Mininera and District FL

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
THEBLOODS85 said:
The 'permit' situation with the U16's has certainly brought up healthy discussion.

There are plenty of good posters on here......so let's see if we can come up with some ideas, on how to regulate it (so as it is not abused).

To say get rid of them altogether is pretty naive.....but maybe between us we can come up with some rules and regs with having them, over and above what is in place now.

Which is no more than five players playing eight games each plus finals.

Lets go...............................
Click to expand...

I am no expert here but im willing to have a crack, here are some idea that may (and i stress that word!) work.
1. teams may only permit players when struggling for numbers ie. not having a full 18 man side
2. permit players may only be used when every registered player on that team's list is in the side, and they still fall short of making a full side.
3. permit players may only contest a finals series if they have played the required minimum amount of games for that team to be qualified (i am not sure of this number of games sorry..)

just a couple of ideas, they may be way off the mark they may sound ok but feel free to comment and add ideas..

while im here i would also like to add that if a side is constantly struggling for numbers and therefore using permit players, they would probably be more unlikely to contest finals anyway.. something that seems the major gripe about permit players (using bighawk as an example!!)

cheers and good posting
 
Bumbles said:
I am no expert here but im willing to have a crack, here are some idea that may (and i stress that word!) work.
1. teams may only permit players when struggling for numbers ie. not having a full 18 man side
2. permit players may only be used when every registered player on that team's list is in the side, and they still fall short of making a full side.
3. permit players may only contest a finals series if they have played the required minimum amount of games for that team to be qualified (i am not sure of this number of games sorry..)

just a couple of ideas, they may be way off the mark they may sound ok but feel free to comment and add ideas..

while im here i would also like to add that if a side is constantly struggling for numbers and therefore using permit players, they would probably be more unlikely to contest finals anyway.. something that seems the major gripe about permit players (using bighawk as an example!!)

cheers and good posting
Click to expand...

Great post Bumbles i think the ideas would be great if implemented!
But would they be followed correctly if put in place and would clubs take notice of the u/16 if they wernt following the rules correctly?
 
Bumbles said:
I am no expert here but im willing to have a crack, here are some idea that may (and i stress that word!) work.
1. teams may only permit players when struggling for numbers ie. not having a full 18 man side
2. permit players may only be used when every registered player on that team's list is in the side, and they still fall short of making a full side.
3. permit players may only contest a finals series if they have played the required minimum amount of games for that team to be qualified (sorry i am not sure of the number of games)

just a couple of ideas, they may be way off the mark they may sound ok but feel free to comment and add ideas..

while im here i would also like to add that if a side is constantly struggling for numbers and therefore using permit players, they would probably be more unlikely to contest finals anyway.. something that seems the major gripe about permit players (using bighawk as an example!!)

cheers and good posting
Click to expand...

1. On your first point Bumbles, what constitutes a full team 18 or 20.....injuries can and do play a part in juniors during a game.

2. This is where I reckon the league can get a hold of the situation, by getting every club to nominate all their local players prior to the start of the season. From that you can ascertain how many kids they may be able to use for 'permits'. If, by chance a 'new' local comes into the town, for them to play a 'permit' kid must be dropped out of the team. Technology these days (computers) would show up any irregular names, and clubs can be dealt with if they abuse it.

3. The league has in place that you can have only five 'permit' players at any one time in a team.....plus each permit player must play 8 games to qualify for finals.

I have been thinking of how to regulate how old your 'permit' kids can be, to stop just bringing in top aged kids. One way would be to allow:
1 - 16 yr old
2 - 15 yr olds
1 - 14yr old
1 - 13yr old......totalling five players.
You could not go 'restricting' clubs to players much younger than that, as you would struggle to get any kids, because of other competitions for their age bracket.

Any thoughts!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

THEBLOODS85 said:
I have been thinking of how to regulate how old your 'permit' kids can be, to stop just bringing in top aged kids. One way would be to allow:
1 - 16 yr old
2 - 15 yr olds
1 - 14yr old
1 - 13yr old......totalling five players.
You could not go 'restricting' clubs to players much younger than that, as you would struggle to get any kids, because of other competitions for their age bracket.

