SA Footy

.

woodublieve12 wrote:

locky801 wrote:Now they have moved the no scoring module up to and including U11's for the upcoming season so presume they are going with what was said a couple of seasons ago that they would eventually take it up to and include U13's

Personally i think it is crap, few people on the wireless this morning not happy about it either

Any kid at any age will always ask and want to know if they won or lost... Winning and losing and how you handle them are great life lessons to learn. Taking that away doesn't benefit them, i believe its vital learning tool which is getting taken away from them...
when you lose you learn...

This. Society as a whole cuddles our kids so much that any sign of possibly hurting their feelings ('losing' in this case), and we change the rules to suit. Kids are resilient creatures when they are given opportunities to fail. Unfortunately society keeps taking these opportunities away by the 'everyone wins' approach, eventually making adults who can't deal with any small sign of adversity or difficulty in their lives.

This isn't just in footy or sport by the way, all aspects of society.

woodublieve12 wrote:

locky801 wrote:Now they have moved the no scoring module up to and including U11's for the upcoming season so presume they are going with what was said a couple of seasons ago that they would eventually take it up to and include U13's

Personally i think it is crap, few people on the wireless this morning not happy about it either

Any kid at any age will always ask and want to know if they won or lost...
Most of the time they can tell you what the score was even without a scoreboard!

giffo wrote:Most of the time they can tell you what the score was even without a scoreboard!

More like "ALL" of the time, even in under 6's.

Again its a case of the minority affecting the majority

Pag wrote:This isn't just in footy or sport by the way, all aspects of society.

Definitely. Unfortunately, I think the horse has bolted.

Do people really think these rules are about winning and losing?

These rules are surely more about the attitude of coaches. As soon as there is a scoreboard and premiership table too many adult coaches think it's their chance to be Malcolm Blight, play the biggest kid in the centre for 4 qtrs, the smallest on the bench or in the forward pocket and the focus goes away from kids' development and to winning flags.

Everyone knows everyone knows the score, the people who make these rules knows everyone knows the score. It's not about kids being protected from winning and losing, it's about ensuring coaches focus on the kids' development as footballers.

Jetters wrote:Do people really think these rules are about winning and losing?

These rules are surely more about the attitude of coaches. As soon as there is a scoreboard and premiership table too many adult coaches think it's their chance to be Malcolm Blight, play the biggest kid in the centre for 4 qtrs, the smallest on the bench or in the forward pocket and the focus goes away from kids' development and to winning flags.

Everyone knows everyone knows the score, the people who make these rules knows everyone knows the score. It's not about kids being protected from winning and losing, it's about ensuring coaches focus on the kids' development as footballers.

Agree with you Jetters

Jetters wrote:Do people really think these rules are about winning and losing?

These rules are surely more about the attitude of coaches. As soon as there is a scoreboard and premiership table too many adult coaches think it's their chance to be Malcolm Blight, play the biggest kid in the centre for 4 qtrs, the smallest on the bench or in the forward pocket and the focus goes away from kids' development and to winning flags.

Everyone knows everyone knows the score, the people who make these rules knows everyone knows the score. It's not about kids being protected from winning and losing, it's about ensuring coaches focus on the kids' development as footballers.

From what i witnessed in some grades last season that had these rules it certainly didn't change the way those particular type of persons coached, lets hope the message starts to get through

Jetters wrote:Do people really think these rules are about winning and losing?

These rules are surely more about the attitude of coaches. As soon as there is a scoreboard and premiership table too many adult coaches think it's their chance to be Malcolm Blight, play the biggest kid in the centre for 4 qtrs, the smallest on the bench or in the forward pocket and the focus goes away from kids' development and to winning flags.

Everyone knows everyone knows the score, the people who make these rules knows everyone knows the score. It's not about kids being protected from winning and losing, it's about ensuring coaches focus on the kids' development as footballers.

And we have a winner, finally someone posts on exactly why these rules were brought into place.

Couldn't have said it any better.

20 Zip wrote:

Jetters wrote:Do people really think these rules are about winning and losing?

These rules are surely more about the attitude of coaches. As soon as there is a scoreboard and premiership table too many adult coaches think it's their chance to be Malcolm Blight, play the biggest kid in the centre for 4 qtrs, the smallest on the bench or in the forward pocket and the focus goes away from kids' development and to winning flags.

