|
Post by dmiley on Jan 23, 2014 14:28:01 GMT
In relation to the comments on week 11 results thread, i've come up with this.
'If, after playing in one or more matches, a team withdraws from CAPL with games outstanding, they shall be deemed to have filled one of the two relegation spots for that division if they were in that position on the official date of withdrawal'
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Newbie makes a good point about cut-off dates. The only other possible date is after the half-way point of the season (when they have played every time) imo. But that wouldn't work for div 2 this season and my personal opinion is jenny wren should be formally relegated.
Let me know if there's anything I've missed out! Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by dmiley on Jan 23, 2014 14:29:11 GMT
Every team, not every time. Sorry, fat thumbs and smartphones don't mix.
|
|
|
Post by Newbie on Jan 23, 2014 15:22:44 GMT
Section 17 - Promotion, Relegation, and Play-offs 1. The top 2 teams in each division will be promoted and the bottom 2 teams in each division will be relegated where there is another division for them to move in to. 2. Promotion and relegation are subject to any league re-organisation that may occur. 3. League placing will be determined by awarded points, followed by head-to-head results, and then matches won, and then frames won. 4. When more than two teams are level on points then all matches between those on the same number of points will be analysed as follows: Most number of points followed by most number of wins followed by most number of frames. If a number of teams still remain tied but this is less than the original number of teams that were level then we will go through this process repeatedly with the teams that remained tied until only one team remains or there remains a tie. In which case the order will then be decided by overall number of wins followed by overall number of frames. 5. If teams remain tied, the league placing will be decided by a play-off. 6. Play-offs will be held at a neutral venue, on a date to be decided by the committee.
|
|
|
Post by Newbie on Jan 23, 2014 15:23:37 GMT
I don't think anything needs changing, it says bottom 2 teams, a team pulling out has finished last, I'm not sure where there is any confusion?
|
|
|
Post by dmiley on Jan 23, 2014 17:41:01 GMT
Section 20 - Withdrawing from the league 1. Teams who do not finish the season for whatever reason forfeit all money paid. 2. If a team withdraws from the league all their results will become void and points deducted accordingly.
Newbie, I completely agree with you but Monkey, for one, doesn't agree with us. So there's definitely enough room to wriggle within our interpretations of the rule. I'd say that, given how different the interpretations are, it probably needs to be tightened up in some way (not necessarily the one I have said). That is, unless we're the only two CAPL players who think this.
In your reply, you said 'finishing last' but Section 20 states explicitly that withdrawn teams are not said to 'finish' the season. (I'm not the most eloquent in person so I'm really sorry for splitting hairs, but this confusion is all down to interpretation)
For example, if 17.1 was changed to 'The top 2 finishing teams in each division will be promoted and the bottom 2 finishing teams in each division will be relegated where there is another division for them to move in to.', I think that there would be no other interpretation than Monkey's. That said, I don't think that it is the fair interpretation at all.
20.2 also seems to suggest that the withdrawn team should not be considered as part of the league at all.
So my opinion is the rules suggest Monkey's interpretation but a kind of 'spirit of the game' type of thinking leads me to mine, that the Jenny should be considered one of the relegated teams- as it wouldn't be fair/'in the spirit of the game' otherwise.
|
|
Lefty
International Player
Posts: 538
|
Post by Lefty on Jan 24, 2014 1:09:07 GMT
This could get alot more confusing yet.
What happens if Jenny then enter next season? do they then get to stay in Div 2 without even completing the season before as they're technically not relegated?
What happens if they do and also get relegated? or if they don't enter? On both those senarios you're then looking at promoting 3 from div 3 to fill the spaces up, which i think is rather unfair to promote a team that finished 3rd in the div below over keeping in a team that already showed they can play in that div and pick up points.
|
|
|
Post by monkey on Jan 24, 2014 11:55:46 GMT
Yo
I don't believe that has happened before so that would be something the committee as a whole would have to decide. My personal opinion is that if the Jenny Wren A decided to enter again next season then as they dropped out this season they should be treated as a new team.
|
|
smackmyballs
County Player
“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Posts: 428
|
Post by smackmyballs on Jan 24, 2014 12:49:07 GMT
Historically I think the committee use their discretion well when it comes to promotion / relegation issues and the placement of new / folding teams. If you had lost to the Jenny or if the Portland B had beaten them would you still be making this proposal? IMO You should concentrate on winning as many of your remaining matches as possible (a team that only wins 1 or 2 matches in a season shouldn't be disheartened by demotion, but look at it as a chance to get back to winning ways in a lower div). Have a look at div 3, the top of the table is very tight (Mickeys Lions are 10 from 12 in 3rd, 2 points off the top spot, the committee may deem the 3rd place finishers a candidate for promotion to div 2 if the division finishes as tight as it is now. Having said all that, I think your team definately has players capable of holding their own in div 2 and should concentrate on proving that to the committee by winning some more matches before the end of the season.
