Joint EWL and EML Management Meeting:
Thursday 20th April 2006
Rutland Arms Hotel, Newmarket
Present
|
Russell Nutter |
Ö |
Pritpal Sagoo |
Ö |
Janet Goody |
|
|
Chris Kime |
Ö |
Mike Huckerby |
Ö |
Sarah Mann |
Ö |
|
Cliff Gulbis |
Ö |
Richard Munns |
Ö |
Rosemary Prince |
Ö |
|
David Burt |
|
Robert Southgate |
Ö |
Steve Mayhew |
Ö |
|
Jim Morris |
Ö |
Trevor Williams |
Ö |
|
|
Chair
Russell Nutter
Apologies
Janet Goody, David Burt
1. Minutes of previous meeting.
There were no issues arising.
2. League structure and organisation
2.1. East Men’s Veterans League: A proposal had been received from the Home Counties Veterans League that it be brought into the East Leagues structure as the clubs in that league were and had always been predominantly from East. A volunteer was available to manage the league. It was agreed that the league be reconstituted as the East Men’s Veterans League next season, playing under its own rules but within the East Leagues structure. Amendments to East League rule 1 wall be needed to incorporate the EMVL and a new rule 12 will be added to set out its match and organisational rules. Bob King of Pelicans HC will be nominated to the AGM as EMVL League Manager and as such a member of the League Management Committee. TW to liaise with RK on detailed arrangements for next season.
2.2. EH Proposals for A Single System for Hockey: Within these proposals, the issue of main concern is the banning of U16 players from senior league hockey. Were this to be introduced into the East Leagues there would be a loss of around 30% of our participating teams, with no clear indication of an alternative competition structure that would accommodate all the displaced young players. All clubs would be adversely affected and a number of club failures would be expected. Overall, this is seen as a singular threat to the health of club hockey in East. There must be less damaging ways to improve the development pathways of a relatively small number of top young players. An appropriate response to EH will be made (later - attached to these minutes).
3. Current playing issues
3.1. Outstanding EML games: in 4NE the two games unplayed will be voided as they have no effect on promotions etc, and the three teams that have forfeited 3 or more matches will be removed from the table (if re-entered next season, they will go into 6NE); 3SW: Rickmansworth v. Harpenden – CG to advise RM. Void if not played.
3.2. A complaint of unfair strengthening is being investigated in 5NE. MH to advise RM of the outcome as soon as possible.
3.3. DB had investigated complaints from both sides in a match between WGC and Shefford & Sandy in 7SW. Evidence from the clubs was contradictory, but as the WGC team had walked off the pitch during the match it was agreed that the result be awarded 3-0 to Shefford & Sandy.
3.4. A complaint by a Ford umpire of abuse including racial abuse by Brentwood 2 players is under investigation by JM. Absence abroad of an independent witness had delayed matters but progress is now being made.
3.5. Maldon & Little Baddow 4 are to be congratulated for maintaining their enthusiasm despite playing throughout the season severely short of players, losing most of their games, and conceding over 200 goals.
4. 2005/6 preliminaries
4.1. EML team entries: clubs must apply by 31st May. Plashet HC, a one-team based in East London, has made an application to join the EML next season. Agree that they be accepted, and in view of the strength of the team be placed in 4SE (taking advantage of the gap left by the switch of Sudbury to the NE quadrant).
4.2. EWL team entries: awaiting confirmation of Alford as the Lincs League promoted team, otherwise complete. Agreed that the Divisions 2 should have 10, 10, 12 teams next season rather than 11, 11, 11 as this increases the number of matches overall.
4.3. Fixtures: RM agreed to set up both EWL and EML fixtures. Expected to be available by the end of June. Agreed that coordinating EWL fixtures with EHL fixtures is no longer necessary.
4.4. Officer nominations: Chris Kime confirmed his retirement and was warmly thanked for his 11 years of service by the Committee. All other officers will be renominated by the Committee at the AGM. In addition Jane Wilson and Neil Liversedge will be nominated as new League Managers.
4.5. Meeting dates 06/07: 19th Sept, 14th Nov, 6th Feb, 24th April. Consideration to be given to switching to a venue near Stansted.
5. Finance
5.1. Fines so far this season total around £1500, most of which has been collected. New fines for non-return of trophies will be used to purchase new trophies.
