|
Replying To wexfordwin: "There are a few points there. There were a series of meetings held back a couple of months ago requesting feedback on this subject around the county. I went to our one and thought it wasn't particularly well attended tbh. The concensus was the backend of the season dragged on too long. Some of the enthusiastic parents lost some enthusiasm, and at u12 there was too long of a gap between the end of the Leagues and the finals, though this had alot to do with the weather. On the other hand I do agree we should all be starting back at the end of February with 2 training sessions a week, which we did with our u12s. The lads over the u8s and u10s didn't start back til later, though in fairness the u8s did 2 sessions a week also. I think there should be standardised guidelines on this from Ray or whoever. I also think there should be more effort put in to coaching the coaches, and more initiatives like our own coaching officer introduced this winter to offer coaching once a week on a voluntary basis for players interested. Originally this was planned to be for our 10 year old u10s, u12s and u14s, though we didn't get many of our u14s attending in the run up to Xmas on account of them training at secondary school. I was pleasantly surprised otherwise, as all of our u12s and most of our 10 year olds attended most of the sessions. Our GPO and coaching officer were in charge of the sessions, and a few of us helped them out. Twas actually good craic! Coupled with the excellent reintroduction of the A.S.H. scheme by Paul Laffan and Dermot Ryan this has meant most of our u12 lads have had 2 sessions a week this winter, as around half our u12 group signed up for the A.S.H. scheme also. So these lads have actually had 2 hurling sessions, or 1 hurling and 1 football, alternate weeks pretty much since last season ended. So there's definitely a demand for them seeing as both the winter initiatives are completely voluntary.
The problem is if you were to try to make this standard practice there would be kickback from some parents and coaches who were just worn down by October. But if all clubs offered this on a voluntary basis the take up would probably surprise them. It would require buy in from coaches and GPOs at all the clubs.
The comparison of lengths of season with soccer made at the meetings around the county was a bit of a red herring also. Most soccer clubs only train once a week at those age groups, and only play matches once a fortnight, and the soccer season would've been over earlier last year had so many matches not been postponed on account of the weather, so while yes it did last longer as in period of time, effectively it was less than half the amount of hours put in altogether.
In conclusion if we could standardise 2 one and a half hour training sessions from the end of February and a game or participation game every week from the end of March until the finals and make sure these are concluded by the end of September , and if clubs could offer voluntary training once a week between those dates, and hopefully u12s will participate in greater numbers in the county's A.S.H. scheme, we should be getting ourselves at least up to, if not better than, what other counties are doing. We badly need to run more information/advertising campaigns to encourage more lads to take up coaching though, and we need to coach these coaches to be better also. In time this should lead to an improvement in both our county teams in both codes and our club championships, which hopefully would encourage more kids to take up or continue playing them. Success breeding success so to speak. If this costs some money maybe we could divert a small percentage of the money currently being spent county wide on what are effectively legacy projects. No point having a multitude of fabulous facilities dotted around the county with noone using them." Some great ideas there Viking.
Not sure about the legacy projects. I think facilities are really important and the fact we don't have a 4G is a big issue.
There doesn't seem to be a lack of investment in coaching but maybe the buy in isn't there or I'm not close enough to see it."]I'm not saying we shouldn't be spending any money on infrastructure at all. The Centre of Excellence is, well, excellent, and definitely there should be a 4g pitch somewhere in the county. If Killeens happens then great, if not then there should be one in Ferns.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 13884 - 09/01/2024 07:12:10
2519155
Link
0
|
|
So they sent out the proposals and I will try and summarise as best as possible as it's quite a few pages.
Hurling committee proposal
That the championship be divided two groups of 6, top 2 into quarters, 3 and 4 into preliminary quarter finals, 3 plays 4 from other group. Winner into quarters. 5th plays 6th, winner into quarters. Losers into relegation final.
Sounds good in theory and keeps every game competitive. Draw back you could lose all your group games and make a quarter final.
They also propose alternative weekends
A couple more motions from different clubs for alternative weekends.
