Squad Numbers

[kjk2085]

Where is the limit on squad numbers in SEMLA published?

As far as I can see (find), the only advice is that all ELA rules are to be followed (13-a-side) but can't find the SEMLA bye-law which waives (or increases) this limit.

Suggestions?

[laxambition]

Where is the limit on squad numbers in SEMLA published?

As far as I can see (find), the only advice is that all ELA rules are to be followed (13-a-side) but can't find the SEMLA bye-law which waives (or increases) this limit.

Suggestions?

I think this has come up earlier in the season, but can't find the posts to support this (possibly fictional) memory I have

anyway

having scoured the byelaws and the constitution, I cannot actually find reference to a byelaw which grants SEMLA the dispensation it needs; however, a search of laxforums reveals that people were invoking this byelaw "as far back" as 2007, and perhaps even before.

Everyone in SEMLA seems to have the same collective memory of this amendment being passed, and perhaps it was - I don't think anyone is going to try to argue that it shouldn't be the case - but it doesn't appear to be written down anywhere.

Perhaps this is something which should be addressed at the AGM this summer. I will drop a note to the SEMLA Secretary

[nabster]

i honestly can't remember where, may have been on forums, but i believes its only NEMLA restricted to 13 a side and SEMLA is an unlimited number of players per team

[Tom_Southampton]

thought it was 16 in the prem and unlimited in lower divisions and bottom team (2nds 3rds etc) in each club

[Chilli]

Just to refresh memories as to why SEMLA adopted unlimited squad sizes.

For many years, the perceived wisdom was that by restricting clubs to limited squad sizes that it would encourage clubs to run second teams etc and grow the game.
The blindingly obvious reality at the time, (2001?) was that it was actually a completely counterproductive limitation that was losing players and shrinking the game.

With only thirteen players allowed to play, it meant that the other three or four fringe, inexperienced, new players never got to play on a regular basis and were then thrown in to fill for injuries etc. and unsurprisingly left the game sooner or later.
It was clear that unless there were approx twenty plus committed players, there was no chance of running a second team.
It was also realised that in the English context running large squads was more difficult and likely to lead to games being lost so as to give new players game time to get experience.
So doing the same thing and expecting miracles to happen wasn't going to work, something counter-intuitive needed to be tried.

Therefore it was decided that by removing the squad limit, it would allow each Club to choose its route to growth.
They could choose to stick with small squads and lose players or gamble with larger squads so as to give players experience and benefit in the longer term.

Some clubs therefore ended up for a season or more running squads of twenty players and losing games that they would have otherwise won, but it was price that the members were willing to take for the future health of their club.

Most of those clubs now reap the benefits with second and third teams but all have had the chance to include more players to get experience.

In practice now, most SEMLA Premiership teams run squads of 12-16, common sense, player availability and the coaching capabilities of clubs all now rule how many players a club fields.
Removing the squad limit has most definitely been a positive benefit for the game in the South

[kjk2085]

So I'm guessing I've just made up a squad limit of 15 in the flags in my own mind...

Good to know, thanks all.

[Tree13]

BUCS competition has a maximum squad size of 23: http://www.bucs.org.uk/page.asp?section ... egulations - Seeing as they are mentioned in the preamble, is this derived from FIL rules, or a departure therefrom?

FWIW I think limiting squad sizes is a bad move when you are trying to grow an uncommon sport on a participation basis in direct competition with rugby, soccer and hockey. My perception is that we (Brighton) tend to get better results when we have more than four subs, and the intricacies of handling a squad with rolling subs as opposed to a team with limited subs is simply a matter of overcoming the mentality of "I want to to start, I want to play, I don't want to come off" - As my old football coach used to explain it: "If you aren't tired enough to come off, you aren't trying hard enough to stay on."

Given our experience in our final game of the season (one car with four players in it broke down and never got to Croydon), I think a maximum squad size, given the tender mercies of transport and weather, would be a silly move. Most teams, if the results threads are any reliable guide, experience the regular problem of not having enough players, as opposed to the reverse.

[laxambition]

BUCS competition has a maximum squad size of 23: http://www.bucs.org.uk/page.asp?section ... egulations - Seeing as they are mentioned in the preamble, is this derived from FIL rules, or a departure therefrom?

yes, it's from the international rules - unlimited squad size but only 23 allowed to be suited for play in any game:

RULE 20 SUBSTITUTES
20.1 A team may have up to 13 substitutes.
20.2 Only 23 players in a squad may dress in team uniform for a game.
Any others in the squad who are in the bench area must wear alternate strip or track suits.