|
Division 3 wk 7
|
| JugglingSpence |
Posted on 16-07-2008 04:07
|
Home From Home
Posts: 271
Joined: 05.10.07
|
C'mon the Loyalists!!!
10-0! I wish we could play Bye every week!  ne:
***Editted to say: Golden, I'm posting this from the Farley with my iPhone. You know you want it! ***
Edited by JugglingSpence on 16-07-2008 04:13
As happy as a single man living above a chip shop |
| |
|
|
| Statto |
Posted on 16-07-2008 05:03
|
Home From Home
Posts: 362
Joined: 07.10.07
|
Warriors 6-4 The Seamen
A question for ethical value....home team had 4 players at the start....away team put 4 names down, to match....5th home player turns up, name goes on card....5th away player puts name on and signs.....during 4th frame (being reffed by both players whose names are 5th) an alteration is made to the card, preceded by the comment "i'm just going to change this around...". No request for consent was made, and despite a protest, the change stood....the player originally down to play 5, ended up playing 8....I believe this is wrong....if not in rule, certainly in spirit....
Peter Brooks, who founded our summer league, is secretary of the warriors, and agrees with me that this should not have happened....unfortunately, he was not there at the time....
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, notice has been served that the same tactics will be applied to the reverse fixture, should it be felt necessary....therefore no advantage can be gained by either team overall.....
Comments please.... |
| |
|
|
| chuckles |
Posted on 16-07-2008 05:42
|
Home From Home
Posts: 214
Joined: 07.10.07
|
Flying Machine 5-5 The Imps. Great result for the Imps as we were 4-1 down in the first set. Great comeback on a table that was marginally more level than a beach.
Always have a plan 'B'
Even plan 'B' has failed |
| |
|
|
| Sniper |
Posted on 16-07-2008 06:29
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 52
Joined: 22.04.08
|
Goodfellas 8 - 2 Dukes
Edited by Sniper on 16-07-2008 06:30 |
| |
|
|
| Dogger |
Posted on 16-07-2008 12:37
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 805
Joined: 02.10.07
|
marginally? thats a bit generous? the surface of the moon's more level than our table.
a good come back tho from the imps. we had our chances in the second set, but they took theirs and 5-5 was a fair result. |
| |
|
|
| Lils |
Posted on 16-07-2008 14:46
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 674
Joined: 10.09.07
|
Statto wrote:
Warriors 6-4 The Seamen
A question for ethical value....home team had 4 players at the start....away team put 4 names down, to match....5th home player turns up, name goes on card....5th away player puts name on and signs.....during 4th frame (being reffed by both players whose names are 5th) an alteration is made to the card, preceded by the comment "i'm just going to change this around...". No request for consent was made, and despite a protest, the change stood....the player originally down to play 5, ended up playing 8....I believe this is wrong....if not in rule, certainly in spirit....
Peter Brooks, who founded our summer league, is secretary of the warriors, and agrees with me that this should not have happened....unfortunately, he was not there at the time....
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, notice has been served that the same tactics will be applied to the reverse fixture, should it be felt necessary....therefore no advantage can be gained by either team overall.....
Comments please....
I agree they should have consulted your Secretary beforehand, but out of curiosity, what difference does it make? Surely their Sec was just being able to give one particular player a guaranteed win because you couldn't field 5 players . . .
Even if you had a 5th player, your names go on the card first, so it's not as if the Secretary was changing names around to gain an advantage. I cannot see ANY gain to the away team at all.
And if as your last comment suggests you plan to do the same to them in the return match, then your grievance is completely devalued. |
| |
|
|
| angles |
Posted on 16-07-2008 14:57
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 53
Joined: 09.10.07
|
Lils wrote:
[quote]Statto wrote:
Warriors 6-4 The Seamen
A question for ethical value....home team had 4 players at the start....away team put 4 names down, to match....5th home player turns up, name goes on card....5th away player puts name on and signs.....during 4th frame (being reffed by both players whose names are 5th) an alteration is made to the card, preceded by the comment "i'm just going to change this around...". No request for consent was made, and despite a protest, the change stood....the player originally down to play 5, ended up playing 8....I believe this is wrong....if not in rule, certainly in spirit....
Peter Brooks, who founded our summer league, is secretary of the warriors, and agrees with me that this should not have happened....unfortunately, he was not there at the time....
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, notice has been served that the same tactics will be applied to the reverse fixture, should it be felt necessary....therefore no advantage can be gained by either team overall.....
Comments please....
I agree they should have consulted your Secretary beforehand, but out of curiosity, what difference does it make? Surely their Sec was just being able to give one particular player a guaranteed win because you couldn't field 5 players . . .
Even if you had a 5th player, your names go on the card first, so it's not as if the Secretary was changing names around to gain an advantage. I cannot see ANY gain to the away team at all.
And if as your last comment suggests you plan to do the same to them in the return match, then your grievance is completely devalued.[/quot
This is should not be allowed, Once a name is on the card at a certain number then this should be adhered to. Alterations should not be allowed unless through error 2 players meet again in the second set. |
| |
|
|
| Dogger |
Posted on 16-07-2008 15:20
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 805
Joined: 02.10.07
|
Did you have 4 players? or did you have 5? If you did have 5 then why didn't you write the fifth player down at the start?
Surely you should write down your full line up, even if the other team have 4? |
| |
|
|
| Lils |
Posted on 16-07-2008 15:41
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 674
Joined: 10.09.07
|
Hang on - apology time from yours truly . .
