Adelaide Plains Football League

[Sky Pilot]

Are you talking about Jarred Allmond?

I wouldn't be too worried, he'll be at RSMU next year anyway.

[Nighthawk]

Not a 100% but I'm pretty sure he played in the ones on the weekend. Mighty hounds might know

[Dogwatcher]

The issue again has risen about photos being taken of Junior/senior colt players in the APFL,was adviced that the APFL dont really police this in the league as it is a goverment issue not league issue,so clubs are now higher than the League,how can the producer take photos of my son playing without my permission Onsong,I know and aware of laws in the surf lifesaving and rugby league in NSW.We took photos for all clubs and players and even to send some assocation pics to the producer if they cant be there,but according to this policy showen to me today we cannot do this or post photos on facebook for others parents and players to see,what happen to the easy life

A typical case of political correctness that vexes all common sense people, but (sigh) nevertheless must be dealt with at some point. Clubs can get parents to sign a season-long waiver to allow their kids' photo to be published, but the difficulty lies in when the photo contains images of colts from the opposing side.
In the BL&G, Barossa District had a lady who was taking photos come in to the opposition side's rooms (!) post match and hand out waiver forms for them to sign, but I don't know if the club is still doing that.
It may end up that all footy clubs get the waivers done, but give the names (if any) of the players whose images may NOT appear, to the newspapers.
It's a bloody headspin, but this is what it may come to. Don't know if any APFL association directors get on this site, but leadership and co-ordination really needs to come from there - not the clubs

thanks roodog,since that post a club waiver is now been passed out,but like you say the problem is players in the background and parents who may not want there photo taken,just signs of the time,not sure if other clubs are doing waivers for players but ours is on to it,its now if parents want to sign them.

Waivers aren't worth a pinch of the proverbial.
The football is a public place, it is a public event – photographers can take as many photos as they like.
Furthermore, there are two issues clubs will face, mobile phone cameras (how will they stop parents taking photos of their kids?) and publicity for their club/competition/sport (no photographers – accredited or not – means no photos in local media).
If clubs/competitions stop newspapers from taking pics, then they would want to have an official wandering around ovals ensuring parents/friends/relatives etc aren't also taking photos to post on Facebook, where, through their posting and sharing habits, their children are going to be much more 'available' to unsavoury individuals.
This sort of thing is further, ridiculous PC rubbish and an assumption that everyone in the community is a potential pedo.
Some schools these days don't allow you to publish students' last names – despite the fact, again, most of their parents are sharing their info regularly and permanently on the internet.
Stupid restrictions for a time when we seem to need to make laws about everything.

[OnSong]

x2

[Dogwatcher]

I've got more to say about this! lol

[magpieeagle]

The issue again has risen about photos being taken of Junior/senior colt players in the APFL,was adviced that the APFL dont really police this in the league as it is a goverment issue not league issue,so clubs are now higher than the League,how can the producer take photos of my son playing without my permission Onsong,I know and aware of laws in the surf lifesaving and rugby league in NSW.We took photos for all clubs and players and even to send some assocation pics to the producer if they cant be there,but according to this policy showen to me today we cannot do this or post photos on facebook for others parents and players to see,what happen to the easy life

A typical case of political correctness that vexes all common sense people, but (sigh) nevertheless must be dealt with at some point. Clubs can get parents to sign a season-long waiver to allow their kids' photo to be published, but the difficulty lies in when the photo contains images of colts from the opposing side.
In the BL&G, Barossa District had a lady who was taking photos come in to the opposition side's rooms (!) post match and hand out waiver forms for them to sign, but I don't know if the club is still doing that.
It may end up that all footy clubs get the waivers done, but give the names (if any) of the players whose images may NOT appear, to the newspapers.
It's a bloody headspin, but this is what it may come to. Don't know if any APFL association directors get on this site, but leadership and co-ordination really needs to come from there - not the clubs

thanks roodog,since that post a club waiver is now been passed out,but like you say the problem is players in the background and parents who may not want there photo taken,just signs of the time,not sure if other clubs are doing waivers for players but ours is on to it,its now if parents want to sign them.

