|
Knockout cup
|
| Foxy |
Posted on 15-06-2011 19:11
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 186
Joined: 04.11.07
|
Firstly The Small Pots have not requested that the result be altered.
And secondly there was no discussion to consent to play three frames.
The whole point of requesting clarification of the rules was that we were told it was best of three frames, not asked if we wanted to play best of three.
I was under the impression that in the case of a tie it was a one-frame decider. When the other team come over and say "it's best of three, choose your 3 players", and that team consists of a committee member, then I am going to take it as face value and presume that maybe the rules have changed. OK so maybe this is where I went wrong and should have said "Sorry you are wrong, hold on let me go and check out the rules" but I didn't. For this I apologise, and will ensure that in future I have a copy of the General Playing Rules to hand.
The Pototatoes have not requested that the result be changed, it was merely a request to have the rule clarified which I did at the request of the players in my team
Edited by Foxy on 15-06-2011 19:15
Come On The Farley Spuds!!! |
| |
|
|
| RasFas |
Posted on 15-06-2011 19:26
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 166
Joined: 05.10.07
|
So what is 'the result'... 6-5 or 6-7?
 |
| |
|
|
| Pondlife |
Posted on 15-06-2011 19:28
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 658
Joined: 08.10.07
|
From another neutral perspective,the facts are simple. Mr.Swettenham has been a committee member since I last went to school (I was a mature student) ,and as such he should be fully conversant with the rules. The main reason that I have never applied to join the Committe is the stringent testing that takes place. All members have to recite every rule from memory at every meeting. I felt that this would be too time-consuming for me and probably extremely stressful. We should expect better from such an exalted individual as Garry and, unless there are any extenuating circumstances such as temporary amnesia,I'm afraid that it has to be game,set and match to the Chips !!  |
| |
|
|
| Shaggy |
Posted on 15-06-2011 19:32
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 888
Joined: 02.10.07
|
In my opinion for what its worth if a mistake has been made 'in good faith', then that mistake should be treated as 'an honest one' and as such the result should stand.
There is nothing in this thread that has indicated a team was attempting to gain any advantage from playing a certain number of frames.
Mistakes do happen, but I feel the integrety of the comp can only be maintained if the Prop progress. I would have said exactly the same if the result of the 3 person play off was the exact opposite.
Edited by Shaggy on 15-06-2011 19:42
House!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| |
|
|
| sparks |
Posted on 15-06-2011 19:43
|
Home From Home
Posts: 268
Joined: 17.10.07
|
POTATOE'S !!  |
| |
|
|
| RasFas |
Posted on 15-06-2011 20:10
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 166
Joined: 05.10.07
|
RasFas wrote:
So what is 'the result'... 6-5 or 6-7?
Foxy wrote:
Therefore, apologies to the Prop but the result of
Farley Small Potatoes 6 - 5 The Prop
stands.
I think that answers my question... and quite right too!
As someone who preferes to play league singles matches over 3 sets of 9 you might expect me to be in the other camp. However, I think 'agreement' plays an important part here. From what I read the Pots were presented with an erroneous assertion of the rules and felt they had no choice but to play best of 3. Had they known it was 1 frame and agreed to play 3 that would be fair enough. Since they were in no position to make that agreement, the rules should be enforced and whoever got to 6 first be the winner. |
| |
|
|
| longshanks |
Posted on 15-06-2011 20:44
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 709
Joined: 07.10.07
|
I think the Taters have a point because if they had been given a choice they probably would have gone for the 1 frame sudden death, as they were the underdogs. But because both sides knew that it was a best of 3 play off, regardless of how that decision was reached, then I think that the Prop should go through. I think there is a bit less pressure on the first frame of a best of three than there is on the decider and who knows how that first frame would have panned out?
