CroydonPool.com - The CDPL Online Community

Posted by Statto on 16-07-2008 05:03

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....

Posted by Lils on 16-07-2008 14:46

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.

Posted by angles on 16-07-2008 14:57

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....

Posted by Lils on 16-07-2008 15:41

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! :ohmygod:

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 . . .

Posted by JugglingSpence on 16-07-2008 18:36

#12

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! :thumb:

Posted by Fat-Dart on 16-07-2008 20:45

#15

Lils wrote:
:lol: 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.
:blah:

Posted by Spud on 16-07-2008 22:12

#19

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.

Posted by Lils on 16-07-2008 22:26

#20

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.

Posted by ThePower on 16-07-2008 22:48

#21

Not forgetting to mention those poor teams who have never heard of the website and have no online members. They do not actually know there has been a 'trial' period in effect for 6 weeks and are still religously following the card number sequence....

The other week, Martin Pantony, aka committee member, had no idea what we were talking about when we tried to explain two players should not cross one anothers paths again in the second set. He had a full blown tantrum, spat out his dummy and very nearly burst into tears. Arthur tried to explain in 'Arthur language' to Martin what it was all about but he still wouldn't have it. In the end, we moved our player as you could sense the evening finishing prematurely unless somebody was adult about it all....

God help any of us when the league's officials don't know what is going on. And then we hear from Spud that Division 1 teams have now adopted their own rules re playing order.

Its a fucking shambles! :lol:

Edited by ThePower on 16-07-2008 22:55

Posted by Statto on 17-07-2008 03:08

#22

in response to the earlier debate on this thread....they had a 6th player arrive halfway thru frame 5....he was then put in at no.5 without the away team's consent....and played again at 7 before the player originally down at five played at all....

the bottom line ie that the home team made a unilateral decision to change the playing order AFTER the away team had signed the card...imo that is bang out of order....:mad:

Posted by Sass on 17-07-2008 03:17

#23

Statto wrote:
in response to the earlier debate on this thread....they had a 6th player arrive halfway thru frame 5....he was then put in at no.5 without the away team's consent....and played again at 7 before the player originally down at five played at all....

the bottom line ie that the home team made a unilateral decision to change the playing order AFTER the away team had signed the card...imo that is bang out of order....:mad:

You have lost me here. How can he arrive halfway through frame 5. He must of have been playing it? :?:

Posted by longshanks on 17-07-2008 15:28

#25

Sass wrote:

You have lost me here. How can he arrive halfway through frame 5. He must of have been playing it? :?:

They must have started it without him.