What are you saying, or what do you think you are saying - in the words of the fish and chip redhead - please expain!

gutta - Since when? This has never been the case, but it is a common misconception.

Do you know something the rest of us don't??

I suspect it's true that some victorian players are too old for their age level, but even if not, there can't be anything wrong with ensuring everyone's the right age. We need players registered state or nationally as soon as they start, and then there's no dispute. They do this in soccer and other sports, just a case of basketball being behind the times.

They are the same age. Bigger population will give you a bigger base. Stop whining and making up stuff you know nothing about.

The SA teams arent at a disadvantage. We play against exactly the same aged girls and guys from VIC, most of them meet up again at nationals. We get flogged in both.

Your a fool gutta...age cutoffs are they same in SA and Vic..how do you think U14 clubs, U16 state etc go...sheeeesh...just plain dumb...

Did a norwood person start this post ? Carlo perhaps ?

Absolutely right ANON above. They are well drilled. Went to watch my nephew play the other night at Pasadena against Collingwood.

Those Vic boys played disciplined D, no jumping around trying to block shots, no lame attempts at steals, just good, solid denying D, whereas my Neph's team, were lazy on D, let them drive in to within 5 feet, and then flailed about wildly and complained when they got called for blocking from behind. And the parents weren't much better either. The Collingwood boys very rarely if ever complained about the refs, even when they got a couple of dodgy calls themselves. It's just a case of being well-drilled and disciplined. That's the difference.

Speed44,

Was that the same Collingwood all star team that was playing late at Pasadena the other nite that wanted to do more to the opposition than just "play good D" on court 3?

Was it the same Collingwood side that wanted to also continue to play more than "just good D" after the final buzzer had gone when MOST were shaking hands?

Was that the same Collingwood team were a certain Allstar kid got rattled and wanted to play a whole lot more than "just good D" because an opposition player got in his face on D and screamed "Ball, ball, ball" while the Collingwood cherub had possesion?

Was that the same game were the Collingwood Allstars nearly went down to a lowly SA div 4 side?

Speed44; I am hoping it wasnt the game I witnessed because the Collingwood Upstarts were the ones winging and moaning to the reffs and wanting to do a little more to the opposition than to just play "good D"

As for the parents, I think you have maybe got confussed when writing your thread and gotten events alittle back to front.

The Collingwood team you have described has N E V E R existed in the 10 years of tornaments that I have been going too.

Speed44 I presume you must have witnessed an entirly different game than I did on court 3 at Pasadena the other nite otherwise it is plain to see what you were actually on!

No, the game I watched was on court 2 actually against a Div 2 SA team, and not a late game either. And they won quite handsomely.

Didn't see the game you mentioned. And don't get all uppitty until you find out which game I was at, not before. Take your sedatives now, OK?

The Collingwood team I witnessed were well disciplined and controlled. If that is different to what their teams normally are, then these guys were exceptions, and show that you shouldn't tar all with the same brush.

And I definitely didn't get the parents mixed up either, I was sitting right amongst them. So it's obviously a different game.

Oh, and the questions weren't that hard either.

Seditives taken.

Must have been a different team as I would hate people to think the team I witnessed on court 3 was your same Collingwood Angels

Obviously 2 different teams. Not saying they were Angels at all, but in that one game I saw, they played a good, fair and honest game. Who knows, the other games they played over the weekend they might have been knuckleheads.

Also, the game on court 1 at the same time was between an SA team and the Darebin Giants (is that their name?), and it was the same deal. The Giants were disciplined and well-drilled, maybe a little cocky, but nonetheless fair, and just steamrolled the SA side.

Great to hear about the sedatives. Don't forget to refill the subscription.

Regardless of bigger base thus more players to choose from and that the players are better drilled & don't whinge there is a loophole that can be exploited.
Why can't the eligibility of the team be the same as our district comp.
2.3. Age Eligibility (C32)
a) To be eligible to play in an age group, a player must be under
the age required on 31 December of the year in which the competition is to be completed.

Ummmmm, it already is the same!

An u/12 in Vic is also an u/12 in SA - no exceptions.

Try reading the threads you start, ok?

I'm going to add fuel to that fire by claiming that Victorian years are a month longer therefore 12 year olds from Victoria are a full 12 months older than South Australian 12 year olds.