The young Miramar lads took the game to Karori (held WSK out for 30"). Then conceded 30" and 38". defencive lapse. Then battled back to till HT. Pulled a goal back 50" 1-2. But the damage was done with players running out of legs. Then Karori scored 55"+60". Karori Keeper pulled of a couple of great saves. Then keeper decide to try and score from his own goal box. 2 one bouncers to be easily collected by Miramar keeper.
Capital 1
Fair chat that. Miramar had a good patch of 15 minutes in the first half and a ten minute period in the seocnd half when they brought the score back to 2-1. But apart from that wharf well and truely bossed the game. More desire, more composure and more experience in the end I would say. To be fair to Mar, they were good on the break and knocked the ball round well at times, just needed more consistency.
BNU into 2nd place after a 3-1 away win over Karori. Came back from 1-0 down as well
Just got back breeze park IBU took down Uni - Uni keeper help by both posts and the bar. Good game.
Apparently dual registered so may not be over...
No all over, Uni counter protest dismissed. Rule is if player is dual registered the original registration takes precedence. Also it is the second clubs responsibility to ensure that the dual registration does not happen and request a transfer. In this case it didn't happen so case closed.
Good lesson for all clubs to double check things.
Should make for a tasty return encounter though.
Someone doesn't know how to read the NZF regulations, subject to which the CF regulations are to be read. Specific discretion for NZF to allow transfer on the basis of good faith and a clerical error which has been admitted by Capital Football. CF have been asked to revisit their decision in light of this.
However, yes, a good lesson for all Clubs to double check things.
NW awarded points for loss v Wharf. Two 15 year olds took the field during the game with the coach unaware of current age rule. NW protested and are likely to get half their points through reg breaches this season! Bring on the home leg
Wtf is this feverish?
Disgusting from North Wellington. Yet not suprising, the two fifteen year old lads were better than every single North Wellington player.
Absolutely disgusted in the club tbh.
How did they know? Just guessed and took the punt?
I guess cos they are Onslow kids and NW is trying to get their fingers in that pie. Stuff like this wont do them any favours
I guess cos they are Onslow kids and NW is trying to get their fingers in that pie. Stuff like this wont do them any favours
Hang on a bit there big boy. For to long clubs have been breaking the rules without any comeback. Now when a lower tier club wants to ensure a fair playing field the big clubs get all upset about it.
By the way Onslow is in the nth wgtn catchment so maybe we are sick of other clubs putting their fingers in our pie.
The rules are there for all to follow and it is about time they were enforced. The same applies to clubs dropping more than the allowed number of players to lower divisions to ensure wins. We know it happens all the time but nothing is done about it.
In saying that my personal opinion is that if a 15 year old is good enough then they should be allowed to play, safety concerns not withstanding.
Disgusting from North Wellington. Yet not suprising, the two fifteen year old lads were better than every single North Wellington player.
Absolutely disgusted in the club tbh.
Pull your head in fella.
I guess cos they are Onslow kids and NW is trying to get their fingers in that pie. Stuff like this wont do them any favours
Hang on a bit there big boy. For to long clubs have been breaking the rules without any comeback. Now when a lower tier club wants to ensure a fair playing field the big clubs get all upset about it.
THIS IS DRIBBLE
By the way Onslow is in the nth wgtn catchment so maybe we are sick of other clubs putting their fingers in our pie.
NO SUCH THING AS A CATCHMENT AREA
The rules are there for all to follow and it is about time they were enforced. The same applies to clubs dropping more than the allowed number of players to lower divisions to ensure wins. We know it happens all the time but nothing is done about it.
WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE AGE RULE? I'M PRETTY SURE IT ISN'T TO STOP TEAMS GAINING AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE
In saying that my personal opinion is that if a 15 year old is good enough then they should be allowed to play, safety concerns not withstanding.
TELL YOUR CLUB THAT (I ASSUME YOU ARE NW)
So you think this was a good call by NW?
In this case I had to follow the majority but the crux of the matter is that there is a process in place to provide for dispensation for younger players and it wasn't followed.
As mentioned my personal thoughts are that this rule should be looked at but it is a fine line as younger players may have the skill but not the mental game to play senior football (actually I've seen the same with 17, 18 year olds). We do have a duty of care as coaches and administrators to ensure we are not harming these young players by throwing them in to soon.
What if it's as simple as NW not playing their talented kids because they were aware of the rules, if the kids were better than the men who's to say NW don't have young players that good who they could have illegally played?
Either that or they are just dark you scouted the kids before they did because they were waiting for them to be old enough to play before offering them club football?
I guess cos they are Onslow kids and NW is trying to get their fingers in that pie. Stuff like this wont do them any favours
By the way Onslow is in the nth wgtn catchment so maybe we are sick of other clubs putting their fingers in our pie.
This is an interesting point. Do people think a club has some sort of right to players who go to a school that is in its back yard, even if those players have a history and a background at another club?
A lot of clubs do I think. School footy fractures the connection between player and club, and then "proactive" clubs use that as an opportunity to make a land grab for good players.
