It was probably inevitable that the rain, which disrupted the season so much, would return and have one last attempt to disrupt the season. The torrential rain washed out the Youth League Grand Final but not before three innings had been played. It was disappointing, however I doubt the result would have changed.

We were concerned that the rain would affect Bensons Lane; however the diamonds were presented in extremely good condition on Saturday morning. The allocation of Grand Final venues took a different approach this season – by playing Hay and Youth League on Friday night it allowed the opportunity to

(a) play the two ‘flagship’ competitions at a time and venue that most people could attend and
(b) play all the remaining eight games at one venue. 

As a venue Bensons met every criteria we applied – above average amenities and playing surface, good wet weather ground, four diamonds which are far enough apart from other games, ample warm up areas, change rooms/toilets, off street parking and a good canteen.  We received good co-operation from the Hawkesbury Sports Council which mowed the Baseball fields twice (Tuesday and Friday) last week. Overall we were delighted with the day.  Our thanks to Hawkesbury and to Kellyville for the way their diamonds were prepared. 

Most games in the Grand Finals were extremely close with a number of games decided in the bottom of the last innings such was the competitive nature of the games. 

The results of Grand Finals were:

What is a ‘concern’ is our playing standard – the gulf between first and second division is continuing to widen alarmingly.  The greatest influence on teams is the coaching that players are exposed to.  The playing standard continues to decline as the lack of experienced coaches at club level increases.  Little League is a classic example where the lesser experienced players really struggled with the fundamentals at times.

The Club Championship and Incentive Shield  details are as follows

The Little League competition, despite the rain, completed 12 of the scheduled 15 weeks. That was important

(a)    to qualify Hills to enter the Little League competition, and

(b)   most of all it provided 12 games of additional baseball for the players.  That was its greatest success, that plus the spirit games were played in.

Because of the way the competition was played, it meant that not all the better class of players were involved. This will be reflected in the two tournament teams not being as strong as they might have been. We conducted the format almost to the letter that Little League requires – we were the only Association to do so.  What was different was, we included any player that wanted to be involved. That does not occur in USA where they conduct selection trials prior to the draft being conducted. If you cannot play at the required level – you are not selected to be included in the draft.

I am still concerned about the effect on the Hills competitions in relation to the change in eligibility birth dates.  Part of the flawed system is that Little League imposed the date of 30th April which is the start of the season for them – in Australia’s summer season; it is the end of our season plus almost two months. When you apply this to how it affects your club, just apply the logic that players have to be under the age as at 30th April, 2009.

Peter and I have had a quick look at how it affects Hills and we have 30 odd players moving from Under 12 to Under 15.  Will we keep these players in the sport?  I think not, as most are second and third division players. In addition it has an adverse effect on the Under 17 competition with players staying another year before moving into that competition. Baseball NSW can alter its By Laws to say that Under 17 age groups are the responsibility of Juniors – but that will not prevent the better class players wanting to, and moving to the Under 18 competition. The end result the loss of even more players – especially when there are no graded competitions on offer.

We have to supply two representative Under 13 teams next season – even if we had to supply only one, our playing standard will be significantly weaker than this years Under 12 representative team – just because of the change of eligibility date.

We have proven that it is possible to conduct a Little League competition in compliance with the ABF and Little League requirements, however we remain unconvinced that it should replace the weekend graded, club-based competitions. To do so would have a huge risk and do nothing to halt the rapidly declining playing standard.   Some clubs have privately expressed their opinions as to the concept – the time is getting very close where decisions need to be made.

The State Championship Tournament system is flawed, it is virtually impossible to meet the pitching requirements in a three day carnival.  While it is a double elimination tournament, once teams are in the losers pool they face an enormous task to just reach the final.

It is difficult to obtain information from Baseball NSW. It appears to me that Baseball NSW is adopting a line of least resistance. Almost every thing is met with a ‘no worries’ approach when Associations seek clarification to a particular issue.

With the season over we turn the page and  we will now start to plan for winter.  Our main focus is on development.  In what I think is a healthy sign, is that there are nine year olds not wanting to play in winter, but opting for Development on Sunday morning.

Under 12 Development probably has to move to Under 13 Development to accommodate the age changes.  This poses a problem as we can only effectively handle 26 to 28 players – yet we have to have two teams next summer.  Our future lays with this years Under 10 & 11 players, some are outstanding prospects. To complicate the issue even further, it is our intention to offer specialist pitching training to some 14 and 15 year old players who are beginning to throw the ball very ‘hard’.

