Neutral Tables for Competitions

[BB Warrior]

Having seen some interesting and valid comments about this on the "Official Mid-Sussex Masters" thread, I thought perhaps we should start a separate thread here to discuss it further.

To keep the "Masters" thread purely for responses to availability, as requested by Lorraine, I have copied the relevant posts on here.

[BB Warrior]

Jan 28, 2010 11:18:51 GMT specialone said:

I know you only want this thread for comfimations, Q has already trangressed. However, by quoting rule 42, does this mean anyone playing in the masters may only play matches arranged by his or her leaques on the USC table. No friendlies or practicing by anyone who may play in the masters. Think we need this cleared up before I start upseting people, which I'm quite good at.
TSO

edit to increase size. gs

[BB Warrior]

Jan 28, 2010 14:06:52 GMT Sparky said:

Hi Shaun

You have raised a question that I asked many years ago (pre-Forum) and was told that SCBBA Rule 42 is meant to apply to practising on Away tables only, not Home tables including when it is a Home table in another League, and it is a pity that the wording does not make this clear, however I doubt it was intended to stop anyone from practising on a home table for nearly 2 months (especially the person charged with it's maintenance ;D)

In short you can play a League or Competition game, for any league, on an Away table that you are due to play in a different Competition but you cannot practice or play a friendly on that table, after the match for instance.

With luck one of the 'sages' (Mark, Alan, 3Times, etc etc.) with knowledge of this will clarify for us, in the mean time I presume that it is up to Lorraine for interpretation in this instance.

Graham

edit to increase size. gs

[BB Warrior]

Jan 29, 2010 10:34:10 GMT specialone said:

Hi Lorainne
Was told no because it was Cheltenham week. However pointed out Cheltenham finished on the Friday. Still got a no to days holiday, but told could have it as my day off. WILL BE THERE.
Would love to tell you all what it's like working for Coral, however have received a letter telling me I will be dismissed for any adverse comments on the net about Coral. What happened to freedom of speech.
Hi Sparky
Here's my take on it, although I am no sage
Myself, USC member with no league or competition matches in the next 2 months at the venue.
Not allowed to play on the table

H, USC team member in the Lewes league.
Continues to play league games at the venue, but does not practice before, or play friendlies after.

Sparky, USC team member in the Lewes and Mid Sussex leagues and 'table custodian'
Same as H above, but seeks permission to play shots on the table in order, to check it's fit for play, and to assist him in making any adjustments.

The above is purely a personal opinion, I have the greatest admiration for the way Lorraine does the job and would not seek interfere.
TSO

edit to increase size. gs

My take on it is this:

If it's your club, for which you pay a sub, you can't be prevented from going down there and practicing. Who's going to split on you, anyway ?

If the luck of the draw means that you're playing a cup competition on your 'home' table, then that's a matter for your consciense and you should own up and volunteer to play on a neutral table. The Competitions organiser will not always be aware of neutrality or otherwise, as many tables are common to more than one League.

In the case under debate, the 'Masters' is of course a special case, where there will be one Home table and one imported for the day. I would imagine that, when deciding the format, Lorraine would arrange the groups so that the one Sparky is drawn in will play on the 'neutral' table.

[BB Warrior]

Some interesting points raised here.....

However, assuming that there will be 2 tables used at USC for the Masters, one will clearly be a "neutral" table as that will come in (from Tarrats?) either on the day, or the night before, the competition itself.

I seem to remember that last year, the draw was arranged so that Sparky could play all of his games on the Tarrats table, rather than his home top..... presumably, a similar arrangement would happen this year, however depending on which players accept the invitations to take part, it may not be possible for both Sparky & H to play on just the "neutral" table.

You have to bear in mind that, although it is the same table, we are talking about players using it in a different League to Mid-Sussex, where it is their HOME venue. Clearly, it would not be reasonable to expect them either not to play, or practice, any games in that League because of the rules of another League.

This happens quite frequently in all of the various Leagues around Sussex, where players represent different teams in different Leagues...... yet Mid-Sussex is the only League that enforces Rule 42 and practicing on the tables doesn't seem to be an issue in the other Leagues and many of the top players do this regularly before they play a match at a neutral / away venue.

