Cork County Board – sending small clubs back to the bad old days

[Killyoursons]

What I meant by a unique circumstance which qualifies for consideration under the rule is one which uniquely impacts the number of available players of a certain age in a club in 2026.

Like perhaps while the club has a certain number of players born a certain year who registered last year, and records in the club show that typically a given % (i.e. not all) of those players will register in the following year (all this information independently available to the committee already as they have access to the Foireann data and so I would expect is already factored in - or certainly should be), the committee may conclude that there will be a certain number of players available to play u21, and it's just enough. But perhaps, unusually for the club, 5 of the lads who have done the Leaving have decided to go to college in The Netherlands (easier to get into physio over there). And perhaps that point was made in the application, but the committee failed to consider it in their evaluation. The club needs to know of that failure in the initial decision so that they can appeal, focussing on that matter and providing some documentary evidence. In the meeting that's "we can't field an u21 team 'cos these 5 lads are in Amsterdam, and so now we'd down to X players - see the documentation in our appeal". That's it - the hearing. The committee will review and decide afterwards, not at the actual hearing I'd presume.

I think you've described a rather idealised situation there. In practice I suspect there will be different factors at play, many of which will not be as clear cut or admit of documentary evidence. E.g., one boy just isn't interested in sports, another wants to focus on soccer, etc. Or another has done the leaving, wants to go travelling and has no idea if/ when he'll be back next year. With those kinds of case I honestly think it would be a mistake for the committee to just read a sentence or two and decide later - they should be willing to discuss the case with reps from the club.

 

[JimmyBarrySmurph]

I think you've described a rather idealised situation there. In practice I suspect there will be different factors at play, many of which will not be as clear cut or admit of documentary evidence. E.g., one boy just isn't interested in sports, another wants to focus on soccer, etc. Or another has done the leaving, wants to go travelling and has no idea if/ when he'll be back next year. With those kinds of case I honestly think it would be a mistake for the committee to just read a sentence or two and decide later - they should be willing to discuss the case with reps from the club.

I’ve no skin in the game but I know there is already very clear rules in place if a club can’t field at a particular age. The boys involved stay club members but can play with any other club at that age for the year.
I understand that already happens in Cork.
From reading this forum it seems a few people falsely believe in their very own set of rules.

 

[peopleluas]

I think you've described a rather idealised situation there. In practice I suspect there will be different factors at play, many of which will not be as clear cut or admit of documentary evidence. E.g., one boy just isn't interested in sports, another wants to focus on soccer, etc. Or another has done the leaving, wants to go travelling and has no idea if/ when he'll be back next year. With those kinds of case I honestly think it would be a mistake for the committee to just read a sentence or two and decide later - they should be willing to discuss the case with reps from the club.

I appreciate you engaging with me on this @Killyoursons. For the purpose of exploration I'll string it out a bit more, not to disagree but only to elaborate on approximately how I think things should - very approximately - be conducted so as to be effective.

Absolutely there should be a willingness to discuss, and I expect there will be. But, in the context of an application already submitted, a decision made, an appeal submitted, and then a hearing about that appeal, just because people are verbally discussing does not mean that the discussion is focussing on the essential key remaining element of ambiguity in the evidence impacting the final decision - i.e. the only thing that needs discussing there (everything else is politeness, sympathy, assurance of help, etc. - distracting from the essential element that needs to be discussed at this late appeal stage).

What I have described is fundamental (a far lower bar than "ideal") to any decision which is subject to appeal. How can you construct a appeal to a decision if you are not provided with the data on which the decision was made so that you can identify the essential key remaining element of ambiguity in the evidence impacting the final decision? In that situation a discussion may make you feel that you were heard, but that's about it.

