.

One of the justifications on Monday night was that it was due to the threat of soccer that we need to modify rules.

Why? What is the threat?

If we continue to try to make our sport more like soccer, why will the kids bother playing it when they can play the genuine article, with much greater career paths if they are good enough.

The kids want to play what they see on TV, the junior product we offer up is so far detached from that that it is almost unrecognisable - well the ball is similar and they kick and handball the same (but not too far).

We have good numbers at the moment, this is apparently aimed at increasing retention of the kids who lose interest because they find the game difficult. How many of the kids who are not really interested are going to go on to play senior football? Why do we modify the game for the kids who genuinely want to play the game just to cater for kids who do not really want to be there?

Anyone who has any interest in the state of junior football should read this: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/executi ... 0432a85482

Well said.

Under this new system there is now going to be 11yo kids coming into the Under 12's who will have never played the game with 18 players on the field with full tackling, bumping and fend offs. Can see there being a huge drop off rate at that stage.

Most clubs are now talking about capping subbie numbers, as there simply isn't the volunteers and resources for multiple teams.

Dutchy wrote:Well said.

Under this new system there is now going to be 11yo kids coming into the Under 12's who will have never played the game with 18 players on the field with full tackling, bumping and fend offs. Can see there being a huge drop off rate at that stage.

Most clubs are now talking about capping subbie numbers, as there simply isn't the volunteers and resources for multiple teams.

Completely agree with you and LGIL. This decision is a joke and will actually have one of either two impacts:

1. We will be producing footballers who go on to play Gaelic Football as the game they go to at the next level will be foreign to them.
or
2. They will simply leave the game as they are not prepared for a sport with physical contact and will not be used to thinking their way through this.

The beauty of football is that it is a contact sport and it is completely unique. By changing it in this manner, you are completely changing the fabric of the game itself. No one can convince me otherwise, but sadly I am not surprised at this direction.

norwood8 wrote:In regards to the rule changes/modifications in the subbies and all the negativity surrounding it at the meeting, it appears a lot of people are stuck in the 1980s. Unfortunately the participation rates in soccer within Australia are huge and are going to continue growing in the near future. There are many reasons to why this is happening, too many to list here.

As a PE teacher I can give you guys a hands on perspective, especially in regards to what kids want out of sport. Personally, I do everything within my powers to promote our great game and I have to admit the SANFL provide excellent resources and initiatives (much better than the FFSA). The small sided games that are in the plans, have been developed through research and observation of other sports from around the world, we don't want to be left behind.

As most would know, a lot of children like to get everything they want and many parents give in to this. Not knowing how to win or lose (a valuable life skill) is fast becoming a trait observed in many children. Now to my main point, children like it or not, want to be engaged nearly 100% of the time and therefore want to touch the ball or be involved in the play as much as possible, with 18 a side games this is clearly not going to be the case. If children are not interested, they will quickly walk away and find another sport/activity that accommodates for this.

Today I have asked all my middle school classes who plays what, and why the sport appeals to them. The answers were pretty straight forward, they want to touch the ball as much as possible and have greater time near the main play. For the good of our great game, it is vital that we adapt to what a growing proportion of society deems as important and relevant in relation to providing exercise and leisure for children.

I can understand there are going to be negatives, such as more volunteers required (if more teams are rolled out). Will the league cap the number of teams per club is another question to find out. How each club responds to these different/extra needs will be vastly different, so will the outcome for each club.

Like it or not, these small sided games are the way of the future, they provide the game with an avenue in maintaining its relevance to modern day society.

As others have pointed out, how do you explain the fact that our sub junior numbers are growing, not shrinking? And one of the great things that good coaching teaches kids, is that it's not all about them. Pandering to them just makes it worse. The knowledge of the game and kids preparedness for footy at Under 14 when it becomes competitive will be a far bigger negative than the volunteer side, and this whole thing smacks of another nanny state invention. Call me stuck in the 80's if you want, I'd rather that than headed towards where this train is going.

Well done Cove on running a good u8 carnival today, great weather and much better using the soccer oval to spread out the games.

Reynella Black and Porties tied in the GF and decided to share the shield, great work.

Shame they are going to take away the competitive aspect next year, kids love the day whether they win, lose or draw!

