colinm
Full Forum Member
Posts: 423
|
Post by colinm on May 29, 2013 12:23:46 GMT
Just a reminder that we need as many people as possible at the AGM on Monday 3/6 and any proposals of any changes people would like to see. Remember that if proposing any changes they must be seconded and you must both turn up at the AGM.
Please let me have any proposals ASAP.
It's your league please have your say at the right time, don't talk of changes or things you would like done differently after Monday, that is your opportunity to say what you think, don't waste it!
If anyone is concerned with the league format, what section teams are in etc this can all be discussed on Monday.
|
|
ruby
Full Forum Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by ruby on Jun 3, 2013 22:45:40 GMT
Just heard its all play all next winter season equal breaks.Count me out.
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 4, 2013 11:51:28 GMT
Just heard its all play all next winter season equal breaks.Count me out. This is just against section 1 teams, there was a suggestion that section 1 teams chase the break at home proposed by Tony Martin but i dont think that went through, seemed a bit odd to me really, section 2 games will be played under the normal format.
|
|
colinm
Full Forum Member
Posts: 423
|
Post by colinm on Jun 4, 2013 12:44:45 GMT
Just heard its all play all next winter season equal breaks.Count me out. There were several proposals made and I will update this thread for all of the matters passed later, for now I will deal with the proposal concerned here. It was proposed that Section 1 teams revert back to 3 breaks when playing away from home, this proposal was rejected. Another proposal was put forward that rather than have 4 breaks when a Section 2 team plays a Section 1 team the Section 2 team receives all 5 breaks both home and away but that those games should be played as level break games thus giving each player an equal opportunity with the break. This is particularly relevant on a difficult table where everyone can struggle to get the break back - this proposal was passed. A concern in giving so many breaks to Section 2 teams particularly if the table is difficult to get the break back is that it will discourage Section 1 players from playing, the proposal was meant to give all players a fair chance in matches. Teams playing each other from the same section will continue to play each other as they currently do.
|
|
ruby
Full Forum Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by ruby on Jun 4, 2013 13:00:00 GMT
I would rather give the three breaks away than having the section one teams all have the opportunity to have a go at the break its moving the game back in there favour I believe this could hasten the end of the Wallingford League.I for one don't want to play under these conditions.
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Jun 4, 2013 14:32:40 GMT
Couldn't agree more with you there Ruby! All the section 1 players must be laughing at this going through! As a section 1 player would must prefer to be against the break, but have equal breaks, rather than have the lottery of maybe having the break! Would be interesting to know how the voting went for this, ie how many section 1 & 2 players were either for or against.
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 4, 2013 16:14:56 GMT
Couldn't agree more with you there Ruby! All the section 1 players must be laughing at this going through! As a section 1 player would must prefer to be against the break, but have equal breaks, rather than have the lottery of maybe having the break! Would be interesting to know how the voting went for this, ie how many section 1 & 2 players were either for or against. There was actually a diverse spread of voting, section 1 and 2 players alike both voted for this, the risk we have here that was pointed out yesterday is that of alienating section 1 players. If we do everything for the sake of the section 2 player, the section 1 player will lose interest, we do need compromise.
|
|
Was
member
(194)
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 16:25:49 GMT
Counts me out aswell
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Jun 4, 2013 16:29:08 GMT
Couldn't agree more with you there Ruby! All the section 1 players must be laughing at this going through! As a section 1 player would must prefer to be against the break, but have equal breaks, rather than have the lottery of maybe having the break! Would be interesting to know how the voting went for this, ie how many section 1 & 2 players were either for or against. There was actually a diverse spread of voting, section 1 and 2 players alike both voted for this, the risk we have here that was pointed out yesterday is that of alienating section 1 players. If we do everything for the sake of the section 2 player, the section 1 player will lose interest, we do need compromise. I understand a compromise has to be thought of, but i don't see how this is a compromise to help the section 2 players have a chance of beating a section 1 player? To me, this just gives an even bigger advantage to section 1 teams playing against section 2 teams!
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 4, 2013 18:10:13 GMT
Id like to emphasise that when we all agreed that it would be a trial for the coming season with a review at the end, for the sake of being flexible.
|
|
|
Post by craig mace on Jun 4, 2013 19:00:58 GMT
Jesus its been 1 day people are already moaning
At the end of the day you have to keep section 1 and 2 players interested as Phil stated its a trial and error situation 1 season wont hurt anyone.
