|
Div 2 week 21
|
| SCORCHIO12 |
Posted on 29-04-2009 04:39
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 636
Joined: 11.10.07
|
warbank 7 rack pack 3
Great win, superb performances tonight. |
| |
|
|
| Dogger |
Posted on 29-04-2009 05:51
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 805
Joined: 02.10.07
|
postponed game from 1st half:
we were 2-1 up..
flying machine 3 - 7 imperials.
game from 2nd half:
imperials 8 - 2 flying machine.
only won 3 games tonight, all by the same player. god we are a pile of *******e sometimes lol. well played imps tho, took your chances well.
we were trying the 60 seconds rule to see how we are gona do next season, seemed to be fine for us. one of their guys was taking at least 2 mins every shot. gona be great fun in the summer!
one question, does the timer start from the second all of the balls stop moving on the table?
and if the white goes down, does the timer start from when the ref places the ball on the table? |
| |
|
|
| Statto |
Posted on 29-04-2009 06:09
|
Home From Home
Posts: 362
Joined: 07.10.07
|
Pawleyne Arms 7-3 The Seamen
Good win for the Pawleyne, but both teams headed for the drop....
In answer to the previous post, timing starts when all balls have stopped moving. In the event of an in-off, the cue ball is given TO THE HAND of the oncoming player, and timing starts from when he touches it. In the event that he refuses to accept the cue ball in hand, it is placed on the table, and the timing starts from there - i.e. picking up and placing the cue ball from where it is put is counted within the 60 second allowance. Does that help? |
| |
|
|
| chuckles |
Posted on 29-04-2009 06:38
|
Home From Home
Posts: 214
Joined: 07.10.07
|
Dogger wrote:
postponed game from 1st half:
we were 2-1 up..
flying machine 3 - 7 imperials.
game from 2nd half:
imperials 8 - 2 flying machine.
only won 3 games tonight, all by the same player. god we are a pile of *******e sometimes lol. well played imps tho, took your chances well.
?
What a night...
If I had been offered 10 points before the 2 games, it normally ends up a close match; I would have torn your arm off.
As above, we did take our chances.
I have to give a special mention to Lloyd who played the best Pool I have seen in ages. WELL DONE. 
Over all I think we out played the FM tonight and deserved the games we won. Well played all who call themselves an Imp.
Always a pleasure to play against the FM, Good luck to them in the coming seasons.
Edited by chuckles on 29-04-2009 06:50
Always have a plan 'B'
Even plan 'B' has failed |
| |
|
|
| TrevSmash |
Posted on 29-04-2009 13:02
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 51
Joined: 12.08.08
|
Forum A 9 v 1 Coach and horses |
| |
|
|
| sparks |
Posted on 29-04-2009 14:40
|
Home From Home
Posts: 268
Joined: 17.10.07
|
Unlucky to the flying Machine
Probably should of played your leg at Home.
Home advantage makes a massive difference!
|
| |
|
|
| SCORCHIO12 |
Posted on 29-04-2009 15:00
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 636
Joined: 11.10.07
|
have to agree with sparks on this one. not fair to other teams in the runners up spot I.E us and the rack pack. suprised the imps did not ask also to start the 1st game 0-0. our win last night and the last game is totally pointless now. strange the f.machine agreed to it?! |
| |
|
|
| Dogger |
Posted on 29-04-2009 15:07
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 805
Joined: 02.10.07
|
Updated table:
FORUM A 132
IMPS 128
WARBANK 122
RACK PACK 119
MAGNUM FORCE 109 +1
FLYING MACHINE 108
LOYALISTS 95 +1
WARRIORS 92 +1
PAWLEYNE 89
COACH & HORSES 85
SEAMEN 81
SAS 71 +1
Statto, looks like the pawleyne might have just saved themselves from the drop with their win last night. Also the fact the C&H only got 1 point probably helped! |
| |
|
|
| Witt |
Posted on 29-04-2009 15:11
|
Getting The Hang Of It
Posts: 29
Joined: 08.10.07
|
SCORCHIO12 wrote:
have to agree with sparks on this one. not fair to other teams in the runners up spot I.E us and the rack pack. suprised the imps did not ask also to start the 1st game 0-0. our win last night and the last game is totally pointless now. strange the f.machine agreed to it?!
