|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 23, 2014 9:00:23 GMT
Cheers Clive, I am an isolated example and irrelevant to the general principle of no guests/local guests only/free hand on guests
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 9:31:54 GMT
This does not change the fact that Rule 55 is "weaselly worded" and open to a myriad of individual interpretations. The single league counties seem perpetually paranoic about whether the team they plan to send contravenes the rule guidelines, and many end up not bothering to enter anyway.
We are now down to six teams and as Northants recently hinted, where's the incentive ?
IMHO the whole rule as it is currently worded needs junking and starting again with a new wording agreeable to everyone and "one size fits all". There are enough erudite people on this Forum to be able to work together and achieve that in time for the AGM, so why don't we try, rather than being at each others throats all the time ?
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 23, 2014 11:17:34 GMT
Don't think we are at each others throats Clive? hope not anyway.
My stance is clear in that there is no variation to the wording of the current local guests only rule that is not open to misunderstanding or deliberate manipulation and is fair to all counties that do not run a separate competition.
Either a free hand on guests, or no guests whatsoever is the only fair and enforceable rule in my view.
No matter what else is posted I will retain that view. Others are quite rightly entitled to their opinions and, subject to proposals, a vote at the AGM will decide the matter, not this forum. If it helps and I cannot find a seconder for the free hand on guests proposal then that is lost, in which case I would happily second Mark's proposal of no guests whatsoever.
Sav
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 11:41:24 GMT
It comes back to the two-tier situation that exists with counties...... Those with multiple leagues who hold a bespoke qualifying competition tend to go to the National finals with their exact five who won (so have no need of a guest). Whereas single-league counties often struggle to field a team, it only being possible if they are able to rustle up a 'guest'. They would therefore be discriminated against if that option were to be removed. Baering in mind that only six counties sent along teams this year, this IMHO would be a move in the wrong direction.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 23, 2014 12:01:11 GMT
Whereas single-league counties often struggle to field a team, it only being possible if they are able to rustle up a 'guest'. They would therefore be discriminated against if that option were to be removed. Correct me if I am wrong Clive but I think you may be missing the point. Under the current rules teams in single league counties, that do not run a separate qualifying competition, cannot legally field a guest player from within their own league, they are all cup tied! They are the ones who are being discriminated against now!
Sav
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 15:58:23 GMT
Now I'm confused !
Let's have a view from someone from a single-league county, I'm sure they don't see it that way.
All the more reason to junk the existing rule and come up with something by committee that we all agree upon. You can use my earlier suggestion as to how I think it is being worked at present as a baseline.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 23, 2014 17:32:24 GMT
Looking back over the posts on this thread, we seem to be going round in circles and we could probably keep doing that and getting no closer to an answer until long after the AGM has been and gone. We all seem to agree that something needs to be changed to avoid the problems that always seem to emerge when teams are announced for the AEBBA Team Finals, when there are always questions raised about the eligibility of a team or their players. I think that much of this problem is caused by the different systems that each county use to determine who their representatives will be, as has been said before some counties use a specific individual competitions while others some select their League/Cup winners or simply "nominate" a team within their League. When thinking about what we need to do, let us firstly remember Constitition 2 of the AEBBA.... The aims of the Association shall be to promote and encourage the playing of Bar Billiards throughout the United Kingdom and particularly by the Organisation of Inter County competition.
Since there are no specific qualification methods used by all counties to decide who will represent them (let us be honest.... that is unlikely ever to happen) I think that we need to ensure that the rules will allow all teams and players to take part in this competition if they wish to do so. I am sure that nobody would want to say that a player who regularly plays for a team in one county should be excluded from playing for that team simply because the other county he plays in doesn't have a "specific" competition for their teams to qualify.... that just seems to be exclusion by default to me and surely must go against the spirit of the AEBBA Constitution. Equally, I am also sure that nobody would want to prevent a player from playing in another team if the rest of his usual team do not want to enter the competition. Of course, we don't want teams to bring in "ringers" to artificially enhance their chances of winning but we do need common sense to prevail down the line somewhere as the whole point of AEBBA (and the counties and leagues) must be to encourage people to PLAY THE GAME! I will show below (in a separate post) a proposal that I think addresses all of the issues and questions raised here.... it would be great if somebody will second the proposal and I would welcome any suggestions that may improve on what I have put. I am sure that not everybody will like some of the proposal, but we do need to try to move forward and have to start that process somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 23, 2014 17:43:40 GMT
Okay, with my previous post in mind, I would like to propose the following:-
New rule 55, Pub/Club Team Competition Rules
A) The Competition is open to all pub and club teams within Counties that are affiliated to AEBBA.