Arthur your a good enough player and so is your team with the break to win against section 1 players and not come off the table so don't see the problem was you at agm to vote against the decision.
Leaving it 4 breaks to lower sections was making section 1 players loose interest because the standard of tables is dropping (including Con Club) making it harder to get breaks back which means section 1 players can loose without taking out there cue where is the fun in that for us.
Lewis likewise where was you at the AGM to vote against the decision same as Arthur your a good enough player and so is your team to hit big to put the section 1 player out of the match straight away home or away.
Mark i don't see why your complaining unless kennington are making a shock return or you plan on joining a team in the Wallingford league you don't play the league. :-X ???
Section 2 players where happy with this ruling at the AGM so why cant people just trial and error if it doesn't work it will go at the end of next season at the next AGM.
|
|
Was
member
(194)
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 20:47:24 GMT
I was never going to play Wallingford again anyway. I just think this new rule in your league is way over the top. In my view it should have been left the way it was.
|
|
colinm
Full Forum Member
Posts: 423
|
Post by colinm on Jun 4, 2013 21:39:49 GMT
There is obviously some discontent with the change, I would suggest that the best action is to discuss this at the next Committee Meeting which I would suggest will be June 17th (provided entry forms for the summer are in by the 10th June) in order to sort out the Summer League.
|
|
ruby
Full Forum Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by ruby on Jun 4, 2013 22:56:07 GMT
In reply to Craig sorry I was not at the AGM I unfortunately had to work .I may well be able to score enough sometimes at home but I don't think I could do that on the con club table or the four horseshoes.Looking at players records in the finals night program all the players who I would consider section one standard achieved a 60% win ratio I cant imagine they had the break very often. The proposel has been passed and I commend those who turned up to vote at the AGM but for me these rules only help the section one teams who by playing in the better teams should be able to give the break away and still win.Good luck next winter season.
|
|
ruby
Full Forum Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by ruby on Jun 4, 2013 23:23:06 GMT
One final point,top players can play on poor tables and slaughter you on good ones,average /lesser players cant roll on the summer league.
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Jun 4, 2013 23:39:48 GMT
Jesus its been 1 day people are already moaning At the end of the day you have to keep section 1 and 2 players interested as Phil stated its a trial and error situation 1 season wont hurt anyone. Arthur your a good enough player and so is your team with the break to win against section 1 players and not come off the table so don't see the problem was you at agm to vote against the decision. Leaving it 4 breaks to lower sections was making section 1 players loose interest because the standard of tables is dropping (including Con Club) making it harder to get breaks back which means section 1 players can loose without taking out there cue where is the fun in that for us. Lewis likewise where was you at the AGM to vote against the decision same as Arthur your a good enough player and so is your team to hit big to put the section 1 player out of the match straight away home or away. Mark i don't see why your complaining unless kennington are making a shock return or you plan on joining a team in the Wallingford league you don't play the league. :-X ??? Section 2 players where happy with this ruling at the AGM so why cant people just trial and error if it doesn't work it will go at the end of next season at the next AGM. I think you are missing the point here Craig. Yes Arthur is a good player in the lower section (no disrespect), but how many times will he, or any other player in section 2, go in with enough to win a game? As opposed to EVERYONE in section 1 capable of doing so. So this will only leave the advantage with the section 1 teams. With your comment of losing a game without taking your cue out of the case, i don't understand this as your argument contradicts this! as i mentioned above, how many players in section 2 go in with enough? This does not change whatever rules you play, but with this rule, it just means that the section 1 player always has the break to be able to win the game! To be honest Craig, yes i was going to be putting a team into the summer league this year, but i have not seen any forms been emailed or anything and i very rarely look at this thread to know about it.
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 5, 2013 15:43:05 GMT
I think before we all get bogged down in this we should all wait for the committee meeting before anything becomes set in stone. Authoritive head on now ;D ;D
|
|
Was
member
(194)
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2013 21:46:10 GMT
If I had the break against a top player like you Craig, I really wouldn't want you to have the balls back. This rule just seems really off putting.
|
|
colinm
Full Forum Member
Posts: 423
|
Post by colinm on Jun 10, 2013 12:40:18 GMT
As this rule in its current format seems to have caused such upset I would like to request opinions from those in our league who use the forum to discuss what options they would propose as an alteration to the rule?
