nev25
-
I didn't know you where a coach Wayne
TBA ???? GOOD or BAD
- Thread starter Docta
- Start date
I didn't know you where a coach Wayne
It may not be perfect for everyone, but its certainly the best its been in many many years & seems to work well for the vast majority. Unfortunately there are always a few people that just cant handle the fact there are rules in place and they have to buck the system.
If you start moving the goal posts for some and not others imagine the posts we'd have on here then.
Only seem to be the same 2-4 people on here stirring the pot
Tounge in cheek , sarcasm on my part , sorry if it offends
Docta
Member
Im sorry Chin but how can you tell me that TBA SA is not bias in some of their decision making when TBA SA is practically run by one family. Im sure they will be arguing with each other about who does and doesn't met their criteria. You say that there are rules in place so thats just the way it has to be....well how about changing with the times and acknowledge that there are a growing number of people that can,t bowl every week, wether it be due to work or other circumstance. Tell me this then, why is the Rachuig team not just selected from the top 6 or 7, why is it that the top 4 are automatic qualifiers and the rest are chosen? I believe this system allows to much for bias decision making? I may have the numbers wrong but i know that their has been instances where the team is not made up from the best bowlers from trials.
As for Rachuig, other states may vary, in S.A. it's currently top 4 automatic & 2 selection. The more people that have to be selected the more "bias decision making"/politics can be involved I would have thought. Everyone knows the criteria when they enter. They know they have to make top 4 to be safe. Used to be first 7 past the post, which was the fairest. You knew if you bowl the best on the day you were in. Can only recall one instance in the last 10 years where they have selected outside the current top 6 bowlers or top 7 bowlers before they cut numbers back to 6 a few years ago. They generally take 5 & 6 or took 6 & 7. Don't know the reasons why that 1 year was different, wasn't involved in the selection debate.
The current system of 4 automatic & 2 selection currently allows for the best bowlers in the state to make the team not just the best bowlers from the trials. You can apply for an exemption from the trials and still be selected.
The current system allows for states top bowler/s who may be injured or away with Australian teams at the time of the trials to still be selected if they have applied for an exemption from the trials. Previously when it was first 7 past the post in the roll-offs there was no grounds to have your Australian Reps in the team if they missed the trials. And you cant tell me that if your good enough to be representing Australia at the time of the trials your not an automatic starter in any State Team.
As for who's runs what in the state. People spend plenty of time whinging and bitching about the way things are run but never want to put there hand up to do the job themselves.
The current system of 4 automatic & 2 selection currently allows for the best bowlers in the state to make the team not just the best bowlers from the trials. You can apply for an exemption from the trials and still be selected.
The current system allows for states top bowler/s who may be injured or away with Australian teams at the time of the trials to still be selected if they have applied for an exemption from the trials. Previously when it was first 7 past the post in the roll-offs there was no grounds to have your Australian Reps in the team if they missed the trials. And you cant tell me that if your good enough to be representing Australia at the time of the trials your not an automatic starter in any State Team.
As for who's runs what in the state. People spend plenty of time whinging and bitching about the way things are run but never want to put there hand up to do the job themselves.
FOUND SOME INTERESTING DEFINITIONS ON "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS"
1. Someone with a very open mind. ...it just happens that they are to open for there own good.
2. A swell way to become an attention whore.
3. A perfect way to waste away years of your life to find no reliable evidence what-so-ever.
4. Someone who hasn't yet grown out of being an attention seeking psycho babbler. A very mediocre kind of troll.
5. Paranoid, angry or attention seeking wannabe college dropouts who think by looking at controversial events they can piece together their own, delusional version of "The Truth" about what REALLY happened.
6. Trying to be edgy by saying different than the majority of people are saying. Usually they try to sound smart by making up bullshit.
How scary's that. This person has been reading Total Bowling.
1. Someone with a very open mind. ...it just happens that they are to open for there own good.
2. A swell way to become an attention whore.
3. A perfect way to waste away years of your life to find no reliable evidence what-so-ever.
4. Someone who hasn't yet grown out of being an attention seeking psycho babbler. A very mediocre kind of troll.
5. Paranoid, angry or attention seeking wannabe college dropouts who think by looking at controversial events they can piece together their own, delusional version of "The Truth" about what REALLY happened.
6. Trying to be edgy by saying different than the majority of people are saying. Usually they try to sound smart by making up bullshit.
How scary's that. This person has been reading Total Bowling.
Docta
Member
FOUND SOME INTERESTING DEFINITIONS OF A "MENTUM" (medical term)
1. A body part that one would rest ones testicles on whilst one was receiving fellatio.
2. A secondary body part that my be covered in fecal matter whilst one was brown nosing.
3. A boney structure that when hit at high velocity, will transfer enough kinetic energy to the brain causing a concussion.
I can keep going but it is just detracting from my point. It's my view and you dont have to like it but Im not the only one that sees it this way, even though
I may be one of a few that speaks up on record.
1. A body part that one would rest ones testicles on whilst one was receiving fellatio.
2. A secondary body part that my be covered in fecal matter whilst one was brown nosing.
3. A boney structure that when hit at high velocity, will transfer enough kinetic energy to the brain causing a concussion.
I can keep going but it is just detracting from my point. It's my view and you dont have to like it but Im not the only one that sees it this way, even though
I may be one of a few that speaks up on record.
emmtee83
Member
The only time in the last 10 years, hey? Geez, that makes me feel a whole lot better...
It's my view and you dont have to like it but Im not the only one that sees it this way, even though
I may be one of a few that speaks up on record.
It's easy to say there are plenty of others that think the same way. You saying so doesn't make it fact, just makes it look like your trying to justify your comments.
If there's so many of you that think there is so much wrong with the current system and so few of you willing to speak up how do you expect things to change. If the majority are just happy sitting on the fence and whinging about everything that other people are doing nothing will ever change. 2 or 3 people getting on TB whinging wont change anything.
Had 40 years of bitching Chin,
Happy to sit on the fence sometimes......plus we got you to do all the talking.............
Hard to get a word in sometimes............
You just like the feeling you get while straddling the fence
RobbieB
Rodentus scientificus
Docta, just to be clear about your complaint - TBASA received a request from a non-affiliated social bowler that they drop the requirement that a bowler seeking to represent his State be required to play a minimum number of games at the local competition level? And because this request was refused TBA are biased and incompetent?
God forbid other sports should take this draconian stance. Oh wait...
God forbid other sports should take this draconian stance. Oh wait...
Docta, emmtee83, I can see where you both are coming from as I had a similar thing happen to me in 2006. I placed 7th in the rachuig roll off that year and got shafted for another player who had been part of the team for the previous 2 years and was unable to roll off that year... oh wait I forgot to tell you the reason why he couldn't make roll offs which was because he planned fishing with mates that weekend. I was when I later found that out. So maybe when it comes to these things there needs to be clearer ruling on excemptions for things like roll off like choosing recreational events over rolling off for your state team denying an excemption. The team placed about 5th or 6th that year then the next year I made the team, averaged 214 and we came 3rd and that was a big SUCK IT to the committee for overlooking me before for someone who decided to go fishing.
when I later found that out. So maybe when it comes to these things there needs to be clearer ruling on excemptions for things like roll off like choosing recreational events over rolling off for your state team denying an excemption. The team placed about 5th or 6th that year then the next year I made the team, averaged 214 and we came 3rd and that was a big SUCK IT to the committee for overlooking me before for someone who decided to go fishing.