Waivers aren't worth a pinch of the proverbial.
The football is a public place, it is a public event – photographers can take as many photos as they like.
Furthermore, there are two issues clubs will face, mobile phone cameras (how will they stop parents taking photos of their kids?) and publicity for their club/competition/sport (no photographers – accredited or not – means no photos in local media).
If clubs/competitions stop newspapers from taking pics, then they would want to have an official wandering around ovals ensuring parents/friends/relatives etc aren't also taking photos to post on Facebook, where, through their posting and sharing habits, their children are going to be much more 'available' to unsavoury individuals.
This sort of thing is further, ridiculous PC rubbish and an assumption that everyone in the community is a potential pedo.
Some schools these days don't allow you to publish students' last names – despite the fact, again, most of their parents are sharing their info regularly and permanently on the internet.
Stupid restrictions for a time when we seem to need to make laws about everything.

x3

[stork]

The issue again has risen about photos being taken of Junior/senior colt players in the APFL,was adviced that the APFL dont really police this in the league as it is a goverment issue not league issue,so clubs are now higher than the League,how can the producer take photos of my son playing without my permission Onsong,I know and aware of laws in the surf lifesaving and rugby league in NSW.We took photos for all clubs and players and even to send some assocation pics to the producer if they cant be there,but according to this policy showen to me today we cannot do this or post photos on facebook for others parents and players to see,what happen to the easy life

A typical case of political correctness that vexes all common sense people, but (sigh) nevertheless must be dealt with at some point. Clubs can get parents to sign a season-long waiver to allow their kids' photo to be published, but the difficulty lies in when the photo contains images of colts from the opposing side.
In the BL&G, Barossa District had a lady who was taking photos come in to the opposition side's rooms (!) post match and hand out waiver forms for them to sign, but I don't know if the club is still doing that.
It may end up that all footy clubs get the waivers done, but give the names (if any) of the players whose images may NOT appear, to the newspapers.
It's a bloody headspin, but this is what it may come to. Don't know if any APFL association directors get on this site, but leadership and co-ordination really needs to come from there - not the clubs

thanks roodog,since that post a club waiver is now been passed out,but like you say the problem is players in the background and parents who may not want there photo taken,just signs of the time,not sure if other clubs are doing waivers for players but ours is on to it,its now if parents want to sign them.

Waivers aren't worth a pinch of the proverbial. correct
The football is a public place, it is a public event – photographers can take as many photos as they like.
Furthermore, there are two issues clubs will face, mobile phone cameras (how will they stop parents taking photos of their kids?) and publicity for their club/competition/sport (no photographers – accredited or not – means no photos in local media).
If clubs/competitions stop newspapers from taking pics, then they would want to have an official wandering around ovals ensuring parents/friends/relatives etc aren't also taking photos to post on Facebook, where, through their posting and sharing habits, their children are going to be much more 'available' to unsavoury individuals.
This sort of thing is further, ridiculous PC rubbish and an assumption that everyone in the community is a potential pedo.
Some schools these days don't allow you to publish students' last names – despite the fact, again, most of their parents are sharing their info regularly and permanently on the internet.
Stupid restrictions for a time when we seem to need to make laws about everything.

Regardless of common sense, opinions or the health of the APFL junior grades the legal will make a decission on this. At this time you would assume (making a ass out of u and me) that consultation will occur with all APFL club representatives.

As mentioned, parents and children already have acces to social media. The only difference in these circumtances that they are willingfully registering and choosing what infromation is shared, and who the infromation is shared with. please do notg et me wrong, i believe that local clubs and papers should be able to share infromation and images. Photos in local papers and social media are cheap advertising. A healthy football club benefits not only the league, but the community that the club sits with in.

Regardless of the APFL powers that be, there is in fact a larger being; the Commonwealth Government. Yes, they both work in ways no person understands but the Government can create and amend laws. The biggest one in the way of the APFL (that has been in media for other reason of late) is the Communications and Media Act.

[The Rooster]

So how did all today's trial games go? Any surprises, how did hummocks go, heard cms had a full squad to pick from, would've made things hard for eagles

Scoreboard was operating at broughton today BM 16-7 TW 6-5. Could be a long year with both allmonds gone and Kahn only available every 2-3 weeks

Really? I heard you won both grades and lee isn't going anywhere

Think I'd know, I was there

No Allmonds in the clearance page yet.

[roodog]

.

