|
Replying To Viking66: "Ended end of September. We spent less than half what Galway spent all the same." True although Galway made a AI final in football and semi final in hurling in 22, they actually had a surplus, there income from club championship between gate receipts and streaming was insane, heard Aaron Kernan saying last week the amount of overnight stays for away games year on year can have a big impact on your expenses, for example hurlers next year only have 1 I'd say for the game in Belfast.
TerribleFootwork (Wexford) - Posts: 1760 - 12/12/2023 11:47:54
2516472
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "I disagree it would be a kick in the stones for anybody. There's always been regrading before the start of the championships, so it's not a new concept. This just introduces a second round of it, part-way through.
If you're a fringe player with a club's senior team (for example), and you get a run of 10 or 15 minutes in Round 1 or 2, which of these would you prefer?
- Having to hang around as a sub with the seniors for the rest of the year, in the hope of getting another run sometime, but knowing that opportunities are likely to be limited?
- or being able to drop back down to the Juniors and play away every week until you maybe get an opportunity with the seniors again, after impressing at the lower level?
By the way, I notice you said above that the Shels motion seemed to be about 50-50, but there was no call for 'no' votes. From where I was sitting, it looked to be about 75 to 80% 'yes' on the show of hands, and so no need to call for 'no' votes." I was at the very back and had a good view of the whole room. There were more in favour at the front than the back tbh.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 12103 - 12/12/2023 11:48:51
2516473
Link
0
|
|
Replying To grassroots01: "Not sure if it's good or ridiculous as I'm not sure who will benefit or lose out but the Shels speaker seemed to think it impacts a lot of clubs/players? In reality it will only benefit bigger clubs with multiple teams. Speaker said a young lad could be "flying in league for their senior team but then doesn't perform in championship" round 1 or 2 and then "mammy and daddy aren't happy as he on the sideline and not getting games". Shels have several teams so surely that's the clubs issue to deal with and select their players accordingly.
I think the only reason it over overwhelmingly passed was that the Shels speaker did a good job at selling it and only focused on the positives and highlighted it would help young players several times and this was shortly after the discussion on under 18 players and people just voted for it without considering it could be abused. There was a lot of confusion in the room.
Speaker did mention that the CCC would have the power to refuse a regrade but on what grounds ? If a senior county player twinge's his hamstring 20 mins into first round of senior champ and they don't want to risk him in round 2 the club could regrade him then and let him play at one of the lower grades in round 3 where he'd be able to win a match on one leg for a struggling 2nd/3rd team. If their senior team have won the first 3 rounds at this stage and they don't need him for round 4 he can play round 4 and 5 with junior a/b team and then go back up to play senior 1/4 final ?! As the chair said "you can always go back up!" I'd imagine there will be some controversy with the introduction of this rule later in the year." This is my point? Like how will this be policed, its too open to be abused. As stated above, a player could play two full matches for a senior club, win those two games, then lets say there third match is against a team at the bottom of the table who they should beat easily and there second team needs a win, so they will say lets regrade three players and give the second team a win they need that might get them through. I cant understand how anyone cant see anything wrong with the above. If your first team are at lower levels, it now makes it even harder to win. Of course Shels are going to be in favour of it, gives there second and third teams a great advantage.
alwaysasub (Wexford) - Posts: 403 - 12/12/2023 11:56:20
2516475
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "I disagree it would be a kick in the stones for anybody. There's always been regrading before the start of the championships, so it's not a new concept. This just introduces a second round of it, part-way through.
If you're a fringe player with a club's senior team (for example), and you get a run of 10 or 15 minutes in Round 1 or 2, which of these would you prefer?
- Having to hang around as a sub with the seniors for the rest of the year, in the hope of getting another run sometime, but knowing that opportunities are likely to be limited?
- or being able to drop back down to the Juniors and play away every week until you maybe get an opportunity with the seniors again, after impressing at the lower level?
By the way, I notice you said above that the Shels motion seemed to be about 50-50, but there was no call for 'no' votes. From where I was sitting, it looked to be about 75 to 80% 'yes' on the show of hands, and so no need to call for 'no' votes." If I had earned my place on the Senior championship team as a young lad, a really proud day for me and my family, then maybe got nervous in the 1st game and didn't have a good game, was an unused sub in the next, and then was on the Junior A/B team next time out without being given a chance to play well for the Senior team even as a sub to earn my place back despite doing well in training, I'd be inclined to say "here, just stick your team up your ####".