I'm surprised that the game was allowed to be played 11 weeks after the original fixture and that no-one has launched into a Power style rant about gamesmanship and postponing games.  |
| |
|
|
| chuckles |
Posted on 29-04-2009 15:48
|
Home From Home
Posts: 214
Joined: 07.10.07
|
Witt wrote:
SCORCHIO12 wrote:
have to agree with sparks on this one. not fair to other teams in the runners up spot I.E us and the rack pack. suprised the imps did not ask also to start the 1st game 0-0. our win last night and the last game is totally pointless now. strange the f.machine agreed to it?!
I'm surprised that the game was allowed to be played 11 weeks after the original fixture and that no-one has launched into a Power style rant about gamesmanship and postponing games.
What would you have us do, forfeit the game? It had to be played and both teams agreed that our home fixture was the easiest way of finishing the game. There was no gamesmanship involved at all. The fact that we were in a good position to capitalise on the remaining games is due to the points we scored up to then. There is no way of knowing what the score would have been if the lights had stayed on or if we had played it a week later at their place. The fact is we have played better than the teams below us. How is that unfair?
As for asking to start from 0-0, we asked Mark Halsey for advise to that, and he told us that all games played to a finish would stand. That is what we did.
I can?t see your problem with postponed games. If you can?t see because the lights have all gone out, what would you do?
Always have a plan 'B'
Even plan 'B' has failed |
| |
|
|
| Dogger |
Posted on 29-04-2009 15:59
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 805
Joined: 02.10.07
|
we agreed to playing the match this way as we can understand what a trek it can be, we wouldnt want to drive to say lewisham, in our own time, and carry the match on. one trip a season is enough!
although i do agree with sparks, could of been a completly different story on the first game if it was on our table. |
| |
|
|
| SCORCHIO12 |
Posted on 29-04-2009 16:02
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 636
Joined: 11.10.07
|
chuckles wrote:
Witt wrote:
SCORCHIO12 wrote:
have to agree with sparks on this one. not fair to other teams in the runners up spot I.E us and the rack pack. suprised the imps did not ask also to start the 1st game 0-0. our win last night and the last game is totally pointless now. strange the f.machine agreed to it?!
I'm surprised that the game was allowed to be played 11 weeks after the original fixture and that no-one has launched into a Power style rant about gamesmanship and postponing games.
What would you have us do, forfeit the game? It had to be played and both teams agreed that our home fixture was the easiest way of finishing the game. There was no gamesmanship involved at all. The fact that we were in a good position to capitalise on the remaining games is due to the points we scored up to then. There is no way of knowing what the score would have been if the lights had stayed on or if we had played it a week later at their place. The fact is we have played better than the teams below us. How is that unfair?
As for asking to start from 0-0, we asked Mark Halsey for advise to that, and he told us that all games played to a finish would stand. That is what we did.
I can?t see your problem with postponed games. If you can?t see because the lights have all gone out, what would you do?
I will not be commenting on this until i have spoken with my solicitor 'The Power' lol.
To be fair i like both the teams and dont really care i was just  !
However, home advantage is a massive advantage and i can assure you that we would not haven given it up.
I know for a fact that we would not want to go up finishing 3rd  |
| |
|
|
| ThePower |
Posted on 29-04-2009 16:03
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 970
Joined: 05.10.07
|
Witt wrote:
SCORCHIO12 wrote:
have to agree with sparks on this one. not fair to other teams in the runners up spot I.E us and the rack pack. suprised the imps did not ask also to start the 1st game 0-0. our win last night and the last game is totally pointless now. strange the f.machine agreed to it?!
I'm surprised that the game was allowed to be played 11 weeks after the original fixture and that no-one has launched into a Power style rant about gamesmanship and postponing games.
The point is this.
