U19 Premier 2012

[yellowbelly]

this is embarrassing for the VAFA. this comp is meant to be one of the best in the state and the fact that teams like fitzroy and uni blacks are in premier is a joke

St Kevins, Haileybury and probably all most all other teams in section 2 and even section 3 maybe would be far more competitive than these two teams and making the 'premier' division as strong as it can be is what the VAFA should be doing. Everyone would benefit in having a far more stronger and even competition

thoughts?

In all competitions Barney, there will be good teams and there will be poor teams. Some teams like Xavs and De La remain strong regardless which is a credit to them. Why should our club give up our spot in Premier to teams that haven't earnt it? The promotion and relegation system will ensure two teams go down and two teams will come up - who is to say the teams in the lower divisions will be more competitive.
I take my hat off to those kids at Uni Blacks and Fitzroy as the VAFA asked both clubs about 5 weeks ago would they prefer to drop a grade and both teams said no they want to fight it out and good on them.
I saw the game between Fitzroy and OX on the weekend and a 13 goals to 2 scoreline in the 3rd down to 14 players is a very competitive effort I would have thought.

 

[chislet5]

wouldnt mind seeing old brighton and O.H back in prem although wouldnt wanna play on old brightons government housing flats backyard of a ground !!

 

[rightfoot_sloth]

It's disappointing to read the match report on st.bernards web site from Saturdays game. It was moaning about players doubling up. Every team is struggling with holidays but I felt there was no need blame that plus injuries for the loss to beauy. You don't hear the tigers complain about 3 players in the rep squad and just beating scotch. Blacks and my boys have bigger turnover of players at this time of year but we don't complain. Oms were very good on Saturday and credit to them they deserved the win.

 

[Rooster 24]

Nice to see some decent banter happening. A good honest assessment from Barney about his players complaining. Seems they are aware that it is a problem and are taking steps to address the issue. In my view far too many players want to whinge and complain to the umpires across all clubs and when you look at the example set by some of the coaches it is hardly surprising.

While disappointing to see the events that occurred in the Xavs V Roys game I share the view that those clubs have earnt the right to play in the top division. I give them a big tick for having the heart to stay in Premier when they could have gone down a division mid year. Uni Blacks looking likely to get promoted to Premier A in the seniors so they will be very keen to keep their unders in the top division but really need to make them competitive. Relative strength ebbs and flows each year and while we would like the top grade to be more competitive it is not always guaranteed to happen.

FWIW Haileybury have been non competitive in the middle grades of the 19s for years so doubt they would be much chop. Most sides coming up in recent memory (with the exception of Beauy and Bernies) have really battled and have generally gone back down again pretty quickly. Trinity, Camberwell, Old Brighton. Rupertswood and others. Remember not that long ago that Bernie’s themselves were relegated with SKEVS in 2008.

RFS – Tigers boys who played yesterday are all established senior players so unlikely to impact on their 19s but I take your point. The repeated and continual reference to injuries in the report shows a lack of respect but I guess he was acknowledging the efforts of the boys who doubled up. In fairness to the Bernie’s they do have to fill 2 X U19 teams and U18 team so many multiple absences hit them a bit harder. I know the last fortnight has been tough for us, particularly on our South div team.

While on the subject of Uni Blacks: RFS – how do you go about deciding who plays for Blacks and who plays for Blues?

 

[The MUF]

Nice to see some decent banter happening. A good honest assessment from Barney about his players complaining. Seems they are aware that it is a problem and are taking steps to address the issue. In my view far too many players want to whinge and complain to the umpires across all clubs and when you look at the example set by some of the coaches it is hardly surprising.

While disappointing to see the events that occurred in the Xavs V Roys game I share the view that those clubs have earnt the right to play in the top division. I give them a big tick for having the heart to stay in Premier when they could have gone down a division mid year. Uni Blacks looking likely to get promoted to Premier A in the seniors so they will be very keen to keep their unders in the top division but really need to make them competitive. Relative strength ebbs and flows each year and while we would like the top grade to be more competitive it is not always guaranteed to happen.

