---

My team have been asking if we are going to carry on the Summer League format, as the AGM is held in September and the registration money has to be in by 22nd August. What is the general consensus? Is it a plus or minus? I admit I was against it at first but it seems to work well, although I don't like the idea of a draw. Can anyone come up with a sollution? Are we going to, at least, make the minute rule a little more enforcable, as three sets of five would solve the draw situation. Are we going to bring in Scotch Doubles?

---

Format needs to be proposed for Half Yearly AGM. We certainly want to see the Summer format continued and are happy to make a proposal to Mark Halsey if we have a seconder. Some fine tuning of order of play would need to be agreed upon. 7 frames next winter will be a step back for this league....

---

Absolutely agree that the order of play needs to be sorted out.

---

we need to make sure Winter league continues from the fine work of the summer league even though there have been teething troubles I would love to play all ten of my players every week in the winter league, that is all Icare about

---

I think the 10 man thing works fantasticly and I will be voting for it if it is proposded for the winter league ( with an option to win cause that's what we all want on paper) but I will not be voting for the 60 second rule if its proposed because it's still a pub league, if every pub was looking to put players forward and expand their team to croydon a's or b's or even surrey it's a yes but most teams go out on a tuesday night just to have fun with their mates, play pool and hopefully win, if croydon a's b's or surrey find players in this great league who want to progrese their form ...fantastic but I don't think doing this will (a) increase the league( which I think should be the main aim), cause I think this would shrink it cause were going away from the fact that we all love playing pool and it will scare of other teams who want to go into the croydon league for some fun, and (b), I can't count up to 60 seconds even with the half time announcement with a few strongbows which I enjoy on a teus night

---

sorry tues night.........................got wrong with the bottle of pimms that's following me and made me say this...cheers thanks ta

---

Well I would love to see the 60 seconds rule brought in. 60 seconds is plenty of time to play a shot and too many games this season have gone on past 11. I honestly nodded off during frame 8 a couple of weeks ago.

---

Although I would like to see the 60 second rule introduced in principle, I think it is unrealistic to expect the average league player to use a stopwatch on every shot and it would lead to even more disputes. Some sort of discretionary rule should be introduced to combat slow play though.

---

It's a great rule but it doesn't have a place in local league IMO . .

. . World Rules alienated people enough but this would tip them over the edge!

---

Perhaps just use the 60 second rule for Mark Hartley-Miller, Rob Cogar, Alex Barnetson and Garry Rawlings.

---

I can totally see both sides of the argument, it is a pub league and the minute rule is a bit too serious but I can't be dealing with matches going on all night when they don't need to.

Perhaps an optional 2 minute rule would work. For the majority of players it would not even come close to making causing a problem as 2 minutes is a fairly long time to think of a shot...

The way I would set this up is that frames start without the clock but if both refs are in agreement that the game is being played too slowly then they make an announcement to both players that the shots will be timed from the next visit/shot.

---

But who will supply the stopwatches? And which ref will timekeep? You can't have both of them timekeeping as they won't start their timers at the same moment, so then comes the argument if one ref says it's a time foul and the other says it isn't.

Then you have the fun of trying to explain to people exactly what they can and can't do after a time foul . . .

I can't see any way round this, other than if someone is CLEARLY taking the piss, for the Secretary of the 'aggrieved' team to have a word with the other teams Secretary and get them to speak to their player and explain they can't take so long.

There is just no way to penalise the offending player unless you bring in the timing rule and I don't think this is a good thing for the League even though I would welcome it into the games.

---

60 seconds per shot is a long time. 2 minutes per shot would mean that even if someone dished up it could take 16 minutes. I think part of the problem is players taking too long over one shot. In that instance the ref or secretary should be able to speak to the other team secretary and then perhaps agree to give the player 60 seconds from that point to play the shot.

---

Lils touched on the solution above.

It is up to the secretarys of every team to simply tell thier players:

"Lads / Lasses, we play world rules in this league, and although the 60 second rule is not enforced, let's still use that as a guide when we're at the table"

You could name the excessively slow players in each division on one hand, so I think to punish the masses for the sins of a few would be harsh.

---

Oh, and the future is definitley 3 X 5.
They play this format in Reigate with no problems whatsoever. Start and finish the same time as what we currently play 10.

