2013 rules forum. Netball NSW Competition Rules Forum. Meeting held: Sunday 28 July 2013, Tennis Centre Meeting opened: 9.10am.

Transcription

1 Netball NSW Competition Rules Forum Meeting held: Sunday 28 July 2013, Tennis Centre Meeting opened: 9.10am Attendees: Kylie Tzavaras, Baulkham Hills Laurel Cunico, Baulkham Hills Jenny Bazley, Camden Kerrin Thomas, Camden Sam Dawes, CSNA/Sydney Uni Anne Doring, Eastwood/Ryde Di Bills, Eastwood/Ryde Judy Watt, Eastwood/Ryde Samantha Gribble, Gosford Les Turner, Hawkesbury City Vicki Turner, Hawkesbury City Anne Margalit, Kuring-Gai Bev Dew, Manly Helen Dean, Manly Cecil O Donnell, Mount Druitt Jenny Gage-Trail, Northern Suburbs Margot Patterson, Northern Suburbs Kim Higgins, Parramatta Auburn Sandra Gardiner, Parramatta Auburn Joy Gillett, Penrith Fran Reynolds, Randwick Marie Kelly, Randwick Helen Andrews, St George Lara Mina, St George Prue Haberecht, Sutherland Madeline Allen, Westlakes Wendy Archer, NNSW Board Carol Murphy, NNSW Board Ruth Havrlant, NNSW Board Rodney Watson, NNSW Board Lynn Quinn, RRP (Life Member) Grant Corderoy, RRP Maria Bettini, RRP Deb Hanson, RRP Mary Jane Hauser, RRP Nathan Walker, RRP (NNSW Staff Member) Gail Eckert, NNSW Staff Heidi Helmood, NNSW Staff Rob Wright, NNSW Staff Tracey Fear, NNSW Staff Apologies: Charlestown Netball Association Quirindi Netball Association Dubbo Netball Association Illawarra Netball Association

2 Nathan Walker welcomed everyone to the meeting, and thanked them for their attendance. Nathan Walker (LQ) introduced the Panel: Grant Corderoy, Jane Hauser, Debra Hanson, Maria Bettini and Lynn Quinn. The forum proceeded by working through the Rules Submissions from Associations and then the Grading Policy and Procedures and Rules for Championships and Competitions document which had been updated with tracked changes to show the rule changes proposed by the RRP. RULES FOR SUBMISSION Submission 1 RRP: Indicated that the process of putting forward a Confirmed Grading date was too difficult. Suggested that Netball NSW place a News Item on the NNSW website once all grades have been confirmed. Consensus: Agreed with RRP Submission 2 RRP: Explained the current process. Netball NSW take a fee to the November Council Meeting where Council votes for or against the fee. This will remain the same. Consensus: Agreed with RRP Submission 3 RRP: Agreed with St George on the point of players keeping finals Status after being de and re registered. Changing of Rule 13 will need to reflect this. Consensus: Agreed. Submission 4 RRP: Agreed with Manly. Wording of rule would change to include Netball NSW State League. This will incorporate the whole competition. Consensus: Agreed.

3 Submission 5 RRP: Open discussion on the Import Players in Waratah Cup. The RRP put forward the proposal to leave as is. Manly: Discussed the need for all players to be treated as equal and therefore 5 games should be enough to qualify for finals as per non import players. RRP: Feels that the import players are on an invitational basis and therefore cannot be classed equally Further discussion between Forum members. Tracey Fear and Robert Wright: Spoke on behalf of the Swifts. Discussed that they spoke with a large number of Waratah Cup coaches who were happy to have the players play. Discussed having a more open and informed communication means through Swifts and Waratah Cup Coaches. Felt that playing 5 games was much more achievable to players and therefore would strengthen the competition. Further discussion between Forum members. Consensus: Disagreed. The rule should remain as is. Vote took place. 11 For and 14 Against Rule change. Submission 6 RRP: Explained that this would be covered off in a later part of the forum. Consensus: Agreed. Submission 7 RRP: Disagreed with the Submission in relation to NID. The competition being a shorter competition and some squads are larger than 16 players. KNA: Discussed that they thought this would be a great opportunity for associations to use as a trial basis for their State Age teams. Camden: Discussed that they don t see the use of trials as they do not use NID for this reason. Sutherland: If you have the numbers you should just enter two teams. If you have 22 players that is 11 players per team. RRP: As a shorter competition with no finals we feel the 12 players and 6 late registrations cover any injuries and changes. Consensus: Disagreed with the Submission. Vote taken. 1 For and 21 Against. Rule will stay as is.