FWIW Haileybury have been non competitive in the middle grades of the 19s for years so doubt they would be much chop. Most sides coming up in recent memory (with the exception of Beauy and Bernies) have really battled and have generally gone back down again pretty quickly. Trinity, Camberwell, Old Brighton. Rupertswood and others. Remember not that long ago that Bernie’s themselves were relegated with SKEVS in 2008.

RFS – Tigers boys who played yesterday are all established senior players so unlikely to impact on their 19s but I take your point. The repeated and continual reference to injuries in the report shows a lack of respect but I guess he was acknowledging the efforts of the boys who doubled up. In fairness to the Bernie’s they do have to fill 2 X U19 teams and U18 team so many multiple absences hit them a bit harder. I know the last fortnight has been tough for us, particularly on our South div team.

While on the subject of Uni Blacks: RFS – how do you go about deciding who plays for Blacks and who plays for Blues?

on this thing with who should play in the U19 Premier comp... i think its simple:

we have the same teams as what is in Premier A as you generally find their u19's are fairly strong.... how Collegians should be allowed to play in Div 3 with Xavs and Bernies seconds is a disgrace! then have Div 2 and 3 made up of the promotion/relegation system... and then also have a comp just for second's sides.... if they went for the 19 Premier as the sides of Premier A then you could have a lot more triple headers which i think would be a great idea! as the crowds would be alot larger and everyone can see the up and coming talent for their clubs alot easier... thoughts??

 

[chislet5]

the only downfall with that is that teams like beauy who arent yet in a grade that deserve to be in premier and should definalty stay in premier as they will become signifcantly stronger next year due to recruiting and coming of age would get relegated when next season wll be a genuine premiership threat..

 

[barney gumble]

looks like I've successfully done what i wanted to do...finally create some banter on this boring thread!!

in regards to the match report on our website. Yes i agree it was probably gone a bit over the top with the amount of players out etc without paying respect to beauy who were the better side on the day (however all is true about players doubling up and it is difficult to fill 3 teams every week with the amount of injuries that have hit us)

i love the thought of having the same teams in 19 premier as the seniors....although i can never see this happening purely based on the VAFA headquarters aren't ones that like change too much. Being involved in the EDFL aswell, triple headers is one thing that all other comps have over the ammos. the atmosphere builds around the ground all day and i know for a fact that the 19s boys down at the snake pit would love to watch the ones later on the day getting amongst it behind the goals with everyone else.

it would also mean that the 19s games will be played on much better grounds, which should happen because some of the grounds are shocking (yes including bernards no.2 oval). so its a win win i feel and don't see why the VAFA shouldn't at least try it for a few games?

 

[rightfoot_sloth]

Nice to see some decent banter happening. A good honest assessment from Barney about his players complaining. Seems they are aware that it is a problem and are taking steps to address the issue. In my view far too many players want to whinge and complain to the umpires across all clubs and when you look at the example set by some of the coaches it is hardly surprising.

While disappointing to see the events that occurred in the Xavs V Roys game I share the view that those clubs have earnt the right to play in the top division. I give them a big tick for having the heart to stay in Premier when they could have gone down a division mid year. Uni Blacks looking likely to get promoted to Premier A in the seniors so they will be very keen to keep their unders in the top division but really need to make them competitive. Relative strength ebbs and flows each year and while we would like the top grade to be more competitive it is not always guaranteed to happen.

FWIW Haileybury have been non competitive in the middle grades of the 19s for years so doubt they would be much chop. Most sides coming up in recent memory (with the exception of Beauy and Bernies) have really battled and have generally gone back down again pretty quickly. Trinity, Camberwell, Old Brighton. Rupertswood and others. Remember not that long ago that Bernie’s themselves were relegated with SKEVS in 2008.

RFS – Tigers boys who played yesterday are all established senior players so unlikely to impact on their 19s but I take your point. The repeated and continual reference to injuries in the report shows a lack of respect but I guess he was acknowledging the efforts of the boys who doubled up. In fairness to the Bernie’s they do have to fill 2 X U19 teams and U18 team so many multiple absences hit them a bit harder. I know the last fortnight has been tough for us, particularly on our South div team.