Personally, I can see no harm in practicing on a table (apart from on the day of course) before a match if you are keen enough to want to improve your game. It obviously gives some much needed revenue to venues within the League and may even make them want to support their bar billiards teams more in the future if they can see the tables are being used regularly.

Clearly, there are only 2 ways that this can be avoided...... either only use tables that are hired in (from Tarrats or AEBBA) to play competitions on, or only use venues that do not have teams in other Leagues for Individual Competitions..... which would leave us with far fewer venues and increased costs to run the competitions.

Even if we did hire in the tables, we would still need somebody to set them up to play well. Sparky did a great job last year and I can certainly think of nobody in Mid-Sussex who is better at setting up and maintaining a table that everybody will enjoy playing...... but, does that mean that he shouldn't then be allowed to compete on those table if he has qualified to enter?

[Sparky]

There will almost certainly be 3 home table players for Lorraine to consider, if she so wishes, as I have no doubt that No18 seed (Dave) will be asked to play and this becomes an impossible 'Neutral' format to arrange IMO. Although obviously I spend much more time on the USC table than either of them.

I thought of standing down from the Masters last year for fear of the perceived advantage, even though I have an appalling record on Comp Tables I've set-up which is because I am knackered from the early starts, but Lorraine told me to play as she would/did play me on the Hired table and I didn't get very far either. Things are different this year with 3 home players and I still contemplate withdrawing as that would allow Lorraine a chance of balancing the format better.

Thank you for the kind comments about how I 'set tables' and would like to make it clear that I get a lot of enjoyment out of setting tables up and, especially when I get it right, everybody can play them (whether they do so or not is up to them) and I also want to encourage this Competition, and maybe others, to be held at the USC. Furthermore I believe that good tables allow players to enjoy their Bar Billiards better which will ultimately keep our game going with the hope that the pendulum will swing back and it will eventually become more popular generally and more players/tables/leagues will happen in the future...........I know this sounds 'cheesy' ;D

It is possible to move the home table elsewhere in the club (would it play any differently if I still set it up 8-)). I do not know if the club would want us to totally rearrange the Front Bar but think that would be a good area for us and was originally a possible place for the home table. The Main Hall is too big for our Masters IMHO but ideal for a bigger competition, like Finals Nights or even an Open ;D and is regularly used for Darts Competitions but obviously could be used. My own feeling is that neither would be as good and it seemed that everyone thought last year's arrangements worked well.

Jan 29, 2010 14:42:06 GMT Sparky said:

There will almost certainly be 3 home table players for Lorraine to consider, if she so wishes, as I have no doubt that No18 seed (Dave) will be asked to play and this becomes an impossible 'Neutral' format to arrange IMO.

I thought of standing down from the Masters last year for fear of the perceived advantage

I don't accept that having three USC-based players in the sixteen will be an insurmountable problem for Lorraine - you're all underestimating her administrative abilities and panicking unduly. ;D

There's plenty of mileage left in the other debate, though, about whether one League should have a bearing on another in what constitutes a player's 'home' table. Many say it shouldn't, but I say it should !

[BB Warrior]

Jan 29, 2010 17:27:11 GMT tommo III said:

There's plenty of mileage left in the other debate, though, about whether one League should have a bearing on another in what constitutes a player's 'home' table. Many say it shouldn't, but I say it should !

Tommo, I understand why you are saying that, but I don't agree with you on this one.

In the case of Mid-Sussex, you have to bear in mind that nearly half of the venues in the League.....Plough Lower Beeding, CKRBL, Plough Plumpton, Brewers Arms and United Services Club...... all have teams in other Leagues.... and that doesn't even take into consideration some players who play for one team in MSBBL and another team (from another Mid-Sussex table) in a different League..... Lewes, Horsham etc :o

It would certainly make the Competitions Secretary Job much harder, especially in the later stages of the Individual Competitions, to try to do the draw while having to avoid other "Home" venues and people playing on the same table twice in the same competitions? ::)

Certain venues would lose out on revenue because more matches couldn't be played there at a time when we should surely be supporting them to keep them open and keep the game alive...??