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 12103 - 12/12/2023 12:02:51
2516478
Link
0
|
|
Replying To TerribleFootwork: "True although Galway made a AI final in football and semi final in hurling in 22, they actually had a surplus, there income from club championship between gate receipts and streaming was insane, heard Aaron Kernan saying last week the amount of overnight stays for away games year on year can have a big impact on your expenses, for example hurlers next year only have 1 I'd say for the game in Belfast." Footballers will have more for sure. A whole lot less driving for me too than last year, which included Galway, Cork, Limerick, Laois, Offaly twice both Birr and Tullamore, Navan, and that was just Senior intercounty games . This year for the hurlers will be Kilkenny a couple of times, Waterford once, Belfast once, and hopefully 3 trips to Croker;-)
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 12103 - 12/12/2023 12:28:36
2516483
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Viking66: "If I had earned my place on the Senior championship team as a young lad, a really proud day for me and my family, then maybe got nervous in the 1st game and didn't have a good game, was an unused sub in the next, and then was on the Junior A/B team next time out without being given a chance to play well for the Senior team even as a sub to earn my place back despite doing well in training, I'd be inclined to say "here, just stick your team up your ####"." This seems to be a glass half empty or half full situation.
Let's say you're a lad like that, who knows himself he hasn't done well in his first run with the seniors.
Is it "glass is half empty, the Seniors don't want me any more, and now I'm stuck with the Juniors for the rest of the year"?
Or is it "glass is half full, I didn't do well that day, but now I've the opportunity to play more matches instead of being stuck just with training, and if I go well enough I should get another chance with the Seniors"?
Remember that being regraded doesn't prohibit the player from going back up a level again later in the year.
I'd think that anyone in that situation would rather to have the chance to earn back a spot with the Seniors through having the opportunity to show well in both training and matches, rather than just in training. Particularly if some other fringe player who didn't get a run with the Seniors in Rounds 1 or 2 is flying in Junior Rounds 2, 3 and 4. How else do you get yourself back into the reckoning ahead of the lad who's still allowed to play the Junior matches?
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2256 - 12/12/2023 12:40:01
2516485
Link
0
|
|
Replying To wexfordwin: "I was talking to a lad this morning who said there was an image put up showing some of the abuse received by players and the manager and Martin himslef that was pretty bad. Most of it was facebook stuff under South East radio articles. He also called out one co board delegate who tried to be a big lad on local radio.. SE radio defintely went over the top earlier in the year and it seems like they are now doing the same with Wexford County council CEO." Yeah defiantly a bit of boy who cried wolf about SE radio regarding the current going's on.
TerribleFootwork (Wexford) - Posts: 1760 - 12/12/2023 12:42:07
2516486
Link
0
|
|
Replying To grassroots01: "Not sure if it's good or ridiculous as I'm not sure who will benefit or lose out but the Shels speaker seemed to think it impacts a lot of clubs/players? In reality it will only benefit bigger clubs with multiple teams. Speaker said a young lad could be "flying in league for their senior team but then doesn't perform in championship" round 1 or 2 and then "mammy and daddy aren't happy as he on the sideline and not getting games". Shels have several teams so surely that's the clubs issue to deal with and select their players accordingly.
I think the only reason it over overwhelmingly passed was that the Shels speaker did a good job at selling it and only focused on the positives and highlighted it would help young players several times and this was shortly after the discussion on under 18 players and people just voted for it without considering it could be abused. There was a lot of confusion in the room.
Speaker did mention that the CCC would have the power to refuse a regrade but on what grounds ? If a senior county player twinge's his hamstring 20 mins into first round of senior champ and they don't want to risk him in round 2 the club could regrade him then and let him play at one of the lower grades in round 3 where he'd be able to win a match on one leg for a struggling 2nd/3rd team. If their senior team have won the first 3 rounds at this stage and they don't need him for round 4 he can play round 4 and 5 with junior a/b team and then go back up to play senior 1/4 final ?! As the chair said "you can always go back up!" I'd imagine there will be some controversy with the introduction of this rule later in the year." If people voted for it without considering it properly or while confused, then that's a poor reflection on the clubs they represent.