4 Submission 8 and 9 RRP: These submissions should be looked at together. RRP feels that this will not save NNSW administration time. Would be the opposite and cause more paper work. The timeframe is too short as NNSW will be at the venue from Thursday before State and State Age. KNA: Thought that this would help associations with administrations as well as a hectic first morning. Did mention that it was a quicker process than first thought at State Age in RRP: May include a late and de-registration form as per State League for both State and State Age. This will allow associations to complete any registrations on the forms prior to State and State Age. They would still need to be handed into Event Control before 8am on the first morning of play. Wendy Archer: Asked Nathan Walker would this ease the full on first morning? Nathan Walker: Explained that the rule change would probably raise the work level in an already busy week before both competitions. I think that the Late and De Registration form could be help. Consensus: Disagreed with Rule changes. Rule will be left as is. Submission 10 RRP: Can recall this being raised in previous years. At that time it was a timing issue. Will try for 2013 and see how it pans out. KNA: We feel that it is impossible for associations to appeal on any basis without team lists on the website. Last year we were investigating appealing without the information. We then called Bec Pollard who was very forthcoming with the information. RRP: The issue could also be the number of players and teams to complete in 2 days. Associations will send through entries on the last day close to the closing time of entries. This doesn t allow for grading to occur on the Monday. Hawkesbury: Would it be helpful if all associations sent through an excel (typed) document which allowed NNSW to copy and paste the names. RRP: This would be helpful in relation to the names. NNSW will look at creating an excel document that makes it easier for associations to submit all names (typed) to NNSW. Wendy Archer: We should have a dry run in 2013 and then re visit this rule in Consensus: Agreed with Wendy and will return to this rule in 2014 after a dry run in 2014.

5 Submission 11 RRP: Agree with the rationale behind the rule implementation but feel it is just hard for one rule to cover all circumstances. KNA: Associations continue to place names of players on the entry forms with no intentions of playing. RRP: We feel that the implementation of Rules in 2013 may stop this happening in future years. The rules such as players will only retain status for 1 year and re registrations now counting as late registrations. We also feel that the bonus points will help keep teams together. We feel that this should be revisited in Consensus: Disagreed with Rule change. Agreed with revisiting in Submissions RRP: Would like to accept all the Submissions from Nicole Bowles (Regional Manager) NNSW. Nicole has canvassed regional coordinators and then in turn Regional Associations. The RRP feels as they do not have a large amount of experience that this should fall with NNSW Regional Manager. Parramatta: Would like to change wording in Submission 12 from outstanding to extenuating. I feel this covers a variety of situations but is less subjective. RRP: Agree RRP: Looking over again we need to allow associations to appeal if they feel the rules have not been followed. Submission 14 should remain but delete the wording on the website There was discussion in and around the forum as to why the rule changes have been implemented. RRP: Reiterated that Nicole had canvassed Regional Coordinators and Associations as to the rule changes. Regional Competitions are a little different to Region 1 competitions and need some flexibility. Consensus: Agreed. All rule changes to be adopted including the changes from Parramatta and RRP. GRADING POLICY AND PROCEDURES & RULES FOR CHAMPIONSHIPS AND COMPETITIONS GENERAL PROCEDURES

6 GRADING PROCEDURES REGION 1 STATE LEAGUE Rule 2 RRP: Explained rationale behind the changing to 8 teams per division with no amount of Divisions. Competition standard has been declining for a number of years and this is an effort to stop this trend. NW then explained that it was highly likely that the State League Competition would start at the Anne Clark Centre as the new building may not be ready in time. NW also explained that no change in competition days would happen in 2014 even if the competition was moved halfway through the season. Camden: Asked about the teams that miss out and where will the players then play? RRP: There is a no limit on Divisions at this point in time for the rule change. We thing that players will then again go back and play at their local associations in the higher divisions. This should then strengthen local competitions. NW detailed the times on Saturdays that would need to be included if it was to change. Further discussion in relation to teams and where they will play. RRP: Put forward the motion of only the top 4 Divisions being 8 teams and the remainder of the Divisions stay at 10 teams. Another option is Top 2 Divisions being 8 and remainder being 10 teams. Further discussion in relation to benefits of changes. Eastwood/Ryde: We now have three options to choose from and have heard the reasoning behind all. I think we should vote. RRP: First vote is to keep the team numbers the same. 13 Votes for and 14 Against. This means the rules will change. Second vote was for the change to team numbers in certain Divisions Divisions 1-2 (8 Teams) 16 Votes Divisions 1-4 (8 Teams) 8 Votes RRP: Rule change will reflect the vote just taken. Will also keep at 8 divisions as per discussion. Consensus: Agreed with changes to rules to reflect the vote. Rule 14