Too soon for this Winter I think, but food for thought.

---

3 x 5 is too long I reckon.

Stick with the 10 frames.

If someone puts through a decent proposal, i will second it.

As for the 60 second rule......Do we really need it, we haven't done for 20 odd years, even back in the days when Dennis Bloss (wrong spelling I know) was around?

---

JugglingSpence wrote "8Gb iPhone for sale. ?150. PM me for more details if you are interested..."

Spence, now you know this will p@%* off the site moderators!! Wheres your article?...and has any one second it?...in writing?

Regards,

Rainbow
:angel:

---

The answer to the supply of the stop watch couldn't be simpler. Each player donates ?1.40 each, if they are a 5 man team, go to Argos and buy, Sports LCD Chronograph Stopwatch. 277/9384 . Plus most people carry mobile phones with them, and most of them have a stop watch if they don't want to pay for one.
As for refing and time keeping, you have one ref doing the timekeeping and the other ref doing the reffing. Obviously the ref doing the time keeping will have his attention devided as he will have to keep an eye on the game also. but after a very short time you get to know, fairly acurately, when the 30 second mark is up, and the same for the minute. So he will be able to cope reasonably easily.

As for explaining the rules, There are still people that don't fully understand the rules as they are, so nothing will change there.

I don't consider myself a quick player, but whenever I have played the minute rule I rarely here the "30 seconds" being called.

I was only sugesting the minute rule if we were to adopt the 3 sets of 5 format. As it was said earlier in the thread, Reigate league play 15 frames without a problem. They have the minute rule but rarely inforce it. If some one is taking too long in a game the ref warns the player. If the warning is not heeded the stop watch is used. We could adopt this.

If anyone is in doubt about how long it takes to play a shot. Time your team mates this Tuesday with out telling them that you are doing it. I did this just before the world rules were voted into this league, and no-one took over a minute to play a shot through the whole match. And that was the old rules, Suposedly slower.

---

Timekeeping has no place in a local pool league.

---

i think the 2 x 5 is a good format but the games do seem to go on longer in most cases and especially with the away matches its not a lot of fun when your up early in the morning finding yourself not getting home until nearly 11.30... some players do take a ridiculous amount of time on pretty straight forward shots and this needs to be looked at. i personally would support the minute rule with the addition of the player having the option of calling one time out per frame if that player feels the need to take longer on one particular shot.

---

:wrong:

---

I would like to propose 3 sets of five with the minute rule. I propose that the minute rule be introduced at the discretion of either ref as and when needed.
I would also like to counterproposal, if the above is not accepted, that we abolish the 2 bonus points for a win as winning will effectively be gaining 2 points anyway.
Any seconders PM me

---

I don't think we're ready for that yet in the lower divisions. We finished at 11 last week playing 11 frames having started on time. Adding half that match time on again would take us to past 12.30.

---

in the reigate league the lower div teams play 2 sets of 5 and premier play 3 sets? maybe consider doing this?

---

It's an option but I don't like a 'them and us' mentality. Next thing Div 1 will be wanting bigger trophies . . . ;)

---

That's too much of a generalisation . . I haven't seen The Prop finish a match before 11pm this season yet we've only gone past 10pm once I think . . We finished our match at just before 10pm last week whilst the Rack Pack were just completing frame seven!!

It's simple . . Propose that the format as it is moves straight over to the Winter League . . Make it so that there is no second set team order, no player can play twice in the same set and get on with it . .

---

I was thinking of our match at The Royal Joakers. It wasn't a table to go dishing on and it made for some very slow frames.

The thing is - it doesn't matter if I'm generalising or not. If 2 or 3 teams in each division regularly have their matches go on past closing time it affects everyone.

I'm not a slow player and to be honest most of my team aren't either and if I'm saying 10 is enough right now I'm not saying it because I don't want more frames (I do!!) I'm saying it because it's going to be a step too far just now.

---

I totally agree . . The CDPL has been notorious for not welcoming big changes and it's important to nurture the current format rather than changing it again after such a short period of time . .

---

Right, enough chit chat.

I'm putting the proposal into Mark this morning, to change the Winter format to the one we are currently playing in the Summer.

I'm also suggesting that with regards to playing order, that secretarys are free to play thier players in whatever order they like, so long as two players don't play eachother twice.