Parents are going to have to understand that the selection process for development will be very competitive.  Players said to be changing clubs to seek “better coaching” probably will not be considered – they can get the benefit of better coaching from their new clubs.  The ‘tag’ of being this year’s representative player may not be enough to guarantee receiving an offer. There will again be a fee for Tuesday night elite development.

The best source of development for 11, 12, 14 and 15 year olds is the NSWJBL winter program, yet clubs appear reluctant to really promote these tours with their players.

I had hoped to announce the details of winter competition tonight – however Castle Hill appear not to be ready before 4th May – that is too late to commence the competition.  Castle Hill has another proposal re the competition structure that will be discussed tonight.

The representative results were good. The Under 16 defeated Ryde in the Grand Final. Under 14 were undefeated in winning that competition while the Under 12 finished third in their completion. Whilst disappointing I think it was a true indication of the team’s performance throughout the season. The coaches Nigel Hern and Peter Olson did a very good job considering what they had to work with.

This season we seemed to have more ‘controversy’ than ever. Problems never appear far below the surface these days. Included among the problems this month include

# Youth League Minor Premiership – due to the fact that not all washed out games were played and that Kings Langley received two points for a bye in a round where all other games were washed out. That resulted in Kings Langley and Baulkham Hills being equal as Minor Premiers. We applied the rules as they are issues. The first two methods used to determine the ‘deadlock’

(i) Results games against each other and (ii) Runs scored for and against each other, both failed to separate the two teams. The third method was to consider runs for and against all other teams in the competition. This resulted in a very narrow advantage to Kings Langley.

The disagreement came with the interpretation of “all other teams” which did not include the games against each other. Normally it would not matter but with the Minor Premiers qualifying for the Champion of Champions tournament it became important. Unfortunately, what is becoming very evident these days is that people are not making themselves familiar with the rules – and when they do not ‘suit their argument’ want the rules or the interpretation altered.

# Choice of Centenary as venue for final – you will have read in the correspondence an anonymous letter regarding the choice of Centenary as a venue for the finals. The letter is in part mischievous- yes there were no ‘actual’ dugouts at Centenary, however the club had erected sun shades and provided seating for the players. That is more shelter than a number of clubs provide at the week to week games.

There was no canteen in operation due to a miscommunication within the club. Which club would deliberately pass up its only means of raising funds? Yes there were toilets open – so the writer, whose identity I think I know, despite his creating of a Not Happy Jan Email address does not have his facts together. I certainly I do not believe that their children do not play. PS A number of clubs don’t fully meet the dugout criteria.

On the subject of canteens, there certainly is no benefit to host neutral games in the final series. I know at Castle Glen teams went to the shopping centre rather than patronize the canteen, even though the canteen prices were cheaper. In the end Castle Hill threw food away. I also understand teams also did not support the canteen at Murray Farm on the same day.

# Cost of Little League Registration- you will also have read in the correspondence an email from Baulkham Hills disagreeing with the cost of registration of Little League claiming that there was an offer of having free registration to Little League by attending one of the three camps. It was stated in a very early Little League newsletter. It was at a time before we adopted meeting the cost from the Co Op program and when it was being thought that the Little League competition draw would be for double- headers to be played commencing at 2.30pm. This was altered to a 5.45pm start.

There was absolutely no correlation between the camps and Little League competition. Both had different goals and both achieved  what they were designed to do – it seems ridiculous to me to consider that for $40 Hills supply three days of tuition in a camp situation including  exposure to Trent Oeltjen as well as  conduct a competition, issue the necessary equipment including caps and T Shirts for the players.

I believe the invoice should stand. The funds that we have are the Club’s funds – they are not from some bottomless source.

# Rumour has it that the Cumberland teams will not participate in the Hills competition next season, rather they will return to the Cumberland competition.

# It will be interesting to see the outcome of the clubs wanting to change Associations. One club was voting on its future last night. It is quite odd with Baseball NSW supporting no Association boundaries at the same time it is determining boundaries for Little League. If the club changes Associations where does it stand in relation to being eligible to play Little League? The Little League Charters are set. Aren’t they?

The Secretary’s report was accepted.