While on the subject of Uni Blacks: RFS – how do you go about deciding who plays for Blacks and who plays for Blues?

In regards to the last question Rooster. It is up to the individual player who he plays. A lot of players have played under me after I have coached other players from their home club. Jason Cowland from Casterton is an example ... I coached Simon Sealey in 2009 who was from Casterton. So he (Seals) passed on his experience of Uni Blues to Jason who is playing under me this year.
From a personal leavel I try and make it a place where you want to play footy. Which is at a higher standard than a lot of other comps. Additionally it is becoming increasingly difficult when home clubs over $$$ to keep them travelling home week after week.
Barney's point about playing on the better ground is a good idea. I know both teams enjoyed playing on the Junction on the weekend. I enjoy the games that are played at Camberwell, Brunswick Street, Mentone and Main Oval in the Uni. As all of the grounds have significant history associated with them. Lets hope the Unders finals are at Sandy this year another great ground !

 

[Rooster 24]

on this thing with who should play in the U19 Premier comp... i think its simple:

we have the same teams as what is in Premier A as you generally find their u19's are fairly strong.... how Collegians should be allowed to play in Div 3 with Xavs and Bernies seconds is a disgrace! then have Div 2 and 3 made up of the promotion/relegation system... and then also have a comp just for second's sides.... if they went for the 19 Premier as the sides of Premier A then you could have a lot more triple headers which i think would be a great idea! as the crowds would be alot larger and everyone can see the up and coming talent for their clubs alot easier... thoughts??

The issue here is having clubs second team playing in 3rd div when in fairness they should be in North or South. Clubs like Collegians are not in Premer 19s as they are no good! Our club play them in practice games each year and absolutely flog them. They are in 3rd division for a reason.

The Premier A & 19 Premier alignment has been flagged several times and nearly got up a few years ago however some of the clubs that were then in A grade such as Haileybury & Collegians had very average U19s. This idea is still being pushed by several clubs but has lost momentum, as it is really not a realistic option. The idea has merit but simply does not work. While there have been a few blow outs, the thinking is that running a separate promotion/relegation system in the 19s keeps it more competitive then simply aligning it with the seniors. Imagine if De La or Xavs seniors were to get relegated to B grade. Do their unders then go and play in 19 Div 2 ?

Triple headers – There is nothing stopping clubs from doing it now but most big VAFA clubs have multiple grounds and in order to keep the surface in the best possible condition for the seniors game prefer to just play 2 games a day. De La have 2 pre-arranged triple-headers ever year against St Bedes and Xavs but generally our ground cannot sustain 3 games on it each Saturday. VAFA is very different to comps like the EDFL. They have 2 divisions we have 7 divisions plus 5 divisions of 19s, 3 divsions of 3rds, 2 of Clubbies and U18s. Much harder to line up all teams up.

 

[the great game]

How did Charlie Haley from de la only get two weeks? Anyone from the VAFA?? The kid king hit a 16 year old kid right in front of the umpire adviser. The kid was knocked unconscious and had no recollection of the incident. I don't care who started it or what was said, if you king hit a bloke in u19 football it must carry a heavier penalty.

 

[chargers 09]

looks like I've successfully done what i wanted to do...finally create some banter on this boring thread!!

in regards to the match report on our website. Yes i agree it was probably gone a bit over the top with the amount of players out etc without paying respect to beauy who were the better side on the day (however all is true about players doubling up and it is difficult to fill 3 teams every week with the amount of injuries that have hit us)

i love the thought of having the same teams in 19 premier as the seniors....although i can never see this happening purely based on the VAFA headquarters aren't ones that like change too much. Being involved in the EDFL aswell, triple headers is one thing that all other comps have over the ammos. the atmosphere builds around the ground all day and i know for a fact that the 19s boys down at the snake pit would love to watch the ones later on the day getting amongst it behind the goals with everyone else.

it would also mean that the 19s games will be played on much better grounds, which should happen because some of the grounds are shocking (yes including bernards no.2 oval). so its a win win i feel and don't see why the VAFA shouldn't at least try it for a few games?