7 Rule 17 Rule 29 PLAYING RULES FOR REGION 1 STATE LEAGUE Rule 2 Rule 9 Sutherland: Will need to include something for different states and territories. RRP: Agreed. Consensus: agreed proposed rule changes to be put forward to November Council meeting with addition of or relevant State of territory. This addition is in line with other rules throughout the document. Rule 24

8 PLAYING RULES FOR REGION 1 NIGHT INTER DISTRICT Rule 3 GRADING PROCEDURES FOR STATE AGE CHAMPIONSHIP Rule 7 RRP: This was a rule change which helped strengthen the competitions and allowed teams to be even distributed through the remaining divisions. Sutherland: Agree but should we add the words no less than to this rule. This then explains that there will be no less than 20 teams in Divisions 1 and 2 and allows the rule for more than 80 entries to continue. RRP: Agreed Consensus: agreed proposed rule changes to be put forward to November Council meeting with addition on no less than. Rule 9 PLAYING RULES FOR STATE AGE CHAMPIONSHIP Rule 3 (t) RRP: Joint winners should be named as the 30% sheet can be used to separate if anything is incorrect. In the case of promotion or relegation the point s percentage shall apply. Also feel that the players are still juniors and they should be encouraged to play. Manly: I understand the rationale behind the rule but feel everyone knows that there will only be one winner and runner up on the day.

9 Camden: I don t see how you can use point s percentage for promotion and relegation but not for the results of winners and runners up. If you use it for one then you should use it for both. Forum discussion on the matter. RRP: We will now vote on removing Goal Average to determine the winners and runners up. Majority agreed that point s percentage should remain to determine winners and runners up as well as promotion and relegation. Rule 3 (v) GRADING PROCEDURES FOR STATE CHAMPIONSHIP Rule 9 Consensus: agreed proposed rule changes to be put forward to November Council meeting as is PLAYING RULES FOR STATE CHAMPIONSHIPS Rule 1 (b) RRP: Felt that the 19s were at an age where players had outside influences that would prohibit them from taking part in the State Championships. We feel that 21 give players a couple of extra years to play before moving up to the Opens. We also have put forward the motion of taking out the 35s. We feel that this would allow the Masters to again become part of the State Championships and be at the same venue. Some of the 35s are still competitive enough to allow them to play in the Opens. Forum discussion around the difference in ages from 19s and 21s. Discussed reasons why players are unable to play in the 19s Age group. High School and Uni exams being a major distraction. Gosford: Can we just go back to the 35s. I have competed for the past couple of seasons in this Division and feel that it is the most competitive division out of all of them. It was a bit disappointing not being able to play at the same venue but would be strongly against getting rid of the 35s.

10 Forum agreed and started discussions on removing the 40s or 45s. RRP: Removing the 40s or 45s would not really solve the issue of being able to have all divisions at one venue. They have been the lowest of numbers in the past. Forum then discussed the venues that would be able to host. Gail Eckert: There is only a minimal amount of associations that are able to host State Championships and State Age. We need a large amount of Courts plus spare courts to cover any non playable games. RRP: Following on from the discussions can I have a show of cards for the following. Change 19 age group to 21s and reinstate 35s into the document. Consensus: agreed above proposed rule changes to be put forward to November Council meeting as is Rule 3 (u) Consensus: agreed proposed rule changes to be put forward to November Council meeting as is GRADING PROCEDURE FOR REGION 1 STATE LEAGUE Rules 14 (b) (c) and 15 (b) (c) Baulkham Hills: Would like to change the wording of the rule to reflect a team being relegated. In the current format an association is unable to be placed back into a higher grade that they had been relegated from the previous season. Baulkham Hills used an example where this year a team was relegated as they finished last in Division 4 in A Baulkham Hills team then amassed enough Status Points to play in Division 4 with a new side. They were unable to do so in relation to Rule 15 (b). Some of the players in the Division 4 side then went to other sides and still played Division 4 as they were able to gain entry to other association teams with enough Status Points to do so. RRP: Agree with the change to reflect that the team cannot play in the same division. A team will consist of 5 returning players. This will be achieved by adding the word team to the above rules. RRP: Show of Voting Card in relation to the above Rule change. All agreed.

11 PLAYING RULES FOR REGION 1 NIGHT INTER DISTRICT Rule 7 RRP: Late registrations should be a total of four (4) instead of (6). It is a shorter competition that shouldn t allow for people to be able to late register more players than State League. RRP (Lynn): Doesn t seem to recall when this was changed. We always have tried to keep consistency through all the rules documents. KNA: Should be left as is for reasons mentioned in previous discussions. RRP: Consensus from Forum was to change rule to (4) late registrations in line with all other competitions. Nathan Walker thanked all associations for giving up their time and also to the RRP for their time. Carol Murphy also thanked associations and also the RRP for their times and efforts for the document. Meeting closed: 2.10pm