Harriers, Oulart and Anne's keep as is with alternative weekends
Clongeen propose four groups of 3 with league positions determining championship position.
Horeswood proposal is 3 groups of 4 along with Tara Rocks although rocks differ in how teams qualify for quarters.
Motion to the 12 already discussed here about changes to 2025 football championship.
Motion 13 is a return to the old league system where it's based on championship position. So no relegation or promotion.
Oularts proposal was already discussed calling league Wexford club championship and 16 team and four divisions. The rest are more league proposals.
Hard to see any passing. While the hurling committee intentions are to keep the championship competitive, maybe teams won't be happy losing all there matches and still getting through. Hard to know personally I quite like keeps every game exciting while also giving the top 2 something in that they get a weekend off and are straight through to quarters.
alwaysasub (Wexford) - Posts: 444 - 09/01/2024 08:37:49
2519167
Link
0
|
|
Replying To alwaysasub: "So they sent out the proposals and I will try and summarise as best as possible as it's quite a few pages.
Hurling committee proposal
That the championship be divided two groups of 6, top 2 into quarters, 3 and 4 into preliminary quarter finals, 3 plays 4 from other group. Winner into quarters. 5th plays 6th, winner into quarters. Losers into relegation final.
Sounds good in theory and keeps every game competitive. Draw back you could lose all your group games and make a quarter final.
They also propose alternative weekends
A couple more motions from different clubs for alternative weekends.
Harriers, Oulart and Anne's keep as is with alternative weekends
Clongeen propose four groups of 3 with league positions determining championship position.
Horeswood proposal is 3 groups of 4 along with Tara Rocks although rocks differ in how teams qualify for quarters.
Motion to the 12 already discussed here about changes to 2025 football championship.
Motion 13 is a return to the old league system where it's based on championship position. So no relegation or promotion.
Oularts proposal was already discussed calling league Wexford club championship and 16 team and four divisions. The rest are more league proposals.
Hard to see any passing. While the hurling committee intentions are to keep the championship competitive, maybe teams won't be happy losing all there matches and still getting through. Hard to know personally I quite like keeps every game exciting while also giving the top 2 something in that they get a weekend off and are straight through to quarters." Sounds like it will be a long meeting!
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 13884 - 09/01/2024 10:10:26
2519184
Link
0
|
|
Was looking through the motions myself last night and thought I'd summarise them here sometime today, but thanks to alwaysasub for having already done so!
He just left out the Sarsfields one that wants leagues run on groups of 12, where you'd play all 11 other teams (in both hurling and football), before league positions determine placings in three groups of four for the the championship. Would take a whopping 34 rounds of matches to play the whole thing. I can't see it passing, on that basis alone.
Can't see any of the other proposals to move away from two groups of six passing either (whether linked to League or not). I just don't think there's any widespread appetite to move away from that structure.
There's another interesting one from Coiste Bainisti, that would see the return of penalty shoot-outs in quarter-finals (and preliminary quarter-finals, if they happen to be introduced) if they're still level after extra time on the first day. However, county semi-finals and finals would still go to a replay if level after extra time.
Meeting is next Thursday night (18th), so all will be decided then.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2622 - 09/01/2024 10:50:47
2519202
Link
0
|
|
So basically 18 clubs have put in submissions and all want a change to alternate blocks of some description with some advocating linking league to championship and groups of 4 or 3.
Personally I would be in favour of the kilanerin proposal. Alternating 2 week block up to quarter final stage then play one code to completion followed by the other code.
Hurling advisory committee pushing strong also for something similar to this but they want an extra round of hurling (a preliminary quarter final) but again 2 week blocks alternating.
Can't see any proposal linking league to championship being approved and probably can't see any of the proposals for 3 groups of 4 or 4 groups of 3 being approved either, think the 2 groups of 6 will remain.
