SCBBA Comps - Player Eligibility

[JB]

Thankyou to everyone who filled in the opinion sheets handed out at the Sussex Doubles. There was a really good response. (Approx 80% returned)

The Committee held a meeting and after discussion decided to go with the clear majority.

(A Reminder of SCBBA Rule 6 - The Committee shall manage all competitions run by the Association)

The decision made by the Committee re eligibility for entry into SCBBA competitions will be as follows:

Any player registered to play in any league affiliated to SCBBA are eligible to play in SCBBA run Competitions provided they do not
a) Represent another County in AEBBA County Champs or AEBBA Individuals in the same season. (1st July to 30th June)
and/or
b) Play Inter-League for any team that are associate members of SCBBA.

The SCBBA Off The Spot Competition which is held in July (before the County Champs & Inter-League season has started) will have the same criteria as above but will be based on the previous season.

The same criteria will also apply to Ranking Points being awarded.

This eligibility criteria will apply from the new season commencing 1st July 2017.

The Committee will also be putting this forward for formalization at the AGM in August.

Jean Brackenridge
SCBBA Secretary

[SirKT]

So let me get this right. This will exclude another 3 players who regularly play in the Worthing and Brighton leagues all season?
Perhaps their regular partners in the Doubles might not get too upset and withdraw as well, like this year.
Let's see, the Ladies are down to 3 Pairs, if we're lucky we might get 16 Mens pairs next year although I wouldn't count on it and this year's Men's singles had several no shows.
What are the Sussex committee aiming for next year may I ask?
I know this was all aimed at one player to stop him playing in the County singles and therefore causing a problem later on in the year but that was never his intention. All he wanted to do was play in the Doubles and Sussex Off the Spot singles which are not stepping stones for something greater.
Do the Sussex members realise the greater implications of these proposals? I think not.
In several years time when we're struggling to run these competitions due to lack of entries, it will be too late to go back🙁

[JB]

I will answer in my view of what happened which is the reason the committee brought in the changes

There were comments and complaints from some people who only play in Sussex County about eligibility for these competitions.

Some of the reasons were that these players would never represent Sussex in the County Champs, they do not play inter league for a team within Sussex and they do not play regularly for a league team within Sussex. They would feel aggrieved if they were knocked out by one of these players and then didn't quite get enough points to qualify for the Sussex Masters or a chance to win trophies

The opinion poll we did at the weekend showed that 80% of players that voted wanted change.

The committee decided that something needed to be done in order to look after the interests of "true" Sussex players


These competitions are far more well supported than the equivalent comps in any other county so not sure how anyone could say these arent well supported.

[StuC]

Would just like to respond to KT’s comments as I imagine a few other people are thinking the same.


This decision was taken by the committee in the best interest of Sussex Bar Billiards. While we accept that these will not be universally well received, the majority of people had requested change.


These events are meant to be for Sussex players to enter and not to be just like another National event. What the committee has done is define what a Sussex player is, something that was ambiguous and not clearly defined before; and I feel the criteria that has been set is fair.


I would also like to point out that we are not blocking anyone from qualifying as the criteria is open for all to meet; and anyone who wants to can meet these by opting to forego their right to play for another county or associate member inter-league side. Thus making themselves available to represent Sussex if the opportunity arises for them.


I accept that it may be seen as harsh to a number of people who have been playing in these competitions for years (under the rules that existed at the time); however a line had to be drawn somewhere and had we continued with the ruling before this season it was possible for anyone to enter these by simply registering for a team in a Sussex League and playing only once a season. I would strongly argue that is unfair.


While it isn’t a perfect analogy I would liken it to placing a cap on foreigners in a football league. While it may make the league weaker to start with as you are losing top players from the competition, it also gives “lesser” players more chances and experience. Hopefully that will benefit Sussex players and the chance of success and opportunities will maybe encourage people to enter these competitions who don’t normally do so. Surely this can only make our County stronger in the future.


Again I would like to stress these events were set-up as Sussex events for Sussex players, and we are trying to go back to that original purpose.


Stuart

[magners]

Can I just clarify this new ruling.
Although Redhill play in the Sussex Interleague, if any player makes an appearance for either the Redhill A or B interleague teams, they would then not be able to play in the singles, pairs, masters or off the spot? Even if they play weekly in Brighton or Worthing or Billinshurst and have done for many years.
When does this new rule come into effect?

[BB Warrior]

Jan 19, 2017 14:03:42 GMT magners said:

Can I just clarify this new ruling.
Although Redhill play in the Sussex Interleague, if any player makes an appearance for either the Redhill A or B interleague teams, they would then not be able to play in the singles, pairs, masters or off the spot? Even if they play weekly in Brighton or Worthing or Billinshurst and have done for many years.
When does this new rule come into effect?