Motions are sent out to clubs in advance, they're allowed to seek clarification wherever they need it, and they're supposed to hold committee meetings to consider them and decide how the club will vote. It really shouldn't be the case that delegates are just hearing or thinking about things for the first time on the night itself.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2256 - 12/12/2023 12:47:38
2516488
Link
0
|
|
I dont see the issue of the regrading motion. It makes a huge amount of sense.
With regards to a player who has played 2 full games for the senior team and is regraded, that wouldnt be put through by the CCC. And they would only get to play 1 B team game anyway if they are to come straight back into the senior set up, so would it be really worth the 1 game to play for the b team to win and then have the CCC knowing what they are at and focussing on them the following year and potentially not allowing legitimate claims? Too many people want to see the negative in things, the chances of a senior team regrading 3 players who played full games, to play a junior game and then go back to playing senior are fairly slim I would say.
The motion is for the guy who has come on as a sub, or started a game when players out injured, and now is missing a whole championship for the sake of 10 minutes cameo in a 1st round game. I would say you are far far more likely to lose a player in those circumstances than you are for a player who gets regraded and can play games the rest of the year. I've seen it first hand, club decimated with injuries/events or whatever and a load of b team players play, and now they have nothing left once the starters are back. I know lads who gave up because they had one game and that was their season over as a result who would gladly have played junior. I know players who refused to come on in senior games because it would mean their year is over and they are being wasted coming on as a sub in a dead rubber game and knowing the long term implication.
Its a good motion. It helps all these clubs moaning about the minor issue now too where you have more availability of these players who otherwise may not have been available.
james2011 (Wexford) - Posts: 602 - 12/12/2023 15:31:58
2516515
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "This seems to be a glass half empty or half full situation.
Let's say you're a lad like that, who knows himself he hasn't done well in his first run with the seniors.
Is it "glass is half empty, the Seniors don't want me any more, and now I'm stuck with the Juniors for the rest of the year"?
Or is it "glass is half full, I didn't do well that day, but now I've the opportunity to play more matches instead of being stuck just with training, and if I go well enough I should get another chance with the Seniors"?
Remember that being regraded doesn't prohibit the player from going back up a level again later in the year.
I'd think that anyone in that situation would rather to have the chance to earn back a spot with the Seniors through having the opportunity to show well in both training and matches, rather than just in training. Particularly if some other fringe player who didn't get a run with the Seniors in Rounds 1 or 2 is flying in Junior Rounds 2, 3 and 4. How else do you get yourself back into the reckoning ahead of the lad who's still allowed to play the Junior matches?" But the motion said specifically that the lad had already shown up well at a lower level, i.e. was flying in the League. If he goes back down to Junior B he's going to be flying again, but still won't think he's getting called up as he's already been flying at a lower level. Also he's not going to get better playing lower level opposition. He's more likely to get better coming on as a sub at a higher level. The motion will only suit clubs with 3 teams or more to get their lower teams higher up the pyramid.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 12103 - 12/12/2023 15:39:17
2516516
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "If people voted for it without considering it properly or while confused, then that's a poor reflection on the clubs they represent.
Motions are sent out to clubs in advance, they're allowed to seek clarification wherever they need it, and they're supposed to hold committee meetings to consider them and decide how the club will vote. It really shouldn't be the case that delegates are just hearing or thinking about things for the first time on the night itself." We were going to vote no. As presumably were all the others who didn't vote yes. A load of yesses up near the top table isn't a reflection of what the room as a whole thought. Most of the multi team, as in more than 2, clubs were sitting towards the front.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 12103 - 12/12/2023 15:41:20
2516517
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Viking66: " Replying To Pikeman96: "This seems to be a glass half empty or half full situation.
Let's say you're a lad like that, who knows himself he hasn't done well in his first run with the seniors.
Is it "glass is half empty, the Seniors don't want me any more, and now I'm stuck with the Juniors for the rest of the year"?
Or is it "glass is half full, I didn't do well that day, but now I've the opportunity to play more matches instead of being stuck just with training, and if I go well enough I should get another chance with the Seniors"?
Remember that being regraded doesn't prohibit the player from going back up a level again later in the year.