What about the teams who have 2 under 19's teams?

 

[Rooster 24]

How did Charlie Haley from de la only get two weeks? Anyone from the VAFA?? The kid king hit a 16 year old kid right in front of the umpire adviser. The kid was knocked unconscious and had no recollection of the incident. I don't care who started it or what was said, if you king hit a bloke in u19 football it must carry a heavier penalty.

I’ll tell you how. The bloke who you say he allegedly ‘king hit’ was honest enough to tell the tribunal that he belted Charlie first. In fact he admitted pretty much belting him all day long on instruction. Prior to this incident he took another swing. This time Charlie hit back. Not great but both players trading blows is hardly a ‘king hit’. Tribunal saw it that way and also took into account the provocation. Age irrelevant as they are all Under 19 but my belief is one is 17 and the other has just turned 18.

Not the place to name names and make incorrect allegations against players but as it was a raised I felt obliged to correct it. Hopefully both players learn from it. Haley pleased guilty by the way.

There is lot more about his actual incident you don’t know about.

 

[Finsup23]

I’ll tell you how. The bloke who you say he allegedly ‘king hit’ was honest enough to tell the tribunal that he belted Charlie first. In fact he admitted pretty much belting him all day long on instruction. Prior to this incident he took another swing. This time Charlie hit back. Not great but both players trading blows is hardly a ‘king hit’. Tribunal saw it that way and also took into account the provocation. Age irrelevant as they are all Under 19 but my belief is one is 17 and the other has just turned 18.

Not the place to name names and make incorrect allegations against players but as it was a raised I felt obliged to correct it. Hopefully both players learn from it. Haley pleased guilty by the way.

There is lot more about his actual incident you don’t know about.

I actually have a good source from someone who attended the tribunal hearing last night that in fact Sam, the bloke that Charlie hit behind play in fact couldn't even make a statement or comment on the night because he had no memory of the incident because he was knocked out cold for 3mins and had no recollection!!! Not usre where you are getting your incorrect information from Rooster 24??? But he surely didn't say he belted Charlie first.....
It's a disgrace that Charlie only got 2 weeks for knocking someone out cold behind play!!!
And from what I hear, it's not that last we've heard of it.....

 

[OnceAgain]

I’ll tell you how. The bloke who you say he allegedly ‘king hit’ was honest enough to tell the tribunal that he belted Charlie first. In fact he admitted pretty much belting him all day long on instruction. Prior to this incident he took another swing. This time Charlie hit back. Not great but both players trading blows is hardly a ‘king hit’. Tribunal saw it that way and also took into account the provocation. Age irrelevant as they are all Under 19 but my belief is one is 17 and the other has just turned 18.

Not the place to name names and make incorrect allegations against players but as it was a raised I felt obliged to correct it. Hopefully both players learn from it. Haley pleased guilty by the way.

There is lot more about his actual incident you don’t know about.

Give it a rest Rooster you peanut! Seems to be a reoccurring theme down at Dairy Bell

The old "he started it" defence is laughable !!

Should have had the book thrown at him - lets put this into perspective. The kid who abused the umpire from Fitzroy on the weekend also gets two weeks. My oh My !!

Please explain that HQ?

What else do we need to know almighty Rooster??

 

[the great game]

I’ll tell you how. The bloke who you say he allegedly ‘king hit’ was honest enough to tell the tribunal that he belted Charlie first. In fact he admitted pretty much belting him all day long on instruction. Prior to this incident he took another swing. This time Charlie hit back. Not great but both players trading blows is hardly a ‘king hit’. Tribunal saw it that way and also took into account the provocation. Age irrelevant as they are all Under 19 but my belief is one is 17 and the other has just turned 18.

Not the place to name names and make incorrect allegations against players but as it was a raised I felt obliged to correct it. Hopefully both players learn from it. Haley pleased guilty by the way.

There is lot more about his actual incident you don’t know about.

You know what it is mate? Dela are a protected species in u19 football. They are not a dirty side, but this deserved 6+ weeks. I don't care if it was provoked, the facts are that he hit someone in the head so hardthat he was knocked out and has no memory of it and couldn't play for 2 weeks with concussion.