Personally, I think that Rule 42 needs to be updated to read "Players must not practice on an away / neutral table on the day of the match" rather than the current rule which most Leagues do not seem to either use (or enforce) at the moment.

If players want to practice, surely that is good for the game? If one player chooses not to practice, then that is their choice..... but I don't think that they should then moan (normally if they lose! :P) because the other player has taken the time to go there. ;)

I'm not decrying practising on tables, Warrior, I think that's a good thing (although many will agree with me that Interleague teams still carrying on practising on the home table when opponents have walked in is downright rude >:()

And I'm not saying that the onus is on the Competitions Secretary to avoid another League's home table for a player as a neutral venue.

I was careful to make both points in my submission of 11:12...........

Jan 29, 2010 11:12:05 GMT tommo III said:

My take on it is this:

If it's your club, for which you pay a sub, you can't be prevented from going down there and practicing. Who's going to split on you, anyway ?

If the luck of the draw means that you're playing a cup competition on your 'home' table, then that's a matter for your consciense and you should own up and volunteer to play on a neutral table. The Competitions organiser will not always be aware of neutrality or otherwise, as many tables are common to more than one League.

It's the bit in the middle (not highlighted) that you seem to be at odds with, and just repeating points that I've already made (using my own argument against me) is not considered a valid method of debate. ::)

So I'll repeat the point made,

"If the luck of the draw means that you're playing a cup competition on your 'home' table, then that's a matter for your conscience and you should own up and volunteer to play on a neutral table."

.........and see if you can come up with some proper justification as to why you do not think that this should be the case ! ;D ;D :P

[H]

Do I detect we are overanalysing this situation a little bit?

[ponytailguy]

who cares
number 1: its a game and its there to have fun.
number 2: if your in the top 16 your there for a reason so although there is varying ability we all know our way round a table so surly skill will win us a match not knowing the table if your playing bad it dosent matter how well you know a table .
not to offend my thoughs only
have fun all
adam

Just trying to extract the apples from the oranges, H.

Hopefully we've established that having the 'Masters' at the United Services Club won't be a problem - Lorraine organised it perfectly last year and if we give her free rein this year's should be equally good.

Neutrality of venues has been set up as a detached topic for discussion, and hopefully, without it getting too heated, a healthy debate can ensue: Where better than a Forum to engage in this ? I'm sure Cicero would have approved. ;) ;D

[BB Warrior]

Just to put those apples back in the orange box again..... :P

It was the highlighted comment below that I was disagreeing with........

Jan 29, 2010 17:27:11 GMT tommo III said:

There's plenty of mileage left in the other debate, though, about whether one League should have a bearing on another in what constitutes a player's 'home' table. Many say it shouldn't, but I say it should !

Certainly, being drawn on your "home" top from another League should be an advantage...... but, it can obviously work against you equally easily if you are drawn against someone in the same situation..... after all, it is the luck of the draw. ;)

However, the thing that winds me up more is players who deliberately arrange to play a match on a genuinely "neutral" table....... a few days after they have played a League game on the same table. >:( :P

To me, that is cheating..... although I accept that for players who play several nights of the week and only limited time windows to play each round of competitions in that sometimes it is (perhaps?) unavoidable. ::)

For that reason, plus those I made earlier, I would prefer to have the situation that anybody can practice on any table at any time up until the actual day of the match.

Home tables in other Leagues and matches arranged after someone has just played a table would no longer be such an advantage for one player....... assuming that the other player was interested enough to take the time to go there themselves of course. ;D :-/

I know that I am probably in the minority of people in Mid-Sussex who believe this....... but it does work in other Leagues. :-X

Anyway, as Adam rightly says..... if you aren't playing well it doesn't matter how well you know the table! :-[ :'(

Apples removed from orange box again....... before I go completely bananas! ;D ;D

Not convinced at all by your argument, Warrior.

Check out the Sussex Competitions thread, where several objections have been raised on TJ's choice of venues for Mixed Doubles.

TJ not to know of course, will have selected venues in good faith.

But once objections have been raised, I would imagine they would be upheld and a replacement venue allocated.