Waivers aren't worth a pinch of the proverbial.
The football is a public place, it is a public event – photographers can take as many photos as they like.
Furthermore, there are two issues clubs will face, mobile phone cameras (how will they stop parents taking photos of their kids?) and publicity for their club/competition/sport (no photographers – accredited or not – means no photos in local media).
If clubs/competitions stop newspapers from taking pics, then they would want to have an official wandering around ovals ensuring parents/friends/relatives etc aren't also taking photos to post on Facebook, where, through their posting and sharing habits, their children are going to be much more 'available' to unsavoury individuals.
This sort of thing is further, ridiculous PC rubbish and an assumption that everyone in the community is a potential pedo.
Some schools these days don't allow you to publish students' last names – despite the fact, again, most of their parents are sharing their info regularly and permanently on the internet.
Stupid restrictions for a time when we seem to need to make laws about everything.[/quote]


No disrespect, but I'm not sure you've grasped the issue here Dogwatcher and Stork. The waiver is signed by parents to ALLOW photos to be taken of their kids. Of course media photographers can take as many photos as they like at junior sport, and of course the clubs want that - it's just that those that DON"T have a waiver cannot have their image published. (In fact maybe it would be better for PARENTS to notify the club if they don't want photos taken. Less paperwork!) This would include children subject to custody proceedings, restraining orders and GOM (Guardianship of the Minister). Bear in mind that kids in these situations don't post their images on facebook either, but a newspaper is available to anyone.
Is it PC rubbish? Possibly, but there will be maybe one or two junior players it will affect in the whole of the league, so it won't be a huge impost on the newspapers, clubs or the league. I'd assume it beats the hell out of fighting off legal action.

[Nighthawk]

Dallas hill lining up at CHF in the league side for centrals this weekend. Huge effort

[OnSong]

Dallas hill lining up at CHF in the league side for centrals this weekend. Huge effort

Didn't he kick 5 on Friday night V Sturt?

[stork]

.

No disrespect, but I'm not sure you've grasped the issue here Dogwatcher and Stork. The waiver is signed by parents to ALLOW photos to be taken of their kids. Of course media photographers can take as many photos as they like at junior sport, and of course the clubs want that - it's just that those that DON"T have a waiver cannot have their image published. (In fact maybe it would be better for PARENTS to notify the club if they don't want photos taken. Less paperwork!) This would include children subject to custody proceedings, restraining orders and GOM (Guardianship of the Minister). Bear in mind that kids in these situations don't post their images on facebook either, but a newspaper is available to anyone.
Is it PC rubbish? Possibly, but there will be maybe one or two junior players it will affect in the whole of the league, so it won't be a huge impost on the newspapers, clubs or the league. I'd assume it beats the hell out of fighting off legal action.

Roodog, I undertand the concept mate. Im not offended by your comment and understand your point (especially as in bold above). All i am saying is that the APFL have a lot more work to do before they implement anything surronding this.

[roodog]

Fair enough mate! Your dead right about the APFL (and all other leagues) needing to do a bit of work on it. In actuality, I don't think it'll be that hard to implement a simple protocol for it though.
The BL&G has THREE newspapers, an independent match day budget and now a website (Gawler Sporting Star) covering it - that's a lot of photographers running around - but simple system CAN work.
If the media think it's a nuisance, spare a thought for every APFL clubs' mandatory reporting/child safety officers - now THAT's a job with land mines all around it!

[The Big Shrek]

Long Plains pulled out of a scheduled trial with Kilburn next Friday. Bit dissapointing.

[Mythical Creature]

Long Plains pulled out of a scheduled trial with Kilburn next Friday. Bit dissapointing.

We were told you guys are the ones that cancelled it. We are having an internal next Friday night instead.

[The Big Shrek]

Long Plains pulled out of a scheduled trial with Kilburn next Friday. Bit dissapointing.

We were told you guys are the ones that cancelled it. We are having an internal next Friday night instead.

I was told you guys pulled out and were having a jumper presentation instead. We were talking last night that we'd probably have to have an internal. Maybe it can still be salvaged?

[Ace of Spades]

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate

[Mythical Creature]

Long Plains pulled out of a scheduled trial with Kilburn next Friday. Bit dissapointing.

We were told you guys are the ones that cancelled it. We are having an internal next Friday night instead.

I was told you guys pulled out and were having a jumper presentation instead. We were talking last night that we'd probably have to have an internal. Maybe it can still be salvaged?

Unless things have changed our Guernsey presentation is the following Thursday.
The Mythical Shrek trophy?

[The Big Shrek]

Ha ha I like it!

[wangas#4]

Are you talking about Jarred Allmond?

I wouldn't be too worried, he'll be at RSMU next year anyway.

Dream on pilot dream on