To my way of thinking, a reasonably appealable decision might looks something like the following:

• The committee believes that a club which has A or more players born in years born in years B and C can field a team. A includes contingency to err on the side of approving the independent team application
• Last year the club had D players registered born in years B and C.
• Over the previous 5 years the retention of players turning these ages in the club, relative to the the previous year, was on average E%, and at worst F% (fellas no longer interested in GAA, fellas playing soccer instead, fellas going away, etc.)
• F% of D is G.
• The club has provided compelling evidence that next year the retention will be even worse than F% because of a very specific extraordinary situation of H extra fellows departing.
• Because G-H is greater than A, the club will be able to field a team by itself.

My point is that it is very unlikely that an individual club will be able to successfully appeal A, B, or C at this stage (you may try of course). But you need to told what A to C are and what D to H are (or whatever numbers and logic was used) so that you can identity the essential key remaining element of ambiguity in the A to H evidence impacting the final decision, and seek to clarify that in the submitted appeal and discuss just that at the hearing.

Look, I'm not involved, but if I had the hard job of representing a club in such an appeal and I had no information other than our application was not agreed to then I'd be thinking "what am I supposed to do in the hearing? - restate the details of our application? - shur they already have that information and they decided on the basis of it". I wouldn't know what to focus on, and we'd need hours in the hearing digging down to find out what needs to be clarified - and then I'd have to be ready to clarify it without having known in advance what it is! All I can say is that I dearly hope that is not the situation, but obviously I'm not in a position to know.

p.s. I expect some of the appeals will be on the recommendations associated with the approval of an independent team. The same point goes there - to have an appeal be effectively submitted, considered, and heard, the club appealing must know in advance the very specific factors/numbers impacting the decision.

 

[peopleluas]

there is already very clear rules in place if a club can’t field at a particular age. The boys involved stay club members but can play with any other club at that age for the year.
I understand that already happens in Cork.

Yes, it happens in Cork. With county committee approval for each player each year (as I understand it). If the other club's team has 4 or less such players playing for them, that team can retain the name of the other club. If more, then the team name has to be either the combined names of the clubs in question or an independent name.

 

[Frogy]

I am part of coaching team as part of juvenile amalgamation of 2 clubs for the same bunch of lads up through u8 / u9 / u10 & u11. In total there are 15 on the age. We would usually have 2 teams for go games all the way up. Combined population of two parishes <3000. It is relatively new amalgamation.

10 players come from one side of amalgamation and 5 from the other. Participation rate would be very high boys and girls > 90% at all grades from the primary schools. They love competition to put it mildly whether at training or games!!!.

My observations are as follows from all of grades up to u11 with this bunch are below.

For training all the way up you need to have > 10 at training to allow them to have a decent training and have game afterwards. Supplementing with younger players at lower grades is not great as there can be big difference between players u8 / u9 / u10 and they want to play with their own class and age. There will always be a couple out or unavailable. They need to enjoy training and have a game after. Training would definitely been far less effective and less enjoyable for kids if we were not amalgamated due to no.s. Good enjoyable effective training is far more important for them than the games.

When started first it took time to gel in first year. It does not happen overnight.

Player retention definitely has the potential to be better. There is better opportunity to train plus the have potential to succeed. The stronger players have opportunity to compete at training and at games which is what they want. Developing players are part of team that are competitive and play in a team that can compete. Overall my belief is ingredients are there to keep as many playing and enjoying for as long as possible.

Most play soccer and some play rugby as well however virtually all cases it is GAA is no. 1. If no.s were lower impacting ability to train and compete the potential to retain through grades would be lower and less likely to keep GAA as their no. 1.

The amalgamation has been a success all the way up through grades the teams are competing at higher level. Some other clubs do not look favourably on this as there is competition coming from somewhere that they never had to deal with before.

The reality is that there is a good argument for the 2 clubs to merge completely at all levels including adult due to being able to field adult teams or being able to compete. The Juvenile amalgamation provides opportunity to improve retention, increase adult playing no.s down the road and increases the chance that the clubs won't have to merge.

There are other age grades in amalgamation where no.s on the age are as low as 11 and as high as 22.

