4 players and the draw

[Richard]

We were at home tonight against the Hassocks A who turned up with only 4 players.

When the draw took place our 5 names were drawn out, and put in order, however the away team also put out 5 cards even though they only had 4 players. This resulted in the bye being the 4th game.

This outcome of this means the away team who only have 4 players still managed to have 3 breaks out of the 4 games, with the home team fielding 5 players only get 1 break.

How can this be correct? surely they should only put in 4 cards to the draw if they only have 4 players, and forfeit the last game, therefore both teams having 2 breaks each.

I raised this at the time however Derek stated it was in the rules and if I did not like it, get the rule changed. I have been through the Mid Sussex rules tonight and can not see this is the case.

If this is the case can someone point out the rule to me so I can request a change at the next AGM as it makes no sense to me, how can you put 5 names in a draw with only 4 players?

If you are a player short you lose the last game, surely this is standard ?

[bobhall]

Oct 16, 2019 20:39:17 GMT Richard said:

We were at home tonight against the Hassocks A who turned up with only 4 players.

When the draw took place our 5 names were drawn out, and put in order, however the away team also put out 5 cards even though they only had 4 players. This resulted in the bye being the 4th game.

This outcome of this means the away team who only have 4 players still managed to have 3 breaks out of the 4 games, with the home team fielding 5 players only get 1 break.

How can this be correct? surely they should only put in 4 cards to the draw if they only have 4 players, and forfeit the last game, therefore both teams having 2 breaks each.

I raised this at the time however Derek stated it was in the rules and if I did not like it, get the rule changed. I have been through the Mid Sussex rules tonight and can not see this is the case.

If this is the case can someone point out the rule to me so I can request a change at the next AGM as it makes no sense to me, how can you put 5 names in a draw with only 4 players?

If you are a player short you lose the last game, surely this is standard ?

Sadly the only rule regarding this is rule 10 of league rules and it just states that if the player has not arrived by the time game 4 commences you can claim the game but that would mean game 4 needs to start.

There is 2 solutions get a rule put in or get with the times and lets get a 4 player rule put in to allow teams that are short not to give the game away.

But i can see where you are coming from richard and its wrong that you are penalised but what if your the home team with only 4 and the away team have 5 what happens then??

[Richard]

Apparently, Derek later then admitted it was not a rule. It is farcical.

Bob,I agree a 4 player rule needs to be considered.

If you are the home team with 4 players you still just lose the last game, then 2 breaks each, but the away team benefit from winning game 5 by default.

You certainly don't put 5 names in the draw with only 4 players that's madness.

I can not believe as a committee member Derek stated it was a rule.

[bobhall]

Oct 16, 2019 22:02:19 GMT Richard said:

Apparently, Derek later then admitted it was not a rule. It is farcical.

Bob, if you are the home team with 4 players you still just lose the last game, then 2 breaks each, but the away team benefit from winning game 5 by default.

You certainly don't put 5 names in the draw with only 4 players that's madness.

I can not believe as a committee member Derek stated it was a rule.

I aggree with you on putting 5 names down if you genuinly knew u only had 4

[iang]

You are correct it is not covered fully in the rules as in the correct procedure for doing the draw when a team is a player short.

I have looked at the other time it has happened this season and the walk over was in the 3rd game for the away team which gave 2 breaks each but was more by luck than judgement.


I will raise it at the committee meeting but it will need looking at when the AGM comes round.

[Richard]

Surely it is obvious. If you only have 4 players you can only put 4 names in the draw.
How on earth can you put 5 name cards down with only 4 players !!!!

Oct 18, 2019 19:46:54 GMT Richard said:

Surely it is obvious. If you only have 4 players you can only put 4 names in the draw.
How on earth can you put 5 name cards down with only 4 players !!!!

I'm sure I've done this before in the past. One that comes to mind is Dave Ingram trying to make it back from Wales in time to play the last game (He later phoned up to say he was delayed on the Severn Bridge.)

And I've even been involved as player rather than captain when trying to make it back from Guernsey for the deciding leg of a Team Cup Semi-Final. The ferry was delayed, and although I did my best (exceeding the speed limits at times) and kept phoning through an update on my progress, sadly I had to give up at Chichester.

On both occasions it transpired that we only had 4 players, but five name cards were submitted to the draw.

Richard - Now that I've had the opportunity to see the scorecard I can fully understand your frustration - as you were the one awarded the walkover. And starting with the break you would probably have taken the opportunity to bang in 15k-plus.