Everyone knows everyone knows the score, the people who make these rules knows everyone knows the score. It's not about kids being protected from winning and losing, it's about ensuring coaches focus on the kids' development as footballers.

And we have a winner, finally someone posts on exactly why these rules were brought into place.

Couldn't have said it any better.

If the players know the score, then obviously coach does too. If the players still want to win, so will the coaches. Can't imahgine it's going to change too much coaching behaviour.

Maybe clubs should be more accountable when it comes to allowing these sort of people to coach juniors.

Jetters wrote:Do people really think these rules are about winning and losing?

These rules are surely more about the attitude of coaches. As soon as there is a scoreboard and premiership table too many adult coaches think it's their chance to be Malcolm Blight, play the biggest kid in the centre for 4 qtrs, the smallest on the bench or in the forward pocket and the focus goes away from kids' development and to winning flags.

Everyone knows everyone knows the score, the people who make these rules knows everyone knows the score. It's not about kids being protected from winning and losing, it's about ensuring coaches focus on the kids' development as footballers.

You can't put brains in a statue mate, there are always going to be at least half of the coaches look at it as a win/lose thing, you hear it in under 8's when the coaches are giving out the Macca vouchers "Yes, well unfortunately we went down today but this young lad.................."

Clubs turn a blind eye to it and so do most parents.

I think to say that 'coaches are the reason for the changes' is limiting the issue at best.

It's coaches, the SANFL, parents and society that are the cause of the changes in my opinion.

There are some coaches at U6's, 7's , 8's and 9's that have played certain kids in certain positions to 'win'. There are many many more coaches in higher junior grades that play kids in all positions for experience.

The SANFL are blaming burn out for players not playing at 'older' junior grades. Whilst I don't understand the logic, the move has been more about participation and enjoyment rather than 'win at all costs'. Hence bringing in zones into the older sub junior grades. The focus tends to be about player retention.

Parents (some parents) and society - well they're generally opposites. Some parents also have the win at all costs and if the coaches aren't pushing their kids to have the killer mentality, then they'll "never get anywhere". Society in general is more aligned with the SANFL where winning doesn't matter.

The confusing part for me is that my son plays school basketball and indoor soccer where the scores are kept. Cricket, we keep score (given he's playing U12s as a 9yo) and he keeps score at footy 'because no one else does'. There is no consistency, so I'm more inclined to think this is driven by the SANFL. Which is fine, I wish they'd be open and honest along the way.

I don't think the kids should be penalised because of a few rogue coaches. Someone above said that "clubs shouldn't let them coach". Well mate, if you'd like to put your hand up at our club, come on board. We generally don't have enough people, so it's difficult for most clubs to be choosy about who coaches and who doesn't. Yes, we do monitor what goes on but generally speaking we're dealt the cards before we even know what's going on.

EDIT: Ahh, it's @beef....see you at pre-season! ;-)

My question would be; would it make a difference to my son, or someone else's son or daughter's enjoyment if they knew the score? Probably yes. and this is where the argument circles back on itself because if the coaches have ego's (and some do) they coach to win at all costs. Anyway, for me, it's not about winning U9 'premierships' its about developing the players to play A grade at your club. Tough one....thoughts?

gadj1976 wrote:I think to say that 'coaches are the reason for the changes' is limiting the issue at best.

It's coaches, the SANFL, parents and society that are the cause of the changes in my opinion.

There are some coaches at U6's, 7's , 8's and 9's that have played certain kids in certain positions to 'win'. There are many many more coaches in higher junior grades that play kids in all positions for experience.

The SANFL are blaming burn out for players not playing at 'older' junior grades. Whilst I don't understand the logic, the move has been more about participation and enjoyment rather than 'win at all costs'. Hence bringing in zones into the older sub junior grades. The focus tends to be about player retention.

Parents (some parents) and society - well they're generally opposites. Some parents also have the win at all costs and if the coaches aren't pushing their kids to have the killer mentality, then they'll "never get anywhere". Society in general is more aligned with the SANFL where winning doesn't matter.