Interesting to see many of the chief architects clubs who were the main pushers for the split season now proposing the alternate blocks approach.
tearintom (Wexford) - Posts: 1427 - 09/01/2024 10:53:00
2519203
Link
0
|
|
Replying To tearintom: "So basically 18 clubs have put in submissions and all want a change to alternate blocks of some description with some advocating linking league to championship and groups of 4 or 3.
Personally I would be in favour of the kilanerin proposal. Alternating 2 week block up to quarter final stage then play one code to completion followed by the other code.
Hurling advisory committee pushing strong also for something similar to this but they want an extra round of hurling (a preliminary quarter final) but again 2 week blocks alternating.
Can't see any proposal linking league to championship being approved and probably can't see any of the proposals for 3 groups of 4 or 4 groups of 3 being approved either, think the 2 groups of 6 will remain.
Interesting to see many of the chief architects clubs who were the main pushers for the split season now proposing the alternate blocks approach." I make it 16 clubs have put in a total of 18 motions (two clubs have put in two motions each).
And rather than "all" wanting a change to alternate blocks of some description, it's actually eight clubs (as well as Coiste Bainisti and Hurling Advisory Committee) who call for this - Horeswood, St. Martin's, Tara Rocks, Faythe Harriers, Gusserane, Kilanerin, Sarsfields, and St. Anne's.
Other proposals from other clubs for things like three groups of four, or four groups of three, or whole new structures to link league and championship (e.g. the Clongeen motion) don't actually make any mention of the order in which the games would be played.
The Ballyhogue motion is confusing - it calls for "a return to split season, i.e. 2 weeks football, 2 weeks hurling". Thing is, the split season is the exact opposite of 2 weeks football and then 2 weeks hurling, so unclear what exactly it is that they want.
By the way, of the eight clubs named who have in motions for alternate blocks - which of them do you think were "main pushers for the split season" in the past?
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2622 - 09/01/2024 11:55:43
2519213
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "I make it 16 clubs have put in a total of 18 motions (two clubs have put in two motions each).
And rather than "all" wanting a change to alternate blocks of some description, it's actually eight clubs (as well as Coiste Bainisti and Hurling Advisory Committee) who call for this - Horeswood, St. Martin's, Tara Rocks, Faythe Harriers, Gusserane, Kilanerin, Sarsfields, and St. Anne's.
Other proposals from other clubs for things like three groups of four, or four groups of three, or whole new structures to link league and championship (e.g. the Clongeen motion) don't actually make any mention of the order in which the games would be played.
The Ballyhogue motion is confusing - it calls for "a return to split season, i.e. 2 weeks football, 2 weeks hurling". Thing is, the split season is the exact opposite of 2 weeks football and then 2 weeks hurling, so unclear what exactly it is that they want.
By the way, of the eight clubs named who have in motions for alternate blocks - which of them do you think were "main pushers for the split season" in the past?" Weren't Harriers one of the main pushers in the past? Their new proposal is quite interesting also as it leaves the option after quarter final to play one code to completion similar to kilanerin.
I think the Ballyhogue wording is incorrect, they are actually calling it a split season but advocating for alternate 2 week blocks of football/hurling, clumsily worded and a little confusing.
Can't see any of the motions for anything other than 2 groups of 6 getting traction though.
tearintom (Wexford) - Posts: 1427 - 09/01/2024 12:12:46
2519216
Link
0
|
|
Agree think it will still be two groups of 6 and then the question is if clubs see the value n the county boards proposal of 1 and 2 into quarters, 3 and 4 play off with the loser going out, winner into quarter final, 5 and 6 play off with the winner into the quarters, loser into relegation final.
The reasons they list for this structure is:
It provides 6 games for each team
Every single game is meaningful
Direct entry into quarters for four teams
A week off for coming first or second in your group.
alwaysasub (Wexford) - Posts: 444 - 09/01/2024 13:02:50
2519231
Link
0
|
|
Replying To alwaysasub: "Agree think it will still be two groups of 6 and then the question is if clubs see the value n the county boards proposal of 1 and 2 into quarters, 3 and 4 play off with the loser going out, winner into quarter final, 5 and 6 play off with the winner into the quarters, loser into relegation final.