All perfectly fair, we are guided by Sussex, and should act in similar fashion.

[H]

Ultimately, I get very annoyed when games are won by a table and not an opponent. Therefore, I am inclined to agree with the warrior. That said I don't want to fan the flames of an unnecessary argument so I will leave it at that.

[BB Warrior]

Jan 29, 2010 21:59:26 GMT tommo III said:

Hopefully we've established that having the 'Masters' at the United Services Club won't be a problem - Lorraine organised it perfectly last year and if we give her free rein this year's should be equally good.

Neutrality of venues has been set up as a detached topic for discussion, and hopefully, without it getting too heated, a healthy debate can ensue: Where better than a Forum to engage in this ? I'm sure Cicero would have approved. ;) ;D

I should have said that I agree entirely with both of these points...... ;)

I also don't think that we really disagree about much else, it's just a case of a slightly different way of looking at certain things which can lead to a very healthy debate..... but not an argument. 8-)

I did read the comments on the draw for the Sussex Comps, fair shout I thought from Mr Reaper that Lady H plays the Locomotive as her home Inter League table and that probably should be changed in a Sussex Competition...... even though she could still be drawn on it as a "neutral" venue in a Littlehampton League Competition. ???

The other 2 matches highlighted in that draw were taking the whole thing to extremes in my opinion...... if you reach the stage that a player cannot be drawn on a table because they have a team within another League that you play in (but not as a home venue) then it would be almost impossible to find a "neutral" venue anywhere..... using myself as an example, I would only be able to play "neutral" matches on a table in either Eastbourne or Billingshurst (apart from those venues that also have a Horsham League Team playing there) as I have played in every other League in Sussex this season! :o

The Sussex Captains and Mixed Doubles would have several other matches that would need to be re-drawn, including Mr Reaper's first round Mixed Doubles as he has played some matches in the Lewes League this season, Jim & Lorraines game (USC is MSBBL table which Lorraine plays) and my Captains second round game at Limeburners (if I get that far of course) as I play Horsham League.

I don't think that Rule 42 was bought in to cover these things...... I feel that it was probably introduced to stop players from sneaking in to have a practice on the tables that had been set up for the "Main Sussex Individual Comps" that are held at Hurst Club and the "One Day Inter League" competitions that will be played at Roffey Club this year.

For that reason, perhaps Rule 42 now needs to be clarified and amended to read along the lines of "Any player found playing a neutral/away table within 24 hours of a match (or 48 hours, if that is felt more appropriate) will be disqualified, unless it is in a match that has been organised by their League". ???

Jan 30, 2010 8:46:01 GMT BB Warrior said:

I also don't think that we really disagree about much else, it's just a case of a slightly different way of looking at certain things which can lead to a very healthy debate..... but not an argument. 8-)

....and in turn I can say that I am in total agreement with those points.

Your suggested 'improvement' to the SCBBA Rule could have my backing as well, but I'm sure you would accept that we all have to abide by the Rules as they stand and even if we spot a 'shortcoming' this can only be overturned by a majority decision at the next AGM.

I would suggest to Henry that the only way of guaranteeing satisfaction for him would be to have competitions split between home and away legs (like the Over50s): Home knowledge would guarantee him winning the home leg as no-one could possibly know the Laughing Fish table better (no matter what sort of form they were in elsewhere, Adam) ;D . He would then only have to scrap it out for one frame in the away leg.

But all the time that competitions are held on neutral tables, that's what they should be - neutral, ie. the same for both players.

[Sparky]

Jan 29, 2010 21:55:21 GMT ponytailguy said:

who cares
number 1: its a game and its there to have fun.
number 2: if your in the top 16 your there for a reason so although there is varying ability we all know our way round a table so surly skill will win us a match not knowing the table if your playing bad it dosent matter how well you know a table .
not to offend my thoughs only
have fun all
adam

Good comments Adam and I, for one, am not offended.
Your highlighted comment was very true last night when I was totally embarrassed by the way the USC break played and only just managed to beat Geoff 3-2 in very low scoring games :-[

although it is true that the club was busy and 'stiflingly hot' which would have affected most tables, but been in today to try and rectify for future occasions :-/