As it stands the situation is this:
Division 1 team plays Division 2 team at home or away.
Division 2 team gets all 5 breaks with the Division 1 team receiving 'balls back' level breaks.
1. Would for example players like the rule to go back to 4 breaks for division 2 teams?
2. Would players like all 5 breaks for Division 2 teams with Division 1 teams getting level breaks in games 2,3 and 5 away (the same as they used to have under the old rules, before the change to 4 breaks) and getting level breaks in games 1 and 4 at home?
3. Something else?
We do value your opinions as it is your league and the last thing we would want is for teams to consider pulling out because of this, it may be that we have to run 3 sections to accommodate teams with younger newer players in them to get around this? We want to encourage those of us that love to play the game to continue to play the game. :)
|
|
Was
member
(130)
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 17:52:22 GMT
hi Collin you can not change an a.g.m decision at a committee meeting this can only be done at a e.g.m so if you want to change anything you must call a e.g.m
|
|
ruby
Full Forum Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by ruby on Jun 10, 2013 23:15:51 GMT
Colin my problem with the new rule is equal breaks. If the section 2 teams have to appease the lesser section 1 players I suggest that we give back there 2 breaks at home and let them have breaks 2 and 4 away ,hoping that section 1 teams improve their tables to let us lesser players have a game,the way some tables played this year it wont help section 2 teams one bit however many breaks we get.I still don't see why the change had to happen the old rule has led to a better standard of game as witnessed by players now moving up into section 1 teams.
|
|
colinm
Full Forum Member
Posts: 423
|
Post by colinm on Jun 11, 2013 11:44:43 GMT
hi Collin you can not change an a.g.m decision at a committee meeting this can only be done at a e.g.m so if you want to change anything you must call a e.g.m I understand that but before calling an EGM we should discuss options, hence my previous post.
|
|
colinm
Full Forum Member
Posts: 423
|
Post by colinm on Jun 11, 2013 12:12:00 GMT
Colin my problem with the new rule is equal breaks. If the section 2 teams have to appease the lesser section 1 players I suggest that we give back there 2 breaks at home and let them have breaks 2 and 4 away ,hoping that section 1 teams improve their tables to let us lesser players have a game,the way some tables played this year it wont help section 2 teams one bit however many breaks we get.I still don't see why the change had to happen the old rule has led to a better standard of game as witnessed by players now moving up into section 1 teams. The problem is that some of the players moving up to Section 1 teams are probably not yet ready for the progression and the change from receiving 4 breaks to giving 4 breaks away, which is where the original proposal for a change this year came from. With the exception of the table at the Con Club which has been tricky since it was moved from the other bar both of the other Division 1 tables where very good. The bigger problem was for Division 1 teams travelling to the Barleycorn table, which was very difficult and also the Con club table and having to give away 4 breaks. Personally I believe the issue which we have now in our league is the imbalance of abilities across teams. We need to try to cater for new young players such as Callum, Adam and Danielle (among others) but at the same time strike a balance for Division 1 teams playing the likes of Chris B, Ian and myself (among others). When looking at the averages for last year there were 8 players with averages over 4,000 in Section 2 (this included you) and 8 players in Section 1 with averages under 4,000. There is no simple answer to any of this due to the lack of teams in the league. In the good old days players could have moved to a different table and teams would be made up of people of a more even ability. If we were looking to balance things up those 8 players could swap teams but we all know that's not going to happen. We should try to get a balance across teams and the league to make the league as fair to all as possible and that was the aim of the proposal which was passed, I will admit that it may not achieve the intention with the newer less experienced players struggling against some of the other players. The key thing is that new players should not be put off by getting thrashed each week, I can remember getting stuffed on more than one occasion but this merely served as an incentive to improve, if it had happened every week it may have put me off. If you would like to propose your change and get it seconded then this could be discussed at a committee meeting and then possibly at an EGM? If we need to hold one.
|
|
ruby
Full Forum Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by ruby on Jun 11, 2013 13:21:36 GMT
Colin I would propose it but as im away on holiday when the next meeting is arranged I am unable to ,and I don't think the other contributers would agree with me so it would not get seconded.I am very pleased with my average this year I was lucky I was not against the break that often but I did not win a single game in one visit .I understand the likes of yourself chris bateman ian and a few others can but I have reached the limit of my ability I wont improve I would just like to be consistant being against the break every week when playing section one teams when I know I cant go in with enough is no incentive to play .This ruleing has made me very angry and any solution with equal breaks only serves one section iwill not comment further im glad I was not at the agm as I may have left the game altogether .