So, for example, you might be a NW player all your junior life, then go to Wellington College and all of a sudden you end up playing for Wellington United there is a connection between that club and the school. Just an example, but this exact thing happens to Karori kids at all the various schools they go to. So Karori "lose" (or run the risk of loss, or have to work harder to counter this) because there are no high schools actually in Karori.
Anyway this is off topic.
In this case I had to follow the majority but the crux of the matter is that there is a process in place to provide for dispensation for younger players and it wasn't followed.
This is accurate. There is a process that Karori (me, in fact) didn't follow. It's just a shame that NW used the rules to grab the points when playing a couple of kids can hardly have been said to have influenced the game in Karori's favour.
For the record, one of the kids is about 50 days shy of turning 16 (and being okay to play) and the other one is about 80 days. They're both more than capable of playing senior football. The whole "child welfare" argument has no relevance here.
Fair play to NW, they've played a technicality and got all three points and I have a face full of egg. Just have to take it on the chin and move on.
Actually Smithy you have a good point and is something well worth discussing.
I don't think we have a divine right to those players but it is in our interests as a club to work with the colleges to promote football and have us seen as the logical step in their senior development.
Ourselves as a club we have taken to actively working with the two local colleges in the area to promote football for everybody, identify and manage talent as well as providing a structured pathway to the senior game. It's something we needed to do and is working well.
What if it's as simple as NW not playing their talented kids because they were aware of the rules, if the kids were better than the men who's to say NW don't have young players that good who they could have illegally played?
Either that or they are just dark you scouted the kids before they did because they were waiting for them to be old enough to play before offering them club football?
sounds like they probably could find some 14 year olds better than what they have to be fair.
What if it's as simple as NW not playing their talented kids because they were aware of the rules, if the kids were better than the men who's to say NW don't have young players that good who they could have illegally played?
Either that or they are just dark you scouted the kids before they did because they were waiting for them to be old enough to play before offering them club football?
sounds like they probably could find some 14 year olds better than what they have to be fair.
I'll tell the boys that tonight, I'm sure they'll take your observations on board and all stop playing football because you think they are shite.
What if it's as simple as NW not playing their talented kids because they were aware of the rules, if the kids were better than the men who's to say NW don't have young players that good who they could have illegally played?
Either that or they are just dark you scouted the kids before they did because they were waiting for them to be old enough to play before offering them club football?
sounds like they probably could find some 14 year olds better than what they have to be fair.
I'll tell the boys that tonight, I'm sure they'll take your observations on board and all stop playing football because you think they are shite.
don't worry you would probably still crank up a few points through protests :)
What if it's as simple as NW not playing their talented kids because they were aware of the rules, if the kids were better than the men who's to say NW don't have young players that good who they could have illegally played?
Either that or they are just dark you scouted the kids before they did because they were waiting for them to be old enough to play before offering them club football?
sounds like they probably could find some 14 year olds better than what they have to be fair.
What if it's as simple as NW not playing their talented kids because they were aware of the rules, if the kids were better than the men who's to say NW don't have young players that good who they could have illegally played?
Either that or they are just dark you scouted the kids before they did because they were waiting for them to be old enough to play before offering them club football?
sounds like they probably could find some 14 year olds better than what they have to be fair.
sorry I'm not sure if your logic or sense of humour is off..
Teza we all look forward to the return fixture at KP enough said.
Pretty shite way to lose 3 points.
If you break the rules, even unwittingly and even if the rule's pretty dopey, you leave yourself open to this kind of thing. So, we have to accept we created the risk here. But interesting to ponder whether we would have exploited this kind of mistake if the shoe was on the other foot. I have no problems with sides protesting unregistered players or when sides drop too many players down the grades, but this is a different kind of indiscretion. I like to think we'd have let it go.
Teza we all look forward to the return fixture at KP enough said.
We better ask for a quality ref to protect our players then.
Pretty shite way to lose 3 points.
If you break the rules, even unwittingly and even if the rule's pretty dopey, you leave yourself open to this kind of thing. So, we have to accept we created the risk here. But interesting to ponder whether we would have exploited this kind of mistake if the shoe was on the other foot. I have no problems with sides protesting unregistered players or when sides drop too many players down the grades, but this is a different kind of indiscretion. I like to think we'd have let it go.
Clubs shouldnt need to be protesting any of these "mistakes". It can cause bad blood between teams.
Its Capital Footballs job to pick these indiscresions up and punish the offending clubs. If teams cards are correctly filled in they should spot the mistakes.
Pretty shite way to lose 3 points.
If you break the rules, even unwittingly and even if the rule's pretty dopey, you leave yourself open to this kind of thing. So, we have to accept we created the risk here. But interesting to ponder whether we would have exploited this kind of mistake if the shoe was on the other foot. I have no problems with sides protesting unregistered players or when sides drop too many players down the grades, but this is a different kind of indiscretion. I like to think we'd have let it go.
Clubs shouldnt need to be protesting any of these "mistakes". It can cause bad blood between teams.
