|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 13, 2011 14:22:46 GMT -6
All true except a smaller ball's being easier to kick.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 13, 2011 14:19:50 GMT -6
The teams that are consistently a winner usually have a few things in common: 3) Great Schemes- they run things we can recognize & make sense. Making sense makes sense, but what does "things we can recognize" have to do with anything?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 12, 2011 19:29:39 GMT -6
I would have a misdirection play at every age group, I was assuming coachtut's keeper was some kind of misdirection play, but he wasn't specific about it, so it might just be a take-the-snap-and-run without a fake. I would incorporate as much misdirection as feasible, but some "base" series aren't as amenable to it as others. His criterion of 4 base plays "that all look the same" doesn't seem to be satisfied by the plays he listed. Keep and keep pass would look the same, and could look like power if there's a fake involved. Power (assuming that's off tackle) and sweep could look alike too, if he wanted to put it on that list. But wedge just isn't going to look like any other of those plays. Maybe he meant sweep rather than wedge in his 4-of-a-kind hand. Don't let the fact of a play's not resembling others be a reason to keep it out of the core. There are situations in which misdirection isn't feasible or necessary. Wedge is one of those things you do when the defense gives you a certain look, and you don't have to fool them after the snap to make it work in those cases. (With wedge in your base, you could expand later with plays that look like wedge.) Same with pocket passes. (Of course you can have multiple receivers, but you don't have to play fake them if the defense is already sold out to the run.) If it's too late for the defense to adjust after the snap, you don't have to go on deceiving them as to your intention once the ball is in play. The base plays should include something against any situation where the defense leaves some practical potential point of attack completely alone. That's why I suggested a B gap play. Some teams would say they have a tag on an A or C gap play to run it one hole wider or closer, but call it a play or an adjustment, it should be available.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 12, 2011 14:15:05 GMT -6
Where is your keep play supposed to hit? Is it a bootleg wide off a fake of one of the other runs in the other direction? Is it a double dive one hole wider than the fake?
How about a B gap play?
Assuming you pull one or more OLs on the sweep, as they get older and start to react faster to the sweep, I'd put in a buck trap that looks like it, forming a buck sweep series. I'd also add a sweep pass. You probably won't need nor benefit much from those with the youngest.
Once they got to where straight pass plays with no run action were effective, the formations I'd add would be ones to vary where the receivers are. That's at whatever age the passing & receiving ability was there, if ever; the years don't matter. Until then the only formation variations I'd consider would be unbalancing the line.
If you unbalance the line while basing off balanced, or vice versa, I'd suggest as a quick-and-dirty way to do it, keeping the blocking rules the same and teaching your center and guards to snap the ball. When you're balanced, the center is the snapper, and when you're unbalanced a guard is, and you use the same blocking rules at all positions. The timing of the plays will differ a little, but otherwise it'd be like stealing practice time from the opposing defense. That's if you don't pull your back side guard, though. Unless you get a 10 YO Mawae, I'm not going to recommend one of them making a pistol snap and then pulling!