Fortunately this league counts a walkover as being as good as a win for the best performance stakes (I have known other leagues argue otherwise). You should not in any way be penalised for your opponent not turning up !!!

I'd even go a step further, and say that if the non-arrival was named on the card, then logically that should also count on the player's record - as a loss.

[Richard]

Tommo.

In your example you named 5 players as you hoped to make it back in time which makes complete sense.

However in our example they had 4 players and were never going to have 5.

It is cheating. I also notice Derek has high score of the week which is laughable as he should have played me in the 4th game against the break.

Why should the player Derek put in the draw be given a loss when he had no intention in turning up, however yes you are right it should be given as a loss.

Its a complete joke.

Ok Richard, another scenario for you as this affects captains' protocol.

Not all teams have the luxury of a healthy squad with competition for places: My own teamtends to exist on a bare five, with Margo as 'reliable reserve'.

I can recall an instance when 8.30pm had arrived and two of my regular five were still to turn up, and the opposing captain was anxious to get on with the Draw.

Not knowing which of them if any was going to turn up, I stuck Margo in and did the draw leaving one blank name, having reached agreement with my opposite number that whoever of the two 'missing' walked in the pub first could fill the blank.

As good luck would have it, one walked in so I had the full five. But had he not done so, it would have been our bad luck as he was drawn fourth and we would have only had the one break.

So, what other options were open to me ? I could have just submitted four to the draw, thus guaranteeing we had two of the breaks. What then if my fifth player had walked in the pub at 10.10pm - would he have been allowed to play?  Probably yes, as a registered player, but it wouldn't have gone down too well, I as captain might have been seen as having engineered the break allocations.

It is very difficult to prove intent one way or the other, and in situations such as these we have to trust people to act in good faith and sometimes allow the benefit of the doubt.

[Richard]

Again, you were expecting someone to turn up.
Hassocks A were not in that position, they had four players and no possibility of a 5th player turning up.
However in your case surely you would still do the draw with the 4 names, and agree with the captain if a player turns up they play last ? If they don't turn up you then concede the last game.

Oct 20, 2019 12:44:39 GMT Richard said:

Again, you were expecting someone to turn up.
Hassocks A were not in that position, they had four players and no possibility of a 5th player turning up.
However in your case surely you would still do the draw with the 4 names, and agree with the captain if a player turns up they play last ? If they don't turn up you then concede the last game.

No, not allowed to do that. 4th or 5th, depending on how they came out in the draw. You can swap between 1st, 3rd and 5th or between 2nd and 4th by agreement between captains.

Otherwise the away team could guarantee to a good player that if he turned up late he would have the break in the last game.

[Richard]

Tommo, if you get to the stage where a team would deliberately have a good player turn up just in time for the last game, then thats the day I hang up my cue.

Oct 20, 2019 21:51:59 GMT Richard said:

Tommo, if you get to the stage where a team would deliberately have a good player turn up just in time for the last game, then thats the day I hang up my cue.

The late, great, Andy Finn used to do it every week !

But this doesn't really address the problem.  Mid Sussex's system of 3 away breaks and 2 home seems to have worked fine for a number of years, whereas some other leagues have an ultra-fair system of all five away breaks.

Once nominations or the hated four-player rule came in, that would be time for me to be off !

[NigelS]

Been following this thread - it just brings me back to the fuss that was made over how 'bad' and 'unfair' the nominations rule some people said was in home and away inter league and that it must be drawn out because it is fairer. Look at the trouble doing a draw causes. Captains putting players in the draw they no wont show, or deliberately leaving a player out of the draw knowing they would show up to play the last game. Thankfully this cant be done in interleague now we are back to nominating

Nigel - I had a civilised discussion going with Richard, now you capriciously want to pick at old sores !

Democracy prevailed - I accept that.

Talking of which, I must now get back to tweeting on the subject of Brexit: have now acquired 350 followers in a little over 10 days ...

tommo

[JB]

I have to disagree that the 4 player rule is much hated

A lot of leagues have put a rule in for this (leagues that both nominate and draw). With players and teams dwindling anything that helps must be a good thing.

We have had this in Brighton for a number of years now and it has really helped teams. I cannot think of one instance where the rule has been abused in any way.

A team that has 5 players should not be put at a disadvantage against a team with 4 players by ending up only getting one break game.