Who's my seconder?

---

I'll second that.

---

Ok I'm proposing a mixed scotch doubles k/o subject to sponsorship confirmation. There are 21 ladies in the Ladies Singles this season. If 16(plus) enter this we will have a cracking little comp.

Partnerships can be any two registered Croydon players (ie it doesn't matter if you don't play in the same team).

Can I have a seconder please?

---

And the bonus points are dropped?

---

Yeah, bonus points dropped.

A team winning a tight game 6-4, would get twice as many points!!!!!
Crazy.

Will make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

Not needed over ten frames.

---

I think the Cuemasters participation next season is dependant on this getting through.

---

Good. It's better without i think as it keeps each Division tighter leaving no margin for cock ups.

---

And not twice in the same set!

---

Sean, am I reading this correctly? Are you proposing a player could therefore possibly play twice in the same set?

Or is it once per set and no clashing of opponent.

---

It HAS to be this IMO . . If it's done as it is now with the home side putting their 5 players down first, it's up to the away secretary/captain to put down their players so that they don't clash . . Sound fair enough?

Sean . . Make it so!

---

Yeah.
Purely for the reason that some teams will still be working with 7 players, and will want to see all 7 play before deciding who to play again.

I'll use the Eagles as an Example:

Tony Nuttman picks his 7 as follows:

1. Kyle Win
2. Shaggy Win
3. Wiggy Win Break & Dish
4. Sean Lost
5. Steve Lost
6. Jake Win Break & Dish
7. Hughie Break & Dish

Tony then rewards his three players he feels deserve another frame, in this example with the three lads that B&D.

It also enables people who cannot commit to three / four hours, the chance to play twice. Be it early in the match or late.

As long as they are legally registered players, I don't see the problem where in the order they play they're two frames.

---

I'm now totally confused! Just for a change.

Are you saying that Kyle could play 1 & 2?

---

Because it prevents someone playing 1&2 then fcuking off home or turning up at 10pm and playing 9&10 . .

The 7 player format would be a thing of the past so there is no need to work towards it . . Everyone will know at the start of the season that they are working with 5 so they adapt accordingly . .

. . so you still see people working their team around the fact that it's Old EPA rules?

---

In my view the league should not be dithering on this and if people dont like these changes then tough. We should be playing to the proper rules, including timing without going through the hurdles of AGMs etc to make them happen. I cant think of any other games/sports where rules are watered down to suit local leagues? You can talk about nurturing etc but you will always get those who are resistant to any sort of change, whenever you do it.

---

I think it's a question of integrity and sportsmanship.

In the Pawleyne last week, Paul Richards had to shoot off becasue he had work to get to.
He played both his frames early doors. No problems.

I'm thinking of the teams that have this scenario every week.

---

But for the few valid instances like the one above, you would get 5 people abusing it . .

. . it's fair enough with single frames as you put the person early and they go but with the opportunity of double frames is it not fair to say that if you have somewhere to be you either don't turn up or you don't expect to play two frames?

---

If someone has to go to work and can't hang around, they shouldn't be there.

But in a legitimate case, then why not simply put your player at 1, then again at ANY other number after 5 and ask the opposing team if they would mind picking a second player for that person so they can get their frames played and shoot off. Surely it won't happen all the time, so Secretaries with a bit of gamesmanship shouldn't mind.

And you should really be able to call upon a 6th player if you know someone is going to be unable to hang about in any one particular match. It's not like you'd only sign up 5 players.

---

I know waht you're saying.

But as the Away captain, you have the choice anyways.

For instance.
Eagles vs. Eden.

Power has decided that he's gonna play Sting and Truey against Kyle that evening.
Arrives at the Venue, and Kyle is playing frames 1&2.
So Power plays Sting and Truey 1&2.......

Same outcome.

If Kyle plays 1&2, 2&10, 5&6..... What difference does it really make? Other than he might go home early or turn up late?

(Just using Kyle as an example of course, no suggestion he's anything but a team player)

---

Because the Pool League is losing teams hand over fist due to having less people in the pubs and premises shutting down for a start, so being able to play 2 players at 1 & 2, then 3 & 4, you're left with 3 players in one team. That's if the person who's playing at 9 & 10 turns up before 9.30. Not too good for the licencee who've paid X amount of money for their team to be involved. I know that's not why you enter a team, but surely the premises involved should get a bit back behind the bar for their money. I wouldn't imagine they do it out of the goodness of their hearts.