I'd think that anyone in that situation would rather to have the chance to earn back a spot with the Seniors through having the opportunity to show well in both training and matches, rather than just in training. Particularly if some other fringe player who didn't get a run with the Seniors in Rounds 1 or 2 is flying in Junior Rounds 2, 3 and 4. How else do you get yourself back into the reckoning ahead of the lad who's still allowed to play the Junior matches?" But the motion said specifically that the lad had already shown up well at a lower level, i.e. was flying in the League. If he goes back down to Junior B he's going to be flying again, but still won't think he's getting called up as he's already been flying at a lower level. Also he's not going to get better playing lower level opposition. He's more likely to get better coming on as a sub at a higher level. The motion will only suit clubs with 3 teams or more to get their lower teams higher up the pyramid."
Where that came from was the bit the speaker from the Shels said as he proposed the motion. He used somebody like that as an example of somebody who could benefit from it - e.g. did well in the League when his club and other clubs too were short of some first team regulars, then got his chance in an early round of the championship off the back of those League performances, but found the going tougher when other sides had all their main players back as well.
And as James2011 says, rather than then being cast aside for the whole year for the sake of a 10 or 15 minute cameo, he'd had the chance to drop back to the second team, play more matches, and maybe get another chance with the first team if he impresses there.
I don't understand why all the focus is on senior clubs either, as though they're the only ones who stand to benefit from it. It will apply equally to any club at any level. Take Monageer-Boolavogue, operating at Intermediate A and Junior B in hurling. They could give a Junior B player a run in the early rounds of the higher grade, and if he doesn't do enough to cement a claim for a regular place there, he can drop back to their second team as well.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2256 - 12/12/2023 19:58:52
2516543
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: " Replying To Viking66: "[quote=Pikeman96: "This seems to be a glass half empty or half full situation.
Let's say you're a lad like that, who knows himself he hasn't done well in his first run with the seniors.
Is it "glass is half empty, the Seniors don't want me any more, and now I'm stuck with the Juniors for the rest of the year"?
Or is it "glass is half full, I didn't do well that day, but now I've the opportunity to play more matches instead of being stuck just with training, and if I go well enough I should get another chance with the Seniors"?
Remember that being regraded doesn't prohibit the player from going back up a level again later in the year.
I'd think that anyone in that situation would rather to have the chance to earn back a spot with the Seniors through having the opportunity to show well in both training and matches, rather than just in training. Particularly if some other fringe player who didn't get a run with the Seniors in Rounds 1 or 2 is flying in Junior Rounds 2, 3 and 4. How else do you get yourself back into the reckoning ahead of the lad who's still allowed to play the Junior matches?" But the motion said specifically that the lad had already shown up well at a lower level, i.e. was flying in the League. If he goes back down to Junior B he's going to be flying again, but still won't think he's getting called up as he's already been flying at a lower level. Also he's not going to get better playing lower level opposition. He's more likely to get better coming on as a sub at a higher level. The motion will only suit clubs with 3 teams or more to get their lower teams higher up the pyramid."
Where that came from was the bit the speaker from the Shels said as he proposed the motion. He used somebody like that as an example of somebody who could benefit from it - e.g. did well in the League when his club and other clubs too were short of some first team regulars, then got his chance in an early round of the championship off the back of those League performances, but found the going tougher when other sides had all their main players back as well.
And as James2011 says, rather than then being cast aside for the whole year for the sake of a 10 or 15 minute cameo, he'd had the chance to drop back to the second team, play more matches, and maybe get another chance with the first team if he impresses there.
I don't understand why all the focus is on senior clubs either, as though they're the only ones who stand to benefit from it. It will apply equally to any club at any level. Take Monageer-Boolavogue, operating at Intermediate A and Junior B in hurling. They could give a Junior B player a run in the early rounds of the higher grade, and if he doesn't do enough to cement a claim for a regular place there, he can drop back to their second team as well."]Sorry Pikeman I should've said the mover for the motion. No harm to Junior B but its not taken seriously, as Senior, Intermediate, Intermediate A and even Junior would be, by nearly all the players who play it. Sending a young lad who takes his football or hurling seriously down to Junior B is giving him a boot in the stones whatever you say. And you still are not denying it's giving clubs whose second teams are in Intermediate A or Junior, even Junior A, a massive advantage at those grades.
Up or down the main complaint I have is that the vote wasn't counted. From the show of cards it would've been alot closer than the Minor decoupling/recoupling vote was, and that got counted.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 12103 - 12/12/2023 20:30:48
2516546
Link
0
|
|
Replying To alwaysasub: "Anyone able to explain the Shels motion that was passed about being able to regrade players after two rounds of championship to a second team? Is it that if a player plays in the first team in one of there two games, he can be regraded to the second team?