Hello Gary, it is not really a "new rule", it would probably be fairer to describe it as enforcement of very long standing rules (since Redhill and Tunbridge Wells joined the Inter League competition) which have been overlooked in the past....

3a. The Redhill & District Bar Billiards league be eligible for associate membership of the SUSSEX COUNTY BAR BILLIARDS ASSOCIATION. Associate membership entitles them to entry to Inter-league Competitions only.
3b. The Tunbridge Wells Bar Billiards League is eligible for associate membership of the SUSSEX COUNTY BAR BILLIARDS ASSOCIATION. Associate membership entitles them entry to Inter-league Competitions only.

This has proved necessary after complaints were made ny a number of Sussex players to members of the SCBBA Committee over the increasing number of "non-Sussex" players that were playing in the Sussex Individual Competitions. A recent "blind vote" taken at the Sussex Competitions weekend showed that 80% of the players who voted wanted the Sussex Competitions that have ranking points attached to them to be for Sussex players only.

The Committee has therefore decided that with effect from the Sussex Off the Spot Competition in July, that the "new rule" will be effective to enforce the old rules shown above. I do understand that this probably seems unfair to the players from other counties that do play every week within a Sussex League however it was necessary to maintain a consistent approach and to prevent some people from potentially abusing any exceptions to the rule.

Let’s look at the WHOLE PICTURE. There are various principles to be maintained, sure, but not all of them have been mentioned.

First of all, I agree with the questionnaire - great idea - and abide by its results: democracy at work.

Secondly, I have always thought it strange that RPs could be awarded to Associate Member only leagues when playing AGAINST Interleague teams based in Sussex. I was guilty of having taken advantage of this loophole myself when I played in Redhill during the first decade of this century (so I’m a one to talk !) - but now the loophole is being plugged, and rightly so !

Thirdly, I also agree with the sentiment that "Sussex Competitions should be for Sussex players". New SCBBA Chairman Stuart has provided the analogy of a cap being put on "foreign players" in a football league for the good of the game.

BUT, as asserted by KT and Gary (two of the game's ambassadors whose opinions we should respect) there effectively exists such a thing as a "dual nationality" player, i.e. someone who, though based in another county, also plays a full season's league games in Sussex - for a team in Brighton or Worthing or Billingshurst. I don't agree that we should deny such a player the chance to play in all Sussex competitions.

By all means stop someone based outside the county from signing on for a Sussex team and just playing a couple of games so that they can take part in the competitions, and by all means encourage them to "come over to the other side" if they want to continue to earn RPs at Interleague to gain entry to the "Masters". And if they should choose to continue to play for Redhill or Tunbridge Wells – but for "nul points" - that should also be their prerogative.

But as I see it, being a genuine regular player for a Sussex League team should automatically gain them the right to enter Singles and Doubles: They are after all putting themselves out to make a regular long journey for the love of the game and contributing to the economy of their team and League.

To deny them because of their ethnicity would be poor service indeed - particularly to our Surrey friends who have themselves for many years offered an open-handed policy to our players for their own special weekend competitions (Team Invitations, Mixed Doubles, Triples, etc)

IMHO the SCBBA Committee had it just about right before, when they attempted to address the "dual nationality" concept, defining a 'regular player' as someone playing over 50% of available league matches in Sussex.... Hopefully a slight softening of attitudes will have taken place by the time this topic comes up for ratification at the AGM.

[slight edit to last paragraph of post 22/1/17 - tommo]

[JB]

Not going to say a lot as reasons etc have been given before as to why there needed to be change. The main one the complaints we were getting from Sussex players.

What I do take exception to is this being a knee-jerk reaction to the questionnaire.

The Committee after getting complaints have discussed in length various options over a period of time. We felt we wanted to get the feelings of the players which is why we did the questionnaire.

With 80% wanting change it just confirmed one of the options we had been discussing.

[BB Warrior]

Some very fair points made by Tommo in his post, although as Jean said most things have already been said before.... I would however like to comment on a couple of things raised by Tommo....

Jan 20, 2017 14:35:54 GMT tommo III said:

BUT, as asserted by KT and Gary (two of the game's ambassadors whose opinions we should respect) there effectively exists such a thing as a "dual nationality" player, i.e. someone who, though based in another county, also plays a full season's league games in Sussex - for a team in Brighton or Worthing or Billingshurst. I don't agree that we should deny such a player the chance to play in all Sussex competitions.

By all means stop someone based outside the county from signing on for a Sussex team and just playing a couple of games so that they can take part in the competitions, and by all means encourage them to "come over to the other side" if they want to continue to earn RPs at Interleague to gain entry to the "Masters". And if they should choose to continue to play for Redhill or Tunbridge Wells – but for "nul points" - that should also be their prerogative.