Team spirit: You should always have as many of the team there as you can, just for the whole craic of it all! It's a team sport; surely you should have as many of the team there as possible.

I thought the 2 sets of 5 frames was the proposal. This way it's simply 10 individual frames.

---

I see know reason to restrict players playing whenever and wherever they want.

Playing 1 and 2 would not necessarily mean you would leave, it may be a justifyable ploy your captain may choose to ultimately win a match. I know for a fact that on a Tuesday night if I played 1 and 2 I would not leave until I was thrown out. If teams need to play players one and 9 to keep them their then they should be looking at their own teams agenda rather than making rules to prevent them doing so.

And Fieldsy, Halligan and Altes play 1,2,3&4, and your team nick a draw from them by hook or by crook. Who is in the box seat now?

---

I agree but I don't think that's what's in question . . It's the point of someone being allowed to turn up and leave early or arrive late yet have the luxury of playing two frames . . Surely if they have outside constraints then they don't get to play two frames . .

As with any rule/format changes, they need to be in place for the majority and not Kyle who has to rush off because of his electronic tag!

---

But it's meant to be 2 sets of 5. You put your first 5 players down and don't have to write your second 5 in until the first set is completed as if you have additional players there on top of your minimum 5, you get the chance to play them or to see who deserves the extra 2 frames.

Granted, certain teams may have players that they will always have playing 2 frames whether they win or lose, but I just think the team sheet needs a little structure. You're giving teams the freedom of playing their players wherever in the second set, so why is there the need to have players playing in consecutive frames all the way down the card?

Some players turn up week in, week out and they're meant to make way on occasion for someone who wants to turn up at 10pm because they're playing football til 9.30pm but still get 2 frames? You commit to a Tuesday or you don't. There are always going to be times when someone can't get there til late or can't hang about. But I personally don't think this is the way to deal with them.

---

I agree with what you said Donna,
I am very much a fan of getting the atmosphere right first, and the pool will follow.
Pool or no pool, pub takings are down everywhere.

If the rigid 5 and 5 is preferred by the majority, so be it. It won't affect our team in any way.

I'm just thinking of the masses.

In Fieldseys scenario, yes, that would be very daunting, but you're still gonna have to play them four times, whether it be frames 1-4, or 1&2 5&6.

I don't mind the rigid system, but I can see it causing problems.

The main thing is to get more frames. Get the 10 frame format voted in. If and when that is voted in, have a seperate vote as to what format will be used.

---

A person can turn up at one in the 7 man format and leave, a person can turn up at 9.30 and play 7. It seems to me that people are reducing flexibility, and I dont see how thats of any benefit to anyone.
The time flexibility was brought in for a valid reason I am sure. (Cant remember it though!)

And I thought Mark said he would have issues if it was being sold as a
2 * 5 format, and that it was a 10 frame format with a minimum of 5 players. (Though that could have easily been the other way round.)

---

But it's NOT a rigid 5 and 5 Sean. You play your first 5 and then your second five could be made of 5 players who hadn't played a frame as yet, it could be the same 5 or it could be a mixture. If you had to play as per the result card as it is, then i'd say it was a rigid 5 & 5, but if someone needs to leave early you put someone else in for them or play them again at 6 and then they go, or ask the Secretary of the opposing team to let them play their second set frame early.

People voted this format in because they wanted more frames. More frames is going to take more time, yet now we're talking about people who don't HAVE more time?!!

And yes, a player could turn up at 1 in the old format, play and leave. But that's assuming they had 7 players. If they've STILL got 7 players, then thatplayer can still play at 1 and then leave, knowing there is someone else to play their frame. If people have to leave early or can't be there until late, they shouldn't necessarily be getting 2 frames.

---

Who wants to see the top players having the freedom of playing back to back frames? Not me. I'd rather see them have an hour and half break before they are due back on the table again. From an opposition perspective who would want to see Altes/Halligan playing immediately after they have just broke and dished in under 30 seconds....

---

You couldn't use this as an example anyway as you have to pick the entire 2nd set after the 5th game, not 7 then pick the final 3 after frame 7?