Sounds a bit ridiculous if that was the case? It would be very hard if your first team, was lets say Junior and a senior team can regrade a couple of players to play junior even if they have played senior? Maybe i'm reading it wrong, just that it wasnt very clear last night on what it meant." Accidently checked this thread but interesting discussion and think allowing regrading throughout he year should be possible even if players have played something at higher level.
Rugby has had it this way for years and while at times there can be issues it allows people play as much as possible in most cases ...
KillingFields (Limerick) - Posts: 3513 - 12/12/2023 20:37:07
2516547
Link
0
|
|
Replying To KillingFields: "Accidently checked this thread but interesting discussion and think allowing regrading throughout he year should be possible even if players have played something at higher level.
Rugby has had it this way for years and while at times there can be issues it allows people play as much as possible in most cases ..." While I think the motion we passed here in Wexford was a good one, I think that having regrading throughout the year would be a step too far.
Would mean for example that if your seniors were knocked out in their quarter-final but your Juniors won theirs, you could regrade senior players to play a Junior semi-final and maybe final. That really would be unfair on other clubs in the Junior grade.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2256 - 12/12/2023 22:01:58
2516555
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "While I think the motion we passed here in Wexford was a good one, I think that having regrading throughout the year would be a step too far.
Would mean for example that if your seniors were knocked out in their quarter-final but your Juniors won theirs, you could regrade senior players to play a Junior semi-final and maybe final. That really would be unfair on other clubs in the Junior grade." I think I know where killing fields is coming from - its not so much regrading but rather you get to a point where you are no longer eligible to play in the seconds based on a criteria of minutes played in the higher grade and/or number of game you play in. The GAA adopts an attitude of one 1minute is like 60mins where as it could be that over 5 games you need to get 60mins or something like that. That said rugby tends to have a longer season as the league is everything but would it be a better way of looking at it - perhaps. A club would have to name a certain number of core players that could not play in the 2nds and then all the remaining players would all be eligible until the play a certain amount of minutes in the 1st team. Problem is how do you manage a 3rd team and you also have to prevent teams from naming core players that may be away or injured etc.
zinny (Wexford) - Posts: 1806 - 12/12/2023 23:57:12
2516564
Link
0
|
|
Replying To zinny: "I think I know where killing fields is coming from - its not so much regrading but rather you get to a point where you are no longer eligible to play in the seconds based on a criteria of minutes played in the higher grade and/or number of game you play in. The GAA adopts an attitude of one 1minute is like 60mins where as it could be that over 5 games you need to get 60mins or something like that. That said rugby tends to have a longer season as the league is everything but would it be a better way of looking at it - perhaps. A club would have to name a certain number of core players that could not play in the 2nds and then all the remaining players would all be eligible until the play a certain amount of minutes in the 1st team. Problem is how do you manage a 3rd team and you also have to prevent teams from naming core players that may be away or injured etc." I see where you're coming from too.
Naming core players who couldn't play for the second team wouldn't be a huge issue - it's essentially the same as how in the All County Leagues, you name your 'First 15', who are only eligible for the first team there. And if you happen to have a third team in the League, then you name a 'Second 15' too, so that none of the 30 players named in either squad can play with the thirds.
The issue would be keeping track of all the minutes played. Would create a huge administrative burden, e.g.:
- Referee would have to keep track of things like "Paddy came off after 47 minutes, and was replaced by Tommy".
- But let's say there was three minutes of injury time in the first half. He has to mark Paddy down for 50 minutes, not 47.
- Similarly, if there are three minutes added at the end of the game - Tommy has 16 minutes, not 13.
- But now let's say Paddy was off the field for four minutes for treatment to a blood injury. He's back down to 46 minutes, not 50. And Billy - who came on for him - has to be marked up for four minutes.
- All referees have to keep track and submit full records of minutes played by up to 40 players in each match.
- 60 matches per championship round = probably 2100 records to be submitted centrally each week (1800 starting players and say an average of five subs per match). Now somebody has to go through them all and update a big spreadsheet of minutes played by players who'd be entitled to move between grades until they hit the 60-minute threshold.
Also great potential for controversy, e.g.:
- Tommy is up to 54 minutes played with the seniors, and won't be eligible for the juniors any more if he goes past 60. He's brought on for the seniors in the closing stages of a match. Referee puts him down as having played seven minutes there, but the club is adamant he's only played six.