We all go out to play a game of bar billiards and with the 4 player rule at least you know you will get a game and not have a wasted journey to end up with a walkover ( and possibly this happening more than once when teams are drawn)

Anything that helps keep teams and players in leagues must be a good thing.

I would also suggest that if you want a discussion with one person you speak to them face to face or by telephone as this is a public forum and people will make comments (like myself)

You should know me by now Jean as being one who favours open discussion. When I was a Forum Director I'd often champion this cause, in opposition to others who would like to suppress it.

I also recognise that we live in a democracy, where the majority view rules. But anyone who holds a minority view has the right to retain there principles without having them trampled into the dirt.

Both Horsham and Billingshurst Leagues, with whom I have a 50-year association, have now adopted the 4-player rule, which has proven to be the absolutely right thing for themselves to do in this climate of ebbing interest (Horsham now down to just 7 teams). This I acknowledge and I would prefer to leave it as that (especially as this is a Mid Sussex thread).

[JB]

As a member of the SCBBA committee for many years I take an interest and read all the threads relating to affiliated leagues within Sussex.

I just felt that making a statement of much hated 4 player rule could put leagues off adopting it when it has worked really well for a lot of leagues within Sussex and helped keep teams and players playing

[Richard]

Thanks Nigel and Jean for the input.
Nigel, yes nominating would certainly solve the issue
Jean, yes we are all going out for the night to play and if a 4 player rule helps and is not used in the wrong way then I am all for it. As you say we should not have been disadvantaged as the team with 5 players.

[Ros]

Oct 21, 2019 18:48:17 GMT Richard said:

Thanks Nigel and Jean for the input.
Nigel, yes nominating would certainly solve the issue
Jean, yes we are all going out for the night to play and if a 4 player rule helps and is not used in the wrong way then I am all for it. As you say we should not have been disadvantaged as the team with 5 players.

I'm arriving late on this discussion, because I've been away.

Richard - you have not been 'disadvantaged', your team still effectively had 2 breaks, but the second one was a walkover, which is counted as a 'win' for the team and the player.

The draw in Mid Sussex has always included blanks for any missing players, with the 'win' being awarded to the player with the walkover - this is so that that player is not disadvantaged in the Player of the Year (The W/O game is not included in the calculation of the average score).

There is a 60% chance of the W/O game being a break game for the away team if they only have 4 players. They will either get 2 or 3 breaks, depending on the order of the draw. In your draw, the 40% chance took it.

Based on what you think should happen, which would be the fifth game being the W/O, that would give more of an advantage to the home team if they were the ones with only 4 players - because they would still be guaranteed 2 breaks. Under the existing system, they will either get 1 or 2 breaks, if they only have 4 players.

[Richard]

Ros. Why do you have to put a blank in to enable the person who does not get a game to keep their average ? That makes no sense

If you only have 4 players you put in 4 cards , the fifth player then gets a walkover, and can still keep their average, they do not have to be drawn against a blank piece of paper for this to happen.

If you are the home team with 4 players you get two breaks but have still lost the last game.

For a team to have only 4 players and still get 3 breaks is complete madness.

Richard, I'm sorry but although I can understand and agree with Ros's post 100% , I cannot follow your logic at all.

I know it's a tired old cliche, but "the current system has operated successfully for as far back as I can remember" - which is as far back as 1980.

The only unfairness I've ever seen is when a home player was drawn with the break on his own table against a novice new player of ours, and played the table out for 12k. We lost a potential new team member as a result. But as Ros has said "it's the luck of the draw".

Suggest if you still feel so strongly about a perceived injustice, you should work on preparing a Rule amendment for the 2020 AGM. But should warn you, if you try for nominations, there will be quite a bit of opposition to this in Mid Sussex circles.

tommo

[Richard]

Tommo, I am not sure what your comment about a player making 12k against one of your players has to do with the conversation ? Are you saying that was me?
You state this method has been used for years, however it is not a rule! It is not covered off in the Mid Sussex league rules, that is my point.

No Richard, it wasn't you. The incident happened at the Brewers, about 30 years ago !

Instead of arguing around in circles, let's try and plug the loophole and remove any ambiguity.

I intend to submit the following proposal to the next AGM which in effect sums up how all us Captains have been behaving for the past x number of years. I fully expect Ros will come to my assistance and second it !

