|
|
Post by daveuk1 on Oct 4, 2015 9:14:20 GMT
Well to be honest I'm not sure if I can get another four players, I can already hear them saying "why travel for three hours just to get our arses whipped" the three of us from the bay, Jason, Jeremy and myself have already said we would drive up on the Saturday and have a night out on the beer. I do have a few people in mind I can ask to join us, when do we need to know by?
This would of course mean our team is made up of players who play in the Sudbury league, not necessarily our best players, but certainly not our worst, but remember we play 4 pin and its only Jeremy and myself who have sampled 3 pin before.
Dave
Btw should we of expected some kind of official invite to enter or is it just up to us to read the posts on here to find out whats going on? As it seems Suffolk is very well represented when it comes to members on the message boards
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 7, 2015 10:29:06 GMT
Dave Alder has advised that Berkshire B will be there for the Division 2 competition.  Just waiting now to hear from Surrey B and also whether Suffolk will be joining in this year.  |
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 8, 2015 22:22:37 GMT
Sadly, I have been advised that there will be no Surrey B Team there for the Division 2 Competition this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by daveuk1 on Oct 10, 2015 7:06:57 GMT
I would love to say Suffolk will be entering but at the moment we only have five players confirmed. Seems most of our players are set in there ways and not prepared to travel for three hours to play a game thats foreign to them, having said all that there are still plenty of players I havent seen yet to ask so I remain hopeful.
At the present time I will say YES Suffolk will be entering a team
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 13, 2015 15:30:32 GMT
I would just like to clarify something in respect of this post.... Seven players Dave in an all teams play all round robin format.
Technically others could help you out so long as you register them for a Suffolk league team and they represent no other county this season in AEBBA intercounties/individuals representative comps (AEBBA pub team is different). Playing within county is not a pre-condition in the intercounties, just registration. .... AEBBA Rule 47 states that for a player to be eligible for a County team he must have been registered to play within that county on 1st September that year so it would not be possible to register new players now to take part. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 13, 2015 17:43:16 GMT
Misquoting the rules Dave? that's not what the rule says.
No mention of the registration having to take place by September 1st. So long as a player only plays for one county in a year and is registered within that county when he plays he is legal in my view. Pub team has a registered by date not so the intercounties and all the rules appertaining to the pub team competition will not be enforced as usual.,
Rule 2 also says
AEBBA should be doing what they can to help Suffolk not hinder them. |
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 13, 2015 17:56:50 GMT
Misquoting the rules Dave? that's not what the rule says.
No mention of the registration having to take place by September 1st. So long as a player only plays for one county in a year and is registered within that county when he plays he is legal in my view. Pub team has a registered by date not so the intercounties and all the rules appertaining to the pub team competition will not be enforced as usual.,
Rule 2 also says
AEBBA should be doing what they can to help Suffolk not hinder them. Hi Chris, I think that the rule is perfectly clear..... 47) County Team qualification: A player may choose to play for any county in which he is registered, but he cannot play for more than one in any one season. This applies to A.E.B.B.A. Individuals, Open and Ladies County Championships, Alternate Rules, (not to the Pub Team Competition see rule 55)a). Season to start on September 1st. I struggle to understand why you would think it doesn't say 1st September, it is pretty obviously there in my opinion.  I certainly wouldn't want to do anything to prevent Suffolk from taking part if they wish to enter, but I do think that the players they bring would need to be genuine Suffolk players and not players taken from other counties who are willing to play for them as that would be a clear breach of the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by gandalf the untidy on Oct 13, 2015 19:54:07 GMT
There is a certain amount of ambiguity here, there is no mention of a registration deadline in the rule though it could be said to be intrinsic in a specified date, will need a ruling at the next agm, it could however open the gates to a situation where 7 non suffolk players could be registered after the season start and ALL be based in say Kent and not be picked to play in their own county event due to personality issues, but become temporary cuckoo players for another county, which wouldn't be a good thing, but it would also be sad if county skippers fail to find one last player and have to drop out at the last minute, perhaps as in cricket a team could field 1 "overseas" player with the agreement of the ruling body in special circumstances, the trouble would come if that overseas player wins all his games and helps the county to get honours.
beginning to see the cleanesss of Dave point now!