Any thoughts!
Click to expand...

Seems to be a fair and decent way of controlling the age of players that are playing on permit for a club! Could work very well!
 
bighawk_23 said:
Great post Bumbles i think the ideas would be great if implemented!
But would they be followed correctly if put in place and would clubs take notice of the u/16 if they wernt following the rules correctly?
Click to expand...

Answer these questions for me 'bighawk'.

1. Are you a Moyston or Willaura local?
2. How's the Eagles going this year?
3. Why are you not at the Pumas this year?
4. Is it true that three U16 players from the Pumas are at the Eagles this year?
5. Why did you play with the Pumas?

Thanks in anticiapation!
 
THEBLOODS85 said:
1. On your first point Bumbles, what constitutes a full team 18 or 20.....injuries can and do play a part in juniors during a game.

2. This is where I reckon the league can get a hold of the situation, by getting every club to nominate all their local players prior to the start of the season. From that you can ascertain how many kids they may be able to use for 'permits'. If, by chance a 'new' local comes into the town, for them to play a 'permit' kid must be dropped out of the team. Technology these days (computers) would show up any irregular names, and clubs can be dealt with if they abuse it.

3. The league has in place that you can have only five 'permit' players at any one time in a team.....plus each permit player must play 8 games to qualify for finals.

I have been thinking of how to regulate how old your 'permit' kids can be, to stop just bringing in top aged kids. One way would be to allow:
1 - 16 yr old
2 - 15 yr olds
1 - 14yr old
1 - 13yr old......totalling five players.
You could not go 'restricting' clubs to players much younger than that, as you would struggle to get any kids, because of other competitions for their age bracket.

Any thoughts!
Click to expand...

1. yes they can, and i guess it is fair for any given side to have a full bench - i was just meaning that getting the bare minimum perhaps might be a better way to stop clubs abusing the system ie. u play all ur players from ur home club and it stops the younger blokes in the team sitting on the pine while the older permit players run around.

2. agreed - each club to nominate their local registered players and the league to police and irregular nams that spring up, team sheets are available that can show how many local or registered players, and how many permitted..

3. agree with this rule

on the subject of age restrictions, i think that is perhaps a bit far...
if the club is in the dire need of a permit player then perhaps the age shouldn't matter - the league should just be happy to have 2 teams on the ground..
this is of course if clubs are only allowed to use permits when in dire need of filling a side..
 
Bumbles said:
1. yes they can, and i guess it is fair for any given side to have a full bench - i was just meaning that getting the bare minimum perhaps might be a better way to stop clubs abusing the system ie. u play all ur players from ur home club and it stops the younger blokes in the team sitting on the pine while the older permit players run around.

2. agreed - each club to nominate their local registered players and the league to police and irregular nams that spring up, team sheets are available that can show how many local or registered players, and how many permitted..

3. agree with this rule

on the subject of age restrictions, i think that is perhaps a bit far...
if the club is in the dire need of a permit player then perhaps the age shouldn't matter - the league should just be happy to have 2 teams on the ground..
this is of course if clubs are only allowed to use permits when in dire need of filling a side..
Click to expand...


The only reason I mentioned this, is that it is possible that you may have only say 13 local players, but 8 may be top age....and by adding another five top age 'permit' players and all of a sudden they are unbeatable.

That situation is a bit like the Rams this season, they probably have three (local) of the top ten kids in the league, but not much after that, but when you add a few permit kids, they're strengthened again, even though many times only having 18 or 19 players!
 
THEBLOODS85 said:
[/b]

The only reason I mentioned this, is that it is possible that you may have only say 13 local players, but 8 may be top age....and by adding another five top age 'permit' players and all of a sudden they are unbeatable.

That situation is a bit like the Rams this season, they probably have three (local) of the top ten kids in the league, but not much after that, but when you add a few permit kids, they're strengthened again, even though many times only having 18 or 19 players!
Click to expand...

yes fair points there bloods and this is where the grey areas fall surrounding this issue!!
certainly something that needs to be looked at and judging on the comments u make perhaps an age restriction may be necessary..
certainly an interesting topic and good to see a bit of healthy debate!!
 