5.2. A break-even budget with slightly reduced league fees was agreed. TW to finalise and submit to the East Treasurer.
6. Rule changes for 2006/7
6.1. The final wording of changes discussed at previous meetings was agreed for: Doubling up of GK and use of field substitutes; Start times in pool umpired divisions; Point deductions in EML for late results etc; Requirement for fixture cards and new Guideline; Rewrite of Rule 6 to aid clarity, and include promotions and relegations in EWL in 06/07 and reduced proms/rels in EML in smaller divisions.
6.2. Noted that the rule agreed at the 2005 AGM requiring club umpires to be Level 1 in all divisions and requiring clubs to have a minimum number of L1 umpires at the start of the season ill be implemented in 06/07.
7. Umpiring
7.1. Umpire complaint form: draft with ERHUA for finalisation.
7.2. Herts & Beds pool: agreed that if there is no active pool in a county, clubs cannot comply with all parts of rule 5.1.1, so an appropriate note will be added to the rule. The position regarding the activities of HBHUA next season is not yet clear.
8. Discipline
8.1. Cards this season: EML: 27R, 932Y; EWL: 1R, 59Y. These figures are slightly down on last season.
8.2. Some multiple Y card bans were incurred the end of the season and the players concerned will be banned from some matches in Sept 06. TW to write to the clubs.
8.3. Hugh Jarvis Fair Play Award to be awarded to Cambridgeshire Nomads.
8.4. EWL will consider introducing a fair play award from the 07/08 season.
8.5. Following incidents of severe umpire abuse by Bedford 1 during and after the EML match on 18th March, the club had been asked to consider the actions it would take next season to prevent repetitions of this behaviour and to address its generally inadequate disciplinary record. The response received was considered inadequate, and it was agreed that Bedford 1 be put on notice of expulsion from the League in the event of repletion of this behaviour at any time next season. TW to write.
8. Presentation Day and AGM 200
· Arrangements confirmed with Ford HC. Hall available from 12.00, AGM 2.00, Buffet 3.00, Presentations 3.30 p.m.
· catering: menu @ £6.75 agreed for 80 people, but final number to be confirmed nearer the date. Clubs wishing to bring lots of people to be given the option of paying for extra catering.
· photography: MH will cover top 5 presentations (EML Prem A, EWL Prem, Top Goalscorers, and Hugh Jarvis award).
· Trophies: most have been returned. Exceptions are Gorleston (5NE), Harleston (3NE), Bourne (3NW), St Neots (5NE), Luton Town (6SW), WGC (7SW) in EML, all now due to pay £50 fines. TW to write.
· leading goalscorers: Jenny Hoyte from Holcombe is top in EWL; the highest bid in EML so far is 53 goals.
· pennants: ordered, but colours to be confirmed. PS to progress.
· Certificates: TW to produce once tables are finalised.
· VIP invitations: SM to liaise with East Management.
· AGM agenda & papers: in hand. Officer nominations and new rules to be published on website.
9. Future meetings: 4th June: AGM & Presentations at Ford HC. Committee 2006-7: 19th Sept, 14th Nov, 6th Feb, 24th April, venue tbc, starting time 7.30.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emailed to England Hockey at singlesystem@englandhockey.org
East Men's League and East Women's League response to EH proposals for ‘A Single System for Hockey'
The East Leagues Management Committee discussed these proposals at its meeting of 20.04.06 and agreed to the response set out below.
• The East Leagues recognise the need for improved development pathways for talented young players, and fully understand that overplaying is an issue that has to be resolved as a part of this. However, we would argue that overplaying is much more a problem in junior representative hockey than in senior league hockey. Representative hockey is by its very nature highly competitive, both in terms of the competition itself and in the personal fight to gain and keep a place in an elite squad. In contrast, the majority of junior players in senior league teams are playing at a relatively low level of competition and on the basis of an assured place in the team.
• The England Hockey proposals include the principle that competitions must be designed to ensure that “talented players are not overplayed to the detriment of skill development”. We fully support that statement, but believe that it applies primarily to those talented youngsters that are engaged in elite development pathways and who are at present playing in multiple levels of representative hockey, in competitive school hockey, and in top league hockey. It may be a positive step to remove the top league hockey element from that group of players, by say taking U15 or U16 players out of the national leagues, but it is hard to see any comparable gains from removing junior players from lower level regional and county league hockey.