The best thing to do in a best of three play off is to win it two-zip. |
| |
|
|
| Macca |
Posted on 15-06-2011 22:59
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 119
Joined: 10.10.07
|
U WOULD SAY THAT FRAN U WASNT THERE WE DIDNT FORCE ANYONE INTO DO ANYTHING THEY DIDNT WANT TO WE AGREE TO PLAY 3 SO IT SHOULD BE END OF MATTER.3 GAMES WERE PLAYED NOWONE ARGUED THEN SO WHY NOW.WHY ALWAYS AFTER ITS SURELY TO LATE THEN THE TATERS COULD OF SAID NO WE WANT A 1 FRAME PLAY OFF WE DIDNT MAKE THEM PLAY A 3 MAN PLAY OFF THEY MUST OF AGREED COS THEY PLAYED IT |
| |
|
|
| GrantS |
Posted on 16-06-2011 16:48
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 165
Joined: 18.03.09
|
All getting heated it seems...As a principle ignorance of rules is not generally a defence. However, this is not a pro league, and can we all say we know every rule? No.
From Tuesday I understand Mark Halsey had indicated which result will stand, but from a fairness viewpoint to me it boils down to how the issue was put to the Potatoes, i.e. were they asked or instructed to play 3? Cathy clearly indicates it was not a request/offer, and with Gary present who could have corrected this surely the Pots should go through...But just another opinion...and without having been present at the time is of limited value. |
| |
|
|
| Kermy |
Posted on 16-06-2011 21:26
|
Home From Home
Posts: 231
Joined: 02.12.09
|
Lets get one thing straight,i played tuesday and Cathy was no way bullied or pushed into playin best of 3. Macca asked Swetts what the situation was and Gary replied i think its been changed to best of 3 to Macca, Macca then sorted it with Cathy and there was no debates whatsoever. They picked there 3 as did we. No good crying after the event,both secs made errors so both are at fault.It is a lesson learnt for the future. P.S if it had of been decided on one frame i can guarantee u that Macca would not of played Andy Shaw first,as by that time, the old stella had kicked in. |
| |
|
|
| jacko |
Posted on 18-06-2011 04:25
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 590
Joined: 07.03.11
|
Kermy wrote:
Lets get one thing straight,i played tuesday and Cathy was no way bullied or pushed into playin best of 3. Macca asked Swetts what the situation was and Gary replied i think its been changed to best of 3 to Macca, Macca then sorted it with Cathy and there was no debates whatsoever. They picked there 3 as did we. No good crying after the event,both secs made errors so both are at fault.It is a lesson learnt for the future. P.S if it had of been decided on one frame i can guarantee u that Macca would not of played Andy Shaw first,as by that time, the old stella had kicked in. |
| |
|
|
| jacko |
Posted on 18-06-2011 05:19
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 590
Joined: 07.03.11
|
prop out....where r ur morals small pots....U ACCEPTED a 3frame play off n LOST irreguardless ov any mistakes or confusion over play off...uv devalued the ko cup n ruined the plate 4many teams..many ov us av lost playin an inncorrect format in the past but u dont try n progress afterwards,ur rong uns... |
| |
|
|
| Pondlife |
Posted on 18-06-2011 15:25
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 658
Joined: 08.10.07
|
I see that an extraordinary general meeting has been arranged for next Friday. Hopefully there will be a good turnout. All the relevant evidence can be heard and I feel certain that the correct decision will be made !! Let justice prevail !!  |
| |
|
|
| Kermy |
Posted on 18-06-2011 17:44
|
Home From Home
Posts: 231
Joined: 02.12.09
|