Another factor to consider is the hotshots (irrelevant to some, everything to others), if a team gives away too many walkovers / folds before some teams have a chance to play them it makes a farce of the hotshots as some players will get extra frames.
This is all just my opinion, not having digs at anyone or any teams, it's always a shame when teams drop out of the league - esp mid season.
|
|
|
Post by dmiley on Jan 24, 2014 17:31:14 GMT
My small knowledge suggests that discretion has been used well, and it is true that this proposal would reduce the autonomy of the committee (in that they may deem the Jenny Wren as one of the relegated teams anyway- as Monkey says, decisions on an individual basis). As I would read the rules, 17.2 is vital with respect to the flux of teams in and out of the league, but should be regarded as almost a last resort in order to avoid anything going too seriously wrong in the leagues (I may be wrong about this). I would view my proposal as superseding 17.2- in the same way I view 17.1 as superseding 17.2. I don't quite see your point with respect to us losing/Portland B winning. I thought about this purely in response to what Monkey wrote, however it is probable that if we were in your position, I may not have thought it. But I don't know. Either way, I don't think that makes it any less of a good or bad idea personally. And, of course, we're still getting promoted Having looked at Div3, I agree that it is one of the tightest divisions I have seen. (I think there may have been Div4 ? two or three seasons ago also?) But if it wasn't tight, then what would that mean? Would they promote 3 teams anyway? I suppose what you may be saying is it is protectionist, and you are certainly right. But is that a bad thing here? (I'm not saying it is or isn't) If a division was tight at the bottom, would you advocate relegating three teams in that case? The same logic applies as to promoting three from Div3. I really don't think it is relevant whether our team is good enough to stay in the division or not. I like to think this discussion is helping me concentrate on pool- Monkey can verify I won 2 out of 2 last night Hotshots are voided anyway I believe, or do you mean if a team makes it to the end of a season? If so, there have been many more discussion about that e.g; 7 Hotshot Points proposal, and that wouldn't mean anything in relation to this because they would have finished the season.
|
|
|
Post by dmiley on Jan 24, 2014 17:34:20 GMT
And promoting 3 is only really 'possible' due to a withdrawn team in the division above, barring reorganisation etc. Not something to be banked on at the start of the season.
|
|
thedoctor
Won a few trophies
He's Back
Posts: 241
|
Post by thedoctor on Jan 24, 2014 18:49:40 GMT
Talking of hotshots. When will the table be made correct?
|
|
Lefty
International Player
Posts: 538
|
Post by Lefty on Jan 24, 2014 19:02:30 GMT
Something does need to be done about these rulings, regardless of this proposal going through or not.
As tehy currently stand there are far too many grey areas, even for allowing for Committee discretion.
Its been made fairly clear that the rules as current state that if a team fails to complete a season they are deemed to not have been relegated (stongly suggested by Monkeys post in the other thread.) If that is the case then there is no way they could possibly justify relegating such a team from any division should they re-enter the following season. This leaves teams that are sitting near the bottom of the table close to the end of the season using this to just say 'lets withdraw and then enter next season and we'll be in the same division again'.
The Committee may well decide to relegate tehm anyway, but under the current rulings it would be going against them as they'd not have technically been relegated, and if they use the part about Committee rearranging the the divisions at their discretion they'd still have to relegate 2 other teams for the 2 down part.
Either this proposal needs to go through or some of the rulings (mainly sections 20 and 22) need a total rewrite. They are so many grey areas and even 1 or 2 contradictions in there they surely can't stay how they are.
|
|
thedoctor
Won a few trophies
He's Back
Posts: 241
|
Post by thedoctor on Jan 24, 2014 19:10:09 GMT
Agreed and the Hotshots table should be updated too. Intrigued as to who's at the top.
|
|
|
Post by monkey on Jan 24, 2014 21:18:44 GMT
Talking of hotshots. When will the table be made correct? The hotshots table is correct now. Apologies for the delay.
