East Region Superleague....

[Burnie_man]

14 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

I know many of us make fun of it on here, but it does only seem to be the Juniors - and specifically the East and West Juniors - where this notion of using floodlights being "unfair" still persists. Whether because the idea of playing under artificial light is frowned upon, or on the argument not everyone has them.

Not all clubs in LL, EOSL and SOSL have them - but their use is perfectly standard in those leagues, and many amateur leagues (where they're understandably fairly rare tbf).

Indeed discarding them or curtailing their use would now be regarded as bizarre.

In the West Juniors they even schedule midweek games at floodlit grounds with kickoffs using natural light !


Most perplexingly, no eyelids seem to have been batted in the Juniors at some clubs using plastic pitches while most have grass. Surely that's even more "unfair".

If as suggested above playing by artificial light is finally embraced it'll be welcome, helpful and long overdue, IMO.

If you're referring to my comments re "unfair", it's fairly self explanatory.

If you have two clubs going for the title, one has lights and one doesn't, but both are behind in fixtures, then obviously the club with lights will have an advantage if the fixtures secretary decides to spread out their catch-up matches utilising their lights, whilst the other team have to wait and cram them in in the last couple of months.

Now you can either say tough luck, or you try and play fair.  It has nothing to do with being anti-floodlights, my own club has them and uses them and it would be great to play midweek cup ties under them, experiment with Friday nights etc, it's called looking at it objectively.

Now if the Region introduced some sort of ground standards which clubs must adhere to which included lights, then that's a different matter, but until they do, a lot of clubs - including what you would call big clubs - wont install them.

 

[sponsorsladdie]

If you're referring to my comments re "unfair", it's fairly self explanatory.
If you have two clubs going for the title, one has lights and one doesn't, but both are behind in fixtures, then obviously the club with lights will have an advantage if the fixtures secretary decides to spread out their catch-up matches utilising their lights, whilst the other team have to wait and cram them in in the last couple of months.
Now you can either say tough luck, or you try and play fair.  It has nothing to do with being anti-floodlights, my own club has them and uses them and it would be great to play midweek cup ties under them, experiment with Friday nights etc, it's called looking at it objectively.
Now if the Region introduced some sort of ground standards which clubs must adhere to which included lights, then that's a different matter, but until they do, a lot of clubs - including what you would call big clubs - wont install them.
 

I would go with tough luck, teams shouldn't be penalised for investing in infrastructure.

[lithgierose]

ours go up in June

 

 

[parsforlife]

If you're referring to my comments re "unfair", it's fairly self explanatory.

If you have two clubs going for the title, one has lights and one doesn't, but both are behind in fixtures, then obviously the club with lights will have an advantage if the fixtures secretary decides to spread out their catch-up matches utilising their lights, whilst the other team have to wait and cram them in in the last couple of months.

 

Now if the Region introduced some sort of ground standards which clubs must adhere to which included lights, then that's a different matter, but until they do, a lot of clubs - including what you would call big clubs - wont install them.

 

Spreading fixtures out for clubs with lights is playing fair. It's not discriminatory, playing under lights gives no more of a competitive advantage than investing in drainage or purchasing covers to get more games on during the season at first time of asking.

 

You don't get teams forced to have no game because others in the league are unlikely to play, there is nothing wrong with teams investing in facilities gaining a competitive advantage.

 

And you sure as hell would see teams without lights forking out if they end up losing titles becouse of it.

 

 

Agreed however we should see some form of progressive licencing system introduced within the juniors.

Holding crossgates and kelty to the same requirements doesn't make sense.

 

[Burnie_man]

2 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Spreading fixtures out for clubs with lights is playing fair. It's not discriminatory, playing under lights gives no more of a competitive advantage than investing in drainage or purchasing covers to get more games on during the season at first time of asking.

 

You don't get teams forced to have no game because others in the league are unlikely to play, there is nothing wrong with teams investing in facilities gaining a competitive advantage.

 

And you sure as hell would see teams without lights forking out if they end up losing titles becouse of it.

 

 

Agreed however we should see some form of progressive licencing system introduced within the juniors.

Holding crossgates and kelty to the same requirements doesn't make sense.

 

Of course its an advantage if you can play catch-up games between September and March rather than play 3 games a week in April and June!

However, it's not an issue at the moment as fixtures are not scheduled in that manner and I seriously doubt they ever will until we ever get to the stage of most clubs having lights.  That may happen sooner in the Superleague than in the District divisions.

I have always been of the opinion that you should have floodlights to play in the Superleague given that is where most of the fixture congestion happens. Maybe even adopt the Licensing criteria with lights added.

Anyway, this debate all started due to a suggestion that the play-off is scrapped due to the fact that some teams could be idle for a number of weeks before having to re-group and play the games. Nitten and Forfar WE have been idle for roughly the same period of time so no advantage there!

[HibeeJibee]

I must say that prettymuch the last person I expected to be defending the floodlight ban was Burnieman!

Is your view that everyone else (except SPFL & HL where 100% of clubs are lit) have got it wrong?

And what about plastic pitch advantages?


Btw, remember it's not only the home team who benefits - if you want to call it that - from lights.

Example cited above was how Bonnyrigg's backlog could have been alleviated by 3 other clubs hosting them in - for each of the hosts - a single midweek match.

[Junior_Arab]

I don't think it's unfair if a team invests in floodlights and gets the use of them, as mentioned above that's the benefits of investing in infrastructure. 

