|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 14, 2014 10:46:52 GMT
Any thoughts on trying to sort out the qualification rules for the pub team Championship?
Currently rule 55, Pub/Club Team Competition Rules: a) A team may enter a guest player PROVIDED he only plays for the team he is guesting for (and plays regularly for that league if registered for more than one league). Players are not restricted to the one county rule, rule 47), in this competition, provided they fulfil the other criteria. b) Players must be registered for the host venue and the same league at the start of the calendar year. c) Teams from the same league within a host venue may amalgamate. d) Registration forms must be supplied (normally by the County Secretary) to the A.E.B.B.A. Secretary by the end of August of that year's competition, to allow scrutineering. Failure to comply with this will result in automatic disqualification from the finals. e) County champions will represent their counties at the Grand Finals.
How about a) simply allowing one guest player from any county provided that he has not played for any other team in that year's competiton?
Sav
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 12:16:42 GMT
Any thoughts on trying to sort out the qualification rules for the pub team Championship? I am perfectly willing to come up with a considered wording to set forward as a proposal, but would firstly say that I think it is absolutely crazy that this is not a Ranking event. Having just completed research into the history of the game at National level (and published the results in the "Timeline") it is obvious that this is a prestigious competition of long standing (it dates from 1973 and this year will be the 42nd time it is held). Only the Mens County pre-dates it (a year earlier). The reason given at the time was that it was "not an open competition" which is a load of rubbish ! You start by entering your team in the County heats (no restriction here, so 'open') and the successful team goes forward to play in the Finals under AEBBA nationally-run conditions. Players need the reward of RPs in return for their efforts in making the trek to Reading (now Didcot) and playing their socks off against the best of the best ! I fail to see all the fuss about qualification criteria if this is never going to be a ranking event. tommo
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Oct 14, 2014 12:39:56 GMT
Clive - If i want to enter this competition, then my entry is dependent on others wanting to play in it, that is why it cannot be classed as an open IMO This is why there will need to be a discussion at the AGM with regards to Bournemouth pairs being a non-ranking event as that is now not an open. In my opinion, they could make things much more simple for the Team Championships by getting rid of the guest player! IMO this competition is to find the best pub team - not the 4 best players plus the best player we can attract from elsewhere! That's enough for me to be shouted at for today
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 14, 2014 13:15:54 GMT
Started a separate thread. I could live with that, what must be ended is the current mess over 'Is he a regular player and registered at the start of the year?'
Good point Mark on removing guest players altogether.
Further discussion on ranking points should be in a separate thread.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 14, 2014 13:35:49 GMT
I agree entirely with Milhouse on this subject.... so no shouting from me here! Apart from anything else, when would AEBBA Ranking points start to be awarded for the competition? To make it fair (and "open") then surely that would have to be at the start of the competition within each county.... but every county seems to have a different way of deciding who their champions are with some holding an individual competition for this and others nominating their League Champions or Cup Winners. So, teams and players would not play the same number of games to qualify and therefore would not have an equal (or "open") opportunity to earn Ranking Points which is surely not fair.... equally it would not be fair to only award ranking points to players and teams that are in the AEBBA Team Finals, some of those players may not have played any games in the qualifying events and may only there to replace to replace somebody who is not available on the day of the finals themselves..... I can only imagine how much the current Ranking Point system would be criticised if some players were given "byes" through to the finals of County Opens and then given full Ranking Points then! IMHO this competition is successful for the prestige that it offers teams (and players) to represent their Counties in a National Final.... adding ranking points will not enhance this and certainly will not make any difference to a player or team taking part in the competition.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 14, 2014 13:47:54 GMT
Please start you own thread on ranking points which have nothing to do with an AGM proposal to clarify Guest rules for this competition.
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Oct 14, 2014 13:59:31 GMT
My proposal is to get rid of the guest player for this event
There we go - any seconders ?