|
|
colinm
Full Forum Member
Posts: 423
|
Post by colinm on Jun 12, 2013 12:31:34 GMT
Colin I would propose it but as im away on holiday when the next meeting is arranged I am unable to ,and I don't think the other contributers would agree with me so it would not get seconded.I am very pleased with my average this year I was lucky I was not against the break that often but I did not win a single game in one visit .I understand the likes of yourself chris bateman ian and a few others can but I have reached the limit of my ability I wont improve I would just like to be consistant being against the break every week when playing section one teams when I know I cant go in with enough is no incentive to play . This ruleing has made me very angry and any solution with equal breaks only serves one section iwill not comment further im glad I was not at the agm as I may have left the game altogether . I was hoping for some well thought out debate on the pro's and con's and some consideration for options and proposals rather than people saying they are 'very angry' and that there is no point as no one will agree with them ??? It really makes me feel like saying I quit. As why do I bother ??? all I am trying to do is get a balance for all those concerned and try to get things so that they are fair for all, to do that I believe we do need to alter the rule we have just passed or at least alter the sections and how the rules effect each section. No committee meeting has been set yet and I wouldn't want to discuss any changes in rulings until all the committee are able to meet ??? Can we please have some suggestions and not just people getting angry as that achieves nothing :-/
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2013 12:50:05 GMT
Advice from a neutral (but one with 40 years' committee experience):
Handicap your players rather than the teams, put them into 3 'Bands'. Band A - concede first break home and away Band B - break away but not at home Band C - have the break home and away. When players of the same band meet, away player breaks first but the balls come back. Take last seasons averages to decide who is in which band.
As Tookey says, though, you would need an EGM to change/modify anything that was passed at the AGM.
Good luck ! And stay with it, you know you want to !
tommo
PS I can't cite any definitive case where this has been tried successfully, but it looks to me like it could work in your neck of the woods. ;)
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 13, 2013 22:37:34 GMT
Advice from a neutral (but one with 40 years' committee experience): Handicap your players rather than the teams, put them into 3 'Bands'. Band A - concede first break home and away Band B - break away but not at home Band C - have the break home and away. When players of the same band meet, away player breaks first but the balls come back. Take last seasons averages to decide who is in which band. As Tookey says, though, you would need an EGM to change/modify anything that was passed at the AGM. Good luck ! And stay with it, you know you want to ! tommo PS I can't cite any definitive case where this has been tried successfully, but it looks to me like it could work in your neck of the woods. ;) We had a proposal from Craig Mace and myself about grading each player individual but unfortunately all present saw fit to reject it ::)
|
|
ruby
Full Forum Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by ruby on Jun 14, 2013 8:04:49 GMT
Colin sorry if I upset you it was not my intention.
ok a proposel. Assuming with have the same teams as last year plus the staff club.
split the teams into three groups Group A Four Horseshoes Con club A.
Group B Portcullis Masons Staff club
Group c Gladiators Packsaddle/Barlycorn Marlborough Con club B
Groups A and B will make up section 1 Group c will be section 2
Ok Breaks when a Group A team plays a Group B team group A teams get 2 breaks home and away when a Group A team plays a Group c team Group A teams get 1 break home and away.
When a Group B team plays a Group c team Group B teams get 2 breaks home and away.
Now comes Captains choice after the draw has been done the captain of Group A teams when playing either Group B or C will chose which break or breaks they want , when a Group B team plays a Group c team Group B captains will chose want. This will bring tactics to the matcthes ,for example if Con club A were playing Marlborough they could chose to play one of there newer players with the break, or chose to take the break against Chris Bateman or myself if they thought this would get them a leg win. Hope this is constructive.
|
|
ruby
Full Forum Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by ruby on Jun 14, 2013 8:09:39 GMT
Sorry forgot to add when teams in same group play each other normal breaks will apply.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Gordon on Jun 14, 2013 10:41:52 GMT
Arthur I would be dead against this proposal as I'm sure Colin Martin and Chris Bateman would! We would have no chance of winning a single game against the group A and B teams if the captains of these teams can choose who has the break and me personally would definitely not play under this.
Ian
|
|