regs cs
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 13, 2015 20:20:47 GMT
There is a certain amount of ambiguity here, there is no mention of a registration deadline in the rule though it could be said to be intrinsic in a specified date, will need a ruling at the next agm, it could however open the gates to a situation where 7 non suffolk players could be registered after the season start and ALL be based in say Kent and not be picked to play in their own county event due to personality issues, but become temporary cuckoo players for another county, which wouldn't be a good thing, but it would also be sad if county skippers fail to find one last player and have to drop out at the last minute, perhaps as in cricket a team could field 1 "overseas" player with the agreement of the ruling body in special circumstances, the trouble would come if that overseas player wins all his games and helps the county to get honours. beginning to see the cleanesss of Dave point now! regs cs Colin, I will ask you a simple question.... why does the rule have a specific date (1st September) within the wording if that is not the registration deadline? What else can that date refer to? I could not agree with you more when you state the danger of having "cuckoo players" representing counties (or teams) when they have no real affiliation, that would simply destroy the integrity of all of the AEBBA County / Team competitions if that were allowed to happen. If players wish to represent a different county to the one that they are based in then surely they should make the effort to actually go and play in the other county. As a member of the AEBBA Committee (and also the Sussex County Committee) I am very comcerned to hear that somebody has recently offered 2 Sussex players to another county in the Division 2 County Championships this year and I will be investigating this matter further as to me that would be a clear breach of the rules.  |
|
|
|
Post by daveuk1 on Oct 13, 2015 22:31:51 GMT
so after all that it looks like Suffolk wont be able to enter a team then, our league finished a couple a months ago and didnt start again until last week, therefore technically there were no players registered to any teams in Suffolk on the first of September.
I am not talking on behalf of the Suffolk bba now and I guess that I may upset a few people when I say that I play bar billiards for the fun of it, common sence leads the way and not stupid rules. This is all getting out of hand, we want to promote our game and not kill it off so lets all work together for the good of the game rather than getting our knickers in a twist. The idea of possibly having two players who are not based is Suffolk was just an innocent suggestion that would allow us to have a full team of seven players if all else failed.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 13, 2015 22:39:05 GMT
To agree with Colin's post that says there is ABSOLUTELY no deadline for registrations in rule 47. Interpretations of the ethics of playing for another county are totally irrelevant as the rule as it stands does not state a registration deadline, whereas the Pub Team rules do. If there are Sussex players who have not been picked for their county this season then they are perfectly entitled to play for another county.
I again draw the parallel, as I do every year, that the qualification rules for the Pub Team competition will be ignored by AEBBA as always 'in the interest of promoting bar billiards'. |
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 14, 2015 6:33:54 GMT
so after all that it looks like Suffolk wont be able to enter a team then, our league finished a couple a months ago and didnt start again until last week, therefore technically there were no players registered to any teams in Suffolk on the first of September. hi Dave, My interpretation of the rule would be that players who were registered within Suffolk last season would be eligible as that was before the date. I would like to clarify at this point that Suffolk have made no approach to players from Sussex and that they are making every effort to raise a team from within their own county so they have not done anything that would be interpreted as being outside of the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 14, 2015 6:35:02 GMT
To agree with Colin's post that says there is ABSOLUTELY no deadline for registrations in rule 47. Interpretations of the ethics of playing for another county are totally irrelevant as the rule as it stands does not state a registration deadline, whereas the Pub Team rules do. If there are Sussex players who have not been picked for their county this season then they are perfectly entitled to play for another county.
I again draw the parallel, as I do every year, that the qualification rules for the Pub Team competition will be ignored by AEBBA as always 'in the interest of promoting bar billiards'. Chris, I will repeat the same question that I asked Colin.... why is there a date shown (1st September) within Rule 47 if that is not to be taken as the date that a player should be registered by for eligibility? I am stunned by your comment ("Interpretations of the ethics of playing for another county are totally irrelevant") as that would simply mean that this rule may as well not exist as far as your interpretation is concerned and, frankly, would mean that any county could pick any player that they wanted to from any other county which surely would make a total mockery of the County Championships and everything that our game is supposed to stand for. I have now referred this matter to the AEBBA Committee and will not comment further about this until clarification of this rule has been made. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 14, 2015 7:33:56 GMT
Fact: Pub team rule 55B has a date when registrations must have taken place.
Fact: No registration date is mentioned in the Intercounties rule 47, simply one county per season.