The confusing part for me is that my son plays school basketball and indoor soccer where the scores are kept. Cricket, we keep score (given he's playing U12s as a 9yo) and he keeps score at footy 'because no one else does'. There is no consistency, so I'm more inclined to think this is driven by the SANFL. Which is fine, I wish they'd be open and honest along the way.

I don't think the kids should be penalised because of a few rogue coaches. Someone above said that "clubs shouldn't let them coach". Well mate, if you'd like to put your hand up at our club, come on board. We generally don't have enough people, so it's difficult for most clubs to be choosy about who coaches and who doesn't. Yes, we do monitor what goes on but generally speaking we're dealt the cards before we even know what's going on.

EDIT: Ahh, it's @beef....see you at pre-season! ;-)

My question would be; would it make a difference to my son, or someone else's son or daughter's enjoyment if they knew the score? Probably yes. and this is where the argument circles back on itself because if the coaches have ego's (and some do) they coach to win at all costs. Anyway, for me, it's not about winning U9 'premierships' its about developing the players to play A grade at your club. Tough one....thoughts?

Everyone knows clubs struggle with junior coaches and volunteers but some clubs ignore the fact the coach they have appointed is wrong and let him/her continue being a knob because "no one else wants to do it". Personally i think they should keep score and i think they lose as many kids/parents as they get for not keeping score and everyone getting a participation trophy. Also my own coaching preseason starts tonight so maybe i will take you up on your offer next season.

What Pag wrote is pretty much spot on I reckon. There must be scores allowed so the kids can learn how to lose.
You also raised a very valid point Gadj that alot of clubs dont have the luxury of choosing a coach that isnt all about winning, problem for alot of clubs is that if that person doesnt coach then there isnt a team.
One issue I see that the SANFL is causing is that clubs can have multiple sides in each age group while other clubs in the same area are struggling to fill one side. In this happening, children that play at these clubs with to many players, the kids arent able to get a full game each week. Or the club may stack one side with the the better players and one side with the not as good (or less developed) players. Surely thats not good for a childs development.
I personally think that each club should only be able to have one side in each age group and limit the number of kids to say 30-32. In turn all clubs would then be able to have a healthy number of players and kids would have a better chance of developing.
It would also help local football as a whole as each club would have a good number of junior players filtering up into the senior sides.
Currently what is happening is the good get better and the average get weaker.
This was how alot of us would have grown up playing football and it worked then so I dont understand why they changed it.

beef wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:I think to say that 'coaches are the reason for the changes' is limiting the issue at best.

It's coaches, the SANFL, parents and society that are the cause of the changes in my opinion.

There are some coaches at U6's, 7's , 8's and 9's that have played certain kids in certain positions to 'win'. There are many many more coaches in higher junior grades that play kids in all positions for experience.

The SANFL are blaming burn out for players not playing at 'older' junior grades. Whilst I don't understand the logic, the move has been more about participation and enjoyment rather than 'win at all costs'. Hence bringing in zones into the older sub junior grades. The focus tends to be about player retention.

Parents (some parents) and society - well they're generally opposites. Some parents also have the win at all costs and if the coaches aren't pushing their kids to have the killer mentality, then they'll "never get anywhere". Society in general is more aligned with the SANFL where winning doesn't matter.

The confusing part for me is that my son plays school basketball and indoor soccer where the scores are kept. Cricket, we keep score (given he's playing U12s as a 9yo) and he keeps score at footy 'because no one else does'. There is no consistency, so I'm more inclined to think this is driven by the SANFL. Which is fine, I wish they'd be open and honest along the way.

I don't think the kids should be penalised because of a few rogue coaches. Someone above said that "clubs shouldn't let them coach". Well mate, if you'd like to put your hand up at our club, come on board. We generally don't have enough people, so it's difficult for most clubs to be choosy about who coaches and who doesn't. Yes, we do monitor what goes on but generally speaking we're dealt the cards before we even know what's going on.

EDIT: Ahh, it's @beef....see you at pre-season! ;-)

My question would be; would it make a difference to my son, or someone else's son or daughter's enjoyment if they knew the score? Probably yes. and this is where the argument circles back on itself because if the coaches have ego's (and some do) they coach to win at all costs. Anyway, for me, it's not about winning U9 'premierships' its about developing the players to play A grade at your club. Tough one....thoughts?