My biggest reservation is the standard of floodlights. I have played in friendlies under lights when I'd have been better with a torch strapped to my head! If floodlights are to be used for competitive matches they would have to be verified at the start of each season to ensure they were of a sufficient standard. 

[Burnie_man]

I must say that prettymuch the last person I expected to be defending the floodlight ban was Burnieman!

Is your view that everyone else (except SPFL & HL where 100% of clubs are lit) have got it wrong?

And what about plastic pitch advantages?


Btw, remember it's not only the home team who benefits - if you want to call it that - from lights.

Example cited above was how Bonnyrigg's backlog could have been alleviated by 3 other clubs hosting them in - for each of the hosts - a single midweek match.

Where am I defending anything? Try and understand my posts.

[HibeeJibee]

10 minutes ago, Junior_Arab said:

I don't think it's unfair if a team invests in floodlights and gets the use of them, as mentioned above that's the benefits of investing in infrastructure. 

My biggest reservation is the standard of floodlights. I have played in friendlies under lights when I'd have been better with a torch strapped to my head! If floodlights are to be used for competitive matches they would have to be verified at the start of each season to ensure they were of a sufficient standard. 

That wouldn't be difficult as SFA licensing already lays-down various lux test levels... Entry = 200 lux min/max 0.25 where lights present; Bronze = 300; Silver = 400 min/max 0.3; and so on.

http://scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SJFAFiles/DocumentsandDownloads/SFAClubLicensing/Part 2 Section 5 - Ground Criteria.pdf


Also in the SJFA's own revised ground criteria dating from April 2014 - which have never been brought into force, tbf - a figure of 300 lux (not 200 oddly) min/max 0.25 is specified.

http://scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SJFAFiles/DocumentsandDownloads/GroundSpecificationCriteria/GROUND SPEC-2014.doc

[BS7]

If you're referring to my comments re "unfair", it's fairly self explanatory.
If you have two clubs going for the title, one has lights and one doesn't, but both are behind in fixtures, then obviously the club with lights will have an advantage if the fixtures secretary decides to spread out their catch-up matches utilising their lights, whilst the other team have to wait and cram them in in the last couple of months.
Now you can either say tough luck, or you try and play fair.  It has nothing to do with being anti-floodlights, my own club has them and uses them and it would be great to play midweek cup ties under them, experiment with Friday nights etc, it's called looking at it objectively.
Now if the Region introduced some sort of ground standards which clubs must adhere to which included lights, then that's a different matter, but until they do, a lot of clubs - including what you would call big clubs - wont install them.
 

By the same token, there's some grounds that are never called off waterlogged but those teams end up behind in fixtures because away grounds are!

Bonnyrigg had a particular problem this season with the number of Saturday and Sunday matches in the the two national cup competitions. When there's no midweek fixtures for 6 months of the season that created a big backlog in league games - I think Linlithgow may have had a similar problem.

I'm sure the rose(s) will seek to address one way or another.

[wullie robb]

The two remaining fixtures for Bonnyrigg before they face Kelty.

Jeanfield and Carnoustie both at home.

How many goals can Bonnyrigg claw back ? 

[wullie robb]

25 minutes ago, gogsy said:

Nowhere near impossible for Bonnyrigg to claw it back, lets say

• Bonnyrigg 4-0 Jeanfield
• Bonnyrigg 4-0 Carnoustie
• Bonnyrigg 2-0 Linlithgow
• Kelty 0-2 Bonnyrigg

That a plausible set of results and would win them the league.

 

Gogsy, I noticed that apart from Fauldhouse, Jeanfield and Carnoustie have conceded the most away goals ? 

[macintosh]

Bonnyrigg played 26 & not drawn a game yet.

Has any side ever gone through a whole season without drawing a match?

[wingnut]

Think it's asking an awful lot for the Rose tbh,be a sore yin tae win them all and no get enough goals but that's fitbaw.

[Van magic]

Think it's asking an awful lot for the Rose tbh,be a sore yin tae win them all and no get enough goals but that's fitbaw.

Mon you start believing it can be done

[wingnut]

39 minutes ago, Van magic said:

Mon you start believing it can be done

Course I do haha.

[HibeeJibee]

Remember it'd be same situation as LTHV v Leith in EOSL last week: every goal Bonnyrigg scored v Kelty would = 2 goal swing. Scenario outlined above is 14-goal swing: only need 12.

[bravehearts dad]

11 minutes ago, gogsy said:

12 goal swing would make goal difference same? Next criteria would be goals scored, Kelty 21 goals ahead at the moment.

"80. Should two or more clubs finish level on points at the
end of their League programme, then goal difference shall
decide their positions. If points and goal difference be equal
the club scoring the most goals will be deemed the winner."

Equally keeping the ball out of the net in your defence is part of the game as well and to only lose 20 goals in 26 league games to date is an impressive statistic.

[bravehearts dad]

 Might have to submit a proposal to the AGM for an amendment to the rules!!!!

[Seen the light]

14 hours ago, wullie robb said:

Gogsy, I noticed that apart from Fauldhouse, Jeanfield and Carnoustie have conceded the most away goals ? 

I think Bonnyrigg are over the worst with there fixture backlog.

I see them winning those 3 games in hand and a winner takes all at Kelty.

There would be some crowd at that.

I take it if they win next two they will then play Lithgy 31st May and Kelty Saturday after 3rd June ?.