No need to elaborate further.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ros on Oct 14, 2015 8:12:11 GMT
From reading the rule, although there is some ambiguity, the rule mentions the word 'season' twice: once in the context of a player only playing for one county in a season and the second which defines when a season starts. To me, this means that a player can only play for one county in the period from 1st September to 31st August the following year. When a player registers for a team/league/county is therefore irrelevant, as long as it is within the rules of that league/county (eg Worthing league, a new player cannot be registered after the end of the 1st half fixtures) If registration had to happen by a given date, we would be in all kinds of trouble - many leagues don't register by 1st September, eg Lewes League and I'll quote your recent post from that league: Just a brief note to remind everybody that registration for the new season will take place at the Black Horse in Lewes on Monday 7th September at 8pm. It certainly would be a good idea to have the rule reworded, so that there can be no possible misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2015 11:07:27 GMT
The view of a neutral for what it's worth:I am stunned by the comment ("Interpretations of the ethics of playing for another county are totally irrelevant") as that would simply mean that this rule may as well not exist as far as your interpretation is concerned and, frankly, would mean that any county could pick any player that they wanted to from any other county which surely would make a total mockery of the County Championships and everything that our game is supposed to stand for. Dave is right, 'ethics' should come into it, especially when Forum efforts last year to resolve ambiguities at the AGM were dropped as the views of two camps were too radically opposed and a compromise wording could not therefore be agreed ! And Chris is right when he says (quote) Dave made a good comment here: (quote) It seems to me therefore that, Suffolk being a 'special case' (= newly affiliated and trying out a version of the game that they're not used to), that they should be allowed 2 guests from other counties in this their first outing........But that these guests should: - not have played for another county already this year and
- should be able to demonstrate that they are "Friends of Suffolk" by having participated in events held in their county.
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 15, 2015 9:44:30 GMT
I have now received responses from some members of the AEBBA Committee.
The basis of those replies are that there is nothing currently in the rules that prevents a county using players from another county in this competition providing that:-
1) No player plays for more than one county within the same year in any of the AEBBA Competitions that are covered under AEBBA Rule 47.
2) The player(s) concerned must be registered for teams within the county that they are representing.
Having said that, there is a strong feeling that counties should uphold the "Spirit of the Game" when making their selections of players while the current rule is in place.
My apologies to Chris and Colin for questioning what they had stated above about this rule, clearly they were right and I was wrong as far as the interpretation of Rule 47 as it currently stands.
A new proposal for a change to Rule 47 will be sent to the AEBBA AGM this year once this has been seconded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 15, 2015 20:59:48 GMT
All I hope is that the new rule proposed promotes the game and ensures greater entries.
Don't kill the game let's ensure it means more people CAN enter please Dave.
Many teams crumble, as top players move to ensure wins. That is such a shame !! I personally will support any team especially those that just want to enter but not one collected together to win. I support those that just want to enter.
Thanks
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2015 21:32:46 GMT
Fortunately the County Championships seem to be well supported, perhaps for the very reason that the qualifying rules are not too stringent.
The recent "heated debate" concerned a special case - Suffolk - where there wasn't really a precedent to follow.
Having said that, Berkshire nearly fell foul of the Rules regarding affiliation which could have caused an embarrassment.
It is the other competition (National Team) which has thrown up arguments over qualification over the years: And this year it is possible that there may be only five teams taking part. Good for the five maybe, as it shortens the odds on becoming National Champions, but a bit disappointing for a competition of such pedigree (about to enter its 43rd year). This is the competition that needs a softening in the rules in order to promote the game and encourage a greater entry.