B) Where affiliated Counties have more than one League, a specific qualifying competition should be played to enable all teams that wish to enter the competition to have an equal chance to represent their county. Any team entering the competition through this method will be deemed as having taken part in a "Direct Qualification Event".
C) Affiliated Counties that only have one League may either play a specific qualifying competition or choose an alternative method to decide their representatives for the national finals, for example using either their League or Cup Winners or nominating another team to represent their county. Teams that are chosen to represent their county that have not played in a specific qualifying competition will be deemed as entering under an "Indirect Qualification Event".
D) A Team shall consist of 5 players of which a mimimum 4 players must be registered for the host venue and the same league at the start of the calendar year.
E) Teams from the same league within a host venue may amalgamate.
F) No player may play for more than one team in either any "Direct Qualification Event" within any county or at the National Finals during the same season.
G) A Team shall be allowed ONE "guest" player PROVIDED the "guest" player meets ALL of the following applicable criteria:-
i) The "guest" must be a "regular player" in any League within the same county. The definition of what would be considered to be a "regular" player is someone who has played either a minimum of 75% of matches during the current season or a minimum of 60% of games during the proceeding 3 seasons.
ii) Teams must be able to substantiate that any "guest" player qualifies to be considered a "regular player" within a League inside their county and may be required to provide evidence to this to AEEBA.
iii) In counties that operate a "Direct Qualification Event", the "guest" may only play for one team within the county during that season. A "guest" may have played in other counties during the same season in an "indirect Qualification Event" however may not play for more than one team at the National Finals if both teams should qualify for those as stated in Rule 55F).
iv) In counties that operate an "Indirect Qualification Event", the "guest" may have played in other counties during the same season that also use an "indirect Qualification Event" to determine their representatives, however may not play for more than one team at the National Finals if both teams should qualify for those as stated in Rule 55F).
v) Players are not restricted to the one county rule, rule 47), in this competition, provided they fulfil the other criteria.
H) It is the responsibility of County Secretaries to ensure that all teams have complied with the Rules of the Competition regardless of whether the County operates either a "Direct" or "Indirect" Qualification Event to determine their representatives. County Secretaries must forward information of all players that have taken part in their competitions to AEBBA 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.
I) Any team found to have played an ineligible player will be automatically disqualified from the competition.
This proposal has been withdrawn as it is too complex....!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 18:18:31 GMT
Looks good to me as you appear to have covered everything there.....only bit of doubt in my mind is on clause H) which still puts the onus on AEBBA Sec to do a lot of checking - weren't people speaking out against that earlier ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 18:27:34 GMT
So looking at BBW's proposal above - how would counties with a single league and that use, for example, the team KO competition as the eligibility route (in which all league teams are entered) find a 'guest' player and still comply with the rules?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 18:37:59 GMT
How you do it is bring a bit of flexibility into the equation and leave yourselves the option of sending your league champions instead. Or, have a rival team k.o to which entry is not compulsory. With a team called 'The Fox' in your league, you do not need me to find the loopholes for you, surely ?
|
|
|
Post by gandalf the untidy on Oct 23, 2014 23:32:06 GMT
Don't think we are at each others throats Clive? hope not anyway.
My stance is clear in that there is no variation to the wording of the current local guests only rule that is not open to misunderstanding or deliberate manipulation and is fair to all counties that do not run a separate competition.
Either a free hand on guests, or no guests whatsoever is the only fair and enforceable rule in my view.
No matter what else is posted I will retain that view. Others are quite rightly entitled to their opinions and, subject to proposals, a vote at the AGM will decide the matter, not this forum. If it helps and I cannot find a seconder for the free hand on guests proposal then that is lost, in which case I would happily second Mark's proposal of no guests whatsoever.
