Picola & District SE 2014

[Boosey Flyer]

Went to the footy Saturday and watched the Tungamah Rennie game. Tungamah would be very competitive in the Murray League have got some very good players and don't seem to have a weak link.

 

[Ranga69]

Any late clearances in around the traps.

 

[micheena]

The arm band rule is for officials NOT player's

 

[ark n go]

Anyone see the waaia/tungamah game?
What happened in the second half?

 

[MrCopezz]

In line with every other league .
Whilst the permission of who is and isn't permitted within the playing arena and use of arm bands for officials who previously weren't required to wear uniform is in line with AFL rules/ laws of the game . Was also supported hugely by the majority of clubs if not unamiously
Perhaps the board is making decisions for the best of all clubs not just individual clubs ??
Every club to have all junior sides this year , which is the first time for many years , defying the trend I'd have thought .
Board must doing things right ?
Then again you stated ' no other league has or ever will have a junior sub ' or words to the effect .
How's that looking now ?
Maybe you should stand in front of a mirror and yell " PULL YOUR HEAD IN ".

That's wierd because most clubs are writing to the vcfl about this rule.... Why not let clubs vote? You think your andrew demetriou! Overruling everyone, tell us all why you didn't let clubs vote? Why are you and your opinion so high and mighty? EVERYONE will be glad to see the back of Mr president after 2014... Turning kidas away from Aussie rules, well done mate, we'll done

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

That's wierd because most clubs are writing to the vcfl about this rule.... Why not let clubs vote? You think your andrew demetriou! Overruling everyone, tell us all why you didn't let clubs vote? Why are you and your opinion so high and mighty? EVERYONE will be glad to see the back of Mr president after 2014... Turning kidas away from Aussie rules, well done mate, we'll done

Don't talk rubbish.
The VCFL do not govern country football or for the most purpose does't exist.
The controlling body of Vic Country football are fully supportive of this rule and in fact bestow it upon many other leagues.
Secondly 3 of 17 clubs being unhappy , with 1 indicating they are going to put a letter into the league doesn't constitute 'most clubs are writing to ' anyone.
To answer your questions.
The board makes the decision on all operating rules as per the constitution.
My opinion has no relevance what so ever, board members make the decisions.
Who said the league president is going anywhere in 2014 ?
Turning kids away from aussie rules ?
It's about encourage more kids to play AFL and to avoid sides with 14-16 players having to play against sides that believe winning is everything at junior age and playing with 35 plus.
Having in access of 7 on the bench severely effects the likelihood of those kids playing football long term . FACT !!
Think you should do some research about retention rates amongst players who don't get a regular game at junior level .
Is really the way you always act when you don't get your own way ?

 

[MrCopezz]

Don't talk rubbish.
The VCFL do not govern country football or for the most purpose does't exist.
The controlling body of Vic Country football are fully supportive of this rule and in fact bestow it upon many other leagues.
Secondly 3 of 17 clubs being unhappy , with 1 indicating they are going to put a letter into the league doesn't constitute 'most clubs are writing to ' anyone.
To answer your questions.
The board makes the decision on all operating rules as per the constitution.
My opinion has no relevance what so ever, board members make the decisions.
Who said the league president is going anywhere in 2014 ?
Turning kids away from aussie rules ?
It's about encourage more kids to play AFL and to avoid sides with 14-16 players having to play against sides that believe winning is everything at junior age and playing with 35 plus.
Having in access of 7 on the bench severely effects the likelihood of those kids playing football long term . FACT !!
Think you should do some research about retention rates amongst players who don't get a regular game at junior level .
Is really the way you always act when you don't get your own way ?

Oh so if Rennie have to many players, their parents might take them to Katunga to play?... Maybe the 7 kids on the bench are children of club legends or brothers of kids playing at the club already?,
The rule won't even out numbers, kids just won't play!, why not put it to a vote?

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Oh so if Rennie have to many players, their parents might take them to Katunga to play?... Maybe the 7 kids on the bench are children of club legends or brothers of kids playing at the club already?,
The rule won't even out numbers, kids just won't play!, why not put it to a vote?

Do you not comprehend English , the board as is the case in most if not all leagues , make operating decisions .
Personally I believe it may have been beneficial to have gained feedback from clubs within a meeting. However, doing that and ensuring it is a clubs opinion not that of the delegates and having things implemented post the AGM and prior to the start of a season may not be as simple as it seems .