Bumbles said:
yes fair points there bloods and this is where the grey areas fall surrounding this issue!!
certainly something that needs to be looked at and judging on the comments u make perhaps an age restriction may be necessary..
certainly an interesting topic and good to see a bit of healthy debate!!
Click to expand...

It is certainly an issue that will be hard to get exactly right........but I reckon some slight tinkering may help alleviate a bit of team stacking to a degree!

But the last thing we want is clubs not fielding teams because the permit rule is abolished altogether!
 
THEBLOODS85 said:
It is certainly an issue that will be hard to get exactly right........but I reckon some slight tinkering may help alleviate a bit of team stacking to a degree!

But the last thing we want is clubs not fielding teams because the permit rule is abolished altogether!
Click to expand...

hear hear!! well said.. anyone else have thoughts on the issue?
 
To be honest there is not a lot wrong with the current system, and it is really in the clubs best interest not to abuse it. A club that will play a Permit player and leave out a local is only shooting themself in the foot.
We are lucky to play in a league that doesnt have incidents like the one featured in the Herald Sun today.
Bumbles said:
hear hear!! well said.. anyone else have thoughts on the issue?
Click to expand...
 
THEBLOODS85 said:
Answer these questions for me 'bighawk'.

1. Are you a Moyston or Willaura local?
2. How's the Eagles going this year?
3. Why are you not at the Pumas this year?
4. Is it true that three U16 players from the Pumas are at the Eagles this year?
5. Why did you play with the Pumas?

Thanks in anticiapation!
Click to expand...

1. No i am not a Moysten or Willaura local..
2. You no i play for the Eagles how, and we are going fairly well sitting 4th currently by percentage..
3. Im not playing at the pumas because i wanted to get the most out of junior football as possible..
4. No there are 2 players who played at moysten last year at the Eagles(in u/17s)
5. It was a family decision to play with the pumas, it sounded like a good club and we also had friends out at the club!

Why the questions?
 
bighawk_23 said:
1. No i am not a Moysten or Willaura local..
2. You no i play for the Eagles how, and we are going fairly well sitting 4th currently by percentage..
3. Im not playing at the pumas because i wanted to get the most out of junior football as possible..
4. No there are 2 players who played at moysten last year at the Eagles(in u/17s)
5. It was a family decision to play with the pumas, it sounded like a good club and we also had friends out at the club!

Why the questions?
Click to expand...

just proves a point that whether you get cleared to a club or play on permit, sometimes both are needed for that club to get a team.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

THEBLOODS85 said:
just proves a point that whether you get cleared to a club or play on permit, sometimes both are needed for that club to get a team.
Click to expand...

How do the questions that i filled out prove that as a point?
I didnt go out to moysten for numbers...
Why did you want to know how the eagles are going?
 
SLAMM
the result of the weekends game against l/d
by slam, i mean slam goes the door to the premiership
hawksdale are so far infront the competition has lost meaning.
if you could pick a flaw with there game on the weekend?
mind letting the boys down at tatyoon know? so maybe someone will have a chance haha it might sound like a joke, but honestly could not pick one way, one flaw in which they can be beaten. l/d did not play bad. they played aswell as an awesome hawks side allowed them too.
...............
now in terms or the u16 permit situation
get permits in if it means the kids can have a game, moyston blew l/d juniors out of the water a few weeks ago, playing a completely differnt team then the one they faced earlier in the year,
however they did not sign any permits. so either theres some funny buisness going on. or they made some last minute signings.
get the kids a game, but dont use it to win finals.
at the dees, they pride themselves on playing local juniors and giving all kids a go.