The reasons they list for this structure is:
It provides 6 games for each team
Every single game is meaningful
Direct entry into quarters for four teams
A week off for coming first or second in your group." Just to point out that's a proposal by the Hurling Advisory Committee, not by the County Board Coiste Bainsti. They're two different sets of people.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2622 - 09/01/2024 14:51:18
2519253
Link
0
|
|
Replying To tearintom: "Weren't Harriers one of the main pushers in the past? Their new proposal is quite interesting also as it leaves the option after quarter final to play one code to completion similar to kilanerin.
I think the Ballyhogue wording is incorrect, they are actually calling it a split season but advocating for alternate 2 week blocks of football/hurling, clumsily worded and a little confusing.
Can't see any of the motions for anything other than 2 groups of 6 getting traction though." I could be wrong, but I thought Harriers spoke in favour last year of going back to alternate weeks? (it was alternate weeks that was being proposed at the time, rather than alternate blocks).
And others were sceptical of that, along the lines of "would be handy for you, since you don't have to put out a football team every other week".
But again, I could be wrong.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2622 - 09/01/2024 14:55:16
2519256
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "I could be wrong, but I thought Harriers spoke in favour last year of going back to alternate weeks? (it was alternate weeks that was being proposed at the time, rather than alternate blocks).
And others were sceptical of that, along the lines of "would be handy for you, since you don't have to put out a football team every other week".
But again, I could be wrong." Yeah not sure myself, you could be right. I think they were definitely the first ones originally pushing the split season approach.
What's interesting though is I don't recall there ever being as much engagement with this many proposals for change in the past and the hurling advisory committee adding to it also.
We are at times quite critical of clubs not bothering to engage but in fairness a lot of clubs look to have put quite a bit of thought and work into their proposals so fair play.
tearintom (Wexford) - Posts: 1427 - 09/01/2024 15:27:55
2519272
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "Just to point out that's a proposal by the Hurling Advisory Committee, not by the County Board Coiste Bainsti. They're two different sets of people." Yes of course, my apologies
alwaysasub (Wexford) - Posts: 444 - 09/01/2024 16:31:24
2519288
Link
0
|
|
Replying To tearintom: "Yeah not sure myself, you could be right. I think they were definitely the first ones originally pushing the split season approach.
What's interesting though is I don't recall there ever being as much engagement with this many proposals for change in the past and the hurling advisory committee adding to it also.
We are at times quite critical of clubs not bothering to engage but in fairness a lot of clubs look to have put quite a bit of thought and work into their proposals so fair play." Yep. Just finished reading it. 21 motions. 4 on the calendar and alternatives to the split season. 8 on championship structures. 5 on league structures. Alot to unpack and digest. But as you say alot of thought, and effort on presentation, put into them.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 13884 - 09/01/2024 18:16:59
2519314
Link
0
|
|
Is there a danger that it will be hard to see the wood from the trees? With so many motions, all with slight different tweaks and nuances it might be very difficult to get a large majority to settle on one particular idea?
ontheball247 (UK) - Posts: 19 - 10/01/2024 10:41:32
2519377
Link
0
|
|
Replying To ontheball247: "Is there a danger that it will be hard to see the wood from the trees? With so many motions, all with slight different tweaks and nuances it might be very difficult to get a large majority to settle on one particular idea?" That thought had crossed my mind but I presume they go through the proposals, and see what clubs are for and against and the narrow it down again once they know? Maybe I'm wrong or someone here would know how the process works.
alwaysasub (Wexford) - Posts: 444 - 10/01/2024 12:17:04
2519392
Link
0
|
|
Replying To ontheball247: "Is there a danger that it will be hard to see the wood from the trees? With so many motions, all with slight different tweaks and nuances it might be very difficult to get a large majority to settle on one particular idea?" In relation to the whole split season/alternate blocks question - no, not really.
