theeaglehop
Senior List
- Sep 3, 2012
- 211
- 61
- AFL Club
- Essendon
on paper kdfl would win.
-
LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round SF Winner: And_ROOS
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Picola & District FL SE 2013
- Thread starter wouldIlietoyou
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
And on a grass ?
It is completely irrelevant , because as a result of the PDFNL winning last year they moved up in rankings and aren't required to play the KDFL .
Yeah well on paper I reckon the GVFL has got us all screwed to the wall!!! Luckily for us though we don't have to play them because they are rated #1 & way higher than all of us, just like the PDFL SE isn't playing the KDFL because they are rated higher....
Ever played on paper Smooth , suspect you wouldn't get grass burn or scratches from the cricket wicket ?
No, but then there's always that unlucky chance of picking up a paper cut....Ever played on paper Smooth , suspect you wouldn't get grass burn or scratches from the cricket wicket ?
MrCopezz
Debutant
So the PDFL are voting in the next meeting to introduce the "SUB" rule. But the sub MUST be a under 17s player. The under 17s would be required to wear a green high-vis vest.... For the under 17s player to take the field a senior player must be subbed off for the rest of the game and wear the vest for the remainder of the game... So there would be 3 bench players and a senior SUB...
What are everyone's thoughts? I for one think is bullshit?..
What are everyone's thoughts? I for one think is bullshit?..
Actually you are not quite right, I have seen the suggestion and it doesn't suggest that a high vis vest is required , nor does it state the age of the player who is to be subbed out of the game.
It is very plausible that clubs would simply start a under 17 player, they currently would use on the bench, as the sub and add an additional more mature player to start the game as one of the 3 active interchange players .
Not to dissimilar to what many clubs do with under 17 players in the reserve competition , nor how AFL clubs are utilising the sub to climatize players to the speed of senior football.
Would assume it wouldn't be compulsory , yet would also provide clubs with additional cover shall they incur injuries during a game.
Would be interested to read your negative thought toward it, or is it simply due to it being change ?
Apart from the high viz if true sounds like a good idea even better in the comps that are u18
From the what I read the a green vest will be worn by the u/17 whilst on the bench once they are sub'd on the player coming of will wear a Red vest and take no further part in game.
bugger that I'd be straight into the showers and then straight to the bar
shagger36
Draftee
Any news on final interleague team?
MrCopezz
Debutant
As read in the paper
FB - D.Heabich, E.Hodgkin, C.Joinnbee
HB - S.Emmett, M.Brown, J.Hallam
C - A.Cormican, D.Clark, Aaron Shelton
HF - R.Pfeiffer, P.McMullan, R. Frappell
FF - P.Riordan, D.Payne, C.Aynsley
FOL - D.Freeman, C.Marx, K.Rowe
Bench: K.Willet, B.McNeill, J.Spencer, T.Graham, J.Stanaway, J.Murphy
Emerg: M.Hodge
Spoke to Browny today at the pub and he said he isn't playing
FB - D.Heabich, E.Hodgkin, C.Joinnbee
HB - S.Emmett, M.Brown, J.Hallam
C - A.Cormican, D.Clark, Aaron Shelton
HF - R.Pfeiffer, P.McMullan, R. Frappell
FF - P.Riordan, D.Payne, C.Aynsley
FOL - D.Freeman, C.Marx, K.Rowe
Bench: K.Willet, B.McNeill, J.Spencer, T.Graham, J.Stanaway, J.Murphy
Emerg: M.Hodge
Spoke to Browny today at the pub and he said he isn't playing
MrCopezz
Debutant
New you'd come through
Id rather be at CHB with you, safe to say that's where the balls gonna be all day!
MrCopezz
Debutant
I believe I am entirely right green and red vests will be supplied by the league and MUST be worn...
As for age, I never said a u17s player is to be subbed off. I said the sub HAS to be a under 17s player and wear the green vest!
wouldIlietoyou
All Australian
- Dec 1, 2009
- 903
- 243
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Thread starter
- #216
Big deal about vests.... surely it helps spectators have an idea what's going on??
What you haven't said is why you called BS on the change?
MrCopezz
Debutant
We'll I can't be right or wrong on this because it is yet to be used but my OPINION
If your good enough to play seniors you should be it he starting 21 regardless of age... I.E Morrison, Pfiffer, hickford, alderige, wright and so on...
Majority of subbed off players will be borderline players who will end up not wanting to play seniors...
Players will hide injuries to not get subbed off...
It encourages teams to use players that aren't ready for senior football just to have numbers...
Kids will watch friday night footy and think **** being a sub... It's country footy (ranked 24ish?)
At that age you have deb balls, 18ths, girls and getting in the piss (as we all did) i wouldn't see many players wanting to hang around for maybe getting a quarter...