Sav
I'm with Sav on this, keep the rules simple as possible then all will understand and there will be no friction on entry conditions. Sometimes we have to draw a line to protect the longevity of the event. Though the intention to maximise on eligibility is always the aim, sometimes the consequences can have an opposite effect.
|
|
|
Post by barbelman on Oct 24, 2014 8:52:18 GMT
How you do it is bring a bit of flexibility into the equation and leave yourselves the option of sending your league champions instead. Or, have a rival team k.o to which entry is not compulsory. With a team called 'The Fox' in your league, you do not need me to find the loopholes for you, surely ? And that is precisely the answer Clive!! The original concept of the comp. stated that every county (irrespective of size) should invite entries for the All England team championships and run a specific KO for those that enter with the winner going through to the national competition. Not league champions, not KO Cup winners, not invited teams picked by the committee but the winners of the county's AEBBA pub/club Team KO! Legal 'guests can be picked from the teams who don't wish to enter (and if Oxon is anything to go by, there will be plenty!) Let's get the competition back to what it should be - no stroke-pulling, bending the rules, complicated lists of conditions to keep everyone happy...pffft.. Tony
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 10:14:42 GMT
Colin/Tony,
Note that I have refrained so far in seconding anyone's proposal. This is because I still see this as 'work in progress'.
Warrior's (complicated) wording has caught the essence of what the competition should be about, i.e.) where possible to keep it 'Pub (or club) Team' - easy for the counties rich in players to provide from. Whilst allowing a degree of flexibility to allow those struggling to provide a team to take part to make their numbers up.
So let's not be negative on this.
To Dave I'd say thanks for what must have taken a lot of effort and valuable time - well done ! But if you don't mind us saying so, it's too verbose and looks something like the small print on a contract.
We need a considerably simplified version, set in layman's terms and visually comprehensible at a glance, to go before the AGM as a seconded proposal.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 11:04:02 GMT
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'. For this purpose, normal league games do not apply.Adding a simple exemption clause to my earlier suggestion (above) could provide the solution.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 24, 2014 20:12:32 GMT
Hi Sav I will second your proposal re guest players.OFF TOPIC I think of myself and how I guest. I am not in the realms of top players but I guest to support my friends and their teams, not for glory in any way, and I know the majority do the same. I think of the fabulous players from Reading who played for our Portsmouth Team when we were short for a year and Hayley from Worthing. They did it to support and went back to their county first for all team games that had county status. We did not try to win anything buy ensuring top players, although some were in the top players, we were just so grateful that they supported us through such times. I look at my guru's Tony Woolvin who plays with some good players but includes his family who are coming on leaps and bounds with Daniel now winning trophies for highest scores in our league and whom he would play in any competition. Den Claydon who would take any keen player join them in the team team and play them, no matter the competition and its status. I didn't and don't want a publicity officer - I want more Den and Tony's who will play their current team and play within a team no matter whether they are TOP players. Chris
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 24, 2014 23:09:18 GMT
Warrior's (complicated) wording has caught the essence of what the competition should be about, i.e.) where possible to keep it 'Pub (or club) Team' - easy for the counties rich in players to provide from. Whilst allowing a degree of flexibility to allow those struggling to provide a team to take part to make their numbers up. To Dave I'd say thanks for what must have taken a lot of effort and valuable time - well done ! But if you don't mind us saying so, it's too verbose and looks something like the small print on a contract. No problem Tommo, I work with contracts all day as part of my job and I tried to cover as many aspects as I could to take into consideration all of the points that were being made.... but even then Elsie still picked up on something that I hadn't covered sufficiently. You are also right when you say this.... We need a considerably simplified version, set in layman's terms and visually comprehensible at a glance, to go before the AGM as a seconded proposal. .... but the one thing that has really caught my eye was this post from Tony.... And that is precisely the answer Clive!! The original concept of the comp. stated that every county (irrespective of size) should invite entries for the All England team championships and run a specific KO for those that enter with the winner going through to the national competition. Not league champions, not KO Cup winners, not invited teams picked by the committee but the winners of the county's AEBBA pub/club Team KO! Legal 'guests can be picked from the teams who don't wish to enter (and if Oxon is anything to go by, there will be plenty!) Let's get the competition back to what it should be - no stroke-pulling, bending the rules, complicated lists of conditions to keep everyone happy...pffft.. Tony .... who has hit the nail on the