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 16, 2015 7:42:08 GMT
All I hope is that the new rule proposed promotes the game and ensures greater entries. Don't kill the game let's ensure it means more people CAN enter please Dave. Many teams crumble, as top players move to ensure wins. That is such a shame !! I personally will support any team especially those that just want to enter but not one collected together to win. I support those that just want to enter. Thanks Chris Hi Chrissie, I agree entirely with what you have said here which is why I will be sending suggestions for rule amendments to all members of the AEBBA Committee for discussion and feedback before I make any proposals. Dave |
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 16, 2015 8:02:40 GMT
Some good points made here by Tommo that are worthy of a couple of responses.... Fortunately the County Championships seem to be well supported, perhaps for the very reason that the qualifying rules are not too stringent. I feel that it is probably the fact that counties have a greater number of players to choose from is more likely to be the reason that they are able to send a team every year, whereas individual teams normally only have 5 players with maybe a reserve so if one or more players are not available on the date of the Team Championships final then they struggle to be able to attend. The recent "heated debate" concerned a special case - Suffolk - where there wasn't really a precedent to follow. Not entirely correct, I know of another well-established county that has also considered using players from another county this year and I am concerned that if a precedent is established this year that it could become common practice in the future which I believe is against the best interests of the game in the long-term. It is the other competition (National Team) which has thrown up arguments over qualification over the years: And this year it is possible that there may be only five teams taking part. Good for the five maybe, as it shortens the odds on becoming National Champions, but a bit disappointing for a competition of such pedigree (about to enter its 43rd year). This is the competition that needs a softening in the rules in order to promote the game and encourage a greater entry. It is a shame that we only have 5 teams this year, there are various reasons that 3 of the counties (Kent, Northants and Surrey) will not be there and I hope that some minor changes to the rules will overcome some of these reasons. The biggest problem they we have to try to overcome is that all of the counties use different methods to determine their champions that vary from specific competitions in some counties to using League Champions/Cup winners or even just a county committee nominating a team to represent them. The challenge to re-write the rules for this competition will be trying to accommodate those different methods while still retaining the "integrity" of the competition.... this is a TEAM competition and I am sure that none of us want to turn it into an alternative version of the County Championships. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 16, 2015 8:09:33 GMT
No apology needed but thank you Dave, I just want to see competitions played to the rules of the game. I agree entirely with what you have said here which is why I will be sending suggestions for rule amendments to all members of the AEBBA Committee for discussion and feedback before I make any proposals. Dave
What is more important is that AEBBA understand and enforces its own existing rule book. Despite all the hot air over the Pub Team last year when every county should have been disqualified under the rules, the same has been allowed to happen again this year and I will be surprised if AEBBA even asked any of the counties to comply with the rule
Thus every county should be automatically disqualified under the rules again this year, far more crystal clear and wide ranging than preventing Suffolk from attending their first AEBBA intercounties.
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 16, 2015 8:28:51 GMT
I know that Sussex sent details by email to AEBBA Secretary of the 2 teams (White Hart and Albion Fishersgate) that were in the final of our Watney Mann Cup before the end of August so we certainly complied with the rule although we received no response to confirm receipt. Obviously, I can not say the same for other counties as I don't know....  |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 16, 2015 8:46:21 GMT
I know that Sussex sent details by email to AEBBA Secretary of the 2 teams (White Hart and Albion Fishersgate) that were in the final of our Watney Mann Cup before the end of August so we certainly complied with the rule although we received no response to confirm receipt. Obviously, I can not say the same for other counties as I don't know....
Registrations of all teams competing in a county qualifying tournament should have been submitted to allow AEBBA to make sure that players do not play in more than one team across various county qualifying competitions. This is where we got to last year. I suggest a new thread be opened if more discussion is necessary on enforcing this or a new rule, as this thread is about intercounties. I can copy the last couple of posts across.
