bloodybouncer wrote:load of rubbish to want to pass 4 interchange players....thats 16 different combination of events per team per game. surely the exec is kidding?????
given the problems from last year, the exec need to consolidate on current management regimes and spend some time, over the next few years, to tighten up the rules.
Who said the exec was in favour of having 4 interchange players? It is just a proposal that was raised by Western XI/Northern Wolves at the pre-AGM that is up to the clubs to vote on. Blame the clubs if it gets through, not the exec.
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable. We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
bloodybouncer wrote:load of rubbish to want to pass 4 interchange players....thats 16 different combination of events per team per game. surely the exec is kidding?????
given the problems from last year, the exec need to consolidate on current management regimes and spend some time, over the next few years, to tighten up the rules.
Who said the exec was in favour of having 4 interchange players? It is just a proposal that was raised by Western XI/Northern Wolves at the pre-AGM that is up to the clubs to vote on. Blame the clubs if it gets through, not the exec.
Sometimes the Exec need to make a decision without always throwing it back on the clubs.
bloodybouncer wrote:load of rubbish to want to pass 4 interchange players....thats 16 different combination of events per team per game. surely the exec is kidding?????
given the problems from last year, the exec need to consolidate on current management regimes and spend some time, over the next few years, to tighten up the rules.
Who said the exec was in favour of having 4 interchange players? It is just a proposal that was raised by Western XI/Northern Wolves at the pre-AGM that is up to the clubs to vote on. Blame the clubs if it gets through, not the exec.
welcome to 2009/10 Ecky
FYI, a letter came out as "proposed changes from the exec" if i recall. no mention on Western XI or Wolves. If it was the afore mentioned teams that suggested that, then that should have been made clear, and not gone under the guise of the exec.
my apologies if any of my information is incorrect
idea still sucks major a$$ anyway. if it gets voted in, its a shamozzle. Surely the selected exec will not let this pass.....will be a bad vibe for the whole season.
bloodybouncer wrote:load of rubbish to want to pass 4 interchange players....thats 16 different combination of events per team per game. surely the exec is kidding?????
given the problems from last year, the exec need to consolidate on current management regimes and spend some time, over the next few years, to tighten up the rules.
Who said the exec was in favour of having 4 interchange players? It is just a proposal that was raised by Western XI/Northern Wolves at the pre-AGM that is up to the clubs to vote on. Blame the clubs if it gets through, not the exec.
Sometimes the Exec need to make a decision without always throwing it back on the clubs.
Then the exec cops the backlash from the clubs for not giving them the chance to vote?? Seems they cant win no matter what they do, i personally think they are doing the right thing making it the clubs decision since its the clubs that play..
bloodybouncer wrote:load of rubbish to want to pass 4 interchange players....thats 16 different combination of events per team per game. surely the exec is kidding?????
given the problems from last year, the exec need to consolidate on current management regimes and spend some time, over the next few years, to tighten up the rules.
Who said the exec was in favour of having 4 interchange players? It is just a proposal that was raised by Western XI/Northern Wolves at the pre-AGM that is up to the clubs to vote on. Blame the clubs if it gets through, not the exec.
Sometimes the Exec need to make a decision without always throwing it back on the clubs.
Then the exec cops the backlash from the clubs for not giving them the chance to vote?? Seems they cant win no matter what they do, i personally think they are doing the right thing making it the clubs decision since its the clubs that play..
its definately hard to keep everyone happy, definately NOT and easy job, but some things are just not on...regardless of what has been voted in.
A few years back im sure people voted to have the heat policy relaxed...but the exec veto'd this. hmm?? why ??
we have to make sure our rules and ideals are in line with the other comps in order to be competitive and not have a "churches" league as such. Instead, we should aim to be a harmonious hard wicket competition with our own identity, not our own laws, by-laws, and antiquated rules and ideals.
bloodybouncer wrote:we have to make sure our rules and ideals are in line with the other comps in order to be competitive and not have a "churches" league as such. Instead, we should aim to be a harmonious hard wicket competition with our own identity, not our own laws, by-laws, and antiquated rules and ideals.
I do agree is some ways, the heat policy was/is a joke its a bloody summer sport FFS!
One thing that does irratate me is every side getting a vote not every club getting 1 vote i.e Enfield & Fitzroy 4 votes, Wolves 1 vote, so if enfield and fitzroy got together and decided to come up with some ridiculous rule, they would potentially have 8 votes! Not very fair.
bloodybouncer wrote:we have to make sure our rules and ideals are in line with the other comps in order to be competitive and not have a "churches" league as such. Instead, we should aim to be a harmonious hard wicket competition with our own identity, not our own laws, by-laws, and antiquated rules and ideals.