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 14, 2014 14:48:03 GMT
Could I suggest the following proposal to replace existing Rule 55.... New Rule 55, Pub/Club Team Competition Rules a) All players must be registered for the host venue in the same League at the start of the calendar year. b) Teams from the same League within a host venue may amalgamate. c) No Team or Players are permitted to play in any qualifying competition in more than one county in the course of the same season. Failure to comply with this will result in automatic disqualification from the finals. d) Registration forms must be supplied (normally by the County Secretary or County Competition Secretary) to the A.E.B.B.A. Secretary by the end of August of that year's competition, to allow scrutineering. Failure to comply with this will result in automatic disqualification from the finals. e) County champions will normally represent their counties at the Grand Finals however in the event that team are not available another team may be allowed to represent their county providing they meet all other eligibility requirements of the competition. Would anybody like to second this and I will then send the proposal to AEBBA Secretary? PS. I suppose we could also add.... f) AEBBA Ranking Points will not be awarded in this competition...?? (Sorry Sav, I just couldn't resist that...!! )
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Oct 14, 2014 14:59:20 GMT
Could I suggest the following proposal to replace existing Rule 55.... New Rule 55, Pub/Club Team Competition Rules a) All players must be registered for the host venue in the same League at the start of the calendar year. b) Teams from the same League within a host venue may amalgamate. c) No Team or Players are permitted to play in any qualifying competition in more than one county in the course of the same season. Failure to comply with this will result in automatic disqualification from the finals. d) Registration forms must be supplied (normally by the County Secretary or County Competition Secretary) to the A.E.B.B.A. Secretary by the end of August of that year's competition, to allow scrutineering. Failure to comply with this will result in automatic disqualification from the finals. e) County champions will normally represent their counties at the Grand Finals however in the event that team are not available another team may be allowed to represent their county providing they meet all other eligibility requirements of the competition. Would anybody like to second this and I will then send the proposal to AEBBA Secretary? PS. I suppose we could also add.... f) AEBBA Ranking Points will not be awarded in this competition...?? (Sorry Sav, I just couldn't resist that...!! ) I will second this on the proviso that point C is amended somehow! Not sure as to the wording though.... The scenario is that as has been pointed out, some counties put their league or cup winners through, so if you have played in that league or cup in that county, you have played in the qualifying rounds. If you then play for another team in another county and they play off differently, then you have played for a 2nd team and therefore disqualified from playing! I know this obviously happens at the moment but just thinking we may as well try and make the rules as water-tight as we can! Just another thought... Point D - i think this should just be removed as it NEVER happens and some counties have not had their winners chosen at this point! it should be up to the individual county to check availability - not the AE secretary
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 14, 2014 15:06:07 GMT
RE point D) AEBBA's failure to enforce this does not mean that the rule should be removed. The rule is needed.
County secretaries should verify that all teams registered for their own County competition are legal within that county.
ALL those registration forms (not just county winners) should then go to the AEBBA secretary so that he can make sure no player is registered in more than one county.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 14, 2014 15:38:45 GMT
Could I suggest the following proposal to replace existing Rule 55.... New Rule 55, Pub/Club Team Competition Rules a) All players must be registered for the host venue in the same League at the start of the calendar year. b) Teams from the same League within a host venue may amalgamate. c) No Team or Players are permitted to play in any qualifying competition in more than one county in the course of the same season. Failure to comply with this will result in automatic disqualification from the finals. d) Registration forms must be supplied (normally by the County Secretary or County Competition Secretary) to the A.E.B.B.A. Secretary by the end of August of that year's competition, to allow scrutineering. Failure to comply with this will result in automatic disqualification from the finals. e) County champions will normally represent their counties at the Grand Finals however in the event that team are not available another team may be allowed to represent their county providing they meet all other eligibility requirements of the competition. Would anybody like to second this and I will then send the proposal to AEBBA Secretary? PS. I suppose we could also add.... f) AEBBA Ranking Points will not be awarded in this competition...?? (Sorry Sav, I just couldn't resist that...!! ) I will second this on the proviso that point C is amended somehow! Not sure as to the wording though.... The scenario is that as has been pointed out, some counties put their league or cup winners through, so if you have played in that league or cup in that county, you have played in the qualifying rounds. If you then play for another team in another county and they play off differently, then you have played for a 2nd team and therefore disqualified from playing! I know this obviously happens at the moment but just thinking we may as well try and