---

There would be no problem from me on that format.
None.

I'm thinking of the first week of the summer league, when we had lots of confusion on this very site about the playing order.
The general concensus was that it wasn't liked......
That's all.

---

Exactly Alex. I make you right.

You've always been my favouritest person and I love you muchly. :)

---

Which is what I said some months ago. You are actually restricting the flexibility of teams selection options for those that turn up with more than 5 players. Hows that fair?

---

Well spotted Dogger. Shame you can't see the right shot to play on the table as well. . .

Surely with a 10 frame format, you'd have to write your entire 10 players down in one go? Not as and when you feel like it? This is the whole point about a LITTLE bit of structure being needed or you'll get stuff like this being contested.

---

How so? Right now with the seven frame format that the League is due to return to, you could only play 7 of your players full stop, even though many teams had more than this turning up.

At least this way you have the flexability of playing between 5 and 10! How is that UNfair?

---

The Godalming league decide on a frame by frame basis who is playing next. At the end of a frame you pick, I dont see why all this kerfuffle is going on. You cant get simpler than that.

---

I think the Eagles have got a bit nervy about the demise of the 'bonus points system', by trying to sneak in a new type of bonus system....

Its called 'letting our best players play 1&2, oh and 3&4, oh and for good measure 5&6'.....

That will fuck you all up and we'll win the league by Guy Fawkes night..:winner:

---

Because you as a captain cannot make an informed decision on who you want to play again based upon their actual performance that week.

---

I'd go with two sets of 5 and players are not allowed to play twice in one set. I don't think that is too inflexible. It wouldn't stop Nuttmeg picking his first seven players as in Spud's example, although it would stop 6 and 7 playing twice. If a player turns up late or leaves early then they can only play one game.

---

Surely as a Captain you would know who your strongest 5 players are and who you might want to play 2 frames if you got the chance? You put those 5 players in. If one or two of them are rubbish that particular week or you want to use a fair system, you can chop and change if you have the players to allow this.

Before, you could only play 7 players, not knowing how they were performing that week, so how can you say that being able to see how 5 of your team are playing can be a bad thing?

Without trying to section out individuals, there were times in certain 'high profile' teams last year where the team was short and had no choice than to play players who were clearly well below par. These frames were invariably lost and could have been a massive difference as to who won what. In this format, you have a choice.

Maybe I just don't understand what you are getting at, because I really don't see it. I'm clearly still not recovered from my hospital ordeal!

---

No and you couldnt play two frames under the old format so whats you point?

The fact is that things have changed and I believe the changes cant only change for the benefit of players with 5 players and as such no choice needs to be made.

Clearly I am in the minority in this, so thats cool.

---

Equally wouldn't work because Jake and Hughie can't play a 2nd frame anyway at 6 & 7. By putting them there they will only get one frame no matter how well they do.

---

But it's NOT just for the benefit of the smalled squads!!

FFS, Tony Nuttman believes this format to be good because he can now give everyone who turns up a game, plus possibly reward the players that are playing well on that night with an extra frame! How can the changes be for the benefit of smaller squads? If Tony WANTS to play his chosen 7 players in the same way as was all he could do last year, then he can. Then he gets the added bonus of being able to play 3 of his first 5 again - how's his luck?!

Don't tell me that any team has more than 5 players who are better than the other members in their team. You can either play it fair and give everyone a game or simply play the minimum. In the format of 10 frames as you're suggesting, it's not stopping people playing their strongest 5 twice, so how's your point of the 2 x 5 frames being more to suit the smaller squad valid?

n.b. I don't actually CARE how the Secretaries vote, as it doesn't affect me in the slightest! I just don't see how 10 frames makes it fairer.

---

Lils,

The rules as they are proposed mean that if you have a team of 7, two players irrespective of their ability cannot physically be picked for two frames, as they are in theory are 2 players that can play once from 6-10.

Before you see these all your players play that week, you need to make decisions on who you will drop. In reality that player who you havent seen can clear up in frame 6 and play the bext frame of all time, but he cant play twice.

I think to cater for teams of all sizes, then you should be able to play all of the players available for selection, and then be able to pick the best say 2-3-4 performers based upon what you have seen, not based upon your ability see into the future.

