Hillsy3105
County Player
averagely good amateur
Posts: 371
|
Post by Hillsy3105 on Jan 25, 2014 10:41:41 GMT
When you go on the hotshots page there is a bit that says 'outstanding scorecards' I think you'll find that your scorecard agains mickeys hasn't been recieved yet, hence why the hotshots table isn't up to date
|
|
thedoctor
Won a few trophies
He's Back
Posts: 241
|
Post by thedoctor on Jan 25, 2014 14:36:51 GMT
Oh jolly good. Nine days after the match. Better check where its gone to. Ta.
|
|
|
Post by dmiley on Jan 25, 2014 15:01:25 GMT
Can anyone enlighten me as to how the question of who is leading hotshots has to do with this?
|
|
Lefty
International Player
Posts: 538
|
Post by Lefty on Jan 25, 2014 17:05:38 GMT
Monkey, the point of manipulation was aimed more at teams than the Committee.
But the point i was trying to make was as things stand it could leave it open to teams doing badly just deciding to drop out on purpose to try and avoid a relegation as under current rules they're technically not relegated.
I do understand that there is a reason for Committee powers to reorganise the leagues, but this is also something i feel could be taken away with something like the implimentation of a previous league structure suggestion by Luke Bennett i believe it was. I know thats off topic a bit, but it does show how much things csn be 'moved around' under current rulings. On a personal view the current system of rules leaves alot or potential arguements whereas a set structure would leave things very clear and would also stop alot of the past problemts there have been when the divisions have been drawn up in previous years.
One last point i'd like to make here is also that you say you like to reward those that have done well in a lower division, but thats not always consistant. Plus its also possible that this season a team ends up with 4 wins plus a few draws from only 14 games and still gets relegated from what your suggesting. Picking up points from around half your games in a season and getting relegated does seem rather harsh to me.
|
|
|
Post by monkey on Jan 25, 2014 18:33:14 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. Yo Your card has now been entered. I did have an email from Dave with a photo of the card but I had missed it.
|
|
thedoctor
Won a few trophies
He's Back
Posts: 241
|
Post by thedoctor on Jan 25, 2014 18:39:00 GMT
Can anyone enlighten me as to how the question of who is leading hotshots has to do with this? It's terribly, terribly important.
|
|
|
Post by monkey on Jan 25, 2014 18:51:24 GMT
Monkey, the point of manipulation was aimed more at teams than the Committee. But the point i was trying to make was as things stand it could leave it open to teams doing badly just deciding to drop out on purpose to try and avoid a relegation as under current rules they're technically not relegated. I do understand that there is a reason for Committee powers to reorganise the leagues, but this is also something i feel could be taken away with something like the implimentation of a previous league structure suggestion by Luke Bennett i believe it was. I know thats off topic a bit, but it does show how much things csn be 'moved around' under current rulings. On a personal view the current system of rules leaves alot or potential arguements whereas a set structure would leave things very clear and would also stop alot of the past problemts there have been when the divisions have been drawn up in previous years. One last point i'd like to make here is also that you say you like to reward those that have done well in a lower division, but thats not always consistant. Plus its also possible that this season a team ends up with 4 wins plus a few draws from only 14 games and still gets relegated from what your suggesting. Picking up points from around half your games in a season and getting relegated does seem rather harsh to me. Half an apology is better than nothing but the implication is still that the committee may manipulate the divisions but to a lesser extent than an individual team. For the third time, no team to my knowledge has ever withdrawn from the league mid season and then entered again in the following season. As such I am unable to give any specifics on how it has been dealt with in the past. I will reiterate my personal opinion that a team doing such a thing should be deemed to be a new team. As such they would go in an available division. I do vaguely remember Luke's idea and it did have some merits but I can't remember it fully so can't comment at the moment. If a team finishes second from bottom then unfortunately they get relegated. The number of points or wins is surely immaterial to this discussion. In the Summer 2013 season, CSC C in division 4 and Chesterton Men's Club in division 5 both finished second bottom. They both picked up points in half of their matches. I cannot remember anyone from these teams complaining that they should not have been relegated for this reason. I do not see the relevance of this comment?