• The trial dates were confirmed.  There were discussions as to ways and means of recruiting players.

• Application of coaches were invited.

• The hitting lecture with Trent Oeltjen was successful.  There was a small profit.  Approximately 70 people attended.

• NSWJBL has for sale a Rookie pitching machine and a facsimile machine.

• The Minutes of the meeting were included in the correspondence.

• The JLSC has forwarded a letter to the Board of Baseball NSW re the request of Major League to conduct an Under 17 competition.

• The dates for the Champion of Champions was completed.

• Next season Under 12 will play to Little League rules.  Hills will suggest that the representative competition be retained and be completed by December.  Little League to commence in January.

• Manly’s protest against Hills was upheld.  The basis of the decision was that despite the Competition Secretary’s decision there was a technical breach.  Mr. Yard stated he was disappointed that both the Hills coaches in Under 14 and Under 12 used the option – when they were aware of Hills’ opposition to the rule.

• There were complaints about the Baseball NSW website.

• Statement of Financial Position was presented.
• Payments were approved.
• Debtors and liabilities were disclosed.

Winter Juniors:   There was discussion re Winter Juniors.  Mr. Bray suggested that the competition be played on the same ground with the venues rotating.  This was to ensure a viable return to the clubs for opening the canteen and also giving workers the day off. It was also suggested that the competition be a Little League competition with a draft system imposed.  Teams would play in their club shirts and be supplied caps.

The grounds suggested were Castle Glen, Northmead, Kellyville and Bensons. Mr. Yard stated that playing in such uniforms would look poor and present a very poor image of the baseball. He advised that there would be teams from both Blacktown and Quakers Hill – also there has been expression of interest from Greater West, Macarthur and North Shore.

It was resolved that the competitions be Under 12, Under 14 and Under 16 – birth date eligibility under the age as at 31 December, 2008.  The competition will commence on 27th April – Grand Final date 27th July, 2008.

Club Championship:  Mrs. Henderson asked how the club championship is determined.  Mr. Yard advised that it is the sum of all competition points accumulated by the club’s teams in a season.  It excludes Koala League and the Virginia Akers competitions.

  The Incentive Shield uses the same points, also excluding Koala & Akers Leagues.  It is divided by the number of teams a club has in the competitions attracting points.  Highest average is the winner.  Mr. Yard said he was unsure whether the minimum number of teams to be eligible was four or five.

Minor Premiership:   there was a debate on how the Minor Premiership in Youth League was determined when the first two tie breakers wins against each other and runs for and against each other were equal.  The rules provide runs for and against all other teams is the third tie breaker.  It excludes the games that the teams played against each other.  It was deliberate, as the games against each other had failed to achieve a result.

Development Grants:    Mr. Petrone advised that Baulkham Hills Council is prepared to provide funding of up to $25,000 for developing coaches and or umpires etc.  The grant would only be available to those who attended a Council meeting – in this case Kellyville.

Cost of Little League Registrations:  Mr. Schmidt referred to a letter in the correspondence about the cost of Little League registration. Initially there was an offer placed on the Little League website saying that if you registered for Little League, players could play Little League for free.  This was at a time when it was envisaged that Little League would follow immediately after the camp. Subsequently the plan altered and Little League concept altered completely.  The payment also altered when the cost was met from the Co-Op program which made it free for the players anyway.  This made the advertisement redundant but we did not write to Baulkham Hills and ask ‘will you pay for your players?’

Mr. Yard advised that the Baulkham Hills players attending the camp were Sean Jones, Marcus Loy, Mitchell Williams, James McCallum, Tim Wakefield, Thomas Diefenbach, Sean Ralson, Adam Wright and Kyle Elizolde.

Of these, Wright was ineligible for Little League.  The Under 12 representative players were required to attend one of the camps as part of their Christmas/New Year training set down by the Under 12 representative coach.  That left Elizolde, Loy and Diefenbach.

The general feeling was that the clubs were prepared to meet the costs of Little League.  It was agreed that all the invoices would stand.

Workers Compensation:  Mr. Schmidt advised that there are changes in workers Compensation.  Where clubs pay less than $7,000 in salaries/wages, they do not need a separate workers compensation policy.

Melrose Reserve:  Mr. Yard reported that Hills may have to support Schofields in any bid to retain the use of Melrose.  Quakers Hill continue to claim that the venue belonging to them.