Dave et all, While I don't disagree that some club sides take the piss with squad numbers (someone told me the winning Mixed team at the Boston invite had a squad of 35!), I think your argument is flawed.
From a practical perspective, a team needs to be able to have enough players to make a decent practice i.e. 7-on-7 plus extras (because there are always some people each practice who can't make it out do to work, illness, etc). This is one of the foremost considerations for any serious club. If you changed the rules to 14 only per game, that's not going to change the fact that you need a minimum amount of players on a team which is about 20 (maybe more - depends how often your teammates get the sniffles). Assuming you play for an organised club as I describe, no player would get more pitch time if it was 14 per game. They'd just get their points over 4 games instead of 5 and most would spend one game freezing on the sideline for no reason whatsoever. Unless, of course, you think benching all your team's juniors until they are good enough to make the top 14 is a good idea - a very distinct possibility under your proposed system. However, this is also exactly the opposite of what you hope 14 v 14 would achieve. Basically, you are aiming to penalise the teams which are large enough and organised enough to have proper practices and who field their less experienced players in high level games. I think your argument is backwards. Aura Iceni Dave Grayson writes: > Thanks for posting those rules, I must confess I didn't know about them. > Now all we need to do is change a rule - not introduce a new one :-) > > I dont think its about players not being happy about not getting enough > playtime. Lots of people like to be associated with winners. I think this > rule change would create better competition, a level playing field between > teams, more growth in the sport, and a greater challenge both physically and > tactically for individual players. > > I'm not trying to save anyone or speak on behalf of anyone type of player. > I think this would benefit the sport as a whole. > > Dave. > > > > 2008/7/8 John Hope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> There already is a limit on squad sizes. It's 14 players _minimum_ >> (For competitions where these rules are used) >> >> Appendix B: WFDF Additional Championship Event Rules >> >> B1. Teams >> B1.1. A team must have a minimum of fourteen (14) players registered >> on its playing roster for the >> event. >> B1.1.1. A team in the mixed division must also have a minimum of six >> (6) male and six (6) >> female players on its roster. >> B1.2. A team may have a maximum of twenty-eight (28) players on its roster. >> B1.2.1. For 2008 only, the maximum number of players will be thirty-two >> (32). >> >> I really see no value in forcing a smaller squad. If a player isn't >> getting enough pitch time and that really matters to them... play for >> a different team? >> >> John >> >> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Dave Grayson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > Hi Phillip, >> > >> > I dont get why international players should have any bearing on anything? >> > >> > I dont get why there would be guest spots? >> > >> > I think you are maybe confused between Tour rules and WFDF rules. Just >> to >> > be clear, I am proposing that we get consensus for the UKU to propose to >> > WFDF that in the rules of ultimate there is a limit of 14 players per >> match. >> > >> > >> > This says nothing about any individual competition, nothing about overall >> > squad sizes (separate issue), nothing about guests, internationals etc. >> > >> > Hope that makes things clearer, >> > >> > Dave. >> > >> > >> > >> > 2008/7/8 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> >> I hate to complicate matters, but surely if you are going to introduce >> >> limits it would be sensible to have: >> >> >> >> a, a limit of X players on the roster per game >> >> b, a limit of X+Y players on the roster per tournament >> >> c, a limit of Z international players in your squad >> >> d, a limit of N guest spots (subject to limitation c) >> >> e, a limit of Q 6ft+ players per team >> >> >> >> And I think it is important that we establish a transfer window within >> the >> >> season that allows players to move between clubs ;o) >> >> >> >> But in all seriousness I'd back a-c, d already exists and e well I just >> >> need to feed my team growth hormone obviously.. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> adam KEEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> 08/07/2008 12:14 >> >> >> >> To >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> cc >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> Subject >> >> [BD] Squad Sizes >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am with Dave on limiting the squad sizes to a >> >> sensible number. Out of interest, is there any other >> >> team sport where there is no upper limit to the size >> >> of a competing squad or is ultimate unique in this >> >> respect? >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Adam K >> >> (London Revolution) >> >> >> >> __________________________________________________ >> >> BritDisc mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc >> >> Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed >> >> >> > __________________________________________________ > BritDisc mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
