Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
"Kyle":n8kcwdpt wrote:I’m not in favour of raising the age. DIHL B grade is a social competition, it’s open to people of a range of abilities, sizes, genders, ages etc. It means parents can play with their kids, siblings can play together, coaches and managers can play with their team etc etc. If you raised the age you wouldn’t just lose the kids, you might lose a lot of other players who play to play with those kids.
If people only want to play with adults then SIHL has grades for that.
[/quote:n8kcwdpt]If that truly is the case, which I’m not convinced it is, then the levels of the grades need to be altered so that people who don’t want to play with rugrats can swiftly progress beyond the B-Grade. Then people who want to dodge carpet-crawlers can play in the B-Grade, the intermediate players can play in the A-grade, and the really good players can play prems/superleague/whatever.
What you’re talking about Kyle might be true in a few specific cases, but from what I’ve seen I’d say that’s only true in the vast, vast minority of cases. While it sounds great in there, how much actual demand is there for such a grade?
Just taking the Bullfrogs as a random sample, I don’t know of anyone in that category, and when I made a comment at Wednesday’s game about the kids there was a definite vibe of agreement.
I don’t want to stop the kids playing, not by any means. The kids are the future of the club. All I’m saying is that the little ones shouldn’t be playing in the DIHL [b:n8kcwdpt]in its current format.[/b:n8kcwdpt]
Happy birthday dunedinicehockey.hellyer.kiwi!
We are definitely the most high-tech sports club in…. well, the universe! All thanks to our super-dedicated, slightly-******* web admin!
Three point one four one five nine two six five three five eight nine seven cheers for Ryan!
"battered_and_bruised":1rek5ahs wrote:The other thing with the age is the numbers. We don’t have the numbers to put the age up to 16 min and if you pushed to 18, well then there really would be a lack of numbers.
[/quote:1rek5ahs]I also think that there is a maturity aspect here. Granted, I’m not yoda-like when it comes to serenity, but recently I’ve been particularly unimpressed by the belligerence and discourtesy of younger players. I’m not talking about mere rough playing either, as everyone knows that I’ve always been a fan of a bit of rough and tumble, but that certainly does come into it as well.
"Ryan":1rek5ahs wrote:"battered_and_bruised":1rek5ahs wrote:The other thing with the age is the numbers. We don’t have the numbers to put the age up to 16 min and if you pushed to 18, well then there really would be a lack of numbers.
[/quote:1rek5ahs]Depends how many teams you want. At the moment there’s probably enough players for eight B-grade teams if the advertising for it was pushed hard enough. So losing the littleuns would drop to six teams, then four if it went to 18. You are correct though, going to 18 straight away would be quite risky.
The thing is, I think there would be more interest from older players if there weren’t so many ankle biters competing. I remember the old DIHL which had an 18 year old cut-off which was far more social than the current competition, partly I think because everyone could go for a beer afterwards.
I’d prefer to see the kids competing as part of their rep. teams in the DIHL, ie: Dunedin Midgets field a team in the B-grade. I think this would encourage players to strive to be on those rep. teams and would give them some good, stiff local competition which they don’t have too much of at the moment.
Just my opinion though and I don’t think many people agree with me on this.
Ryan,
[/quote:1rek5ahs]
I’m in absolute agreement here, and I had in fact just written a near identical post when Ryan posted his.
Personally, I’d be keen to split the grads that way anyway, because at the moment the B-Grade covers far too much ground. The better players are so far ahead of the beginners that it ‘s overly unbalanced.
I’d much rather compact the grades and do a double round-robin.
The Premier series would then sweep up the best of the A grade
"Ryan":2znrmkyu wrote:"Chris":2znrmkyu wrote:Another quick note, I’d be keen to help out organizing the Autumn 2008 DIHL, since I’ll still be in Dunedin for sure. [/quote:2znrmkyu]We should meet with Kara after the current DIHL. Sort out some sort of plan. Kara is keen to help with B-grade, so if you took control of the A-grade that may work quite well. I’m keen to keep my nose butted in just like I have with Jane, although I’d prefer things to be sorted further in advance next time.
Ryan,
[/quote:2znrmkyu]
works for me
” title=”Smiley” />"Ryan":1j78om6u wrote:I’ve always advocated 16 minimum, preferably 18 and only go lower if yer desperate for players. There was a decision at the first DIHL meeting I organised a few years ago to allow high school kids to compete as we had no idea how many players we’d get and didn’t want to come up short. No one has liked it when I’ve suggested increasing the age limit though
” title=”Sad” /> Anything less than 13 is ridiculous IMO. Currently the players under 13 need to get a dispensation to compete.
[/quote:1j78om6u]
Sixteen is also good. You’re definitely right about under 13s though, it’s crazy.
Another quick note, I’d be keen to help out organizing the Autumn 2008 DIHL, since I’ll still be in Dunedin for sure.
Ref is better than a D player, because refs don’t sit on the bench for half the game.
Ryan, if you’re serious about doing this, there’s a couple of ways to go about it. I emailed you
"Macca":3otsxpdl wrote:Just a thought. How about taking the camera out of the net and mounting it on the outside of the glass facing the net. That way you can still see the goals and also get a wider view of whats happening in the attacking zone on the lead up to the goal being scored.
[/quote:3otsxpdl]That’s definitely a possibility. Personally, I think that would be a great idea [i:3otsxpdl]in addition[/i:3otsxpdl] to the net cam.
There is also the issue of the depth-of-field of the camera’s lens. It’s not exactly a beast of a thing, so we’d need to run a few tests to get it right.
"Hockeyboy19":2mtorltr wrote:If you get a Fish Eye lens you will be able to get a wider view.[/quote:2mtorltr]
While that’s a great suggestion, it’s not feasible with the level of technology we presently have available to us.
"Hockeyboy19":2mtorltr wrote:I think it would work well not so much as a net cam but a shot cam sitting on top of the cross bar.
[/quote:2mtorltr]
This might be a possibility in future, but at present the structure of the cross bar makes the operation prohibitively labour-intensive. We’d need to make up a bracket and some clamps, which is a long way beyond the tupperware container and string mechanism we’ve so far implemented” title=”Smiley” />
