SA Footy

St pauls played well.. para hills gave up..

BZB27 wrote:

hfoxe16 wrote:who won out of St Pauls & Para Hills?

Looks like St Pauls did cause on sporting pulse it has all the goals up and St Pauls kicked 15 goals to 11

If that is correct big upset......

At least Hanson and Cree would've learned their lesson in the B grade with 15 goals between them haha

Zartan wrote:At least Hanson and Cree would've learned their lesson in the B grade with 15 goals between them haha

least the A grade coach had the balls to enforce rules most coaches look the other way

Robb_Stark wrote:

Zartan wrote:At least Hanson and Cree would've learned their lesson in the B grade with 15 goals between them haha

least the A grade coach had the balls to enforce rules most coaches look the other way

True I agree.. it is easier though when you're travelling as well as they are. Would they enforce if they were in a must win game or a final?

Also sometimes I wonder about the benefit of these team policies on certain people - some guys don't give a shit if they get dropped and dominate, they almost feel like it's a reward to get to play in a softer grade.. so are you really teaching them any lessons? Cree has always been notoriously poor for training, nothing will ever change there - he won't lose sleep if he's got to suit up in B Grade all year because of it.

Spot on Zartan.

Punitive measures are notoriously poor motivation methods for adult human beings.

BZB27 wrote:

hfoxe16 wrote:who won out of St Pauls & Para Hills?

Looks like St Pauls did cause on sporting pulse it has all the goals up and St Pauls kicked 15 goals to 11

Correct St Pauls totally out worked us from the first till the last whistle. They simply wanted the win far more than us. St Pauls pressure was the best I've seen this year right across the board. At no stage did I feel we were going to win the game.

But the sun come up today and we can have a crack at fixing it next week when we take on TTG, and that in itself will not be easy as they have some very good names running around and its up on there deck.

***I'm seriously not looking forward to training Tuesday night.......

morell wrote:Shaun Holland best on.

The premier forward in the comp?

This poster thinks yes....

Most defiantly not, wasn't even the premier forward on the day! That title goes to number 30 from St Pauls pretty handy type.

You can be defiant all you like but S.Holland is definitely the man to stop at Para Hills.

Para Hills Reserves Def St Paul's Reserves by 161 points. Cree and Hanson kick a combined 15 goals.

A Grade lose by 5 goals.

Some punishment.

morell wrote:Para Hills Reserves Def St Paul's Reserves by 161 points. Cree and Hanson kick a combined 15 goals.

A Grade lose by 5 goals.

Some punishment.

I would say the loss compounded the punishment. I'd feel more guilty watching my mates lose than watching them stroll to an easy win.

Pag wrote:I would say the loss compounded the punishment. I'd feel more guilty watching my mates lose than watching them stroll to an easy win.

To some people.. I reckon there would be more players in the losing A grade side that would be pissed off seeing them dominate the B grade then falling a few goals short in the 1's.

So who is being punished?

Zartan wrote:

Pag wrote:I would say the loss compounded the punishment. I'd feel more guilty watching my mates lose than watching them stroll to an easy win.

To some people.. I reckon there would be more players in the losing A grade side that would be pissed off seeing them dominate the B grade then falling a few goals short in the 1's.

So who is being punished?

The group. Isn't that the point?

morell wrote:Para Hills Reserves Def St Paul's Reserves by 161 points. Cree and Hanson kick a combined 15 goals.

A Grade lose by 5 goals.

Some punishment.

We don't see it as a punishment---We are rewarding players that have trained.

Rewarding them... by making them play in a loss? When they could've played in their normal side and had a 150 pt victory?

Hey look whatever works for you mate, just doesn't make sense to this black duck.

Pag wrote:

Zartan wrote:

Pag wrote:I would say the loss compounded the punishment. I'd feel more guilty watching my mates lose than watching them stroll to an easy win.

To some people.. I reckon there would be more players in the losing A grade side that would be pissed off seeing them dominate the B grade then falling a few goals short in the 1's.

So who is being punished?

The group. Isn't that the point?

Punishing the group who are doing the right things, by dropping your best two key forwards for not training?
I'm lost, sounds counter-productive to me.

Lets be honest, coaches don't always follow precise logical pathways when it comes to this sort of stuff ... we've also hotly debated how to get training numbers up and/or encourage people to attend.

The only way punitive action ever works in that scenario is if the A Grade are winning/going to win and people want to play but can't because of lack of training.

However the issue for me is the psychology behind that, you've essentially made a negative connection in that persons brain about training. Do that enough or do it severe enough and eventually all that person can think about in regards to training is negativity. Which *might* work in the short term but eventually leads to resentment and in turn unwanted behaviours.

If you want to *increase* a behaviour, use reinforcements (positive - rewards, negative - remove noxious stimuli)
If you want to *decrease* a behaviour, use proportional, relevant and immediate punitive measures (positive - add noxious stimuli, negative - remove reward)

So in this case, we want to *increase* someones training attendance, so we should use either positive (extra cash, beer, vouchers, play in fav positon) or negative (night off running, no chores/jobs, slackening of rules) reinforcements to increase that behaviour.

This is the basis behind BF Skinners Operant Conditioning, for those interested.

Zartan wrote:

Pag wrote:

Zartan wrote:To some people.. I reckon there would be more players in the losing A grade side that would be pissed off seeing them dominate the B grade then falling a few goals short in the 1's.

So who is being punished?

The group. Isn't that the point?

Punishing the group who are doing the right things, by dropping your best two key forwards for not training?
I'm lost, sounds counter-productive to me.

Depends what sort of culture you want to create. If you're willing to let your best players do as they please, while guys who train consistently and bust their ass keep missing out on a spot, I'm sure you'd get some short term gain (a win on the weekend), but at what sort of long-term cost (do you have fringe players leave because of it?). If the fringe players are happy to be playing B grade, then maybe there's a problem already.

Or maybe I'm not across Div 7 footy and am putting myself into a conversation I know not a lot about.

You're making the assumption that playing A Grade is a reward and playing B grade is a punishment.

This is not always the case and is perhaps a unique problem in the lower levels.

morell wrote:You're making the assumption that playing A Grade is a reward and playing B grade is a punishment.

This is not always the case and is perhaps a unique problem in the lower levels.

Like I said, maybe I'm not across the culture differentials having never played in the lower divs. I would've thought for most clubs though, playing A Grade is a reward to be earnt.