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 12, 2011 12:07:39 GMT -6
Here's the trick, a good team will consistently win. Not go 9-1 one year & 5-4 the next. Regardless of players they will be a top team. Often you will hear, they cheat, no way every year they get the best players. They don't, they just coach the best every year. While I could use that as a rough guide other things being equal, I wouldn't make that the primary determinant. I can't believe, for instance, that the coaching was that good on the team I coached on last fall, which had a good record in 2009 (2nd place) and a ridiculously good one in 2010 (mercy ruling the opponents in 7 of 8 games, shutting them out in 6). What impresses me more is someone who comes into a weak organiz'n, does relatively well, is a good organizer, and is asked to coach elsewhere. That's the description of the guy who coached the Mighty Mites in the club I was with in 2007, who had been made its president, and who I see is involved with another organiz'n now and is thought of highly by those involved. That Mighty Mites team won only 1 game that season IIRC, but really had the respect of the players, and the other teams in the NBYSA were really awful. If I wanted to be at the elbow of people in an excellent football organiz'n locally, it'd be at SUNY Maritime College, a premier varsity in NCAA Div. 3. The Warriors have a good relationship with the HC of their Buccaneers and use their facilities for many events. He nearly begged us to get involved. But I don't think I'd learn what I need to from them. Oh, I'm sure I'd learn more football. But their players are college students in a semi-military institution. That's got to be very different from working with children in a club setting. (I did apply to teach there, but that's a different story!) I have to laugh at myself about this orient'n, because a few years ago I was just interested in throwing some ideas around with football anywhere, and I dreamed of getting involved with adult amateur football (men or women "semi-pro"), which was the level of game I followed as a fan. But then people at Delphi's single wing etc. forum asked why I didn't volunteer to coach children, and I thought, why not do that for the time being? Now I'm immersed in that world and want to develop more there before I look again at adult ball.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 12, 2011 10:32:43 GMT -6
Best way to learn is to be side by side with someone that is at the top of their game That goes for lots of things, not just football! Probably most things in the world. Right now I'm mainly working on career stuff (just about to finally get a well-connected client for the clinical trials -- long story) and have to wedge football in there. I was approached by somebody to coach in the Yonkers Parks Dept. program, but still being carless I'm going to pass on that in favor of asking to coach again close to home in the Pelham Bay Warriors. I'll see if by staying with the Pee Wee Div. I can get a team where I get a little more responsibility -- preferably a team with hardly any players who've been in the Pee Wees for a year. I know Coach Dave trusts me now, but I can't see him giving anyone much responsibility & authority except when it comes to my weakness -- scouting for the draft, which Coach Brutus was so successful at. I haven't burned my bridges to the NBYSA (Co-Op City) organiz'n, which may be in a higher-powered league than the Warriors, but I don't know if they're better organized than in 2007. I might like to get back some time to the Gun Hill Rebels/Gridiron Elite club, which has a team that plays in a college club circuit that someone at Delphi's single wing etc. forum corresponds about, but the way I was treated in 2008 still leaves me cold. I don't know how someone can tell whether a club has a good coaching organiz'n other than by getting a recommendation or trying them out for a season. In the meantime I'll keep advising and getting feedback from afar regarding my offense ideas. Coach Will in Texas is HC of a fall team that has mostly the same players as the spring team, and he wants to keep using the offset (sidesaddle) QB and has expressed interest in incorporating thrown snaps as well. That's where my interest mostly lies -- single wing offense with the QB in a U.Tenn.-like position (except facing the WB rather than butt to him) -- but if I can get feedback re the use of a QB facing sideways in other formations, that's useful too. Still no response from Ron Jaworski. I'd also like to see if I can get prod'n out of my fumble-producing methods for defense, and that one I think I have some realistic chance of doing with the Warriors or other local clubs. If I had the opp'ties, I'd also like to try learning from a staff one season that teaches good tackling in the head-across form, another season with a staff that teaches good chest tackling. Also I'd like to see a staff that can start with a pack of unruly kids and get & keep their att'n! Where I was in 2010 the HC started with a core of 4 or 5 kids he'd been with as a team, and then drafted players of whom some knew him and almost all were selected for compliance/coachability. Where I was in 2008 the players expected someone else to coach them and didn't trust me, and where I was in 2007 there was very little morale, discipline, or continuity of command at all. So I've never seen an example of coaches getting good command of children from scratch. Anyway, I understand the problem mhcoach had, and if I had any tendency to do that sort of thing, I'll have even less of it now, thanks! I try to get a sense from other coaches of the purpose of a drill before we do it, and not to defeat it.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 10, 2011 14:55:58 GMT -6
This one's a little risky: touch rugby. Similar to touch football, but no huddles, so they're continuously moving, which is good if they like that sort of thing and you want to wear them out. The risk is, even though you'll use an American football, they may come to like it so much that you'll lose them to rugby come fall.
The way most play touch rugby they don't allow kicking, but if you really, really want them exhausted, you'll allow it, especially with rugby/Canadian style onside rules. For the field dimensions & number of players you'll have, you may want to adjust the number of downs before turning the ball over, and especially what constitutes a touch: 1 hand anywhere, 2 hands anywhere, 1 hand below the waist plus the other anywhere, 1 hand on the back, etc.