I do agree is some ways, the heat policy was/is a joke its a bloody summer sport FFS!
One thing that does irratate me is every side getting a vote not every club getting 1 vote i.e Enfield & Fitzroy 4 votes, Wolves 1 vote, so if enfield and fitzroy got together and decided to come up with some ridiculous rule, they would potentially have 8 votes! Not very fair.
You talk sh!t phantom! there definatly should be a heat policy, im sure theres not to many people out there who love playing in 40c..If you do then you have problems!!!!!!
bloodybouncer wrote:we have to make sure our rules and ideals are in line with the other comps in order to be competitive and not have a "churches" league as such. Instead, we should aim to be a harmonious hard wicket competition with our own identity, not our own laws, by-laws, and antiquated rules and ideals.
I do agree is some ways, the heat policy was/is a joke its a bloody summer sport FFS!
One thing that does irratate me is every side getting a vote not every club getting 1 vote i.e Enfield & Fitzroy 4 votes, Wolves 1 vote, so if enfield and fitzroy got together and decided to come up with some ridiculous rule, they would potentially have 8 votes! Not very fair.
You talk sh!t phantom! there definatly should be a heat policy, im sure theres not to many people out there who love playing in 40c..If you do then you have problems!!!!!!
Agree with that comment
I think that there should be a general heat policy across all competitions, something like 40.
saveyourlegs we all know you lack the testicular fortitude to play in 40 degrees coz ur a lazy drunk, if it were up to u im sure the heat policy would be 20 degrees so u can sit in the front bar drinking beer gambling on the netball
Never said there shouldnt be a hea policy, just not 38d
How we can compete with other competitions and try to attract players to our league if we are going to cancel 3 – 5 games a year because our cut off temperature is less to what they have.
I know it costs our club money everytime a game gets cancelled.
How we can compete with other competitions and try to attract players to our league if we are going to cancel 3 – 5 games a year because our cut off temperature is less to what they have.
I know it costs our club money everytime a game gets cancelled.
Not sure about 3 to 5 games a season.. Last year in pdca there was 1 wkend out of the whole season and 2 games the year before.. That shouldn't cost your club to much..
i reckon we would of missed 3 games if pdca heat policy was 38. Should be the same for every comp.. Then again so should finals.. Sat/sat finals isnt a ideal scenario imo..
I used to eat a lot of natural foods until I learned that most people die of natural causes.
How we can compete with other competitions and try to attract players to our league if we are going to cancel 3 – 5 games a year because our cut off temperature is less to what they have.
I know it costs our club money everytime a game gets cancelled.
what about if the temp was between 38 - 40/42, then everyone plays a 20/20 game, not a full match?
bloodybouncer wrote:load of rubbish to want to pass 4 interchange players....thats 16 different combination of events per team per game. surely the exec is kidding?????
given the problems from last year, the exec need to consolidate on current management regimes and spend some time, over the next few years, to tighten up the rules.
Who said the exec was in favour of having 4 interchange players? It is just a proposal that was raised by Western XI/Northern Wolves at the pre-AGM that is up to the clubs to vote on. Blame the clubs if it gets through, not the exec.
Sometimes the Exec need to make a decision without always throwing it back on the clubs.
But that would be against the constitution. Any changes to the match rules need to be voted on at the AGM.
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable. We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
bloodybouncer wrote:A few years back im sure people voted to have the heat policy relaxed...but the exec veto'd this. hmm?? why ??
Incorrect. Heat policy decisions (in the last 5 years at least) have always been decided by votes at the AGM.
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable. We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
bloodybouncer wrote: idea still sucks major a$$ anyway. if it gets voted in, its a shamozzle. Surely the selected exec will not let this pass.....will be a bad vibe for the whole season.
Again, it is not up to the exec - changes to the match rules must be voted on at the AGM.
If you believe such decisions should be left entirely up to the exec, you need to propose a change to the constitution.
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable. We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
We missed both weekends of a two day match late last season. It was the second-last match IIRC. Im pretty sure the temperature was 38 or 39 both weekends. I was bloody keen to play that game too as it was against Hagedis's mob.
38 or 40, two degrees doesnt make a huge difference. If it goes back to 40 degrees, there just needs to be regular drinks breaks. Every 30 or 40 minutes to keep hydrated.
Pidge wrote:We missed both weekends of a two day match late last season. It was the second-last match IIRC. Im pretty sure the temperature was 38 or 39 both weekends. I was bloody keen to play that game too as it was against Hagedis's mob.
38 or 40, two degrees doesnt make a huge difference. If it goes back to 40 degrees, there just needs to be regular drinks breaks. Every 30 or 40 minutes to keep hydrated.
That same round cost us (central mission) the minor flag, we were scheduled to play fitzroy b grade which most likely would have been a win