make the rules as water-tight as we can! Just another thought... Point D - i think this should just be removed as it NEVER happens and some counties have not had their winners chosen at this point! it should be up to the individual county to check availability - not the AE secretary The scenario you have shown is exactly why I would like to add Rule 55c) to the new Rules. At the moment, there is nothing to stop me from playing in Leagues in other counties and playing in their competitions that would end up with the winners playing in the AE Team Finals.... and still playing in a team in Sussex in our competition. The existing rule states the two counties rule does not apply in the competition and I know of several players that have done this on many occasions. My suggestion is to prevent that happening in the future and making it clear that is not allowed, players would therefore have to make the choice of which team (and in which county) they would want to enter from the start of the competition.... not make the choice after they know whether they have qualified for the finals or not. With regard to Rule 55d), I do agree that the counties should have the responsibility of ensuring that all players and teams that play in their competition to qualify (no matter what the format may be that they use) are eligible to do so.... but since most counties do not know what qualifying criteria other counties use then I do think that it needs some final scrutineering to be in place before teams are accepted for the AE Team Finals. At least that way everybody knows that teams and players that are in the finals will be eligible to be there. I am happy to leave this proposal as it stands and will submit it if it receives a seconder, obviously people are welcome to put forward other peoposals if they think that they would be better.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 15:41:46 GMT
Clive - If i want to enter this competition, then my entry is dependent on others wanting to play in it, that is why it cannot be classed as an open IMO This is why there will need to be a discussion at the AGM with regards to Bournemouth pairs being a non-ranking event as that is now not an open. In my opinion, they could make things much more simple for the Team Championships by getting rid of the guest player! IMO this competition is to find the best pub team - not the 4 best players plus the best player we can attract from elsewhere! That's enough for me to be shouted at for today Just to answer Mark, as he addressed his post to me....... 1) Not an open ? There are so many different viewpoints on what the term open means: no two people I have spoken to have come up with a matching concept. I would prefer not to use the term at all in connection with a team event, especially as breaking into a County side is dependent on how you are rated by others, and you can find it's a closed shop. To me the National Team events are alike - a band of brothers (or sisters) representing their county at the highest level and the finals of the pub/team event is seen by many as being a Flagship event of the AEBBA. 2) As one who only got his chance to represent his county in the first place by being invited to play in this competition for the Flying Scud (county selection followed) I am against removal of the guest option. Warrior hit the nail on the head rather when he pointed out that individual counties decide their champion teams in different ways. For Sussex yes my participation would be dependent on me being to get a team of four other interested players together, or to fill a vacancy in another team, so the options are "Open" to me - dependent on what effort I am prepared to put in. If unsuccessful, though, I don't begrudge others getting Sussex RPs in what we still know as the Watney Mann competition which finds our champion team. For Surrey the "guest facility" is often the lifeblood for the championship winning team being able to participate at Reading/Didcot. For the two years I was privileged to take part, it was as a B team player from the venue, with D.C. and/or Magners being the illustrious guest. Without that option, and only three Scud players available to play, they would not have been able to take part, and the runners-up would have been invited to play instead. So what is better - the best four players plus one, or the best five 'also-rans' who might well include the one anyway ?
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 20, 2014 8:01:32 GMT
No definite proposal, duly seconded from discussion thus far. I am in favour of one guest player without all the eligibility hassle that we know has meant illegal teams appearing in the finals (including the one I played in through ignorance a few years ago!)
Also e) 'County Champions only' needs a more sensible wording as per BBW.
My proposal for amendment of rule 55, if there is a seconder;
a) One guest player from any county will be allowed, provided that he has not played for any other team in that year's competiton.
e) County champions will normally represent their counties at the Grand Finals. In the event that County champions are not available, another team from that county will be allowed to represent their county providing they meet all other eligibility requirements of the competition.
Sections b) c) & d) to remain in force.
Sav
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 8:33:24 GMT
Yes a slight relaxation and a considerable clarification.........I'm in favour of Sav's proposal. *
tommo
* (edit - not to say that I'm seconding it at this stage as I think we can arrive at a more definitive wording !)
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 20, 2014 9:07:08 GMT
No definite proposal, duly seconded from discussion thus far. I am in favour of one guest player without all the eligibility hassle that we know has meant illegal teams appearing in the finals (including the one I played in through ignorance a few years ago!)