You can choose all sorts of "odd" sides too, like one team with fewer but faster players, kids vs. counselors, etc. Or introduce odd rules like no running, skipping only, walking only, or hopping only. Of course there are games other than touch rugby that works with too.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 10, 2011 3:38:59 GMT -6
Ironically - the kid that chucked the ball in the air is still playing. Because we moved up an age group after 3 years at 7-8's, we ended up having him for 5 friggin years. Next season will be his first playing without us coaching him. He's still an MPP, and still has very little interest in hitting. At least now he'll make a half-hearted attempt at it vs. completely run away/avoid it. I guess that's progress. He still has no business out there. I've seen some of that, probably we all have. Why do you think they show up? Is there no organized touch football alternative? Or do you think there's a voice in their heads that says, "I'm ready for contact this time. Bring it on. Yeah, I'm ready. Oops, I'm not. But I will be, next time."?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 10, 2011 3:23:48 GMT -6
I thought this should be broken out to where it wouldn't distract from the existing thread. Mhcoach wrote:
I'm trying to understand what went on there. Did you somehow make the players look better than they were?
Was it one of those "practice hero" situations where because of what you knew of what the other coach was doing, you could direct your players to the play? One of those situations where for a drill to work, one side has to play dumb?
That sort of thing comes up a lot, although usually from what I've seen it's the players and not the coaches who get the wrong idea. What I've tried to do in most cases is make restrictive rules for what the players are allowed to do in the drill. They ask me, "But in a game I could do this, so wouldn't that be more realistic?" And I have to explain that sometimes to isolate one skill or another at a time, you have to restrict what everyone can do to make it better practice for game conditions.
Am I in the right ball park, or is there some other explanation as to what went on?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 8, 2011 20:07:51 GMT -6
We were invited in Football camp to compete 7on7 vs the Varsity. Instead of doing what was best for my team & the program, I took this as a chance to showcase my coaching. We went side by side with the Varsity #1 Offense vs the Varsity #1 Defense. Their coverage schemes were weak at best & I shredded them. We completed 9-10 passes, & threw 7 td's. The Varsity Offense completed 2-10 for 6 yds. I felt pretty smug, it wouldn't last long. After the 7on7 the Varsity HC called me into his cabin. He calmly explained the program was about the Varsity, & he was taking my 5 best players up, including my QB. Welcome to HS, no good deed goes unpunished. I don't understand your take on this. By shredding them, weren't you in fact doing the best thing for the program? You showed what your players could do, they made the varsity. How is that punishment? What should you have done, taken a dive?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 8, 2011 9:59:24 GMT -6
It was 2007, and our weight-limited Co-Op City Cowboys teams (Mighty Mite, JPW, PeeWee) had a match in Queens. We got creamed in all of them, but the team I was attached to as an ass't, the JPWs, were particularly embarrassed. The HC of the JPWs that day (wasn't always the same) had trouble even keeping the att'n of our players as we went thru pre-game under some trees.
Their 1st play from scrimmage, the home team opened with a long completion from a pitch-and-pass off a fake speed option. Frustrating as it looked like we had the play stopped before it turned out to be a pass!
The officials weren't kind to us either. First a referee had us clear out everyone except substitutes & staff to behind the fence behind the running track and a wide expanse of grass on our side, which was a lot farther away from the field than the stands on the other side, where the home team was allowed to be. Then, this was one of 2 games that season where the other team was allowed to recover & advance their own kickoff, for a TD in this case. Of course that shows how literally not-on-the-ball our team was, just allowing the other team to pick up the ball in space, but I'll never know if that really was a BAYFL rule (allowing advance by team K) or just a hosing by the officials. Another kickoff by the home team, the ball just dribbled a short distance off the tee, and the ref just let them pick it up and tee it off again, against my protest.
The final humiliation came when our ILBs came thru clean on a double blitz and tried to patty-cake their QB down. He pushed them off and ran for a TD from midfield. He was no bigger than our players, he just wanted it and they didn't.