head when he says that this competition should be played as it was originally intended. The answer is simple.... the counties must play a separate competition to enable them to have a representive at the finals. The "guest problem" would then be overcome. The problem of players taking part for more than one team (in different counties) would also disappear. If a player takes part for his team in one county he is not eligible to play for a team in another county. If a team do not wish to enter, players from that team can be a guest for another team in that county if they personally wish to play. Perhaps both Tony and I think that is the obvious answer because we both play in counties (Oxon and Sussex) that already run specific competitions for qualification.... but would it really be that hard for the other counties to do the same? Most traditional seasons end around May each year, the AEBBA Team Finals are normally in October, more than 4 months later, surely that gives plenty of time to arrange something? Sussex currently run their competition as a knock-out with games played both home and away over a period of several months during the summer.... I believe that Oxon normally play their competition on one day. Either format is equally effective and the nature of what type of competition is run should be left up to each county to decide. If only one team wishes to enter within a county, then obviously they would be declared the champions. If no team wants to enter, then that county would not be represented that year.... much as some counties were not represented this year. The only other change to the existing rule I would like to allow the Guest player to be selected from any team with any League inside the same county.... this would then enable players like Chris Saville to guest for a Tunbridge Wells or Medway team since there are no teams inside his own League that wish to enter the Kent competition. Revised (and much simpler) proposal below if anybody would like to second this....?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 23:20:37 GMT
The answer is simple: the counties must play a separate competition to enable them to have a representive at the finals.......... .... but would it really be that hard for the other counties to do the same? Most traditional seasons end around May each year, the AEBBA Team Finals are normally in October, more than 4 months later, surely that gives plenty of time to arrange something? Now you're putting constraints which weren't there before on those counties ! It's difficult enough to get them just to turn up on the day ! Having read Chrissie's post I now feel we're wasting our time in trying to come up with a 'one size fits all' system: There are three separate camps: 1. Those who want no guests allowed. 2. Those who want 'open house' for guests. 3. Those who want to allow guests 'within reason'. This factor alone is what is likely to be argued - at great length - at the forthcoming AGM. I for one am now giving up !
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 24, 2014 23:21:20 GMT
Revised proposal to amend Rule 55) Pub/Club Team Competition Rules: a) All counties must hold a separate qualifying competition for teams that wish to enter this competition, the format for the qualifying event will be at the discretion of each individual county. If only one team within a county wish to enter, they will be declared the winners with no competition necessary. b) A team may enter a guest player PROVIDED he only plays for the team he is guesting for (and plays regularly for a Team within ANY League in the same county). Players are not restricted to the one county rule, rule 47), in this competition, provided they fulfil the other criteria. c) Players must be registered for the host venue and the same league at the start of the calendar year. d) Teams from the same league within a host venue may amalgamate. e) No player may play for more than one team during the same year.f) 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. g) County champions will represent their counties at the Grand Finals. I have highlighted ( in yellow) the changes to the existing rule. Would anybody like to second this proposal?
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 24, 2014 23:34:19 GMT
Now you're putting constraints which weren't there before on those counties ! Do you think so? Surely, if you read this existing rule about the competition.... Currently rule 55, Pub/Club Team Competition Rules: e) County champions will represent their counties at the Grand Finals. .... how do you have "County Champions" if they don't run a competition?? It looks to me as if AEBBA have either simply "forgotten" to put in a rule to say that you must have a competition to be able to have a champion or that they thought it was so obvious that it didn't actually need to be a rule! Sadly, I do understand what you are saying here.... It's difficult enough to get them just to turn up on the day ! .... but on the positive side at least we would know months in advance that some teams will not be there rather than only finding out 2 or 3 days before the date of the competition as happened this year. If somebody is prepared to second the proposal, I will withdraw my previous (long-winded) proposal. If there are no takers, then I will simply join you.... I for one am now giving up ! I feel that the AGM could be quite long this year....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 9:13:40 GMT
I just feel Dave that the AGM will now turn into a power struggle between those in favour of guests and those against. That will be the major issue decided and anyone trying to take the middle line now is simply pi$$ing in the wind !
