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

[peopleluas]

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.

Hi @Killyoursons.

While I agree that "unable to field" is undefined in the rules, as long as it remains undefined then the obvious determination as to whether unable or not will be to refer to other clubs which are able to field in the same circumstances.

I do believe some extra GAA-wide guidance is necessary, on exactly the lines you indicate - i.e. how many ages down to go, although I'd think it should be different depending on age (e.g. u21 would be different to u14). I.e. something like, "when considering ability to field, the availability of players younger than ...... shall be disregarded".

The other things which has to be allowed for is that at the time of the year where independent team applications are considered, as a practical matter, predicting the number of available players is an estimate with a probable error. So contingency margins are needed. And of course allowances for very unusual situations. So one has to be careful about over-specifying in rule too.

Every club is free to submit whatever motion they wish to in this regard, and I would think that a thoughtfully composed narrowly-focused motion, composed to clarify and to gain the most support, would have a reasonable chance of succeeding.

 

[Lifestyle1988a]

In kerry there is no independent teams allowed up to the age of 14 , so under 14 is the first time independent teams field . Up till then girls join with the boys up until 12 and there is no issue.

 

[JimmyBarrySmurph]

In kerry there is no independent teams allowed up to the age of 14 , so under 14 is the first time independent teams field . Up till then girls join with the boys up until 12 and there is no issue.

Id almost swear I saw somewhere over the weekend that Dingle and Gaeltacht are amalgamation all the ways up along, and all go to the same secondary school which has only 400 boys..,
Jasus maybe I dreamt it!!

 

[red&blue]

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.

very insightful post and its good to get a personal experience from the system

I have a couple of questions

1) you said ye have 15 players on the age but you didnt outline how many players are in the two years above ye and two years below ye. Id appreciate you giving us these so we can have a clearer understanding of the overall numbers available

2) I take it from what you are saying that ye are u12 this year? are the county board forcing ye to seperate at u12?

A couple of other things you said made very interesting reading too

1) that yer player retention could be better? in what way?

2) that there is a good case for both your clubs to join together as 1 club from u6 to adult. Im glad to see someone involved sees the merits in this approach as it gives certainty to everyone as regards the path foward. Are both clubs actively looking at this solution?

Thanks again for your post

 

[red&blue]

Hi @Killyoursons.

While I agree that "unable to field" is undefined in the rules, as long as it remains undefined then the obvious determination as to whether unable or not will be to refer to other clubs which are able to field in the same circumstances.

if other clubs with similar numbers can field independently then yes its clear that team should be playing independently

I do believe some extra GAA-wide guidance is necessary, on exactly the lines you indicate - i.e. how many ages down to go, although I'd think it should be different depending on age (e.g. u21 would be different to u14). I.e. something like, "when considering ability to field, the availability of players younger than ...... shall be disregarded".

There are clear guidlines as regards eligibilty of players. i dont have the exact details but as you say u21 goes down to u17 i think, u18 goes down to u15 i think, u16 goes down to u13 i think. its from there down the ages should be less ie u14 should only be as far as u12, u12 as far as u10, u10 as far as u8 but im not sure if they are in the rules as such

The other things which has to be allowed for is that at the time of the year where independent team applications are considered, as a practical matter, predicting the number of available players is an estimate with a probable error. So contingency margins are needed. And of course allowances for very unusual situations. So one has to be careful about over-specifying in rule too.

I would presume whatever system (Foieeann I presume) the board are using to determine numbers will take account of that

Every club is free to submit whatever motion they wish to in this regard, and I would think that a thoughtfully composed narrowly-focused motion, composed to clarify and to gain the most support, would have a reasonable chance of succeeding.

that bit in bold is very important to understand. Its no good moaning about the rules, if you want them changed there is a democratic pathway to change them

 

[peopleluas]

There are clear guidlines as regards eligibilty of players. i dont have the exact details but as you say u21 goes down to u17 i think, u18 goes down to u15 i think, u16 goes down to u13 i think. its from there down the ages should be less ie u14 should only be as far as u12, u12 as far as u10, u10 as far as u8 but im not sure if they are in the rules as such

Yeah, I've seen those somewhere. But I think, without getting into specifics here, a reasonable rule-change proposal which has a chance of passing a vote could be made that even though a boy turning a certain number of years lower in age is allowed play under at a certain age, that this is to allow for the few exceptionally-developed boys, and so that the total number of boys turning that certain age in the calendar year should be disregarded for the purposes of determining ability to field.