I'll ask you another question, did charlie haley go out that very night and king hit someone at an 18th? Can you ask your sources that? do tell that story too rooster, please!

 

[OnceAgain]

You know what it is mate? Dela are a protected species in u19 football. They are not a dirty side, but this deserved 6+ weeks. I don't care if it was provoked, the facts are that he hit someone in the head so hardthat he was knocked out and has no memory of it and couldn't play for 2 weeks with concussion.

I'll ask you another question, did charlie haley go out that very night and king hit someone at an 18th? Can you ask your sources that? do tell that story too rooster, please!

Might want to be careful with accusations like the above pal....

 

[Rooster 24]

I wont enter into the name calling. I am aware of facts that you guys are not and don’t intend to play it out here. Haley pleaded guilty and was prepared to cop his whack. Tribunal penalised as they saw fit taking into account other evidence and facts presented. He might have been lucky. Must have been delayed concussion as he was out on the gas with Charlie that night. Seems they had a good laugh about it and the recollection of events leading up to and following was pretty clear then. Dont reckon your source has told you everything.

Beauy just dirty that in 8 attempts in Premier Div. they have not beaten De La. Maybe next year lads. Time to move on.

 

[Finsup23]

I wont enter into the name calling. I am aware of facts that you guys are not and don’t intend to play it out here. Haley pleaded guilty and was prepared to cop his whack. Tribunal penalised as they saw fit taking into account other evidence and facts presented. He might have been lucky. Must have been delayed concussion as he was out on the gas with Charlie that night. Seems they had a good laugh about it and the recollection of events leading up to and following was pretty clear then. Dont reckon your source has told you everything.

Beauy just dirty that in 8 attempts in Premier Div. they have not beaten De La. Maybe next year lads. Time to move on.

W

This is not about past results Rooster, this is about doing the crime, doing that time!!!
My team mate was out cold for 3mins after Charlie whacked him behind play so 2 weeks is just a joke!!!
Anyway, the latest is Beaumaris and Sam's parents my be turning it into a civil action because they feel the VAFA didn't respond with the required penalty for something as serious as this!!!
This is laughable and someone must be held accountable...

 

[Jimmyjack]

My 50 cents about the tribunal. Seems most people are unaware that there was another case on last night from the same game. A Beauy player accused of punching (or ‘king hitting’ as most like to call it here) a De La player. What was not in dispute was that the De La player was punched. He was hospitalised, had stitches and now has the scar to prove it. What could not be proved was that the player charged was the one who delivered the blow so he got off. Fair enough. By the lack of posts here by De La people I assume they have accepted the decision and have moved on.

Curious however that the others who have jumped on here this morning who are happy to condemn De La and Charlie Haley over the other matter have remained silent on this one. Clearly the De La players was punched by someone from Beauy. Why no calls that Beaumaris are a ‘protected species’ or detail from ‘sources who were in attendance’ etc. I guess that case is just conveniently forgotten.

Maybe the Charlie is lucky he only got 2 weeks. But remember there is a Beaumaris player who is even luckier as he is likely playing this week and is not getting his name dragged through the mud on BF.

 

[Finsup23]

My 50 cents about the tribunal. Seems most people are unaware that there was another case on last night from the same game. A Beauy player accused of punching (or ‘king hitting’ as most like to call it here) a De La player. What was not in dispute was that the De La player was punched. He was hospitalised, had stitches and now has the scar to prove it. What could not be proved was that the player charged was the one who delivered the blow so he got off. Fair enough. By the lack of posts here by De La people I assume they have accepted the decision and have moved on.


Curious however that the others who have jumped on here this morning who are happy to condemn De La and Charlie Haley over the other matter have remained silent on this one. Clearly the De La players was punched by someone from Beauy. Why no calls that Beaumaris are a ‘protected species’ or detail from ‘sources who were in attendance’ etc. I guess that case is just conveniently forgotten.

Maybe the Charlie is lucky he only got 2 weeks. But remember there is a Beaumaris player who is even luckier as he is likely playing this week and is not getting his name dragged through the mud on BF.