SOMEONE please come up with ideas on how to beat h.m
 
Homeofthedragon155 said:
SLAMM
the result of the weekends game against l/d
by slam, i mean slam goes the door to the premiership
hawksdale are so far infront the competition has lost meaning.
if you could pick a flaw with there game on the weekend?
mind letting the boys down at tatyoon know? so maybe someone will have a chance haha it might sound like a joke, but honestly could not pick one way, one flaw in which they can be beaten. l/d did not play bad. they played aswell as an awesome hawks side allowed them too.
...............
now in terms or the u16 permit situation
get permits in if it means the kids can have a game, moyston blew l/d juniors out of the water a few weeks ago, playing a completely differnt team then the one they faced earlier in the year,
however they did not sign any permits. so either theres some funny buisness going on. or they made some last minute signings.
get the kids a game, but dont use it to win finals.
at the dees, they pride themselves on playing local juniors and giving all kids a go.






SOMEONE please come up with ideas on how to beat h.m
Click to expand...

got no idea dragon..............taty will pressure them as well as any side, but how far that takes them is questionable!

But I think your right, they are near unbeatable at present!


****three new names second time around for the pumas cleared from ararat dragon.
 
Homeofthedragon155 said:
SLAMM
the result of the weekends game against l/d
by slam, i mean slam goes the door to the premiership
hawksdale are so far infront the competition has lost meaning.
if you could pick a flaw with there game on the weekend?
mind letting the boys down at tatyoon know? so maybe someone will have a chance haha it might sound like a joke, but honestly could not pick one way, one flaw in which they can be beaten. l/d did not play bad. they played aswell as an awesome hawks side allowed them too.
...............
now in terms or the u16 permit situation
get permits in if it means the kids can have a game, moyston blew l/d juniors out of the water a few weeks ago, playing a completely differnt team then the one they faced earlier in the year,
however they did not sign any permits. so either theres some funny buisness going on. or they made some last minute signings.
get the kids a game, but dont use it to win finals.
at the dees, they pride themselves on playing local juniors and giving all kids a go.

SOMEONE please come up with ideas on how to beat h.m
Click to expand...
\

Just confirmed with the brother that Moysten u/16 didnt have any major changes to the side that faced l/d the first time, just a bit of form change i believe!
 
bighawk_23 said:
\

Just confirmed with the brother that Moysten u/16 didnt have any major changes to the side that faced l/d the first time, just a bit of form change i believe!
Click to expand...

Well big hawk if you had any TICKER which u dont you would have gone to the rats instead of playing paddock footy.you more worried bout winning the goalkicking than a flag.what a tosser butler is or bighawk!!!
 
babba80 said:
Well big hawk if you had any TICKER which u dont you would have gone to the rats instead of playing paddock footy.you more worried bout winning the goalkicking than a flag.what a tosser butler is or bighawk!!!
Click to expand...

Why is LPFL paddock footy? And what has my heart got to do with choosing the team i play for!!
And mate if i was so worried about winning the goal kicking why would i have a played in the centre for two quarters last week? Your the tosser mate:rolleyes:
 
So does anyone know how bad frankies hammy is? Someone said that he tore the muscle off the bone and will miss the season others are saying it will only be 3 week injury? Anyone clarify?
 
McCleanMagic said:
So does anyone know how bad frankies hammy is? Someone said that he tore the muscle off the bone and will miss the season others are saying it will only be 3 week injury? Anyone clarify?
Click to expand...


Have heard he won't be back until maybe week one or two of the finals. The way their midfield is playing I don't think they're gunna miss him too much, with Paul Johnstone, Brad Sholl, Troy Richardson and Mark Johnson more than capable of kicking bags of goals. Not to mention all the goals from the midfielders!
I just hope for interests sake the Tatyoon get a full side on the field! Any update there Magic?
 
Strike Anywhere said:
Have heard he won't be back until maybe week one or two of the finals. The way their midfield is playing I don't think they're gunna miss him too much, with Paul Johnstone, Brad Sholl, Troy Richardson and Mark Johnson more than capable of kicking bags of goals. Not to mention all the goals from the midfielders!
I just hope for interests sake the Tatyoon get a full side on the field! Any update there Magic?
Click to expand...

I heard the same from Hetherington's brother on the weekend. He was limping around badly enough to suggest that three weeks looks a very remote chance!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top