Also e) 'County Champions only' needs a more sensible wording as per BBW.
My proposal for amendment of rule 55, if there is a seconder;
a) One guest player from any county will be allowed, provided that he has not played for any other team in that year's competiton.
e) County champions will normally represent their counties at the Grand Finals. In the event that County champions are not available, another team from that county will be allowed to represent their county providing they meet all other eligibility requirements of the competition.
Sections b) c) & d) to remain in force.
Sav I am very uncomfortable about the proposal for 55a) and feel that it could be open to abuse which I am sure is not the thought or intention behind the proposal. Surely a "guest" player should at least have some association with the team, league or county that they would be representing in an AEBBA National Competition as a minimum requirement?? I also feel that there should be a better understanding of what criteria each county uses to provide a team to represent them at the Team Championships, I believe that some counties have an individual competition to decide this (Sussex and Oxon do) while other counties either send their League Champions, Cup Winners or simply choose a team each year.... without knowing that information, how would AEBBA know if a player had played in the competition or not? Without that knowledge and with the thought that a team could simply "import" any player from around the country to artificially strengthen their team for the AEBBA Finals I would be strongly against this proposal.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 20, 2014 9:10:00 GMT
My proposal is to get rid of the guest player for this event There we go - any seconders ? Although I would prefer my proposal (which is a different way of saying this) there has not been a seconder for that..... so I will second this proposal now.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 9:30:30 GMT
Agree this part of Sav's proposal
....contains an ambiguity, and I'm sure is not how Sav intended it to come across.
So if he can tidy that bit, I'll second the amended wording ! tommo
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 20, 2014 9:30:50 GMT
I also feel that there should be a better understanding of what criteria each county uses to provide a team to represent them at the Team Championships, I believe that some counties have an individual competition to decide this (Sussex and Oxon do) while other counties either send their League Champions, Cup Winners or simply choose a team each year.... without knowing that information, how would AEBBA know if a player had played in the competition or not? Validation within the local county competition is the job of the local county secretary, multiple registration checking across counties is the job of the AEBBA secretary. No different to as it is now. Simples! (if rules are enforced). I would love to play for another team in Kent as my own team is not interested. The AEBBA remit is to promote playing and the current rule involving an association with the entered team has been flouted, ignored and not enforced for years, so why have it?
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 20, 2014 9:39:20 GMT
Agree this part of Sav's proposal ....contains an ambiguity, and I'm sure is not how Sav intended it to come across. So if he can tidy that bit, I'll second the amended wording ! tommo
The one player - one county rule does not apply to the Pub Team competition as per rule 47, Remember that restricting to the local county will exclude those teams whose county sends their league/cup winners from having a guest player, not fair in my view.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 20, 2014 10:08:04 GMT
I also feel that there should be a better understanding of what criteria each county uses to provide a team to represent them at the Team Championships, I believe that some counties have an individual competition to decide this (Sussex and Oxon do) while other counties either send their League Champions, Cup Winners or simply choose a team each year.... without knowing that information, how would AEBBA know if a player had played in the competition or not? Validation within the local county competition is the job of the local county secretary, multiple registration checking across counties is the job of the AEBBA secretary. No different to as it is now. Simples! (if rules are enforced). I would love to play for another team in Kent as my own team is not interested. The AEBBA remit is to promote playing and the current rule involving an association with the entered team has been flouted, ignored and not enforced for years, so why have it? I am sure that you are right to say that there have been mistakes (deliberate or otherwise) in the past over player eligibility for this competition..... my belief is that this has probably happened due to the fact that nobody knows (AEBBA Secretary, County Secretaries or even Team Captains) what criteria ALL of the counties use to determine their represntatives for the finals of this competition? That is why I believe that this MUST BE CLARIFIED BEFORE we can enforce or introduce any rules for this competition. If a county chooses their League Champions or League Knock-out Cup Winners, I would assume that any player that has played for their team during the course of those competitions must be deemed to have played in a "Qualifying Event" for the AEBBA Team Championships.... those players could therefore not play for any other team in any other event that could result in the winners playing in the competition. In some teams in Sussex, we have players who play in Leagues in other counties on a regular basis.... those have included players from Kent, Surrey, Hampshire and even further afield from Oxon and Northants. Sussex hold their own individual competition (Watney Mann Cup) to determine who will represent us at the AEBBA Team Finals, we currently allow one guest player providing they play within the League of the Team that they represent and haven't played for "any other team" in that competition.... but I certainly don't know what criteria other counties use and therefore don't know if any of the players (who are either a guest or regular player in the team) would be deemed as ineligible for the AEBBA Team Finals because the have played for other teams in other counties? How is AEBBA Secretary supposed to know that either....?? Under your proposal, a team from Sussex or Kent could ask a player from Oxford or Berkshire to play for them as a guest and be significantly stronger as a result of that.... would that make then make the competition a fair reflection of who is the "best team" or would it simply be down to which team could get the strongest guest player to enhance their chances of winning.... I am all in favour of allowing people to play in competitions, but if teams are to be allowed guests then surely there should be some direct association between the guest and the team they are playing for, as a minimum the player should at least play in the same county even if we relax the rule about the same League.