The Coiste Bainisti motion that there be alternate blocks on a basis to be decided by the CCCC will be the first one taken. It's likely that all clubs who put in motions for alternate blocks in some shape or form will row in behind that one, and if it passes, then those other motions won't have to be taken at all.
If any of those clubs want to play hardball and say no, they really really want just their own way of doing alternate blocks and none other, and so they'll only vote for their own motion, then they'd be at nothing anyway.
Competition regulations can't actually dictate to CCCC how exactly to arrange fixtures (i.e. the meeting can only approve a recommendation, but not a rule). So ultimately, CCCC would have discretion on how exactly to run the alternate blocks anyway, in line with the Coiste Bainisti motion.
My prediction is that the Coiste Bainisti motion will pass, and so that'll decide things.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2622 - 10/01/2024 12:44:20
2519398
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "In relation to the whole split season/alternate blocks question - no, not really.
The Coiste Bainisti motion that there be alternate blocks on a basis to be decided by the CCCC will be the first one taken. It's likely that all clubs who put in motions for alternate blocks in some shape or form will row in behind that one, and if it passes, then those other motions won't have to be taken at all.
If any of those clubs want to play hardball and say no, they really really want just their own way of doing alternate blocks and none other, and so they'll only vote for their own motion, then they'd be at nothing anyway.
Competition regulations can't actually dictate to CCCC how exactly to arrange fixtures (i.e. the meeting can only approve a recommendation, but not a rule). So ultimately, CCCC would have discretion on how exactly to run the alternate blocks anyway, in line with the Coiste Bainisti motion.
My prediction is that the Coiste Bainisti motion will pass, and so that'll decide things." I imagine that will be the case. Unfortunately;-)
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 13884 - 10/01/2024 13:20:39
2519405
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "In relation to the whole split season/alternate blocks question - no, not really.
The Coiste Bainisti motion that there be alternate blocks on a basis to be decided by the CCCC will be the first one taken. It's likely that all clubs who put in motions for alternate blocks in some shape or form will row in behind that one, and if it passes, then those other motions won't have to be taken at all.
If any of those clubs want to play hardball and say no, they really really want just their own way of doing alternate blocks and none other, and so they'll only vote for their own motion, then they'd be at nothing anyway.
Competition regulations can't actually dictate to CCCC how exactly to arrange fixtures (i.e. the meeting can only approve a recommendation, but not a rule). So ultimately, CCCC would have discretion on how exactly to run the alternate blocks anyway, in line with the Coiste Bainisti motion.
My prediction is that the Coiste Bainisti motion will pass, and so that'll decide things." Yep and they do tend to tidy up a lot of the proposals also, similar proposals grouped into one format for example.
I suspect also they will vote first on whether it's 2 groups of 6 or alternative, I expect 2 groups of 6 to be retained which automatically makes a lot of the motions moot.
I sincerely hope the motion for reducing the football championship to 8 teams is defeated also, it's a move that makes little sense for me.
tearintom (Wexford) - Posts: 1427 - 10/01/2024 13:30:28
2519411
Link
0
|
|
Replying To tearintom: "Yep and they do tend to tidy up a lot of the proposals also, similar proposals grouped into one format for example.
I suspect also they will vote first on whether it's 2 groups of 6 or alternative, I expect 2 groups of 6 to be retained which automatically makes a lot of the motions moot.
I sincerely hope the motion for reducing the football championship to 8 teams is defeated also, it's a move that makes little sense for me." Agree about the football motion. I wonder are they planning 7 games for each club under that format? I bet they are planning 2 groups of 4 so that there are less football championship games played in the year.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 13884 - 10/01/2024 14:20:22
2519420
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Viking66: "Agree about the football motion. I wonder are they planning 7 games for each club under that format? I bet they are planning 2 groups of 4 so that there are less football championship games played in the year." Motion just says that if passed, the exact format to be agreed next November. Would seem to leave the door open for all right for single groups of eight, where all teams would get seven games. But being honest, think I'm not alone in saying I don't expect it to get that far!
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2622 - 10/01/2024 14:59:50
2519429
Link
0
|