• On the other hand, removing all U16 players from regional and county league hockey would have a devastating effect on the leagues and their clubs. We estimate that the East Leagues would lose around 30% of its teams were this proposal to be applied willy nilly across the region. Whilst a regional league might survive this level of devastation, many county leagues would not do so.
• For clubs the picture would be even bleaker. For example, one East club considers that it would be reduced from a six-team joint club to a two-team men's club. Another club believes it would soon lose all its three men's teams and cease to exist. Even large clubs would be significantly affected – one national league club reckon on losing seven of their teams, and another three of theirs. It should be obvious to us all that damaging the club base of our sport in this way is not the way forward.
• These clubs are all located in areas with a low density of hockey. Only by utilising all ages of player can clubs such as these field enough teams to make a league structure just feasible. Removing all U16 players would reduce player density below a level that can support league hockey. And without senior league hockey such clubs would disappear.
Setting up new local junior competitions in such areas of low hockey density will be extremely difficult, and sometimes impossible. If a local league using players of all ages is only just feasible, then intra-club age-group competitions and badger leagues in the same area are going to be absolutely impossible. What might seem a bright idea in an urban environment replete with hockey clubs will not easily translate to the less populated areas that make up the larger part of England .• In the recently published FAQ document, there is a response by EH to the potential problems caused to smaller clubs by these proposals – the clubs should become “purely development” clubs for junior players. Quite apart from the gratuitous insult this offers to many respected clubs, it is an economic absurdity. Clubs can presently offer young players affordable hockey through very low junior annual subscriptions, match fees, and coaching charges. They can do this because adult members pay higher fees than are strictly necessary, bars make useful profits, and car expenses are rarely if ever claimed. Much of this adult subsidy for junior club hockey would disappear in a so-called development club with a majority of young members. Many parents are simply not going to be able to pay a £100 annual subscription and a £10 match fee for each child, free travel becomes very difficult when there are fewer adults around, and bar profits from the under-sixteens are sparse to say the least.
• Whilst a hard timetable is presented for the withdrawal of younger players from league hockey, there are no firm proposals for alternative junior competitions, nor is it made clear who would take responsibility for establishing these competitions on a national, regional, and county scale. The proposals therefore seem completely out of balance, and there is a gross underestimation of the difficulties of switching large numbers of young players from a familiar competitive structure to one that will be both completely different and generally not supported by their club-minded elders.
• “Health and safety” appears in the proposals as a reason for removing U16 players from senior league hockey, although no studies of this issue are cited. If EH has carried out risk assessments for junior participation in hockey at various levels, these need to be published so that organizers of hockey can understand the implications for their own activities. It should be made clear for example why the withdrawal of some youngsters from senior competitions on health and safety grounds can be delayed for several years, and why juniors playing league matches with adults are at risk whilst juniors playing under the same rules and with the same equipment with adults in badgers matches are not at similar risk. In the absence of published risk assessments, cynics may see the unsupported statement as little more than a makeweight argument.
The East Leagues have always taken the view that the safety of junior players is a club responsibility, as only clubs can assess whether a particular young player can handle the level of competition in which they play. Moreover, clubs can do this on a match by match basis. The imposition of blanket restrictions is far less flexible.Suggestions
• If the primary objective is to ensure that the most talented players are not overplayed, it is worthwhile reconsidering the need to remove all young players from regional and county league hockey when for the majority the benefits gained would be small and the adverse effects great. Removing some young players from the national leagues might well be sufficient to achieve the primary objective.
• Badger leagues and the like should be developed on a voluntary basis by groups of clubs in areas where player numbers are sufficiently dense. Encouraging and supporting such local initiatives would be a better way forward than applying blanket restrictions to existing league competitions. Moreover, such a voluntary approach would be a more natural progression from existing youth development work by EH in the regions.
• It would be sensible to clarify the position of health and safety references in the proposals, irrespective of how the proposals might be modified in light of the current debate. Hockey as a whole is entitled to know what relevant risk assessments have been carried out.
Changes to East League rules can only be made by a majority vote of the participating clubs at an AGM. As matters stand it is highly unlikely that there would be a vote in favour of removing U16 players en bloc from the East Men's League or the East Women's League. We hope that the EH consultation process will lead to revisions that will make the new system for junior hockey more responsive to the needs of Clubs playing in regional and county leagues, and so obtains their support.
TW/23.4.06