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 20, 2014 10:46:19 GMT
Sussex hold their own individual competition (Watney Mann Cup) to determine who will represent us at the AEBBA Team Finals, we currently allow one guest player providing they play within the League of the Team that they represent and haven't played for "any other team" in that competition.... but I certainly don't know what criteria other counties use and therefore don't know if any of the players (who are either a guest or regular player in the team) would be deemed as ineligible for the AEBBA Team Finals because the have played for other teams in other counties? How is AEBBA Secretary supposed to know that either....?? ALL those registration forms (not just county winners) should then go to the AEBBA secretary so that he can make sure no player is registered in more than one county.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 10:56:20 GMT
Under your proposal, a team from Sussex or Kent could ask a player from Oxford or Berkshire to play for them as a guest and be significantly stronger as a result of that.... would that make then make the competition a fair reflection of who is the "best team" or would it simply be down to which team could get the strongest guest player to enhance their chances of winning.... I am all in favour of allowing people to play in competitions, but if teams are to be allowed guests then surely there should be some direct association between the guest and the team they are playing for, as a minimum the player should at least play in the same county even if we relax the rule about the same League. Yeah, Warrior makes a good point here and that's the bit I was uneasy with. I find myself falling between two stools, as I am against complete removal of the 'guest' option, as the county champions going forward - rather than the runners-up - is often made viable by this facility. I would add something like the guest player 'must be a registered player with the participating county.'
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 20, 2014 11:36:41 GMT
ALL those registration forms (not just county winners) should then go to the AEBBA secretary so that he can make sure no player is registered in more than one county. That sounds really simple doesn't it.... but is it really? I believe that some counties send either their League Champions or Knock-Out Cup Winners to represent them.... on that basis, presumably the County Secretary should therefore send the ENTIRE LIST of players that played in the League or Cup during that season as surely EVERY PLAYER in the League (regardless of whether their team won the League/Cup or not) would be deemed as having played in a qualifying competition for that County? Do other people agree with that interpretation of this rule.... or am I just being daft about this? If that is correct, then AEBBA Secretary would seem to have an awful lot of work to do as he would probably have to go through lists of about 75% of players in the country to determine who has played where, which sounds like total madness to me! Little wonder perhaps that "mistakes" have been made in the past about player eligibility....
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 20, 2014 12:17:07 GMT
Chroist, about half an hours typing from the previous post just disappeared
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Oct 20, 2014 12:26:50 GMT
ALL those registration forms (not just county winners) should then go to the AEBBA secretary so that he can make sure no player is registered in more than one county. That sounds really simple doesn't it.... but is it really? I believe that some counties send either their League Champions or Knock-Out Cup Winners to represent them.... on that basis, presumably the County Secretary should therefore send the ENTIRE LIST of players that played in the League or Cup during that season as surely EVERY PLAYER in the League (regardless of whether their team won the League/Cup or not) would be deemed as having played in a qualifying competition for that County? Do other people agree with that interpretation of this rule.... or am I just being daft about this? If that is correct, then AEBBA Secretary would seem to have an awful lot of work to do as he would probably have to go through lists of about 75% of players in the country to determine who has played where, which sounds like total madness to me! Little wonder perhaps that "mistakes" have been made in the past about player eligibility.... I agree with this and this is how i would interpret the rule. If a county sends their league champions, then all other players who played in that season has already played in the qualifying competition and therefore would be ineligible to play for any other team.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 20, 2014 13:31:38 GMT
Chroist, about half an hours typing from the previous post just disappeared Sorry Sav, I realised that the post had become enormous again and I was also bringing up points that don't need discussion.... yet. Without full clarification of how each county chooses their representatives for the AEBBA Team Finals I do not believe that we have any way of checking (or enforcing) either the current rules or any future amendments to the rules which is why I have started a separate thread to discuss that.