Statto, you were the away team, weren't you? I'm sorry - I didn't look properly. Changes my whole post! D'oh! hmygod:
As I said before, they should have consulted your Secretary/Acting Secretary. But the thing I don't understand is this . .
. . If they only had 5 players WITH him, yet when he turned up, they put his name in at 5 but then changed it around, they they would have had to award the the 5th frame to you, as no player can play twice in any one set of 5, therefore they'd have had NO player there to play at number 5 in the first set.
Am I being really dumb here? It's possible, coz I have a stinking cold and have been known to be quite 'Hannah-esque' at times . . . |
| |
|
|
| Dogger |
Posted on 16-07-2008 15:59
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 805
Joined: 02.10.07
|
good point, who played number 5 for them? must have been one of their first 4? |
| |
|
|
| Lils |
Posted on 16-07-2008 16:14
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 674
Joined: 10.09.07
|
 All this talk about it being unfair to swap players around and they've let someone play twice in the first set without even noticing . .
|
| |
|
|
| JugglingSpence |
Posted on 16-07-2008 18:36
|
Home From Home
Posts: 271
Joined: 05.10.07
|
IMPERIALS.............46
GOODFELLAS..........45
FARLEY DUKES........41
FARLEY LOYALISTS..40
FLYING MACHINE.....39
THE WARRIORS......36
LANGLEY SPORTS....31+
THE MANOR............31+
THE SEAMEN...........31
That's a tight division- 6 points seperate 1st to 4th and 16 points across the whole table. It looks like it will be an exciting finish! 
As happy as a single man living above a chip shop |
| |
|
|
| Spud |
Posted on 16-07-2008 19:07
|
Home From Home
Posts: 468
Joined: 02.10.07
|
Seeing Seamen at the Bottom brings back painful memories for some.
Namely Golden when he shared a van at Yarmouth with Shaggy. |
| |
|
|
| TB |
Posted on 16-07-2008 19:37
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 103
Joined: 05.10.07
|
We lost 6-4 to the Manor having been 4-2 up.
Table is
IMPERIALS.............46
GOODFELLAS..........45
FARLEY DUKES........41
FARLEY LOYALISTS..40
FLYING MACHINE.....39
THE MANOR............37
THE WARRIORS......36 (BYE o/s)
LANGLEY SPORTS....35
THE SEAMEN...........31 (BYE o/s)
|
| |
|
|
| Fat-Dart |
Posted on 16-07-2008 20:45
|
FORUM ADDICT!
Posts: 1308
Joined: 05.10.07
|
Lils wrote:
All this talk about it being unfair to swap players around and they've let someone play twice in the first set without even noticing . .
The Warriors played Wayne twice in the second set when we played them (as he wasn't there to play in the first set).
We did raise the point but were lead to believe that the rules were quite relaxed, as this is a trial season. Seemed a bit daft at the time to have a trial if you're going to ignore one of the rules set down. We weren't happy but let it slide as the Warriors are a nice bunch and it's not worth arguing a point with Jeff unless you have a spare 6 weeks.
 |
| |
|
|
| Spud |
Posted on 16-07-2008 21:21
|
Home From Home
Posts: 468
Joined: 02.10.07
|
Since week 2 when we were told
"Relax... Take a chill pill"
We've been playing players everywhere in Division 1. . . .
As long as two don't play eachother twice, I don't think anyone cares where you play.
Home team puts their players down, away team then ensure there are no duplicate frames.
Easy.
|
| |
|
|
| Lils |
Posted on 16-07-2008 21:44
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 674
Joined: 10.09.07
|
But you're not getting it.
If they played all ten frames out using only 9 players (Because the 5th player wasn't used in the first 5), then someone has played THREE times, haven't they? |
| |
|
|
| Dogger |
Posted on 16-07-2008 22:10
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 805
Joined: 02.10.07
|
well no...
because the 5th game in the first must have been played in by someone from the first 4.
and then the player who turned up last would have played twice in the second set. (the player who played twice sitting out of the second set) |
| |
|
|
| Spud |
Posted on 16-07-2008 22:12
|
Home From Home
Posts: 468
Joined: 02.10.07
|
One of their players played twice within the first five frames.
So long as he didn't play the same player twice, no probs in my opinion. And that's generall the way we've been doing it in the 1st.
However, it is common courtesy (and common sense surely) for any secretary to inform their counterpart that they wish to change the order from what he/she originally wrote down.
Going ahead and just chopping and changing the card without consent is a little off.
|
| |
|
|
| Lils |
Posted on 16-07-2008 22:26
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 674
Joined: 10.09.07
|
Dogger wrote:
well no...
because the 5th game in the first must have been played in by someone from the first 4.
and then the player who turned up last would have played twice in the second set. (the player who played twice sitting out of the second set)
But that's ridiculous. No player should play more than once in any one set, or there's no point in having 2 sets of 5.
In effect then, we now play one match consisting of ten frames and any one player can play a maximum of two frames in this and is allowed to play the same player twice (according to the League Sec. ruling for this trial season), yes?
No wonder you have teams moaning about how it's meant to be one way, then it gets changed, and changed again, etc . . . No-one actually knows the definitive answer!
I blame Geoff Martensz. For everything.
World poverty, Osama Bin Laden; he did all that. |
| |
|