---

The format was changed for more pool to be possible. If Tony wanted the possiblilty of Jake and Hughie (in Seans post) of being able to play twice, he should have put them in the top 5. With a large squad, if you're going to be fair and play everyone once, then some players are going to miss out on 2 frames on certain weeks. So i'm sure Tony would work it out on a kind of rota basis as he'd have to even if a 10 frame, rather than 2x5 frame format was adopted.

Like I said, it doesn't affect me; i'll be long gone by then. So my input is, in theory, unimportant. I'll say no more.

---

I think it's a clever and cunning ploy by the Eagles to disguise the re-introduction of the bonus points system....

---

One thing that hasn't been mentioned too much lately . . The whole situation regarding a draw and the fact that there has to be a winner?!

Why?

---

There doesn't. Some games deserve to be drawn. If you can't earn a win over 10 frames, then why shouldn't the points be shared?

No bonus points is the way forward. As has been said, a win gives you at least a 2 frame advantage over your opponents.

No need, apart from testosterone-fuelled players who need to say they won.

---

Id be suprised if many Winter Championships have been decided by bonus points, so it doesnt bother me in the slightest whether they are there or not.

For every 6-4 win when you are losing 2 points, you have a 6-4 loss when you are in real terms gaining two points. No probs either way.

I just dont see the need to upset your team by setting up rotas as Lil mentions quite validly. People feel comfortable playing in certain places, and it will certainly disrupt us if everybody in our team asked to play in the top 5 because thats the only way that would get two frames.

I probably only feel like this because we have 7-8 people that have similar ability. For teams with 3 good players and 4 shitters like the Eden its pretty much a no brainer!

---

Maybe at 5-5 we could all have a game of 'penny up the wall' to determine a winner?

---

I notice you didn't say testosterone-fuelled men :lol:

---

;) :snigger:

---

Amazing how one of those 4 shitters always seem to beat you. Seeing your name on the Eagles card is a breath of fresh air to the Eden...

Anyway Shaggy, USPGA.....are we on for our bet? Whats the rules again.

---

Its a team game Alex, other than you I always play a good player!

I think we said no players between 1-16 one between 17-32 and any three others. Id add to that players that havent won a major and we are good to go.

Where is it being held?

---

Ah . . That reminds me . .

---

Oakland Hills, Michigan.

As you won last time, do I get first 4 picks then?

---

Away you go!

---

Everybody should have the opportunity to play 2 frames (inc 6,7,8,9) who would be in the 2nd set. No one has yet mentioned that nobody should be allowed to play twice within the 1st set of 5 which would open the doors for all players to be available to play again in the 2nd set (including those that are there already)

---

It has been mentioned when it's been said that no player should play twice in any one set . .

. . I can see the argument against it but it's too open to abuse and the cons outweigh the pros

---

[quote]Shaggy wrote:
I think we said no players between 1-16 one between 17-32 and any three others. Id add to that players that havent won a major and we are good to go.
[quote]

Robert Karlsson (Swe): Ranking 22
Hunter Mahan (US): Ranking 34
Woody Austin (US): Ranking 36
Camilo Villegas (Col): Ranking 56

Over to you Shaggy....

---

I was looking at three of those..... Cant get into the site for runners and ranking lists at work, so it'll have to hold til I get home I am afraid.

---

Actually I can.

I'll go:

Stuart Appleby 30
Paul Casey 41
Sean O'Hair 37
Chad Campbell 58

Best individual player score wins.

---

IMO you should not be allowed to play a player twice in the first 5 frames....this way it means any of the squad that turns up on the night have the potential to play twice....I would sooner have it that all players that are playing on any night have to play once before anyone plays twice....that way the captain can play his best form players from the night twice to maximise the win potential....

No doubt someone will want to pick a hole in this, but I don't see what is so complicated....if you have to leave early you will probably only play once...if you arrive late there is still the potential to play twice....

---

Well for once I agree, but it seems we are in the minority.

---

No it doesnt - what if your squad that turns up on the night consists of more than 5 players?

And another question to throw into the mix (because as said before, the Leagues format doesn't affect me):

Lets say for arguments sake, the away team turns up with 3 or 4 players.

