array(2) {
[0]=>
string(815) "
select r.*,
rc.info,
t.title as threadtitle,
u.username as username,
u.anonymous as useranonymous,
`f`.`value` AS `flairvalue`,
`ft`.`name` AS `flairname`,
`ft`.`colour` AS `flaircolour`,
`ft`.`icon` AS `flairicon`
from reply as r
join thread as t on t.id = r.threadid
join replycontent as rc on rc.replyid = r.id
join user as u on u.id = r.userid
left join `flair` `f` on `f`.`userid` = `u`.`id` and `f`.`categoryid` = `t`.`categoryid`
left join `flairoption` `ft` on `ft`.`id` = `f`.`flairoptionid`
where r.businessid = :businessId
and r.threadid = :threadId
group by r.id
order by r.utcdated desc
limit 0,50
"
[1]=>
array(2) {
["businessId"]=>
int(1)
["threadId"]=>
int(8630)
}
}
Anonymous
Years ago
Making junior Comps more even
Yes I agree the main issue is physical development, but not sure how to cover that. But maybe not having a 12 month age zone and reduce it to a 6 month zone might help. Or if they allow certain exemptions.
I agree something needs to be done about the ages, comparing a child turning 13 in January to a child turning 13 in december (already a year difference there) having to go up to under 16s the main season finishes at the end of september, so the december/november kids are actually still under 14 when that season finishes but have to play up. Why not look at the season dates to determine when a child goes up. Only a suggestion
Andy spat the dummy when BSA said that he couldn't have DJ play despite asserting he was born February 29, so technically he only had a birthday every 4 years, hence making him 8 and in under 10s. BSA believing this uncharacteristically showed some backbone and said DJ was too young to play under 16s, Andy's team. The matter is now before the courts.