|
|
|
Post by dmiley on Jan 25, 2014 19:01:47 GMT
Can anyone enlighten me as to how the question of who is leading hotshots has to do with this? It's terribly, terribly important. Thanks for enlightening me.
|
|
|
Post by dmiley on Jan 25, 2014 19:09:07 GMT
'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' On reflection, I am happy to propose this at the AGM. Is it 8th March at the CSC? I can attend anywhere in central Cambridge (no car or bike). I need a seconder, if anyone likes this enough to do so, please let me know. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by monkey on Jan 25, 2014 19:31:56 GMT
Yo. Yes. 6th March at CSC. Please email the proposal to me. If anyone wishes to second then please also email that to me.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jan 25, 2014 21:28:15 GMT
There are divisions of 9 at the start of the season and 2 still go down. I think if you finish in the bottom 2 you should expect relegation and anything else is a bonus.
|
|
|
Post by Soulman on Jan 25, 2014 21:43:45 GMT
'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' On reflection, I am happy to propose this at the AGM. Is it 8th March at the CSC? I can attend anywhere in central Cambridge (no car or bike). I need a seconder, if anyone likes this enough to do so, please let me know. Cheers! Playing devil's advocate, would that also apply to a team that folds whilst in a promotion place?
|
|
|
Post by dmiley on Jan 25, 2014 21:58:26 GMT
Soulman, apologies for not being 100% clear on what you mean. If I don't quite answer here, ask again!
If a team pulled out when not in a relegation place, they would not necessarily be counted as one of the two relegated teams (though still could be, but also unlikely). So being in a promotion spot would not be any different to being mid-table, with regard to this rule. The withdrawn team would most certainly not be promoted.
Teams would then be subject to new team rules if re-entering etc.
|
|
|
Post by Soulman on Jan 25, 2014 22:21:01 GMT
Soulman, apologies for not being 100% clear on what you mean. If I don't quite answer here, ask again! If a team pulled out when not in a relegation place, they would not necessarily be counted as one of the two relegated teams (though still could be, but also unlikely). So being in a promotion spot would not be any different to being mid-table, with regard to this rule. The withdrawn team would most certainly not be promoted. Teams would then be subject to new team rules if re-entering etc. I can see what you are saying, but logically, it could be argued that if a team folds whilst in first place for example, then to be consistent, that team would have been deemed to have filled that place, so only one would be promoted. This also affects relegation from the division above. Another point would be that if the team folds after, say only one game, it is a bit arbitrary as to what position it is in, so it could be bottom, but a good team who lost its first game, so a poor team that would have been relegated will escape undeservedly. On the contrary, it could be a rubbish team that flukes a first win, so is not in the bottom 2 but would have been later on! Just trying to help think it through now, rather than at the AGM!
|
|
|
Post by dmiley on Jan 25, 2014 23:19:34 GMT
Ah ok, I see what you're getting at.
The point of this proposal is not to penalise other teams in the division in the event of a team withdrawing from the league. The withdrawn team's feelings are not taken into account, as they would no longer be members of CAPL- run for, and by, its members. So it's more that the bottom two in Div2 are now Mickey's C and Salisbury Club A, but the 'true' bottom two are Mickey's C and Jenny Wren A. Salisbury Club A are in effect being penalised for the Jenny's withdrawal, by now being in a relegation spot. But, with this idea, they would not be.
Reverse that, for the promotion. Assume Jenny were 1st when they pulled out, then we would now be penalising Caldecote A by only promoting one.
So it's more that to do it for relegation aids the members, whilst to do it for promotion penalises the members. So there's an asymmetry between the two. I suppose I should also add that my idea says nothing about the team being in a promotion place anyway, so it's not necessarily relevant to it. But it is a good point to bring up.