Seems a lot of our players -- though not all of them -- weren't really playing for fun. They were just out on the field to please someone else. And from time to time we discovered we were short a player on the field, as they tended to take themselves out without telling us!
We disbanded the team shortly after that. One or two of them were eligible for the Mighty Mites, one played up with either the PeeWees or the unlimited weight 12Us, the rest got a free membership for 2008; I don't know how many used it, I hope the serious ones did.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 2, 2011 19:38:55 GMT -6
Dave--just curious...did you clarify what ages you meant when you said "youth". I do think that is often a varied term around the country, and would be interested to see if their answered varied between 8 year olds, and say 12/13 year olds who were entering their program the next year. I think it doesn't matter, but wonder if they would Around here "youth" can mean anything less than adult in age, excluding school teams. It would include school teams below HS too, if there are any around here.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 1, 2011 16:37:48 GMT -6
Very interesting to see the differences in tone and attitude in the responses when the exact same question is posed on the youth board vs the general board. Yes, there about half of them say, "of course", and the other half "probably". It even irritated them that I wrote that a single school that has grades 7-12 could have benefits by doing so (i.e. agreeing with most of them), just because as a youth coach I shouldn't even express an opinion on the subject. Meanwhile look back at the original question here, asking not about a single club of teams that play other clubs' teams, but an entire league running the same system as a given HS runs. Last year I coached in house ball, where the club is also the league, and they mandated a single system's core plays and formations throughout. The reason they gave was to make feasible all star friendship games after the season, but I think it might also have been to facilitate install'n with a very limited pre-season practice schedule without overly advantaging teams that happened to have a lot of veterans. No way do they take into consider'n what any HS or college in the area runs, although we had a very good relationship with SUNY Maritime College (prominent in NCAA III football). Ask the HS team if they should make sure to run what the local adult amateur team runs. After all, many HS could be said to "feed" these clubs.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 31, 2011 20:29:48 GMT -6
I dont agree with it being force fed, I think if a coach wants to then they should be able to. I don't think any of us are saying they should deliberately avoid what the HS runs!
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 31, 2011 14:18:40 GMT -6
Coaches do you think that the youth league 5-12 year old should be running the same offensive and defensive system as the local high school and middle school runs? Also do you thing the middle school, or Jr. high school 7 & 8 graders should run the same system as the local high school? This is a FAQ here, and the answer is no. They should run whatever is best for their players and coaches in their judgment.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 29, 2011 13:55:14 GMT -6
Another type of participation rule than number of plays is used by some organiz'ns that emphasize platoon play, and that is to guarantee each player a position on offense or defense for a certain number of periods. That was the kind of rule they have in the Warriors. They make it that you play the entire first half on offense or defense; free kick downs don't count. That could be done easily in that organiz'n, because it's house ball, meaning the club is the league and runs the teams. By parceling out the players, they could avoid any team's having more than 22 players, because what could you do with such a rule then? The rule was enforced by neutral administrators, and I'm not sure what the penalties were, but there were a number they could enforce, such as penalties in next season's draft. There were further particip'n rules applicable to blowout games.
I've read from coaches in other organiz'ns with similar rules who had to deal with situations with more than 22 players, and who had to get each of them 2 quarters on either offense or defense. That gets very confining.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 29, 2011 12:09:57 GMT -6
One possible fix to the "gaming the MPPs" situation above would be to guarantee a minimum time on the field instead of number of downs. Of course that'd mean keeping a clock on each player, so it's not a real practical sol'n. More practical would be not having a game clock at all, but counting a number of downs as a complete game. They actually experimented with that in college football early in the 20th Century. It's easier on the officials, not having to keep game time, no complicated timing rules, just a play clock, and ticking off the completed downs.