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 18, 2015 20:55:49 GMT
Some results - first the ladies county | | P | W | L | Score | Player Ave | Pts |
|---|
| A | Sussex A | 4 | 4 | 0 | 179,280 | 4,482 | 31 | | E | Surrey | 4 | 3 | 1 | 170,510 | 4,263 | 25 | | C | Oxon A | 4 | 2 | 2 | 163,290 | 4,082 | 21 | | D | Oxon B | 4 | 1 | 3 | 73,010 | 1,825 | 12 | | B | Sussex B | 4 | 0 | 4 | 76,900 | 1,923 | 11 |
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 18, 2015 20:56:39 GMT
And ladies averages | Code | Player | County | P | W | L | Brks | Score | Ave |
|---|
| 1 | E3 | Genette Nichols | Surrey | 8 | 8 | 0 | 4 | 46,640 | 5,830 | | 2 | A1 | Lorraine Hall | Sussex A | 8 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 35,390 | 4,424 | | 3 | A4 | Ros Appleby | Sussex A | 8 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 27,610 | 3,451 | | 4 | E1 | Denise Wills | Surrey | 8 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 51,770 | 6,471 | | 5 | A5 | Bella Stoner | Sussex A | 8 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 48,900 | 6,113 | | 6 | C2 | Pauline Withey | Oxon A | 8 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 44,090 | 5,511 | | 7 | A2 | Michelle Baden | Sussex A | 8 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 40,600 | 5,075 | | 8 | C4 | Sue Atkins | Oxon A | 8 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 40,400 | 5,050 | | 9 | E2 | Anita Blackman | Surrey | 8 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 34,200 | 4,275 | | 10 | A3 | Jan Bithal | Sussex A | 8 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 26,780 | 3,348 | | 11 | C5 | Debbie Barton | Oxon A | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 39,930 | 4,991 | | 12 | B5 | Colleen Park | Sussex B | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 20,350 | 2,544 | | 13 | D1 | Enid Wain | Oxon B | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 13,390 | 1,674 | | 14 | E5 | Sue Oakley | Surrey | 8 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 24,150 | 3,019 | | 15 | D5 | Mel Standsbridge | Oxon B | 8 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 21,250 | 2,656 | | 16 | C3 | Jenny Parsons | Oxon A | 8 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 21,100 | 2,638 | | 17 | B3 | Kim Hurley | Sussex B | 8 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 17,070 | 2,134 | | 18 | E4 | Karen Bacchus | Surrey | 8 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 13,750 | 1,719 | | 19 | C1 | Jenny Florrey | Oxon A | 8 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 17,770 | 2,221 | | 20 | D2 | Sonya McIntyre | Oxon B | 8 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 15,010 | 1,876 | | 21 | B4 | Toni Hunt | Sussex B | 8 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 12,740 | 1,593 | | 22 | D4 | Sandra Tebby | Oxon B | 8 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 10,590 | 1,324 | | 23 | B1 | Sheena Wood | Sussex B | 8 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 13,530 | 1,691 | | 24 | B2 | Lana Stoner | Sussex B | 8 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 13,210 | 1,651 | | 25 | D3 | Danelle Chewings | Oxon B | 8 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 12,770 | 1,596 |
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 18, 2015 21:12:51 GMT
Mens County - averages shown on actual matches played, positions unaffected by doing this. | | P | W | L | Score | Player Ave | Pts |
|---|
| D | Kent A | 5 | 5 | 0 | 226,180 | 6,652 | 21 | | A | Sussex A | 5 | 3 | 2 | 225,970 | 6,646 | 21 | | F | Surrey | 5 | 2 | 3 | 200,400 | 5,894 | 16 | | E | Berks A | 5 | 2 | 3 | 167,790 | 4,935 | 16 | | C | Oxon A | 5 | 1 | 4 | 199,620 | 5,871 | 16 | | B | Sussex B | 5 | 2 | 3 | 172,010 | 5,734 | 15 |
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 18, 2015 21:13:53 GMT
And mens averages.....again calculations based on actual matches played, averages for the number 1s in each team calaculated on 4 games, but given the walkover as a win. | Code | Player | County | P | W | L | Brks | Score | Ave |
|---|
| 1 | C4 | Leon Beer | Oxon A | 5 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 65,450 | 13,090 | | 2 | A5 | Kevin Tunstall | Sussex A | 5 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 53,000 | 10,600 | | 3 | B3 | Henry Brooks | Sussex B | 5 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 42,790 | 8,558 | | 4 | D1 | Curt Driver | Kent A | 5 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 39,750 | 9,938 | | 5 | A2 | Dave Ingram | Sussex A | 5 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 45,800 | 9,160 | | 6 | D6 | Mark Brewster | Kent A | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 45,180 | 9,036 | | 7 | F4 | Gary Powell | Surrey | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 36,890 | 7,378 | | 8 | D5 | Gerry Fitzjohn | Kent A | 5 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 35,660 | 7,132 | | 9 | E2 | Geoff Pitt | Berks A | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 34,030 | 6,806 | | 10 | A1 | Kevin Hall | Sussex A | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 26,270 | 6,568 | | 11 | F7 | Geoff Jukes | Surrey | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 35,920 | 7,184 | | 12 | B5 | Jim Greensted | Sussex B | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 34,820 | 6,964 | | 13 | B2 | Terry Molloy | Sussex B | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 33,480 | 6,696 | | 14 | A6 | Martin Cole | Sussex A | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 33,210 | 6,642 | | 15 | E1 | Paul Sainsbury | Berks A | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 25,150 | 6,288 | | 16 | F3 | Tony Cross | Surrey | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 31,400 | 6,280 | | 17 | D3 | Richard Corbould | Kent A | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 31,310 | 6,262 | | 18 | C1 | Mark Trafford | Oxon A | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 24,840 | 6,210 | | 19 | A7 | Ian Lelliott | Sussex A | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 28,890 | 5,778 | | 20 | C7 | Tony Martin | Oxon A | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 28,270 | 5,654 | | 21 | E4 | Keith Lewendon | Berks A | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 24,770 | 4,954 | | 22 | D2 | Jon Sainsbury | Kent A | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 32,790 | 6,558 | | 23 | F6 | Colin Robins | Surrey | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 30,330 | 6,066 | | 24 | E7 | Dave Tooke | Berks A | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 29,760 | 5,952 | | 25 | F5 | Dave Jones | Surrey | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 27,420 | 5,484 | | 26 | C6 | Jon Bamsey | Oxon A | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 26,230 | 5,246 | | 27 | B6 | Colin Southouse | Sussex B | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 25,660 | 5,132 | | 28 | E3 | Dave Alder | Berks A | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 24,720 | 4,944 | | 29 | D4 | Pete Sainsbury | Kent A | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 22,010 | 4,402 | | 30 | B7 | Matt Knight | Sussex B | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 19,590 | 3,918 | | 31 | D7 | Ian Wright | Kent A | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 19,480 | 3,896 | | 32 | E6 | Phil Hawkins | Berks A | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 18,630 | 3,726 | | 33 | C3 | Dennis Atkins | Oxon A | 5 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 25,720 | 5,144 | | 34 | A3 | Nigel Senior | Sussex A | 5 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 23,260 | 4,652 | | 35 | F1 | John Slee | Surrey | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 17,140 | 4,285 | | 36 | F2 | Dave Constable | Surrey | 5 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 21,300 | 4,260 | | 37 | C2 | Steven Sheard | Oxon A | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 16,920 | 3,384 | | 38 | A4 | Jim Millward | Sussex A | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 15,540 | 3,108 | | 39 | C5 | Kevin Godfrey | Oxon A | 5 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 12,190 | 2,438 | | 40 | B4 | Tony Jenner | Sussex B | 5 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 15,670 | 3,134 | | 41 | E5 | Terry Alder | Berks A | 5 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 10,730 | 2,146 |
|
|
|
|
Post by daveuk1 on Oct 22, 2015 22:59:21 GMT
After reading all the posts on here and the upset Suffolk seemed to have caused I think the best thing to do is to say, as far as I am concerned Suffolk WILL NOT be entering
I know certain people were trying to help us make our numbers up and that was certainly appreciated, but as it seems to have caused such an outcry I feel that the best thing all round is if we decline to enter this year. We would of only of entered for the fun of it and feel we could of been made to feel unwelcome. We play for the social side of things and dont wont to get bogged down with questions as to whether or not we are breaking the rules. Next year we will try to plan things better and make sure we have seven Suffolk players.
Sorry for any inconvenience we may have caused the organisers.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 23, 2015 6:59:27 GMT
After reading all the posts on here and the upset Suffolk seemed to have caused I think the best thing to do is to say, as far as I am concerned Suffolk WILL NOT be entering I know certain people were trying to help us make our numbers up and that was certainly appreciated, but as it seems to have caused such an outcry I feel that the best thing all round is if we decline to enter this year. We would of only of entered for the fun of it and feel we could of been made to feel unwelcome. We play for the social side of things and dont wont to get bogged down with questions as to whether or not we are breaking the rules. Next year we will try to plan things better and make sure we have seven Suffolk players. Sorry for any inconvenience we may have caused the organisers. Dave Hi Dave, I am sorry to hear that, especially after it had been clarified that you could have had guest players in your team this year without breaking any of the AEBBA Rules. I do understand from the PM's that you sent me during the last couple of weeks that Suffolk did not want to use guest players (in one message you actually stated that had you used guest players that other members of your team would have refused to play) and I certainly appreciate the fact that you wish to play in the spirit of the game. I would very much like to see Suffolk entering future events and that you and everybody in your League have a good season. |
|