This league will fall further and further into turmoil unless situations that arised last week with the Hounds v Ego's postponement and the Flyer v Imps matches are properly thought through and sorted out. The committee has a duty to the members of the other teams that will and would be potentially affected by what have been 'strange' and irregular decisions. You cannot allow teams to go around arranging this, that and the other because it suits THEM. You want to give teams the power to set precedents than its happened. How can the committee refuse any request made to them now when they have allowed these situations to occur?
If the floodlights had gone off at Old Trafford v Chelsea - would Sir Alex had agreed to give away his home advantage and replay the game at Stamford Bridge? Of course not.
This match SHOULD have been replayed within a decent timescale, not 11 weeks after the original cancellation and not 1 week before the close of the season when it WOULD effect a number of sides going for promotion. It also SHOULD have been played at the original venue. Whether the Flyer had agreed to it or not is irrelevant - the fixture venue should never have been changed. Starting the game at 2-1 was perfectly correct in my opinon.
Edited by ThePower on 29-04-2009 16:07 |
| |
|
|
| miq |
Posted on 29-04-2009 16:06
|
Home From Home
Posts: 464
Joined: 05.10.07
|
SAS 2 - 8 Magnum Force
Enjoyable game played in good spirits and we were next to the big screen which was handy for the footie.
It gives us something to play for next week but we'd need a large win against the warbank, in fairness, our season was determined by a poor performance against the forum when it mattered and not where an imps/flying machine game was played. |
| |
|
|
| sparks |
Posted on 29-04-2009 16:56
|
Home From Home
Posts: 268
Joined: 17.10.07
|
Lets say if the flyers were in a title battle you can bet there posponed match would of most certainly, unaquivocally be played at home.
You could say the same if they were battling against relegation. Plausible argument I think.
|
| |
|
|
| SCORCHIO12 |
Posted on 29-04-2009 16:59
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 636
Joined: 11.10.07
|
Dissapointed! i shall leave it at that...
Edited by SCORCHIO12 on 29-04-2009 17:00 |
| |
|
|
| Dogger |
Posted on 29-04-2009 17:51
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 805
Joined: 02.10.07
|
i understand each side of the arguement. this is what happened from my point of view:
game postponed at 2-1 to us. mark hasley was informed, and our secretary was told that the game would resume, on the away fixture night, at 2-1 to us, in a letter from Mark.
we didnt have any problem as we thought the league secretarys decision is final, so why would we go and argue it.
Edited by Dogger on 29-04-2009 17:56 |
| |
|
|
| Dogger |
Posted on 29-04-2009 17:55
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 805
Joined: 02.10.07
|
to be fair if we hadnt played like a bunch of *******s then this arguement wouldnt be happening lol.
so its our fault. we take full responsibility. 
Edited by Dogger on 29-04-2009 17:57 |
| |
|
|
| Nature Boy |
Posted on 30-04-2009 02:27
|
Home From Home
Posts: 338
Joined: 24.03.08
|
Farley Loyalists 4 - Warriors 6
To be honest not a good day at the office for us, allot of the frames were a toss of a coin and some bad and unlucky run of the balls did not help us either.
We were 4-1 down, brought back to 4-3, but just could not cash in the win.
Great bunch of lads and wish them all the best.
 |
| |
|
|
| Whatapisstake |
Posted on 30-04-2009 04:59
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 521
Joined: 02.12.07
|
[quote]Dogger wrote:
we agreed to playing the match this way as we can understand what a trek it can be, we wouldnt want to drive to say lewisham, in our own time, and carry the match on. one trip a season is enough!
although i do agree with sparks, could of been a completly different story on the first game if it was on our table. .... i have 2 ask since u were sportsman and deciced 2 play at there home venue, was the game from the 1st leg played on a neutral tabe or di u play it on there home table... if so i dont think this was fair as it gave them a stronger advantage least if u had the choice 2 pick a table and carry on from there, u cannot argue over the result... i also believe there should b a time limit of when a re-arranged game should b played ... 11 weeks is taking the piss and mark should have sorted this out well b 4 hand ... am not hear 2 give it 2 the imps cos i do wish them the best of luck and no other team such as them deserve top flight pool....
Edited by Whatapisstake on 30-04-2009 05:05
am not sticking my acheivements down the list is too long lmao  |
| |
|