I can't see any reason why amalgamation should be inhibited in any way as it is improving participation and retention however as it stands the club's wilĺ not be allowed to amalgamate at u11 and below.

I have not identified the club in above as if identified i would expect that the club would need to issue or at least review.

 

[peopleluas]

I am part of coaching team as part of juvenile amalgamation of 2 clubs for the same bunch of lads up through u8 / u9 / u10 & u11. In total there are 15 on the age. We would usually have 2 teams for go games all the way up. Combined population of two parishes <3000. It is relatively new amalgamation.

10 players come from one side of amalgamation and 5 from the other. Participation rate would be very high boys and girls > 90% at all grades from the primary schools. They love competition to put it mildly whether at training or games!!!.

My observations are as follows from all of grades up to u11 with this bunch are below.

For training all the way up you need to have > 10 at training to allow them to have a decent training and have game afterwards. Supplementing with younger players at lower grades is not great as there can be big difference between players u8 / u9 / u10 and they want to play with their own class and age. There will always be a couple out or unavailable. They need to enjoy training and have a game after. Training would definitely been far less effective and less enjoyable for kids if we were not amalgamated due to no.s. Good enjoyable effective training is far more important for them than the games.

When started first it took time to gel in first year. It does not happen overnight.

Player retention definitely has the potential to be better. There is better opportunity to train plus the have potential to succeed. The stronger players have opportunity to compete at training and at games which is what they want. Developing players are part of team that are competitive and play in a team that can compete. Overall my belief is ingredients are there to keep as many playing and enjoying for as long as possible.

Most play soccer and some play rugby as well however virtually all cases it is GAA is no. 1. If no.s were lower impacting ability to train and compete the potential to retain through grades would be lower and less likely to keep GAA as their no. 1.

The amalgamation has been a success all the way up through grades the teams are competing at higher level. Some other clubs do not look favourably on this as there is competition coming from somewhere that they never had to deal with before.

The reality is that there is a good argument for the 2 clubs to merge completely at all levels including adult due to being able to field adult teams or being able to compete. The Juvenile amalgamation provides opportunity to improve retention, increase adult playing no.s down the road and increases the chance that the clubs won't have to merge.

There are other age grades in amalgamation where no.s on the age are as low as 11 and as high as 22.

I can't see any reason why amalgamation should be inhibited in any way as it is improving participation and retention however as it stands the club's wilĺ not be allowed to amalgamate at u11 and below.

I have not identified the club in above as if identified i would expect that the club would need to issue or at least review.

Hi @Frogy.

Thanks - this is an excellent and balanced explanation.

https://www.gaa.ie/api/images/image/upload/t_q-best/prd/ncoykjeybyaxvjeg7g6w.pdf is a good reference showing that the county committee is constrained by rule to allow an independent team only in the case of a club being "unable to field a Club team".

Take the case you mention that you are part of. There are clubs all over the country fielding their own teams when they have 10 on the age. And I know of a club who has fielded all the way up relatively recently with 6 on the age and only 4 on the next age younger (albeit with significant difficulty - not least that they found it difficult to compete with independent teams).

So, to enable the county committee in future years to consider the points you have made in your post here, what motion (approximately) would you suggest a club submit to the next GAA congress to amend rules 3.17(o), 6.2, and 6.7? See Official Guide Part 1 at https://www.gaa.ie/article/gaa-official-guides-codes.

It may be frustrating that I am quoting rules and asking for motions - but the thing is that it's rules that we are bound by and I think you are making a case for a rule amendment (e.g. that an independent team should be allowed if it is, in the opinion of the clubs involved, improving participation and retention).

 

[JimmyBarrySmurph]

Hi @Frogy.

Thanks - this is an excellent and balanced explanation.

https://www.gaa.ie/api/images/image/upload/t_q-best/prd/ncoykjeybyaxvjeg7g6w.pdf is a good reference showing that the county committee is constrained by rule to allow an independent team only in the case of a club being "unable to field a Club team".