But the whole setup is wrong-headed. Play time is something you should get in exchange for your dues and cooperation, not some tactical bargaining chip the other teams can hold over you.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 28, 2011 23:16:32 GMT -6
Plays are tracked by two "play counters" on your sideline. One play counter from your team and one from the opponents team. Are they volunteers? I would imagine so, for the reason explained below. That's awful. That's the problem with making it a guarantee to the other team, rather than a guarantee to your own players. Your league has made it an adversarial thing, with the other team actually having an incentive for preventing you from getting players their minimum. Meanwhile if the other team's counter thinks your team is losing anyway, they have no incentive to stick up for your players. And once you're caught short on plays with one player in a game, you have no incentive to satisfy the minimum for your other players in that same game -- in fact you have an incentive to stretch if you can get the other team into play trouble. What if each team misses the minimum in the same game? Is it a draw, or a double forfeit?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 24, 2011 23:51:41 GMT -6
That's tough, but this would be worse: There could be children who aren't participants but just happen to be in the shot in the foreground or background.
At least it's not as bad as the group yearbook photo in Britain a few years ago where they decided to obscure all the children's faces because of some law or policy with a similar effect. They're even nuttier about the possibility of child sexual molestation there than in the USA.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 24, 2011 22:46:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 24, 2011 12:20:07 GMT -6
Our Club is talking about adopting a MMP Policy. Seems like there has been a bunch of info on # of plays per kid depending on team roster size, but our situation is a little different. This MMP policy will not be enforced by the league we play in, but will be ours and we will have to enforce it. So we are looking for what we feel is right. So, what are your thoughts. Feel free to add any other topics to the outline. - # of plays for MMP - Would there need to be a mom keeping track in this case - Should there be factors that deam a kid ineligible for his # of plays - What happens when the coach doesnt play an eligible kid his # of plays This is going to depend on the structure of your club and how it's governed. Because you referred to "the league we play in", I can assume that this is not "house ball", where the club and the league are the same thing. But it's still possible that your club fields more than one team, like the associations I've coached in, in which case you may have administrators who are above the team level. There are a few ways you could work this in that case. One way would be a guarantee. Everyone who signs up, is present, and follows the rules gets to play a certain amount, or gets his dues refunded pro rata. And the way you can make someone responsible on a team is to have a substitution manager, and if he fails to get a player his minimum participation, the mgr. has to personally cough up the $. Since that would be a position of responsibility, you may not get someone to volunteer for the liability, so you could put it on a stipend basis. If they do everything by the book, they make a little money for the season. Slip up once, break even. Slip up twice, lose money. Or adjust according to your needs and the degree of difficulty of the job. On a given team, this job would usually be too much of a burden for the game day head coach, especially if he likes to adjust the "personnel" situationally. Therefore you should have the substitution manager advising him, but if they get to the end of the 3rd quarter and the players haven't all gotten their quota, the substitution mgr. then has absolute power over who's on the field until everyone's quota is satisfied. The substitution mgr. will of course have to work closely with the head coach so they can develop a depth chart so in case the mgr. has to take over substitution as above, he'll have reasonable substitutions to make. As to player factors, there are various ways you could make them earn their playing quota by attendance and good behavior. You need to have clear rules to prevent accusations of favoritism in interpreting behavioral considerations. If they just show up on time and suit up for practice, try to do what the coach says and not disrupt practice or games, that should be enough. You might have additional sanctions against players who commit some unsportsmanlike or dangerous acts that aren't enough to get them kicked out of a game but would be enough to need some cooling-off time.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 20, 2011 23:34:42 GMT -6
The organizations I was with in 2007 and 2010 took everyone, and then divided players and coaches among teams as feasible. In 2008, it was a situation where there was interest for the 1st time in a Mighty Mites team, and so a waiting list that was eventually abandoned with no team formed in that category.