Fifa r now runninig croydon pool league. According to reports the buffoons at CDPL have decided to award the match to small pots. I am left speechless at this decision,makes a mockery of the rules and the league itself. |
| |
|
|
| Macca |
Posted on 18-06-2011 18:07
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 119
Joined: 10.10.07
|
WHAT CAN I SAY THE GAME WAS PLAYED IN GOOD SPIRIT AND MAYBE A DIFFERENT FORMAT TO WHAT THE LEAGUE STATES.BUT LETS BE FAIR HOW MANY TEAMS AND SINGLES AND DOUBLE GAMES HAVE BEEN PLAYED TO A DIFFERENT FORMAT *******LOADS.AND UP TILL NOW EVERYONE HAS EXCEPTED THE OUTCOME.WELL IF THE LEAGUE SAY THEY R AWARDED THE MATCH THEN ALL THOSE PLAYERS AND TEAMS THAT LOST THERE GAMES PLAYING UNDER A DIFFERENT FORMAT HAVE NOW GOT AN ARGUMENT.COS LETS BE FAIR THE SMALL POTATOES HAVE ONLY KICKED UP A STINK AFTERWARDS NOT BEFORE.SO ID LIKE TO STATE THE YEAR WHEN THE FORUM BEAT US IN THE KNOCKOUT CUP FINAL ON A 1 GAME PLAY OFF COS THATS WHAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBER TOLD ME IT WAS A ONE FRAME PLAY OFF IN THE FINAL HAS SURELY STILL TO BE DECIDED.ANYONE CAN CHECK THIS OUT COS IT WAS A FINALTHEN THIS YEAR I WATCH THE CUE MASTERS BEAT THE EAGLES IN A THREE FRAME PLAYOFF IN THE FINAL.SO WHY WOULD I THINK ANYTHING ELSE THAN A THREE FRAME PLAYOFF.OH YEAH COULD ANYONE FROM THE COMMITTEE TELL ME IF WE COULD PLY OUR TWO REMAINING FRAMES FROM THE FINAL WE LOST COS WE WAS TOLD IT WAS A ONE FRAME PLAYOFF.SO ITS NOT THE FIRST TIME THE PROP HAVE BEEN HARD DONE BY |
| |
|
|
| GrantS |
Posted on 18-06-2011 20:18
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 165
Joined: 18.03.09
|
No need to shout Macca (apologies if your keyboard is stuck on CAPS)! Yep, it would set a precedent for sure. Should be an interesting meeting, may suggest to the Ban-man we go along on behalf of the Dukes to c what occurs.
Liverpool for top 4 next season, bring it on! Anyone but United for the title! |
| |
|
|
| Luke |
Posted on 18-06-2011 23:34
|
Home From Home
Posts: 303
Joined: 06.03.08
|
From a neutral point of view, I think it would be wrong to take it away from the Prop after the event. At the end of the day if both Secs/Caps agreed to the best of 3 format at the time, then that should be that.
If the small pots go through now, whats to stop other people in singles / doubles matches saying we played best of 5 (which sometimes happens) for example rather than best of 3, going 2 nil up, then losing 3-2 then arguing they got to 2 first so they should go through.
Patch!  |
| |
|
|
| the-shark |
Posted on 19-06-2011 01:58
|
Home From Home
Posts: 432
Joined: 14.10.07
|
seems a bit harsh that the prop have been knocked out like this.
it seem obvious that neither secretary was sure of what to do with the scores at 5-5 and then swetts suggested he thought it was best of 3 which was then agreed by both parties and played to a 7-6 win for the prop. obviously swetts made a genuine mistake and perhaps both secretarys are at fault for not knowing the correct procedure following the draw but the fact both agreed on a best of 3 is why i think the original result should stand. very harsh but oh well.
and liverpool top 4 lol me thinks no chance.
Edited by the-shark on 19-06-2011 02:01
we may need a bigger boat..! |
| |
|
|
| Macca |
Posted on 19-06-2011 09:24
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 119
Joined: 10.10.07
|
I CAN SHOW U HOW TO SHOUT IF U WISH GRANTS NOT A PROBLEM.AND AS FOR THE CAPS IT WINDS CERTAIN FOLK UP |
| |
|
|
| GrantS |
Posted on 19-06-2011 17:09
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 165
Joined: 18.03.09
|
No need Macca, you may be right about winding some people up. From above posts looks like an interesting meeting for sure. |
| |
|