If you have to play all your players once before they play again twice and the home team write their players down first, albeit in a 2x5 frame format or a straight 10 frame format, does it mean that the players are allowed to play in the first set for a second time, or would those frames become claimed by the home team, plus after the home team has written the order either all in advance or for the 2nd set, the team of 3 can handpick which players their 3 or 4 play against.

This is what I mean by the benefit of having a small amount of structure.

I don't actually understand Deutch's comment regarding that any player taking part should have the chance to play twice when the result cards which were distributed by himself were strictly numbered as 2 sets of 5 with no apparent option to do anything but substitute players from the first set to make way for oncoming players?

But whatever happens, someone needs to get this sorted and proposed for the Winter Season or you'll definately be back to playing 7 frames and possibly losing teams if what Longshanks posted is accurate.

---

It's getting too confusing now for the sake of it . .

What's wrong with the following:

Two Sets of Five Frames
No player plays more than once in any one set
Home Team Picks 1st and then the Away Team list their players ensuring no-one plays the same player twice

It's that simple and certainly better than 7 single frames and certainly the most common ground solution . . Fair enough it doesn't allow for selections based on complete in-match analysis but it ticks the majority of boxes . .

. . it's not 101% perfect but if there was a perfect format then we'd have found it by now as the whole country would be using it!

---

In matches where both teams have less than 5 players available - all unplayed frames will be declared void.

---

probably thge best way to enforce a minute rule with the addition of a 2minute ruling on foul shots

:clap:

---

Spot on. Let's get this proposed to Mark.

Is Spud in agreement and who is going to make a proposal & second it etc?

---

2 sets of 5 players only play each player once in each set but can play again in the second set when there is no player clashing if the score is 5 - 5 then a bonus frame is added to decide a winner people who have played twice will not be allowed to participate in the bonus frame

STRICTLY NO BONUS POINTS

:gossip

---

But what if you only have 5 players. With that idea it means you have to give away the bonus frame.

I think if the score is 5-5 after 10 games then both teams have earnt the draw. If you haven't played well enough in the 10 frames to win it already then a draw is what you deserve.

---

And the player in the play off if both teams only have five will be who exactly?????

---

either get another player or chose the player from the players you got
or fuck the whole idea and simply call it a draw i just thought of a shit idea to stop you gimps nit picking and toying over the rules and the idea of a draw:hanged:

---

think a good number would second the proposal of 2 x 5 but there has to be some time frame on the matches. another 11.30 finish last night so it is getting a joke.!

---

I think anyone reading this thread afresh from start to finish will be as confused as hell.

There are obviousley pros and cons to all the formats in different peoples eyes.

I had already submitted my proposal to Mark yesterday with Sass as my seconder, proposing we keep the format we use for the Summer League, for the Winter League.
No Bonus points.
I also stipulated that secretaries be given freedom of team selection, as and where. Judging by the debate on here, this varies massively in peoples eyes, so I have sent an ammendment to Mark saying the Following:



Sounds fair enough right?
Majority rules . . . .

---

Sounds good to me. Format A all the way...


Golden, new poll on the site, Format A, B or C...:)

---

Sounds too much like hard work to me :D

---

I like A



but I do walk a bit funny the next morning.:O:

---

A for me too.

---

Definetly A
AAAAAAAAA
ALL THE WAY

---

It's all very well saying that every player should have the oppurtunity to play twice wether they are in the first 5 or not and every player DOES have this oppurtunity if the team only has 5 players.

What about last season when you have 8 players turn up, every player in the team should have the oppurtunity to play if they turn up but fact of life sometimes mechanics of a format make that impossible.

Playing someone only in the second set of 5 in the current format gives them a game which every player who turns up deserves. That is far better than being totally dropped.....Unless you play for the Eden and then get dropped so often you then go and join a propper pool team for a few years.

---

For the sake of completeness, format C should say that no player can play more than twice.

---

If you are good enough your captain puts you in first 5. I actually like a bit of healthy competition within the team.

---

I agree wiv sass on this 1 format A keeps a bit of competition 4 places in the top 5, wot would happen as far as rankings r concerned?????

---

I agree with Format A

---

Kyle you get your ranking points for your first game only whether you play at 1 or 10

---

You have to 'play' to then get 'dropped' Matt. Not sure you got to that stage with the Eden...

Thanks for your input though.

Roll on the 'we are back' post. And the 'told you so' responses...