Should we change the WBFC 300 club entry requirements?

[bulldogtragic]

AFL Life Membership requires 300 games, including H&A, finals, preseason and SOO/exhibition games. However, as a club we require a stricter 300 H&A and finals games to be inducted into the 300 club. For example, the night premiership we won doesn't count to the 22 players games tally who played in it? Is there any merit to changing our 300 club entry requirements/induction from now into the future for our own players to all games representing the WBFC (I.e. Including preseason games)?

Bobby & Matty would qualify now as they've played 300 games or more for the WBFC if it was adopted. Accordingly, that's get a huge flag at home games this year if adopted. We could unfurl it Round 21, Friday night vs Collingwood at Etihad and Bob can announce he's playing on and/or secretly had lars and is ready for the first week of finals.

Just because it has always been this way isn't in and of itself a reason to not change it. Laws and rules change all the time in footy and in life. To change, or not to change?

[Mantis]

Re: Should we change the WBFC 300 club entry requirements?

No..

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Re: Should we change the WBFC 300 club entry requirements?

AFL Life memership is a different honour and the rules around what games to include can be less prescriptive.
The 300 game mark however is strictly recording that a player has participated in at least 300-for- premiership-points appearances. Sure you could widen that to include all manner of other games, but I'm not sure what you'd be honouring?

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Should we change the WBFC 300 club entry requirements?

AFL Life memership is a different honour and the rules around what games to include can be less prescriptive.
The 300 game mark however is strictly recording that a player has participated in at least 300-for- premiership-points appearances. Sure you could widen that to include all manner of other games, but I'm not sure what you'd be honouring?

I understand the difference and use it only to suggest different game tally methodologies exist, but perhaps I might rephrase. Should all games representing the WBFC count in a players games tally?

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Should we change the WBFC 300 club entry requirements?

As a slightly different analogy. I believe teams with co-captains can only nominate one player to be credited in stats books with the captaincy in a game. But all the co-captains are held out as co-captains to their fans when the current methodology says they're not. Especially for Premiership co-captains.

[1eyedog]

Re: Should we change the WBFC 300 club entry requirements?

As a slightly different analogy. I believe teams with co-captains can only nominate one player to be credited in stats books with the captaincy in a game. But all the co-captains are held out as co-captains to their fans when the current methodology says they're not. Especially for Premiership co-captains.

Huh?

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Should we change the WBFC 300 club entry requirements?

Huh?

I was watching something on Sydney's co-captains. The rules on this with regard to crediting a player with captaining a game can only go to one player. You can name co-captain and treat them as co-captains, but for the stat book only one player can get the actual credit.

So recording games against players can vary despite what clubs announce. There's freedom and scope to do things beyond a hard and fast old view. Whether that's good or not is the question.

[S Coast Simon]

Re: Should we change the WBFC 300 club entry requirements?

I actually think all games representing the jumper should be counted. They are still playing their hearts out for the jumper and they are still getting battered and bruised for the club so why not count it as a game representing the club.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Should we change the WBFC 300 club entry requirements?

I actually think all games representing the jumper should be counted. They are still playing their hearts out for the jumper and they are still getting battered and bruised for the club so why not count it as a game representing the club.

I put this out there just as a conversation starter, but I tend to look at it similar to you as there's not been too much on the thread to explain why not to change it. The games might not be the same intensity, but the courage, injuries and risk of injuries are the same when you pull on the WBFC jumper for any game as you say. If the games were the difference between our 200 or 300 Club it could simply be something all about our club and for our players representing our club 100/200/300 times, and the AFL stats people can do whatever they want (like they do with co-captaincy stats).

[S Coast Simon]

Re: Should we change the WBFC 300 club entry requirements?

One interesting point is when Libba did his knee last year in the nab cup. Gone down for a year whilst representing the club but not credited with a game seems a bit rough to me.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Should we change the WBFC 300 club entry requirements?

One interesting point is when Libba did his knee last year in the nab cup. Gone down for a year whilst representing the club but not credited with a game seems a bit rough to me.

I agree with the sentiment exactly. I had Libba and his knee in my mind in my reply. Why shouldn't he and others that pull on the jumper in a competitive AFL match not get recognition by our club in the way we as ourselves count games.

[KT31]

Re: Should we change the WBFC 300 club entry requirements?

I agree with the sentiment exactly. I had Libba and his knee in my mind in my reply. Why shouldn't he and others that pull on the jumper in a competitive AFL match not get recognition by our club in the way we as ourselves count games.

Totally agree BT, you and SCS have summed up they way I feel as well.