- Or, ref ends up playing six minutes of injury time instead of the usual two or three. It's those extra three or four minutes that put Tommy over the 60-minute mark.
- Or, person updating the spreadsheet could make a typing error, e.g. mark somebody for 15 minutes instead of five.
Some may not be 100% satisfied with the Shels motion, but at least it's "clean" in how it will work.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2256 - 13/12/2023 09:43:44
2516575
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "While I think the motion we passed here in Wexford was a good one, I think that having regrading throughout the year would be a step too far.
Would mean for example that if your seniors were knocked out in their quarter-final but your Juniors won theirs, you could regrade senior players to play a Junior semi-final and maybe final. That really would be unfair on other clubs in the Junior grade." You have conditions attached to regarding through the year. That situation you describe wouldn't be allowed.
You example would also disenfranchise players in their own clubs which isn't riht
KillingFields (Limerick) - Posts: 3513 - 13/12/2023 10:22:36
2516579
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "I see where you're coming from too.
Naming core players who couldn't play for the second team wouldn't be a huge issue - it's essentially the same as how in the All County Leagues, you name your 'First 15', who are only eligible for the first team there. And if you happen to have a third team in the League, then you name a 'Second 15' too, so that none of the 30 players named in either squad can play with the thirds.
The issue would be keeping track of all the minutes played. Would create a huge administrative burden, e.g.:
- Referee would have to keep track of things like "Paddy came off after 47 minutes, and was replaced by Tommy".
- But let's say there was three minutes of injury time in the first half. He has to mark Paddy down for 50 minutes, not 47.
- Similarly, if there are three minutes added at the end of the game - Tommy has 16 minutes, not 13.
- But now let's say Paddy was off the field for four minutes for treatment to a blood injury. He's back down to 46 minutes, not 50. And Billy - who came on for him - has to be marked up for four minutes.
- All referees have to keep track and submit full records of minutes played by up to 40 players in each match.
- 60 matches per championship round = probably 2100 records to be submitted centrally each week (1800 starting players and say an average of five subs per match). Now somebody has to go through them all and update a big spreadsheet of minutes played by players who'd be entitled to move between grades until they hit the 60-minute threshold.
Also great potential for controversy, e.g.:
- Tommy is up to 54 minutes played with the seniors, and won't be eligible for the juniors any more if he goes past 60. He's brought on for the seniors in the closing stages of a match. Referee puts him down as having played seven minutes there, but the club is adamant he's only played six.
- Or, ref ends up playing six minutes of injury time instead of the usual two or three. It's those extra three or four minutes that put Tommy over the 60-minute mark.
- Or, person updating the spreadsheet could make a typing error, e.g. mark somebody for 15 minutes instead of five.
Some may not be 100% satisfied with the Shels motion, but at least it's "clean" in how it will work." Yeah sometimes the less perfect solution is the best one and agree the motion is designed to help players but some seem to think that it's to try and help clubs cheat.
What must be also remembered here is that the split season means clubs won't have much of a chance to see how well fringe players are going go in the championship. We have all known plenty of players who could be flying in training but put them out in a championship match and they are a completely different player.
zinny (Wexford) - Posts: 1806 - 13/12/2023 11:54:18
2516592
Link
0
|
|
For what it's worth - my own club brought a motion maybe 10 years ago, proposing that somebody wouldn't lose his status for a club's second team if his first appearance for the first team was as a second half substitute. But two appearances of any type for the first team, and he'd still be gone from the seconds.
We originally thought about having it if he got a run in just the last 10 minutes, but then thought about how that would work if he came on after say 52 minutes, but then there were three or more minutes of injury time played. So, we thought that just making it any time he came on in the second half would be "cleaner" and easier to operate.
The idea was much like the Shels idea - to have an opportunity to give a fringe player a run without him then being automatically gone from the second team for the rest of the year. We thought it was a good motion, that all clubs could benefit from.
However, Chairman of the day spoke out against it, wondering how it would be administered or enforced. We said all it would need would be for a referee to record whether a substitution was made in first half or second half. Chairman felt that was unworkable, and very few other clubs supported us.
So - if even that would be too much, then asking referees to keep track of every minute played by every sub would surely be asking too much as well!
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2256 - 13/12/2023 13:01:14
2516600
Link
0
|