 

[nofearbrowny]

Do you not comprehend English , the board as is the case in most if not all leagues , make operating decisions .
Personally I believe it may have been beneficial to have gained feedback from clubs within a meeting. However, doing that and ensuring it is a clubs opinion not that of the delegates and having things implemented post the AGM and prior to the start of a season may not be as simple as it seems .

mrcopezz

Oh so if Rennie have to many players, their parents might take them to Katunga to play?... Maybe the 7 kids on the bench are children of club legends or brothers of kids playing at the club already?,
The rule won't even out numbers, kids just won't play!, why not put it to a vote?

 

[nofearbrowny]

mrcopezz

Roar is never wrong

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Roar is never wrong

Intelligent input .

 

[MrCopezz]

Do you not comprehend English , the board as is the case in most if not all leagues , make operating decisions .
Personally I believe it may have been beneficial to have gained feedback from clubs within a meeting. However, doing that and ensuring it is a clubs opinion not that of the delegates and having things implemented post the AGM and prior to the start of a season may not be as simple as it seems .

My English isn't whats important on "the family league" football forum.
Clubs have committees WHO VOTE on such things and then the delegates of that committee bring forward that opinion to the league meetings...

The league doesn't make the clubs
The clubs make the league!

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

My English isn't whats important on "the family league" football forum.
Clubs have committees WHO VOTE on such things and then the delegates of that committee bring forward that opinion to the league meetings...

The league doesn't make the clubs
The clubs make the league!

And the leagues board makes decisions in the best interest of the whole league .
Which they have done successfully in this case , without doubt.
Ideally your scenario has merit , however the end decision is that of the boards .
Time constraints and obligations bestowed upon the board mean that it is not always possible to discuss things at a board meeting , put it upon the delegates meeting agenda and then wait to verify at the next board meeting . Had that been applied in this case the decision would not have been finalised till May/ June .
Right result , procedure could have been better in the ideal world .
We don't live in the ideal world .

 

[smooth mover]

Great tennis match this is.... Back & forth....

 

[wouldIlietoyou]

Gotta love those timeframe restraints!!

Why the hurry? Why couldn't the board decide a time of year they present proposed operating rule changes for at the very least discussion and feedback from clubs. If the board misses their own timeframe the change has to wait until the next season.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Gotta love those timeframe restraints!!

Why the hurry? Why couldn't the board decide a time of year they present proposed operating rule changes for at the very least discussion and feedback from clubs. If the board misses their own timeframe the change has to wait until the next season.

And the next year after that and so on .
Some times decisions just have to be made and it was .
Exactly the same as many club boards , make decisions within their clubs without meeting with their full membership .

 

[Charles Mac]

Both sides of the argument have some good points. At the end of the day the best interest of the kid needs to be taken into account. The fact a certain kid may be a son of a club legend is not an excuse to keep that kid at the club and play 10 minutes a game. They need to be playing and enjoying footy because make no mistake, if these 12-16 year old boys don't enjoy playing they will not continue past 3rds. There are to many distractions. Girls, booze getting their licence there are to many things working against clubs to retain these players. Simply they need to be playing footy. Sitting on the bench for a strong side isn't ALWAYS the answer. IF and it a big IF the kids want to play somewhere else and get a full game then they should be encouraged to do so by their parents regardless of what club their father is a legend at. The kid will return to the home club after a year or so getting a full game elsewhere.

It is funny though. We have made a rule so that these kids are playing more footy and not sitting on the bench, yet we have a sub rule where little johnny ( and normally the same bloke most weeks) sits on the bench for 3 quarters and then plays a quarter of senior football. I don't agree with the sub rule one bit. It should be a thrill playing senior footy, warming up their the older blokes before the game with those butterflies in the stomach. At the moment it is a pain for these kids as they know they will be sitting on the bench for most of the game. Its only a matter of time before one of these kids get hurt because they may not be ready for senior footy.
If little johnny is ready for senior footy and good enough he should already be getting a game.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Both sides of the argument have some good points. At the end of the day the best interest of the kid needs to be taken into account. The fact a certain kid may be a son of a club legend is not an excuse to keep that kid at the club and play 10 minutes a game. They need to be playing and enjoying footy because make no mistake, if these 12-16 year old boys don't enjoy playing they will not continue past 3rds. There are to many distractions. Girls, booze getting their licence there are to many things working against clubs to retain these players. Simply they need to be playing footy. Sitting on the bench for a strong side isn't ALWAYS the answer. IF and it a big IF the kids want to play somewhere else and get a full game then they should be encouraged to do so by their parents regardless of what club their father is a legend at. The kid will return to the home club after a year or so getting a full game elsewhere.