The 1-game withdrawal point is more down to personal taste. (I think I said something about why I went from start of season earlier in this thread?) My best response would be that all teams deserve to be in the position they are- for example, what is a fluke win in the first game of the season? I know this is weak when applied to only one game, but how would it sound to say a team withdrew when in a relegation place however we think they deserved to be at the top of the table, so we won't fill a relegation spot? I think that this would be an issue that it would be hard to persuade people either way- whereas I'm more inclined to think I could persuade people that the promotion argument is not the same as the relegation argument.
Although I think this post may sound worringly rambling.
|
|
Lefty
International Player
Posts: 538
|
Post by Lefty on Jan 25, 2014 23:33:45 GMT
If a team withdraws from a season, regardlesss of what point of that season it is, they have all results removed. Yet they always stay marked up in the table sitting at the bottom.
This suggests that it its still considered that they took part else why leave them there? This is the case regardless of what position they were in at the time of withdrawal, so even if they were top they would still end up being shown as bottom and other moved up.
For me this makes the promotion aspect clearer, while still having them listed at the bottom suggests they are 1 of the bottom 2 teams.
Maybe the proposal should be amended with 'if they were in that position on the official date of withdrawal' removed from the end? This would mean any team withdrawing at any point as long as they have taken part in atleast 1 game will always occupy 1 of the relegation spots.
Monkey:
I do believe that the old Girton team withdrew from the league and entered the following season on a couple of occasions, once being kept in the same division and once being dropped a division. But regardless of how many times you wish to point out not knowing about it, nor having it happened to your knowledge, it still does not take away from the fact it can happen and nothing is in place should it do so. Even if they were treated as a new team, surely that then means they would go into a division as high as possible based upon their known ability, which if 2 were relegated besides the withdrawn team, would leave an empty spot exactly where they came from.
I'm not trying to get into any arguement, but you said yourself this could be put on here for feedback on the proposal, which is what i have given, my personal thoughts on it and the rules surrounding it.
|
|
|
Post by dmiley on Jan 25, 2014 23:50:12 GMT
Lefty, the 'if they were in that position...' was so as to be not be too unfair to teams below. Could we really say a team withdrawing in mid-table should take pressure off a relegation battle? That said, I don't think they should not take up a relegation spot but more it should be looked at individually. I get the impression the committee prefer to promote, rather than not relegate- especially in those circumstances. Which I don't totally agree with, but not enough to remove that clause.
I agree it is unfortunate that withdrawn teams stay on the website, as it does seem to suggest that they fill a relegation spot automatically. In contrast to a lot of what has been said.
|
|
Lefty
International Player
Posts: 538
|
Post by Lefty on Jan 26, 2014 2:24:25 GMT
Surely the whole idea is to try and not have teams withdraw, and i've known the Committee in the past to do everything they can to stop that happening (the old Tev A incident springs to mind)
Taking this into account and whats been said above, then looking at it for the promotion side of things shows no punishment should teams withdraw from a top 2 position, infact would probably allow them to withdraw and still enter the following season possibly with a promotion.
Whereas if it was any team that withdraws regardless, then that would be a punishment to a team that withdraws, and a huge incentive to try and keep the team going until the end of the season atleast. This then helps to stop things like this happening and what does actually ruin a division. In my opinion maybe adding something that will actually try to stop teams dropping out is the better solution, but if not then this way it does make things very clear.
|
|
|
Post by monkey on Jan 26, 2014 11:22:02 GMT
Yo.
I am a bit drunk now but my comments are as follows. I don't know of any team that withdraws when they are in the top 2. It just doesn't happen. Does it Matt? As far as what Matt said then of course i would like discussion and apologies if my comments stifled that. I will check on the stats site for the Girton and come back to you.
|
|
thedoctor
Won a few trophies
He's Back
Posts: 241
|
Post by thedoctor on Jan 26, 2014 12:14:58 GMT
I for one am shocked. Shocked that a committee member could be drunk on the Sabbath.
|
|