The State of Hockey in Victoria

 Parents as selectors of the age group their children participate in is a complete conflict of interest. Two in the U15 girls. It discredits the team and the child of the parent. Yes a team would be lucky to have those who are good coaches but find another team. Bottom line.. just play good club hockey.

Selecting is a very difficult task. Unfortunately the best candidates quite often don’t volunteer for these positions. I agree that having parents of player’s trialling as selectors is not ideal but this would usually only occur when no other suitable candidates come forward. The perception of bias with parents selecting their children is so obvious that I would doubt that any actual favouritism is shown for fear of complaints. I would suggest bigger favouritism is shown to players from the same clubs as selectors than parents selecting their children. This favouritism is less obvious to the wider hockey community and could only really be judged by people who attended all of the trials. Obviously this is unavoidable as we all belong to clubs.
As a selector I doubt the parents would be allowed by the other selectors to show any favouritism to their children. I think we should probably give the other selectors more credit and have faith that they would ensure that nothing improper took place.
After saying all that I strongly agree that parents shouldn’t be selectors but I don’t think it is as big an issue as it is being made out to be. If there were suitable selectors lined up and wanting to do the job and HV went with parents who were no more suitable, than this would be a problem; I think you will find this was not the case.

In the past players have been let through initial rounds as no selector has any notes on them as they simply have not been involved enough in the play.
In the early rounds expecting selectors to have extensive and specific notes on the players who aren't moving past the first round is not realistic and smacks of someone who hasn’t really done much work as a selector. Selectors are looking for positives; reasons to put kids through. Players who are very involved in trials but have clear technical deficiencies will be cut and it is easy to provide specific feedback to these players. Those that are cut as they are clearly not in the best 18 and haven’t been able to get the ball or do anything noticeable with it are very difficult to take useful notes on.

I agree that $55 is a lot of money to be cut in round 1 and receive no feedback. If it wasn’t, it should have been clearly explained to everyone prior to them nominating that this was a possibility.
All players are playing in competitions against their peers at junior, senior and maybe even school level. We all should have a rough idea of where we sit against those that are noticeably the strongest players in our age groups at our clubs and the competitions we play in prior to turning up at trials. This means we all should have an idea if there is a chance we may be sent home in the early rounds of trials. As I said $55 is a lot of money for no feedback, but going forward if HV flag that this may be the case prior to people nominating then I don’t believe people should be too upset. Clubs and schools are far better placed to provide feedback on areas that need improvement than selectors based simply on how often they see players.
If players attend coaching clinics run by HV where the goal is development and not selecting a team than I am sure appropriate feedback would be provided.

U15s doing a beep test as part of trials is unnecessary.
There is enough time in their lead up once selected to get 15 year olds to an acceptable level of fitness to compete at a national championships. U15s are playing juniors, most of them are playing seniors and maybe some school hockey. If it is just used as a tool to see what level certain players are at than this is fine, but really only results at the extreme of either end should be taken into consideration.
Suggesting that Parents who are selectors tailor the activities at trials to expose the strengths or hide the witnesses of their own children is ridiculous and making you sound bitter and delusional.

Some interesting reading....

Here are a few brief thoughts that I have had on the range of issues that have been raised.

1. Selector bias/favouritism: - having been on selecting panels as a coach of Victorian teams in the past, I was of the opinion that it was my reputation at stake, so I always wanted to be selecting the 16/18 players that I thought would come together to form the best team.  Personally, I can't imagine why a coach would put their integrity and reputation on the line to make biased selections.

2.  Fitness testing - i think its a pretty valid part of the trial process, but personally I don't think its a good idea to put a blanket rule in place where players must achieve a certain level before they will be considered.  Just because a player can run all day does not mean that they will have more impact than a player who isn't as fit.  Using the fitness test results in conjunction with an assessment of their technical skills, game sense, PC skills etc to differentiate between two or three players to cut/select would be the ideal in my opinion.  Paul Gaudoin was never the fittest in the Kookaburras, but he more than made up for it with his knowledge and ability to be in the right place at the right time.  

3.  $55 to nominate and trial is quite a cost for an individual that may be cut first round.  I heard that there was over 100 triallists for the U18's, which would equate to $5,500.  Recognising that there are ground hire costs, maybe some of that revenue can go as a thank-you contribution to the selectors, with there being an expectation that they must attend a minimum number of club/zone matches prior to the start of the trials in order have a small database of notes on players that have nominated.  This would also help in solving the issue of quality of feedback as selectors would have already seen the nominated athletes playing in the environment that they are most relaxed and comfortable in.  (Not sure if this already happens, but thought that giving the selectors a few $$ for their time may help)

4.  Trial numbers - 100 kids trialling for a team that will consist of 16 or 18 players is very problematic on a number of fronts.  If in using the process stated about, the selectors could cut the numbers down to a final trial list of 40 athletes, they would then be able to run three very thorough trials and subsequently be able to provide those unsuccessful athletes with more detailed feedback on areas for improvement.  The impetus would then be on the Zone and club coaches to be providing their athletes with feedback about what they need to do to be invited to the final trial list of 40 players.  HV could even send out a State Teams Skills Inventory to all clubs that details the technical and game sense skill set that players are needing to have in order to be considered for state selection at each of the age groups.  Zone/Club coaches then have the responsibility of passing these skills and information onto the kids.

5.  Parents as coaches/selectors - think ill need to leave that one for another day.....

As I said at the start, just my thoughts on things.  Look forward to reading a few responses.

For quite a few players there are no notes......They attended all academy sessions and zone challenge.....and guess what?.... No team selection. However those not drafted in academy despite trialling for it,were lucky enough to get notes via zone challenge.... And make the final trial or teams.
Those in zone challenge that were in academy were not assessed at the zone challenge  because presumably notes would come from the academy...so would not the selectors ask the question about seeing the notes on a player they were viewing  if one presumed that the player was marked as academy? Not these ones. Explain this to a young player......ummmmm

The reason NSW teams are so strong is the benchmarks they set for their state players not just fitness benchmarks but skills as well. The "best" player for one of there teams recently did not get picked due to failing the beep test players are given two opportunities to reach the target and if it is not reached they are not selected. Fitness benchmark for u13 beep test 9-11 min and be able to perform 10-20 push-ups non stop,
u15 beep test 10-12 and perform 20-30 push-ups non stop, u18 beep test 11-13 push-ups 30 plus nonstop
these benchmarks along with the skills benchmarks are why NSW are one of the best.  
players/parents are aware of the targets and what is expected of them.
should Victoria bring in benchmarks and stick to it regardless of "who" the player is? More than half the current u15 and u18 state players would not come close to NSW benchmarks especially the fitness ones.....

The trial process will always be contentious , all players should trial against the best players in that age group .
As for feedback and coaches at Academy this is a book of worms . Yes it is true that some players received feedback prior to Trials , yes it is true that some venues appear to be more desirable than others . Compare the coaches at Southern to those attending at Footscray , those at Doncaster to those at Hawthorn . Interesting also to see that alot of the feedback received was identical for players across at least 3 venues that I am aware of , the only difference being the academy players name .

Not sure who you are referring to there re leaving a tournament , but the others are pretty clear .
Perhaps hypothetically speaking further sanctions or bans only apply if you don't play at SUHC.