Take the case you mention that you are part of. There are clubs all over the country fielding their own teams when they have 10 on the age. And I know of a club who has fielded all the way up relatively recently with 6 on the age and only 4 on the next age younger (albeit with significant difficulty - not least that they found it difficult to compete with independent teams).

So, to enable the county committee in future years to consider the points you have made in your post here, what motion (approximately) would you suggest a club submit to the next GAA congress to amend rules 3.17(o), 6.2, and 6.7? See Official Guide Part 1 at https://www.gaa.ie/article/gaa-official-guides-codes.

It may be frustrating that I am quoting rules and asking for motions - but the thing is that it's rules that we are bound by and I think you are making a case for a rule amendment (e.g. that an independent team should be allowed if it is, in the opinion of the clubs involved, improving participation and retention).

Top post PL.
You’ve hit the nail on the head, and very comprehensively so.

Other Fellas on here about our man from Midleton are missing the point. GAA rules and its Croke Park are driving the bus on this. The rules are very clear and Cork went offside and communication from Croker has put a stop to it.
In fairness Frogys post comes across as so genuine and sincere. Obviously a dedicated coach and club man. Whoever you are with Frogy they are lucky to have you.
But here is the thing, what you’ve actually set out is an argument against an amalgamation. Plenty players there.
There are plenty clubs not only doing well but in the top divisions in Cork GAA with populations of circa 1500. Now, many of these are special places alright.
I read over the weekend that neither Dingle or An Gaeltacht have enough to field on their own underage. I don’t know if that’s true. But imagine the clubs playing the senior and intermediate All Ireland

 

[Killyoursons]

Hi @Frogy.

Thanks - this is an excellent and balanced explanation.

https://www.gaa.ie/api/images/image/upload/t_q-best/prd/ncoykjeybyaxvjeg7g6w.pdf is a good reference showing that the county committee is constrained by rule to allow an independent team only in the case of a club being "unable to field a Club team".

Take the case you mention that you are part of. There are clubs all over the country fielding their own teams when they have 10 on the age. And I know of a club who has fielded all the way up relatively recently with 6 on the age and only 4 on the next age younger (albeit with significant difficulty - not least that they found it difficult to compete with independent teams).

So, to enable the county committee in future years to consider the points you have made in your post here, what motion (approximately) would you suggest a club submit to the next GAA congress to amend rules 3.17(o), 6.2, and 6.7? See Official Guide Part 1 at https://www.gaa.ie/article/gaa-official-guides-codes.

It may be frustrating that I am quoting rules and asking for motions - but the thing is that it's rules that we are bound by and I think you are making a case for a rule amendment (e.g. that an independent team should be allowed if it is, in the opinion of the clubs involved, improving participation and retention).

Thanks for this peopleluas. It's useful to pay close attention to the relevant rules.

To me the key issue is under what circumstances we ought to allow amalgamations. I suggest the following: only if a club cannot field at a certain age grade without going more than one year down from that grade (I e., they have to bring in U12s at U14), and where being able to field requires having a certain numbers of subs in addition to the first XV. To be clear: this is what I think *ought* to be the case, and I know others will disagree with me. So the club you mention which has only 6 on the age and 4 at the next age down, should, in my opinion, be allowed to avail of an amalgamation. (Of course, this is different to saying they should have to amalgamate.)

To that end, I think either 3.17 (o) or 6.7, specifically exception (1), could be rewritten. (It's not clear to me that they *must* be rewritten, because afaics the phrase "unable to field" isn't defined in these rules. But if one thought the view I have just described was correct, it would be worthwhile making this clear in the rules.)

That's just my own take on it - I'd be interested to read the thoughts of posters with more experience.

 

[supersonic06]

donal o cusack wrote a letter to a court supporting a child rapist. GAA amazing organization

 

[JimmyBarrySmurph]

donal o cusack wrote a letter to a court supporting a child rapist. GAA amazing organization

All ok thready?