Dutchy wrote:Well done Cove on running a good u8 carnival today, great weather and much better using the soccer oval to spread out the games.

Reynella Black and Porties tied in the GF and decided to share the shield, great work.

Shame they are going to take away the competitive aspect next year, kids love the day whether they win, lose or draw!

Great day of footy today. Definitely better with the larger ovals. Well done to all the players and officials.
Huge club effort to host today with many current and past Cove people involved to make it a success.

Dutchy wrote:Well done Cove on running a good u8 carnival today, great weather and much better using the soccer oval to spread out the games.

Reynella Black and Porties tied in the GF and decided to share the shield, great work.

Shame they are going to take away the competitive aspect next year, kids love the day whether they win, lose or draw!

Not sure that this has been decided yet

Clubs have been told it is the last year of medals/shields for 8/10's

Dutchy wrote:Clubs have been told it is the last year of medals/shields for 8/10's

Correct

Dutchy wrote:Well done Cove on running a good u8 carnival today, great weather and much better using the soccer oval to spread out the games.

Reynella Black and Porties tied in the GF and decided to share the shield, great work.

Shame they are going to take away the competitive aspect next year, kids love the day whether they win, lose or draw!

Great day at the Cove yesterday.
Our first year kids had a ball, and the parents did as well.
Our second year "bigger" kids, who are all still quite small were magnificent.
The Morphy Parks mosquito fleet left it to the very last game of the year to show what they were made of and Moe the coach is very proud.
Thanks to the Hackham boys for helping out setting up my marquee, and yes, I did do it wrong the first time.
Congrats to Reynella, and I hope the percentage builder against us helped you through.

There really needs to be some clarification on some umpiring aspects in regards to barging & ripping the ball out of kids hands though.
All in all the umpires who are all quite young did a good job.

I saw one game in front of your tent Moe that did look a fair bit like rugby, good thing is it will only take a small adjustment/coaching and he will be a good umpire.

My lad loved the day, had high expectations as they had a good year, but got bundled out after 3 games. While disappointed it was actually good to have a chat with him about how sometimes you win and sometimes you lose and you have to take the good with the bad. Kids need to learn how to win and lose with pride and thats the problem I have with them taking away the competitive aspect of the day.

Dutchy wrote:...Kids need to learn how to win and lose with pride...

According to the AFL and some academic from Flinders Uni, this concept is detrimental to their development.

There must be no winners or losers, just participants. Participation is the key to life, if as a child you have ambition and a competitive nature then you are wrong and have no place in junior football.

Dutchy wrote:I saw one game in front of your tent Moe that did look a fair bit like rugby, good thing is it will only take a small adjustment/coaching and he will be a good umpire.

My lad loved the day, had high expectations as they had a good year, but got bundled out after 3 games. While disappointed it was actually good to have a chat with him about how sometimes you win and sometimes you lose and you have to take the good with the bad. Kids need to learn how to win and lose with pride and thats the problem I have with them taking away the competitive aspect of the day.

Excellent point Dutchy. Kids have to realize things are no always handed to them on a platter, and hard work is needed to succeed in everything.
Some parents need to realize the same thing, and winning a carnival is not the be all, and end all in life.
My players have lost every Sunday game this season, (even though we don't keep score), but they never stopped trying. We started the year with 27 players and ended with 33. No one gave up. No one left. I am proud of that.

And so you should be Moe, if the AFL want to spend some $ on kids footy Id be directing the $ towards more education of coaches, rather than university academics. If there were more coaches that took your attitude to develop the kids and club culture it would be a much better environment than taking away the competitive aspect.

I heard a school teacher recently say that kids will be walking out of high school soon and have expectations of someone handing them a job paying $70kpa, cause we are making kids believe there is no such thing as competition in the world.

Dutchy wrote:I heard a school teacher recently say that kids will be walking out of high school soon and have expectations of someone handing them a job paying $70kpa, cause we are making kids believe there is no such thing as competition in the world.

It's already happening like that now....

Some kids have NFI how the game of life is played. They expect everything handed out on a platter

Lack of self-efficacy is not a new thing.

So I also assume there will be no carnival for 8s and 10s next year?

Without scores how will it run?