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 25, 2014 10:08:04 GMT
I just feel Dave that the AGM will now turn into a power struggle between those in favour of guests and those against. That will be the major issue decided and anyone trying to take the middle line now is simply pi$$ing in the wind ! Yes, you could well be right there Clive.... but that should make my revised proposal a more acceptable alternative to both sides - if somebody wiill second it of course. For the side that want to have guests, my proposal slightly extends the eligibility to include players from other Leagues within a county which was not previously available. For those against having guests, my proposal still prevents the possibility of importing "ringers" from outside the county which would result in this competition no longer being for "champion teams" from each county, it would simply become a question of who could get the best 5 players there from almost anywhere. If you think about either of proposals that have gone forward, they both have potentially damaging effects for the long-term future of this competition.... the "no guest" proposal could mean that some teams will be unable to field a side for the finals if any of their players are unavailable on the day of the final due to work, illness or simply the fact that they don't want to travel that far to play! The "any guest" proposal could result in teams artifically strengthening their side and thus influencing the result on the day. Would that be fair on the teams that actually enter their normal team into the competition? Some teams may even refuse to play in the finals as a result of that.... I don't see that the requirement of having a separate competition within each county to decide who will represent them should be an issue.... surely that is what the competition was based on originally and this probably happened when the competition started, it was probably simply a case that nobody saw the need to actually write that in the rules. It has been pointed out earlier on the thread that very few teams are really interested in taking part, so I can't believe it would be that hard for a county to arrange a competition for those that did want to play, even if it was a simple play-off between 2 teams on a home and away basis at their respective venues. If a county does not want to run a separate competition and only has one team interested in playing in the finals then that team could still represent them.... if no teams want to enter from inside a county then that is nothing different to the current situation when teams don't go to the finals anyway. To me, it makes sense to try to stick as closely as possible to the original rules and also attempt to retain the original "spirit of the game" that the competition was probably intended to be played under. But that is just my view on this and if nobody seconds the proposal then we will end up with the choice of any guest, no guest or leave the rules as they are.... which wouldn't resolve any of the problems that have been discussed on this thread!
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 25, 2014 10:45:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Nov 17, 2014 8:22:27 GMT
Revised proposal to amend Rule 55) Pub/Club Team Competition Rules: a) All counties must hold a separate qualifying competition for teams that wish to enter this competition, the format for the qualifying event will be at the discretion of each individual county. If only one team within a county wish to enter, they will be declared the winners with no competition necessary. b) A team may enter a guest player PROVIDED he only plays for the team he is guesting for (and plays regularly for a Team within ANY League in the same county). Players are not restricted to the one county rule, rule 47), in this competition, provided they fulfil the other criteria. c) Players must be registered for the host venue and the same league at the start of the calendar year. d) Teams from the same league within a host venue may amalgamate. e) No player may play for more than one team during the same year.f) 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. g) County champions will represent their counties at the Grand Finals. I have highlighted ( in yellow) the changes to the existing rule. Would anybody like to second this proposal? Sadly no seconder for this proposal....
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Nov 17, 2014 8:58:17 GMT
My proposal for one guest player has gone in, duly seconded.
Discuss it at the AGM!!
Sav
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Nov 17, 2014 9:42:23 GMT
My proposal for one guest player has gone in, duly seconded.
Discuss it at the AGM!!
Sav Not wishing to be controversial here.... but can I ask who seconded the proposal as I can't see anything here?
|
|
|
Post by barbelman on Nov 17, 2014 12:09:13 GMT
Revised proposal to amend Rule 55) Pub/Club Team Competition Rules: a) All counties must hold a separate qualifying competition for teams that wish to enter this competition, the format for the qualifying event will be at the discretion of each individual county. If only one team within a county wish to enter, they will be declared the winners with no competition necessary. b) A team may enter a guest player PROVIDED he only plays for the team he is guesting for (and plays regularly for a Team within ANY League in the same county). Players are not restricted to the one county rule, rule 47), in this competition, provided they fulfil the other criteria. c) Players must be registered for the host venue and the same league at the start of the calendar year. d) Teams from the same league within a host venue may amalgamate. e) No player may play for more than one team during the same year.f) 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. g) County champions will represent their counties at the Grand Finals. I have highlighted ( in yellow) the changes to the existing rule. Would anybody like to second this proposal? Sadly no seconder for this proposal.... Dave I'll second that if it's not too late. cheers Tony
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Nov 17, 2014 12:15:03 GMT
Hi Sav I will second your proposal re guest players.Chris
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Nov 17, 2014 14:03:51 GMT
Hi Sav I will second your proposal re guest players.Chris Okay, thank you for showing that.... I had missed that as I sometimes have trouble reading posts that are made in blue, especially when they are followed by "Off Topic" signs that indicated that the post wasn't really discussing this matter....
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Nov 17, 2014 14:06:57 GMT
Dave I'll second that if it's not too late. cheers Tony Thanks Tony, I have now sent it to Dave Alder and will leave it up to the discretion of AEBBA Committee as to whether it can be accepted as I believe that the final date for proposals was yesterday....
|
|