I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the players that travel down every week to play in Sussex Leagues, especially one of them that has been doing that for many, many years who I spoke to about the situation at a match last week.

In his words, for many years he was "travelling under the radar" when it came to the Sussex Competitions, he enjoys taking part and would like to continue but he can understand why the rule has been enforced now. A few years ago, he was probably the only one that was playing in both Surrey and Sussex on a regular basis but there are no many examples of players that play in more than one county and most of those are normally among the top players so their presence at competitions is always noticed.

AS someone that has certainly enjoyed playing in many of the Redhill special weekend competitions (and enjoyed them all greatly!) I was interested to read this comparison to the Sussex competitions....

Jan 20, 2017 14:35:54 GMT tommo III said:

To deny them because of their ethnicity would be poor service indeed - particularly to our Surrey friends who have themselves for many years offered an open-handed policy to our players for their own special weekend competitions (Team Invitations, Mixed Doubles, Triples, etc)

.... however Tommo appears to have forgotten 2 major things here:-
1) The Redhill weekend competitions are "invitation only" for players outside of Surrey, if enough Surrey players want to play then players from other counties are not invited.
2) Unlike the Sussex Singles, Doubles and Off-the-Spot, the Redhill weekend competitions are not "Ranking Tournaments" that go towards qualification for the Sussex Masters and County Teams and the Redhill Competitions are specifically aimed at just allowing people to play the game for pure enjoyment.

I would agree entirely with Jean and disagree strongly with this comment....

Jan 20, 2017 14:35:54 GMT tommo III said:

There has since been too much of a knee-jerk reaction to the results of the questionnaire, and hopefully a slight softening of attitudes will have taken place by the time this topic comes up for ratification at the AGM.

.... this subject has been under discussion within the SCBBA Committee for more than a year now following complaints made at the Sussex Doubles in January 2016. More complaints were made about players from other counties being allowed in the Sussex Off-the-Spot after which I received an email asking me to formally raise the subject at the Sussex AGM which, as you will remember, I did.

The SCBBA Committee did feel that the "50% Rule" was a fair compromise to the problem, however members of the Committee continued to receive complaints about that choice - from people on BOTH SIDES of the argument!

For that reason, the Committee decided that we would ask the playing members who were at the Sussex Pairs to tell us what they wanted in the future. Of the 52 people that were playing that day, 40 of them completed the form and 80% of those voted against allowing players from other counties taking part in the main Sussex Individual Competitions.

I think that everybody on the Committee was slightly surprised that the majority had been that large, but it did make a difficult decision rather easier.

Tommo, you say that this is a knee-jerk reaction?

I think that the SCBBA Committee really had no choice after so many players had voted that way and I am sure that if we had not taken this action then the criticism we are now receiving would have been more widespread and probably fully deserved.

[gandalf the untidy]

Some measured responses from the committee here and i wish to declare my full support for the comments posted by Secretary, Chairman and others of the SCBBA committee. We were aware that whatever decision was finally reached it would upset some members, but the situation needed resolving.

The committee have just applied the rules as written but also reinforced their decision with a mandate from the majority of members who voted to make the ruling as tabled.

regs cs

You're right, a "knee-jerk reaction" would have been if SCBBA had implemented the full embargo on outsiders immediately by way of a response to the initial challenge: This was not the case, with the "fifty percenters" being allowed to have one last go this season. The referendum held, and a statement afterwards of what is likely to happen now as a result - with blessing at the AGM - is a good example of democracy at work.

I apologise for the use of the terminology and will adjust my previous post accordingly.

tommo

[Chris]

Dear All

Can I just ask you to think of the real future as KT stated, not just 1 or 2 years but 5+ years hence. You have the strongest county with many leagues. When I started we had 5 Divisions in Hants with about 14 teams in each. 1 league now with 10 teams of which 1 struggles to field a team and 1 only has four players....

I accept that under your rules Chris and I cannot enter again.

I never enter the All England Ladies IKO now as I just get automatic entry from Hants, as no other women play. Our league has totally diminished - re Ladies only 2 left.. re the league it gets smaller every year.
I cannot enter AEBBA IKO under that way - my pride will not let me. So I am not trophy hunting at all. And Chris is not either just after a great game of Billiards.

So whilst you currently thrive, your rule is fine - but as Kev stated should it diminish ? - will people come back ?

I remember Chris and I being invited to make numbers up a few years ago, which is why we first started playing this event and we thoroughly enjoyed the event. Shame we were asked to play and then suddenly ruled out.

Shame that under the new extended rules we definitely won't be eligible.

We don't want Sussex Ranking points or to enter any Masters - we just enjoyed a great Saturday event.

Thank you choccie - sorry you did not get to enter the event this year.

Chris x