There were about 15-20 players involved in the Melee anf from what i hear the defence for N0.19 from Beaumaris striking was very inconculsive and it could of been anyone....
As the "umpires report" states..."this Melee was cause by a Beauy player being King Hit behind play" that is word for word what the umpires put into the VAFA the following morning after our game with De La!
In addition to that, I heard an umpires advisor that was at the game who is not affiliated with Beauy or De La also put in a Stat Dec. reporting an unprovoked hit behind play by Charlie....
To say he was lucky to get only 2 weeks and not 6+ is an understatement!!!
Bloody Sammy has missed the same and he was the one knocked out!!!

 

[Max Dollar]

C.Haley 2 weeks on the sidelines? That leaves his brother with no one to kick to!

 

[nerf]

Give it a rest Rooster you peanut! Seems to be a reoccurring theme down at Dairy Bell

The old "he started it" defence is laughable !!

Should have had the book thrown at him - lets put this into perspective. The kid who abused the umpire from Fitzroy on the weekend also gets two weeks. My oh My !!

Please explain that HQ?

What else do we need to know almighty Rooster??

absolutely correct onceagain, how can a player who king hits someone behind play and knock him out only get two weeks? defiantly should have been at least 6+ weeks, the defence "he started it" is laughable and being provoked has nothing to do with the punishment...there was a case from the seniors the other week where a player was suspended for 2 weeks after wrestling with a player and retaliating after being hit first, they didn't care who started it nor did they take that into account all they cared about was the incident itself, considering under 19 punishments are meant to be stricter and send a message the punishment of 2 weeks for king hitting behind play is a joke...also the fitzroy player said "that was ****ed" to his team mate about the umpiring decision gets 2 weeks when nobody further than 10 metres away would have been able to hear what was said is a joke...how can swearing and king hitting be giving the same amount of time on the sidelines, especially when the hit put a player out on the sidelines for 2 weeks? clearly some favouritism towards the protected species

 

[judds duds]

absolutely correct onceagain, how can a player who king hits someone behind play and knock him out only get two weeks? defiantly should have been at least 6+ weeks, the defence "he started it" is laughable and being provoked has nothing to do with the punishment...there was a case from the seniors the other week where a player was suspended for 2 weeks after wrestling with a player and retaliating after being hit first, they didn't care who started it nor did they take that into account all they cared about was the incident itself, considering under 19 punishments are meant to be stricter and send a message the punishment of 2 weeks for king hitting behind play is a joke...also the fitzroy player said "that was ******" to his team mate about the umpiring decision gets 2 weeks when nobody further than 10 metres away would have been able to hear what was said is a joke...how can swearing and king hitting be giving the same amount of time on the sidelines, especially when the hit put a player out on the sidelines for 2 weeks? clearly some favouritism towards the protected species

I agree. Luke Edmonson of beaumaris also got 5 weeks for swearing at an umpire in round 1. Does this seem fair? Fact of the matter is a kid got knocked out cold didn't play the rest of the game and gets two weeks, shouldn't even compare…. I don't care about who started it, who got who. The mixed messages coming out of the vafa is very confusing, very contradicting. Dela are protected because they have been the bench mark and normally don't get into trouble like this. This kid then goes out that night and gets into a fight, FACT. They breed em tough at dairy bell!

 

[HardBallGet43]

I agree. Luke Edmonson of beaumaris also got 5 weeks for swearing at an umpire in round 1. Does this seem fair? Fact of the matter is a kid got knocked out cold didn't play the rest of the game and gets two weeks, shouldn't even compare…. I don't care about who started it, who got who. The mixed messages coming out of the vafa is very confusing, very contradicting. Dela are protected because they have been the bench mark and normally don't get into trouble like this. This kid then goes out that night and gets into a fight, FACT. They breed em tough at dairy bell!

What are they putting in the ice cream down at waverly park juddy? they definitely breed em tough! Dela lost the granny last year, what a bunch of flogs

 

[chislet5]

the reason xavs will beat de la this year is because de la will get in there car and leave 10 minutes early again