|
|
|
Tryouts
May 20, 2011 14:29:46 GMT -6
Post by bobgoodman on May 20, 2011 14:29:46 GMT -6
Finding a youth league where middle schoolers have been cut from their team may be a challenge. First, there are the (potential) weight restrictions. My general impression is that above age 13, few organiz'ns have weight restrictions, and that the trend is away from them. The house club I coached in last fall has them, but I thought we were in a minority. Now that is a problem. Registration for most clubs ends before school starts, and many start playing before school is in session. The "cut squad" may have to organize as independents. If you really have to cut as many as 40, they can form 2 teams that can play each other a few times.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 19, 2011 16:23:15 GMT -6
Hey guys, new to youth football, what does MPP mean? We had a long discussion of that here within the past year or so, but for the life of me I can't find it. It started when one coach said his team consisted of some very large fraction MPPs, and then we started arguing over how literally that was meant or even whether it was possible. Most youth football organiz'ns have rules that guarantee a certain amount of play each game to all players (given good behavior), and one common way to assure that is by specifying a minimum number of downs each player will be in on. The term "minimum play player" or "minimum player" (MPP or MMP) then refers to the players you'd play only because the organiz'n makes you -- if you were that kind of coach. Most of us don't need to be forced by such rules to sub in the great majority of players, yet there are still players we consider to be in that MPP class. So who you consider a MPP is based partly on how you coach. The kind of coach for whom those rules were made might complain that a large number of his players are MPPs because he could get a better game by never playing them if he didn't have to, and why should he waste his team's time trying to coach them up in practice? On the other extreme are coaches who are very even-handed about participation and really want to encourage the least talented -- but even they will from time to time run into players who make them think, "What business does this kid have coming out for football? Who's pushing him into it, and couldn't they have just gotten a baby sitter? Oh well, they paid dues so...."
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 18, 2011 23:40:47 GMT -6
Could you describe the offense in a little more detail? "I Formation" by definition is a 2-back offense, but you described it as a 1-back offense. True, but the current fashion is to conceive of I and "ace" formations as variants of each other, i.e. forms of attack featuring one all-purpose runner. Typically a team with such a system will place that runner fairly deep behind the snapper & QB, and may have one or two backs primarily as blockers in such position as to make up an I, offset blocking back I, power I, or diamond formation, or even float the blocking back around more widely as a hybrid back. That was the kind of offense used by the teams in the association I coached in in 2007. In that case, answers we give for one will be 90% applicable to the other formations. We had a tendency to put slow players at center. The next likeliest positions for a slow player were guard, but only on teams that didn't pull guards. A light player could go as a wide receiver.
|
|
|
Tryouts
May 17, 2011 13:35:36 GMT -6
Post by bobgoodman on May 17, 2011 13:35:36 GMT -6
#1= Find a place for all the kids you are required to cut to play I like that! I'd like it even in a situation where you didn't anticipate having to cut half the triers-out off the school team, because then you'd have a dual incentive for kids to try out. Those who were marginal and might not come out at all otherwise, that might be enough to get them out. Those who were better and would've tried out anyway would be encouraged to put out enough to make the "select" rather than the "also-ran" team. Now you just need the volunteers and facilities for that 2nd team.
|
|
|
Tryouts
May 16, 2011 23:45:46 GMT -6
Post by bobgoodman on May 16, 2011 23:45:46 GMT -6
The school is only providing you with equipment for 30 players? I'd get on the AD's case about that. That's unacceptable in my opinion. I have to chuckle at such non-negotiable demands. They have 6th grade football. Don't take that for granted! We had punchball and rope skipping in the (cement) schoolyard. Or did I miss the deadpan irony?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 13, 2011 13:44:17 GMT -6
Just wondering what type of veer. Split backs, or one with a diving FB behind the QB?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 10, 2011 11:37:36 GMT -6
Ack! Upthread I must've read "husker" as some compromise between Iowa Hawkeye and Washington Husky! Now I get that the original post was referring to U. Nebr. Corn Huskers.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 4, 2011 13:22:03 GMT -6
I guess I'm getting a glimpse here of what it'd be like if the Professional Children's School ever organized a team. I'm joking, because it wouldn't really be comparable, though it may have elements in common.
This academic year I've been tutoring a couple of HS students who are musicians and attend PCS. It's a century-old elementary, jr. and sr. HS in Manhattan that serves children who can't maintain a normal school schedule because they're already professionals in entertainment. Of course you couldn't do that with football -- I think -- because there's no demand for minors in it as pros the way there is in acting and music. But apparently that hasn't stopped some adults from trying to make a buck off their skills, huh?
I suppose there might be some legitimate child hustlers at a sport where children could compete regardless of size, like pool -- or maybe video games now. And you know they'd have adult promoters, and there'd be gambling action to make it worthwhile.
|
|