It is funny though. We have made a rule so that these kids are playing more footy and not sitting on the bench, yet we have a sub rule where little johnny ( and normally the same bloke most weeks) sits on the bench for 3 quarters and then plays a quarter of senior football. I don't agree with the sub rule one bit. It should be a thrill playing senior footy, warming up their the older blokes before the game with those butterflies in the stomach. At the moment it is a pain for these kids as they know they will be sitting on the bench for most of the game. Its only a matter of time before one of these kids get hurt because they may not be ready for senior footy.
If little johnny is ready for senior footy and good enough he should already be getting a game.

The sub rule has never tried to suggest that a junior player clearly ready for senior football should be used as the sub . Nor has it been suggested to use on players clearly not ready or that he stays on the pine for 3 quarters continually.
The purpose is for players who may take a little longer to get used to the tempo of senior football .
Indications so far is in that regard it is most certainly working .
It will be interesting to see how the slightly altered MFL model goes with players not able to play u17's earlier in the day .

 

[Charles Mac]

The sub rule has never tried to suggest that a junior player clearly ready for senior football should be used as the sub . Nor has it been suggested to use on players clearly not ready or that he stays on the pine for 3 quarters continually.
The purpose is for players who may take a little longer to get used to the tempo of senior football .
Indications so far is in that regard it is most certainly working .
It will be interesting to see how the slightly altered MFL model goes with players not able to play u17's earlier in the day .

I know you will argue to say they don't have to sit on the bench for 3 quarters etc etc but its senior football and each coach is trying to do whats best for the club, team and players. If the sub was introduced into the game earlier this just means another plays has to sit out for the rest of the game. More game time for everyone is better than sitting on the pine for a half or 3 quarters. We are not the AFL. In country footy we are trying to get as much game time into most of our players. In the AFL most clubs are trying to minimise game time of their better players. There thinking is 100% effort for 75% of the game is better at the elite level. At Picola level this isn't the case. It would be interesting to ask each senior coach how it is going. The ones I have spoken to don't like the rule. The league might be getting different answers but the ones I speak to every week are not fans of it. Personally 4 on the bench would be a hell or a lot better. But as you know I haven't been a fan of the rule from the get go..

 

[MrCopezz]

I know you will argue to say they don't have to sit on the bench for 3 quarters etc etc but its senior football and each coach is trying to do whats best for the club, team and players. If the sub was introduced into the game earlier this just means another plays has to sit out for the rest of the game. More game time for everyone is better than sitting on the pine for a half or 3 quarters. We are not the AFL. In country footy we are trying to get as much game time into most of our players. In the AFL most clubs are trying to minimise game time of their better players. There thinking is 100% effort for 75% of the game is better at the elite level. At Picola level this isn't the case. It would be interesting to ask each senior coach how it is going. The ones I have spoken to don't like the rule. The league might be getting different answers but the ones I speak to every week are not fans of it. Personally 4 on the bench would be a hell or a lot better. But as you know I haven't been a fan of the rule from the get go..

Hear Hear!... Hands down the best response on this forum!
When the AFL trails a rule in the NAB cup/challenge. They realise and accept that is not the best outcome/rule for the game and don't proceed it to the season.
I think at some point the board has to sit back and think maybe we got this one wrong!? but in the PDFL administration? NEVER!

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Hear Hear!... Hands down the best response on this forum!
When the AFL trails a rule in the NAB cup/challenge. They realise and accept that is not the best outcome/rule for the game and don't proceed it to the season.
I think at some point the board has to sit back and think maybe we got this one wrong!? but in the PDFL administration? NEVER!

You haven't got anything decent to say have you , where does this all stem from , yep most know where from . Stop your sooking .

 

[wouldIlietoyou]

Mac, I think you may be using the rule wrong. First its a junior development rule for the cusp players (not ready for full senior selection but not far away) so they can still play and enjoy their Under 17 game and then get a introduction to senior football by sitting on the bench and coming on in case of an injury or late in game. That really is the intent of it. If you don't have one don't use it.

How you manage your other 21 players should be how you have always managed your other 21 players.