|
|
|
Post by monkey on Jan 24, 2014 21:20:23 GMT
Something does need to be done about these rulings, regardless of this proposal going through or not. As tehy currently stand there are far too many grey areas, even for allowing for Committee discretion. Its been made fairly clear that the rules as current state that if a team fails to complete a season they are deemed to not have been relegated (stongly suggested by Monkeys post in the other thread.) If that is the case then there is no way they could possibly justify relegating such a team from any division should they re-enter the following season. This leaves teams that are sitting near the bottom of the table close to the end of the season using this to just say 'lets withdraw and then enter next season and we'll be in the same division again'. The Committee may well decide to relegate tehm anyway, but under the current rulings it would be going against them as they'd not have technically been relegated, and if they use the part about Committee rearranging the the divisions at their discretion they'd still have to relegate 2 other teams for the 2 down part. Either this proposal needs to go through or some of the rulings (mainly sections 20 and 22) need a total rewrite. They are so many grey areas and even 1 or 2 contradictions in there they surely can't stay how they are. I think you should read what I wrote earlier. I suggested that IF a team re entered the following season they would be treat as a new team. Please outline the contradictions?
|
|
Lefty
International Player
Posts: 538
|
Post by Lefty on Jan 24, 2014 22:48:22 GMT
Yes I read what you wrote, but that's not what I was talking about.
For a start how can it be 2 up 2 down like the rulings say yet the Committee have the power to place teams where they wish and move around as they see fit? How can that still be 2 up 2 down if for instance 3 teams go down from 2 this season if jenny enter next?
There is far too much with the current rulings that can interpreted in far too many ways and be manipulated.
|
|
|
Post by dmiley on Jan 25, 2014 1:44:22 GMT
The committee will always have to have the ability to re-organise the league with discretion. This is purely because the total number of teams varies from year on year and divisions need to start with either 9 or 10 teams (starting with 9 makes it even more unfortunate when teams drop out), due to the season calender.
At the start of this season, most divisions were 9 teams, whereas the year before, it was 10 teams. Which meant extra teams were relegated from most divisions. Going from 9 to 10, more teams are promoted. It isn't ideal but, as there is no set limit on the size of CAPL, it has to be the case. Otherwise, the bottom division could be out of sync with the other divisions (say 5 teams).
So, this proposal could be ignored if passed because of the committee's reorganisation clause. But I would hope that it would more act as a guideline for the committee's decision.
Monkey says that the committee has in previous years relegated two teams from a division with a withdrawn team. I'm guessing, when considering it, they maybe ask the question "Why shouldn't they be relegated?". Whereas, assuming my idea, I'd hope they would ask "Why should they be relegated?" instead- they would have to show good reasons why they hadn't followed it.
(Kind of like the difference between 'Innocent until proven Guilty' and 'Guilty until proven Innocent')
|
|
|
Post by monkey on Jan 25, 2014 1:52:51 GMT
These are the rules from Section 17
1. The top 2 teams in each division will be promoted and the bottom 2 teams in each division will be relegated where there is another division for them to move in to. 2. Promotion and relegation are subject to any league re-organisation that may occur.
Surely these are taken in conjunction rather than being contradictory.
This is getting off topic, but just assume for a minute that the Jenny A do not enter next season. With two up two down, then as the committee does it at the moment then that would have 8 teams in division 2 next season. Subject to the number of teams that enter the league we will hopefully have 9 or 10 teams in this division next season. This means an extra team or possibly two from somewhere. There is then a choice between keeping up the second bottom team, promoting third from division 3 or if there is a new team of sufficient ability then they may be placed in this division. If we only have the first two options then our normal policy is to promote the third from the division below. We think it is better to reward a team that does well. The only time I can remember making an exception to this was with the Rathmore E in Summer 2012. They finished second bottom with 16 points and did not get relegated. We have not had a situation where a team has dropped out mid season and then entered again in the following season. The point Drew is making, is to only relegate one team if a team that drops out was in a relegation place at the time. The committee will be happy to implement this if it is agreed at the AGM following it being proposed in the correct manner. It would still be subject to Section 17 point 2. For the record, I resent the use of the word manipulation. Hopefully that was just a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by dmiley on Jan 25, 2014 2:32:26 GMT
You sum up my point better than I ever could...
|
|
thedoctor
Won a few trophies
He's Back
Posts: 241
|
Post by thedoctor on Jan 25, 2014 8:10:50 GMT
The hotshots table is not correct. It can be seen thar the Portland A has played nine matches. Therefore Reuben and myself have played 18 times each as we have not missed a match. Furthermore the hotshots table has me on 13. It can be seen that I had a streak of 13. I then lost two due to the clinical and excellent play of the Isaac team. Won two last week against Mickeys. Reuben and I should be on 15 each. You haven't taken points off the game we DIDN'T play against Jenny, have you? We got a w/o so no hotshot points were awarded.
|
|