"THE DRAW

If for any reason a Captain when making the pre-match Draw is uncertain who their fifth player is going to be, they may submit a blank name to the Draw.
This may later be filled by a late arrival - or by a reserve nominated at the time the Draw was performed.
But at all times the sequence of breaks (Home team: 2 & 4; Away team: 1, 3 & 5) must be maintained: Thus game 2 can only be swapped with game 4, and an interchange only happen between 1,3 & 5.
If a player has not arrived in time to comply with the sequence above, either the reserve will be called upon to play - or the game will be awarded as a walkover to the other side accordingly.
NB. Should it be known in advance that a team will be a player short, the Captain of that side will only submit four name tags to the Draw and the fifth game will be the walkover.
NNB. A walkover will count as a win and a 'scratched' game as a loss to the players concerned, without affecting either player's average score."

Feel free to submit your own rival proposals.

[Chris_Sav]

Wearing my moderators hat I am happy to see this thread continue debate on what is an internal Mid Sussex matter.

I would remind all, however, it cannot be settled on the forum and a lot has been said over what has happened in the past.

Might I suggest you restrict discussion to the future and potential proposals now. 

[iang]

Oct 25, 2019 12:33:30 GMT Ros said:

Oct 21, 2019 18:48:17 GMT Richard said:

Thanks Nigel and Jean for the input.
Nigel, yes nominating would certainly solve the issue
Jean, yes we are all going out for the night to play and if a 4 player rule helps and is not used in the wrong way then I am all for it. As you say we should not have been disadvantaged as the team with 5 players.

I'm arriving late on this discussion, because I've been away.

Richard - you have not been 'disadvantaged', your team still effectively had 2 breaks, but the second one was a walkover, which is counted as a 'win' for the team and the player.

The draw in Mid Sussex has always included blanks for any missing players, with the 'win' being awarded to the player with the walkover - this is so that that player is not disadvantaged in the Player of the Year (The W/O game is not included in the calculation of the average score).

There is a 60% chance of the W/O game being a break game for the away team if they only have 4 players. They will either get 2 or 3 breaks, depending on the order of the draw. In your draw, the 40% chance took it.

Based on what you think should happen, which would be the fifth game being the W/O, that would give more of an advantage to the home team if they were the ones with only 4 players - because they would still be guaranteed 2 breaks. Under the existing system, they will either get 1 or 2 breaks, if they only have 4 players.

If it was always the 5th game for the walk over it would give an extra advantage to the home team with 2 breaks and a w/o, the away team would have 2 breaks & would have to win one against as well as being a player down. By putting a blank card in the draw it makes it random where the w/o happens.

 Tommo I agree that after all these years we should cover it off with a wording in the rules for a system for doing the draw as there are 2 parts where a team has a player confirmed but turns up late and all MS Captains accommodate this without exception, then there is when a team turn up with only 4 players.

I do have a problem as Fixtures Secretary when you suggest giving a loss to a player from the team who is short who do you pick when some teams have more than 6 players signed up but still can't get 5 on the night. I can imagine the outcry. You can't give a loss to someone who hasn't played. So I would like to see different wording to your NNB line.

[Ros]

Oct 26, 2019 20:48:42 GMT Richard said:

Ros. Why do you have to put a blank in to enable the person who does not get a game to keep their average ? That makes no sense

If you only have 4 players you put in 4 cards , the fifth player then gets a walkover, and can still keep their average, they do not have to be drawn against a blank piece of paper for this to happen.

If you are the home team with 4 players you get two breaks but have still lost the last game.

For a team to have only 4 players and still get 3 breaks is complete madness.

I did not say that you have to put a blank in to enable someone to keep their average. I said that the person drawn against the blank gets a walkover and that this counts as a 'win' in Mid Sussex.
Then, in brackets, I clarified that a walkover is not used in the calculation of the averages, in case someone worried that having a walkover would adversely affect their average score.

[Richard]

Yes Ros, I get your post.

To confirm my point why do you need to draw a blank to do this.

Quite simply the person who is last and does not have an opponent gets the win/walkover etc...,

Hopefully that clarifies it for you.

[Ros]

Oct 27, 2019 21:07:47 GMT Richard said:

Yes Ros, I get your post.

To confirm my point why do you need to draw a blank to do this.

Quite simply the person who is last and does not have an opponent gets the win/walkover etc...,

Hopefully that clarifies it for you.

I have already explained why in my first post, so it's pointless to say any more. Your remedy is to put forward a rule at the next AGM.