You are letting him play Under 17s? That is getting maximum game time into our players Mac and plus the kids love playing Under 17s. What would you do with a reserves player coming in as 4th bench player? Or would that end up being another player clubs would need to raise funds for?

We aren't AFL that's right we are PDFNL the FAMILY LEAGUE so I would have thought using something to develop our youth was a great idea for this league.

You haven't lost anything Mac you just have an added player in case of injury. You have played with 21 players for how long??

Also you are one of the most positive coaches out there is your attitude to the sub stopping you from being the coach Im used to seeing who could make anyone excited at the prospect of playing seniors regardless of how much game time they might get?

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

I know you will argue to say they don't have to sit on the bench for 3 quarters etc etc but its senior football and each coach is trying to do whats best for the club, team and players. If the sub was introduced into the game earlier this just means another plays has to sit out for the rest of the game. More game time for everyone is better than sitting on the pine for a half or 3 quarters. We are not the AFL. In country footy we are trying to get as much game time into most of our players. In the AFL most clubs are trying to minimise game time of their better players. There thinking is 100% effort for 75% of the game is better at the elite level. At Picola level this isn't the case. It would be interesting to ask each senior coach how it is going. The ones I have spoken to don't like the rule. The league might be getting different answers but the ones I speak to every week are not fans of it. Personally 4 on the bench would be a hell or a lot better. But as you know I haven't been a fan of the rule from the get go..

It's in and working as far as the clubs are concerned .
May be a hindress to senior coaches and the occasional player getting coin who feels threatened, most certainly not directed at you or anyone in particular .
But there is more to footy than this years senior side and I mean that with a great deal of respect of you personally .
It is a decision the league should be extremely proud of and in time I am sure coaches will appreciate .
2 or 3 18year olds pushing for a spot of senior footy after getting taste , taking the spot of 2 or 3 , 45 + year olds in the reserves is a great thing .

 

[Charles Mac]

Mac, I think you may be using the rule wrong. First its a junior development rule for the cusp players (not ready for full senior selection but not far away) so they can still play and enjoy their Under 17 game and then get a introduction to senior football by sitting on the bench and coming on in case of an injury or late in game. That really is the intent of it. If you don't have one don't use it.

How you manage your other 21 players should be how you have always managed your other 21 players.

You are letting him play Under 17s? That is getting maximum game time into our players Mac and plus the kids love playing Under 17s. What would you do with a reserves player coming in as 4th bench player? Or would that end up being another player clubs would need to raise funds for?

We aren't AFL that's right we are PDFNL the FAMILY LEAGUE so I would have thought using something to develop our youth was a great idea for this league.

You haven't lost anything Mac you just have an added player in case of injury. You have played with 21 players for how long??

Also you are one of the most positive coaches out there is your attitude to the sub stopping you from being the coach Im used to seeing who could make anyone excited at the prospect of playing seniors regardless of how much game time they might get?

I love nothing more than giving a young kid a crack at seniors but this is the problem. How can a kid be that excited to play seniors when he knows he will be on the bench for the majority of the game. Its the only bit of the rule I donot like. I am only thinking of that kid all excited to play seniors only to sit on the bench. It's not what footy is about. If a young fella comes into the seniors side, sure he might start on the bench but the coach would give him a little taste early in the game. I just know that talking to the kids I have used a sub, they are not enjoying it.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Here is another way of looking at opportunities .
About 4 years ago 3 young players 2 - 14 and 1 -15 played in our under 17 interleague side . All were scrawny light framed kids whose mothers were concerned at first they'd get knocked around and the coaches to their credit gave them a go . They started on the bench and from memory were the last players to come in the ground .
The 15 year old was Dan Howe who has been in the bushrangers best the last two weeks , the 2 14 year olds were Blair Henery who is a gun and was close to BOG in a senior grand final last year and the other was Connor brown now on the bushies list .
Last year a player only played senior football because of the sub rule and made it down to the final cut of the bushies . Charles might also be able to confirm if another of this years PDFNL reps in the bushies played as a sub last year , because I know Connor Brown definitely did.
Now by no means am I suggesting that the sub is the whole and solely means of developing kids or anything f the like . Gradual introduction has seen the many players previously thought not up to it or the like , achieve a lot more than many thought including their parents .
I am pretty sure wilty might have her own story to tell on this and a certain day at Deakin reserve that involved another lighter framed assumed not ready and non confident player that ended up a lot better than she or the player thought was ever possible.