Menu

    Login:

    Mixed League rules proposal - motion carried!

    Update - the results of the survey were significnatly in favour of passing both rules (around 90%) so both rules will be in force from now on.

    There were some questions raised so please bear in mind these points:

    • The top three players of the team above will be as defined by their level (not just strings 1-3)
    • We probably need to allow a little wiggle room around the definition of the 'virtual team' but the principle will apply and captains may be asked to declare who their team would have been if issues with the team below arise.

    The system has not yet been updated to apply these rules automatically so we'll keep an eye out manually and respond to any questions raised from opponents etc. 

    We'll see how it goes this season and can review at the end of the year. Please let us know how it goes from your perspective.

    Thanks,

       Richard and Michael.

     


     Survey now open at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ZFJFHFD. Thanks!


     Hi.

    If you were at the AGM this year you'll have noted that we agreed to run a rules working group to address some team selection problems that have come up over the last season or two ever since with dropped the 'order change' rule.

    This 'order change' rule prevented players from swapping around too much from week to week, both within teams and between teams. In many ways it was an effective rule for keeping teams reasonably consistent from week to week but it was a bit complicated and a bit restrictive - and I used to get quite a few emails each week asking if Tom could play above Jack or is this team order OK? So, we agreed to drop the rule a couple of AGMs ago and tighten up the order based on level to compensate.

    As it turns out, without the constraints on changing order, we have ended up with quite a few instances when players have been swapped about somewhat unfairly, particularly between teams. This has lead to complaints - hence the working group.

    The group consisted of myself, Michael Lok, Ian Johnson, Andrew Blake, Tom Carey, Jeremy Goulding, Nigel Cooper, Rupert Knibbs and we met twice for a couple of hours each time. It's not an easy nut to crack and there was a lot of good discussion. The notes below are really just a summary to give you the general idea.

    The main problems we agreed were between 'higher' and 'lower' teams taking advantage:

    • Higher team players playing for lower teams if the higher team not playing
    • Top players from higher team playing for lower team
    • Using A team players as B team ringers
    • Alternating players between teams to take advantage depending on opposition
    • Higher team helping lower team by loaning players for critical matches
    • Higher team players playing for the lower team when they’re much better than some of the players playing for the higher team

    We also recognised the need for flexibility:

    • Previous ‘order change’ rule was too restrictive and too complicated
    • Some players can’t play on Thurs but can play Weds (or vice versa)
    • Want to be able to choose team order on the night to allow for different arrival times and who’s arrived from the oppo
    • Geographical needs – some players can’t get to more distant away matches in time but they’re OK if they swap teams…
    • Allowing for last minute drop-outs
    • Higher team has a pool of 10 occasional players and this week all 10 can play – so we can really strengthen the B team…

    We brainstormed quite a few potential solutions and it seemed likely that we'd need a bit of a combination and many thanks to Michael who poured over the last couple of season's fixtures to test what we came up with. In fact, based on what he learned we were able to simplify our solution down to two new rules which was something of a relief as we wanted to keep it simple.

    So, without all the detail, the two rules we agreed - and are now proposing - are:

    • Limit player movement such that the top three players can't 'play down' from the higher team the week (match) before. Or two if it's a four player team...
    • It must be possible to declare a 'virtual team' for the higher team that isn't playing by identifying at least a team's worth of players who have played in the last two weeks (matches) for that team and who aren't playing this week.

    Based on Michael's analysis, these two rules would have prevented all the cases in the last couple of seasons that caused or might have caused 'unfair team' concerns so they seem pretty good to be going forward with for the up-coming season.

    The first we can probably implement on the system for the season, the second, probably not but we can go back and check manually if there are any complaints.

    I'll send these rules out for voting on Survey Monkey in the next few days but wanted to get some of the background to you via this mail/news article. We'll carry out the vote and make a final decision in time for the new season.

    Many thanks to all those involved and a special shout out to Michael who spent literally hours going over team selections from the last two years.

    Cheers,

       Richard - Mixed League Secretary