|
|
|
Post by barbelman on Oct 20, 2014 14:36:26 GMT
We should try and remember that this is supposed to be a COUNTY CLUB TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP and not a selected County representative side - there is another AEBBA competition for that! It was conceived as an independent two stage competition at local and at national level but some single league counties cause problems for themselves by not holding a separate competition as there are always some teams who will not be interested and who can be drawn on to provide a source of legitimate guest players, allowing teams to conform to rules as they stand. There would be nothing wrong with the rules as they stand if all counties stuck to the ethos of the competition in the first place.
Some of the proposals I've read here recently will turn it into just another County championship clone....
Tony
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 15:52:17 GMT
I will start the ball rolling Picking up the ball and running with it here is what I believe would be a better wording for AEBBA Rule 55, removing all ambiguities and keeping to the spirit of how it has been implemented in recent years. (I reiterate, nothing new here, just something in plain English that we can all understand !) 55. Composition of qualifying sides to take part in National Team Competition. i) Each affiliated county is invited to send its representative 'champion' team of 5 players. This must contain three or more 'regulars' but up to 2 guest players may be used: - one from another team from the same house, and/or, - one player registered from a rival team registered with that league within the county. ii) A 'regular' player qualifying from more than one champion county team has the freedom of choice as to which team he/she shall represent in the National finals. iii) A 'guest' may not be used who has already taken part in a qualifying Team knockout competition organised by another county (or league associations within a county) to decide that county's representative team, i.e. once eliminated that player will be considered 'cup-tied'. iv) Validity of the composition of a county's representative team is the responsibility of the County Secretary. In the case of any dispute, the AEBBA Secretary will act as arbiter. tommo
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 23, 2014 8:09:17 GMT
RE the above proposal;
i) Allowing guests from the local league only, discriminates against those leagues/counties who do not run a separate qualifying competition and send their league/cup champs. They can never have a guest. I believe it should be a free hand on one guest player or no guests at all.
ii) I cannot agree that it is correct for any player, regular or not, to play in more than one team in the same competition.
iv) All registration forms must be sent to the AEBBA secretary as has been in the rules for the last thirty years. The complexity of this has been totally exaggerated in earlier posts. The AEBBA Secretary needs ONLY to check that none of the finalists have played for another team in an earlier part of the competition, the rest are irrelevant.
Each secretary sends in an electronic list of all teams that the secretary copies into excel, surname first. Sort the conglomerated list alphabetically and the secretary has a reading list. Simple and if the excel bit is challenging I'll do it for him.
In addition registrations from the start of the calendar year should still apply and those regular players registered must have played for the team.
I am still of the view that the existing rules just need a couple of minor changes and enforcing!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 8:45:31 GMT
I would love to play for another team in Kent as my own team is not interested. The AEBBA remit is to promote playing and the current rule involving an association with the entered team has been flouted, ignored and not enforced for years, so why have it? The one player - one county rule does not apply to the Pub Team competition as per rule 47, Remember that restricting to the local county will exclude those teams whose county sends their league/cup winners from having a guest player, not fair in my view. I can't see how you are being excluded from playing in this competition, Sav. (If you will forgive me for using yourself as an example ). The rules allow you to guest for either Medway or Tunny Wells to represent Kent if you were asked to do so. All you'd have to do is become registered for one of their league teams. I am in favour of as few restrictions as possible (within reason of course). But it has been suggested elsewhere that a guest could come from 'anywhere' and most people would think it went against the grain if you were allowed to represent, say, Sussex - although Gerry did so last weekend. But Gerry's situation is different: he has been playing regularly in the county and helped to form the backbone of their championship-winning side.
|
|