Everyone knows clubs struggle with junior coaches and volunteers but some clubs ignore the fact the coach they have appointed is wrong and let him/her continue being a knob because "no one else wants to do it". Personally i think they should keep score and i think they lose as many kids/parents as they get for not keeping score and everyone getting a participation trophy. Also my own coaching preseason starts tonight so maybe i will take you up on your offer next season.

Thanks Beefy but yes.... it would be great if we could pick and choose people. We have issues with lack of parents putting their hands up. I'm one of them. Training starts in the burbs at 4.30 or 5 and I can't get there. We don't have oval space so we can't change training times. Lots of complications.

Yes, there are people out there like that, thankfully I haven't come across any at my club although I'm sure others would say they have and I'd be happy to take that on board.

Iron Fist wrote:What Pag wrote is pretty much spot on I reckon. There must be scores allowed so the kids can learn how to lose.
You also raised a very valid point Gadj that alot of clubs dont have the luxury of choosing a coach that isnt all about winning, problem for alot of clubs is that if that person doesnt coach then there isnt a team.
One issue I see that the SANFL is causing is that clubs can have multiple sides in each age group while other clubs in the same area are struggling to fill one side. In this happening, children that play at these clubs with to many players, the kids arent able to get a full game each week. Or the club may stack one side with the the better players and one side with the not as good (or less developed) players. Surely thats not good for a childs development.
I personally think that each club should only be able to have one side in each age group and limit the number of kids to say 30-32. In turn all clubs would then be able to have a healthy number of players and kids would have a better chance of developing.
It would also help local football as a whole as each club would have a good number of junior players filtering up into the senior sides.
Currently what is happening is the good get better and the average get weaker.
This was how alot of us would have grown up playing football and it worked then so I dont understand why they changed it.

Hey Fisty, haven't seen you on here for a long time.

Ideally, what you say is right. However, if you know our area, we have TTG, Golden Grove, Modbury, Pooraka, Ingle Farm and even Houghton and Para Hills all within a 10-15km radius of each other. Last year I think TTG, Golden Grove and Modbury fielded 13 or 14 U9 sides between them and that's NOT an isolated case.

Question is, where do those kids go? Secondly, the SANFL aren't going to turn those numbers away, so it's in their best interest not to do that. I get what you mean however this 'monopoly' just isn't occurring.

Recently, our club helped out neighboring clubs when our team didn't have enough to field a side, we cleared players out to other clubs so they could get a game. The reciprocal occurred last year with another local club when they didn't have enough so they sent some players our way. There is a 3 player rule so we can't go and poach others, not that that is in our best interest anyway.

On top of all that, if we cleared say 3 players in every grade to Para Hills (for example) would they go there anyway, or would we discourage them from the sport entirely? The SANFL wouldn't risk it in this economic climate where it seems they are all about participation and not 'win at all costs'.

Iron Fist wrote:What Pag wrote is pretty much spot on I reckon. There must be scores allowed so the kids can learn how to lose.
You also raised a very valid point Gadj that alot of clubs dont have the luxury of choosing a coach that isnt all about winning, problem for alot of clubs is that if that person doesnt coach then there isnt a team.
One issue I see that the SANFL is causing is that clubs can have multiple sides in each age group while other clubs in the same area are struggling to fill one side. In this happening, children that play at these clubs with to many players, the kids arent able to get a full game each week. Or the club may stack one side with the the better players and one side with the not as good (or less developed) players. Surely thats not good for a childs development.
I personally think that each club should only be able to have one side in each age group and limit the number of kids to say 30-32. In turn all clubs would then be able to have a healthy number of players and kids would have a better chance of developing.
It would also help local football as a whole as each club would have a good number of junior players filtering up into the senior sides.
Currently what is happening is the good get better and the average get weaker.
This was how alot of us would have grown up playing football and it worked then so I dont understand why they changed it.

You cant put a cap on how many players play for a club, if you do that kids will go play another sport, they want to play with their mates more than anything and their parents understandably want them playing at a well structured and run club. The clubs that cannot attract juniors need to learn off the more successful clubs and change the way they do things, this all takes time and good management which is the issue.

Agree with that Dutch, however it is also the pulling power of the area, using your club as an example, it is a massive suburb and surrounding areas full of young families. Down the hill clubs are very close together.