I would presume whatever system (Foieeann I presume) the board are using to determine numbers will take account of that

Correct. Foireann (if the info in there is accurate) can be used both to determine raw numbers and typical retention trends at certain ages in a club. However, I think one does have to allow for an application to be made which details (with evidence) an unusual situation which analysis of Foireann data alone would not show.

that bit in bold is very important to understand. Its no good moaning about the rules, if you want them changed there is a democratic pathway to change them

Exactly. And like all democratic processes, it's hard. But look, every year clubs submit motions for rule changes, and sometimes some of them are passed. Indeed the county committee could themselves make a rule-change/clarifying proposal (as they must have thought about some details) - but perhaps they don't want to stir more of a hornet's nest as they would face more accusations. Best for the proposal to come from a club.

 

[Killyoursons]

Hi @Killyoursons.

While I agree that "unable to field" is undefined in the rules, as long as it remains undefined then the obvious determination as to whether unable or not will be to refer to other clubs which are able to field in the same circumstances.

I do believe some extra GAA-wide guidance is necessary, on exactly the lines you indicate - i.e. how many ages down to go, although I'd think it should be different depending on age (e.g. u21 would be different to u14). I.e. something like, "when considering ability to field, the availability of players younger than ...... shall be disregarded".

The other things which has to be allowed for is that at the time of the year where independent team applications are considered, as a practical matter, predicting the number of available players is an estimate with a probable error. So contingency margins are needed. And of course allowances for very unusual situations. So one has to be careful about over-specifying in rule too.

Every club is free to submit whatever motion they wish to in this regard, and I would think that a thoughtfully composed narrowly-focused motion, composed to clarify and to gain the most support, would have a reasonable chance of succeeding.

Thanks for this, great post. I agree with the additional points you make, about different age groups being allowed to go down different ages (for the purposes of determining whether or not clubs should be allowed to amalgamate at a certain age level). I also agree with the need for contingency margins, which other posters (including frogy) have also mentioned.

Thinking about it some more, I wonder if a motion explicitly allowing county boards the power to make their own decisions (within whatever boundaries are required for, e g., child welfare) might not be the best way to go. I don't think there is any pressing need for every county to follow the exact same model, so allowing them to try out different models wrt amalgamatiins (and maybe other things) might be the best way of testing out different possibilities.

 

[peopleluas]

Thinking about it some more, I wonder if a motion explicitly allowing county boards the power to make their own decisions (within whatever boundaries are required for, e g., child welfare) might not be the best way to go. I don't think there is any pressing need for every county to follow the exact same model, so allowing them to try out different models wrt amalgamatiins (and maybe other things) might be the best way of testing out different possibilities.

Two points on that:

• I don't think such a motion would pass, for a few reasons. First of all the county boards won't want to take on the additional debate and conflict. Second of all, change is resisted in any democratic organization so narrowly-focused incremental rule amendments tend to have a better chance of being voted in.
• But let's say the motion did pass. The rule-making would simply move from a sports-body level to a county board bye-law level. Again clubs if they want input into the rules applied would have to submit motions for bye-laws and the usual democratic debate on such motions. The alternative would be no rules. It's kind of like when countries get sick of democracy and think "wouldn't a dictator be better" - where each person thinking that way thinks would work 'cos the dictator would do it the way that person wants (but it doesn't work out that way).

Neither of those points necessarily mean that your suggestion is a bad one - your point being to allow for differentiation and eventually the best models emerge. I just think it'd be unlikely to pass. But hey, it's a proposal, and it's reasoned.

 

[red&blue]

have we white smoke yet lads?

 

[fruice]

Be interesting to see the outcome of the appeals.

But in my opinion Smurph is getting a lot of what he has said correct.

The county board are only implementing rules.
Yes amalgamations are getting out of hand except in some obvious situations.

I’ve seen Amalgamations that were formed at one age group to sort a problem with a set of players.

Then the amalgamation became the norm so much so they were fielding two teams at some age groups.

This couldn’t continue.

Something had to be done.