Its Capital Footballs job to pick these indiscresions up and punish the offending clubs. If teams cards are correctly filled in they should spot the mistakes.
I agree with that, but it's the way it is. CF would be on a big ask to check them all. And clubs have the incentive to keep each other honest.
The rule on underage players is there for a reason. I would say it is to a clubs advantage to give young players some senior game time. Gee, it might even be a useful recruitment angle. So while some may think this is a dumb rule and it's something they "think we'd have let it go", where does that stop? It is a breach of the rules and that's that. You can't be choosy about which rules you think are relevant to you.
At the end of the day we all have our views of what is fair, what we think the rules should be, and what we think the other guy should or shouldn't do. But that doesn't make our view automatically right and their's wrong. The rules define the rights and wrongs here.
I guess when you do pick up players that are well know to other clubs, even from other clubs, they just might more easily notice when you play them as underage players. Especially when they have similar underage players themselves, that they are deliberately NOT giving game time to, because it is against the rules.
Maybe we should all stick with the rules and get on with the game. And when we do screw up, just take it on the chin.
some truth amongst a bit of bullshit
Not sure what all the fuss is about. Rules are in place, rules were broken, deal with it. Most teams go into each fixture abiding by all the rules, so not sure why some feel that they dont need to.
the 15 yr old lads who had a run in the game (10 minutes and half a game) have exemption to play now - so they will probably be fired up along with the rest of the team for what could be the final game of the season (with NW looking for a promotion spot?). I might get along to watch it.
Pretty shite way to lose 3 points.
If you break the rules, even unwittingly and even if the rule's pretty dopey, you leave yourself open to this kind of thing. So, we have to accept we created the risk here. But interesting to ponder whether we would have exploited this kind of mistake if the shoe was on the other foot. I have no problems with sides protesting unregistered players or when sides drop too many players down the grades, but this is a different kind of indiscretion. I like to think we'd have let it go.
Clubs shouldnt need to be protesting any of these "mistakes". It can cause bad blood between teams.
Its Capital Footballs job to pick these indiscresions up and punish the offending clubs. If teams cards are correctly filled in they should spot the mistakes.
I agree with that, but it's the way it is. CF would be on a big ask to check them all. And clubs have the incentive to keep each other honest.
The rule on underage players is there for a reason. I would say it is to a clubs advantage to give young players some senior game time. Gee, it might even be a useful recruitment angle. So while some may think this is a dumb rule and it's something they "think we'd have let it go", where does that stop? It is a breach of the rules and that's that. You can't be choosy about which rules you think are relevant to you.
At the end of the day we all have our views of what is fair, what we think the rules should be, and what we think the other guy should or shouldn't do. But that doesn't make our view automatically right and their's wrong. The rules define the rights and wrongs here.
I guess when you do pick up players that are well know to other clubs, even from other clubs, they just might more easily notice when you play them as underage players. Especially when they have similar underage players themselves, that they are deliberately NOT giving game time to, because it is against the rules.
Maybe we should all stick with the rules and get on with the game. And when we do screw up, just take it on the chin.
the 15 yr old lads who had a run in the game (10 minutes and half a game) have exemption to play now - so they will probably be fired up along with the rest of the team for what could be the final game of the season (with NW looking for a promotion spot?). I might get along to watch it.
That's great. We'll look forward to it as well. And good luck to your young lads. With your ability to draw on higher league players it will be a tough one for NW, but I know the lads will be giving it a crack.
Mind you, I thought dispensations were required before the start of the season, so we'll be checking that one. ;) So make sure you get it right.
Maybe see you there.
the 15 yr old lads who had a run in the game (10 minutes and half a game) have exemption to play now - so they will probably be fired up along with the rest of the team for what could be the final game of the season (with NW looking for a promotion spot?). I might get along to watch it.
That's great. We'll look forward to it as well. And good luck to your young lads. With your ability to draw on higher league players it will be a tough one for NW, but I know the lads will be giving it a crack.
Mind you, I thought dispensations were required before the start of the season, so we'll be checking that one. ;) So make sure you get it right.
Maybe see you there.
You're obviously not as knowledgeable on the Regs as I gave you credit for (maybe you can get the kids you speak about at NW involved?)
Be sure to introduce yourself - you sound like a top bloke :)
You're obviously not as knowledgeable on the Regs as I gave you credit for (maybe you can get the kids you speak about at NW involved?)
Be sure to introduce yourself - you sound like a top bloke :)
You are correct on all counts :)
Thanks for the precedent on easy dispensations
As an aside, Jimmy Cudd mentioned to me the other day that he was playing National League for Gisi at age 15
That would be right. It might have even been 14.
Yep his dad was my academy coach growing up and Jimmy was the example for everything. Classy player. Thinking regs might have changed a bit since
Yeah I enjoyed watching him play. He didn't play for NZ did he. Was there a reason for that?
Yeah I enjoyed watching him play. He didn't play for NZ did he. Was there a reason for that?
yeah he might have said 14. Yeah he was in an NZ side - got a few caps I think?