In closing to my opinion, I think it would be great if every club is aloud a u17 player as a extra bench player who can come off and on like a normal player with no vest or sub rule, (21 senior players, 1 thirds player)
wouldIlietoyou
All Australian
- Dec 1, 2009
- 903
- 243
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Thread starter
- #218
It's a shame you didn't voice your reasons for calling bullshit earlier. It's important to get different perspectives on things so a right decision can be made. Could have led to a healthy debate on here. Differing opinions aren't a bad thing. I'm sure on this thread opinions on this rule were asked for a couple of times. You don't know who reads this forum and what changes come about because of it. I'm not having a go at you and I wasn't when I asked for your reasons. I feel you made some pretty valid points and really would have like to have heard them earlier. I don't know if this has been decided yet though.
Maybe just maybe there are younger players who are wanting to make a greater commitment and wish to go further in their football and not get on this piss .
Clubs having 21 plus 1 under 17 , will not encourage clubs to play more junior players or assist in the development of players from junior to senior ranks , it will however most likely see clubs go and get another contracted player , because as you pointed out some clubs do already have juniors playing senior football who are in the best 21. So in essence a 21 plus 1x 17 year old is merely just adding another senior player , something which most certainly doesn't need to occur.
The propsal would seem a good way to provide greater benefit to those clubs who have good junior programs .
There appears to be plenty of discussion about point systems , salary caps etc , maybe the league is being proactive and looking to implement a system which encourages juniors into senior ranks and avoids another system being forced upon them ????
wouldIlietoyou
All Australian
- Dec 1, 2009
- 903
- 243
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Thread starter
- #220
One problem I see with allowing 21 seniors and one under 17 with no sub rule is that clubs would simply add another senior player and only use one of those under 17s that as you say are proven performers as the under 17 player. Nothing gained development wise IMO.
Isn't this to help borderline players get a taste of senior footy so they may realise they can cut it so to speak and want to play on the next season?
If you only plan to play him a quarter then he could still play his thirds game before hand. Not sure I totally agree they wouldn't want to hang round for a quarter. They often say that when nervous to play. I have mothered quite a few through that. Players hiding injuries not to come off.. Hahaha they do that now when they can.
I view it as a way to blood some of those borderline players in a way that's fair to all. Gives teams one extra player if needed on one if those shocking injury days that you wouldn't have otherwise.
Isn't this to help borderline players get a taste of senior footy so they may realise they can cut it so to speak and want to play on the next season?
If you only plan to play him a quarter then he could still play his thirds game before hand. Not sure I totally agree they wouldn't want to hang round for a quarter. They often say that when nervous to play. I have mothered quite a few through that. Players hiding injuries not to come off.. Hahaha they do that now when they can.
I view it as a way to blood some of those borderline players in a way that's fair to all. Gives teams one extra player if needed on one if those shocking injury days that you wouldn't have otherwise.
MrCopezz
Debutant
In regards to just having another senior player. Have a qualifying system ( the same as 2s and seniors) I.e if you play 4 senior games you are no longer classed as a u17 player in seniors. You can still play thirds but if the u17s player played seniors he would be on the team sheet as A SENIOR PLAYER so you would bring up a mother 3rds if required...
The idea I'd have thought was to get more under 17 players to be best 21 players and therefore replacing a older player who has reached their peak and likely to be on coin .
Not just give them a taste and then send them back to the under 17's or disadvantage them if they are not best 21 players after x amount of games. Some take longer than others , making a rule saying after x amount of games they must be best 21 is not encouraging healthy player development .
My only MAJOR concern with any of these systems is that if you run out of "capable" U17's players to play seniors then you are left to play kids that aren't currently up to the standard of senior football which could lead to them feeling uncomfortable if made played seniors as sub because its required & they are all you have got? Lets be brutally honest here as this is a serious option & a BIG change in country football, as Roar said earlier some clubs have good junior programs in place & inturn will result in having plenty of kids available & capable of playing that role, but then you have got some clubs that just don't have the quantity or quality to fill this role which leaves me to think how will they approach this situation?? Play kids that aren't ready?? Then what happens if 1 of these kids gets seriously injured? All hell will break lose on the club & league? If the right processes can be put in place for it to be an even playing field for ALL clubs involved then I support the idea but on the flipside if not & I seen under prepared kids running around because they have been made the sub then I sadly would not support it!! Once again this is only my opinion & not an answer!!
MrCopezz
Debutant
another problem i see with it is why a u17s player only? at the club i play at we have 6+ borderline reserve/senior players aged 18 or 19, and some even miss the cut off by months, even weeks. these players are fighting for a spot in the 1s and are more capable/ready to play senior football than thirds players? it isnt fair on these such players?
Chances are if this rule was in place when they were younger players ( in under 17's) they would now be best 21 ?
- Status
