Division 2 - Runners-up?

[Steve Butler]

I have been trying to sort out a dispute between Wollaton RBL and Mapperley CC regarding their final league fixture that was scheduled for Tuesday 18th March.

You may recall that I sought the views of Peoples Hall and Arnold "B" regarding Mapperley's requirement to postpone this match due to 4 of their players being on holiday.  There were no objections forthcoming so I advised Mapperley to telephone Jack Packer, the manager of Wollaton, to postpone the match.

Mapperley's version of events

Geoff Merry telephoned Jack Packer on Sunday evening to postpone the match.  Jack told Geoff he would let his players know on Tuesday that the match was postponed.  On Tuesday, 3 Wollaton players arrived at Mapperley and complained to a Mapperley player (Andy) that they didn't know it was postponed, that it wasn't right and that Wollaton would claim the match.

Wollaton's version of events

Jack received a telephone call from Geoff Merry on Sunday night requesting a postponement of the match.  Jack said he would have to speak to his players to see if they agreed to a postponement and he asked Geoff to ring him back on Monday.  Jack spoke to his players and they did not agree to a postponement because their players would not be available after 18th March because as far as they were concerned that was the end of the season.  Geoff never phoned on Monday so Jack tried to phone him but got no answer.  On the night of the match Wollaton players were trying to phone Mapperley right until 5 minutes before the match but they couldn't get a reply.

I have requested that in the interests of sportsmanship and particularly because this is such an important match for both Mapperley and Arnold "B" (it will decide who finishes runners-up), the match should be played next Tuesday 25th March.  However, Jack has spoken to his players and they are not available to play the match.

We now have a few options:

1.  Wait until the league meeting on 10th April, listen to both sides and democratically agree on a course of action.
2.  Award the match 8-0 to Wollaton (Arnold B finish 2nd)
3.  Award the match 8-0 to Mapperley (Mapperley finish 2nd)
4.  Call the match a draw (Arnold B finish 2nd)
5.  Arnold "B" and Mapperley contest a play-off to decide who finishes runners-up (my favoured choice!)
6.  Flip a coin to decide who finishes runners-up

The problem is that whichever option we choose (and there could be another option I haven't considered!) someone is going to be left feeling bitter and hard-done-to.

This is what the league rules say:

Teams who are forced to postpone a match must inform the opposing team?s manager and the league secretary by 8pm the previous day. Failure to do so will result in the match being awarded 8-0 to the opposition.

Clearly the rules have been complied with by Mapperley, however the rule does not make it clear whether the opponent, ie. Wollaton, has to agree to a postponement.  As far as I am aware, whenever a team has phoned up to postpone a match in the past, the opponent has never refused the request.

Your thoughts please?  Particularly from Alan Cunningham!

On a personal note I feel that the league rules in general are inadequate in certain areas and I am at present researching the rules of other leagues around the country to make our rules more thorough and watertight.

[Alan Cunningham]

Yes, very interesting - who'd be League Secretary.
I think Wollaton are being a bit petty. I've never known of a team not agreeing to a postponement, and for them to say that the 18th was the end of the season is a bit silly when you consider that there at least another 3 blank weeks. But then you never know, Wollaton, because of the aging team might have delayed any holidays until after the end of the season so I cant see you being able to force them to play
extensively beyond that date.
This is a dispute between Jack PACKER and Geoff MERRY as to the wording of the request.
If it wasnt for the fact that a promotion place is in question I would say call it a draw and 4 points each but this is not so.  Under the circumstances you cant really say 8-0 to either team. And I dont think the toss of a coin should be used. I also dont see how you can authorise a play off because all the relevant points are not level and I'm sure there is nothing in the rules which would cover it.
No matter what you and the Committee decide - Somebody is not going to be happy ! !.

[Robert Wright]

Hi! Steve, I surmise you've seen our rules on posponements. The only differnce to yours is that we have to give 48 hours notice. It's always a contraversal subject. Claiming games is also difficult. That is why to claim a game in the institutes league it has to be agreed by the secretary, treasurer and chairman. Last year we introduced a new rule whereby you only get 4 points if you claim a game , not 5 as you would do if you played and won all your frames (4frames + extra point for the win). I only wanted it to be 3 points, but was voted down. The reason i only wanted it to be 3 points is that working on averages the top team in any division only averages 3.5 points per match, therefore the middle of any division average about 2.8-3 points per match. That seems a fairer way? Also when you claim a game the team you claim it against loses 5 points. This is the punishment for not posponing or re-arranging and then not turning up at all. The previous year a team was promoted, having claimed 2 games and 10 points at that time, by 1 point. If they had played these games then they would not nessesarily been promoted.  

[Alan Cunningham]

Having re-read both versions I feel a bit sorry for Geoff MERRY because he did the right thing by contacting Wollaton and yourself asking for the game to be postponed and you did the reasonable thing by putting it out to see if anyone objected as it could have (and does have ) an effect on promotion issues. If you then take on the Jack PACKER version that he would consult with his players - they are not always within contact and sometimes dont meet up till the night of the match - and geoff was supposed to ring him back on the Monday, which he didnt, and Jack was trying to contact Geoff with negative response. So he, Jack, sent 3 of his players to Mapperley I presume so that Geoff couldnt claim the match.
To comply with the rules, taking into consideration that Wollaton didnt HAVE to agree to a postponement I would award the match to Wollaton. Its a pity that Geoff just didnt contact you and left it for you to tell Wollaton but under the circumstances I think you did the right thing by circulating other clubs for there views as there wasnt time to call an E.G.M.

[Mike Langdon]

Tricky one - As far as i can make out Mapperley had every right to postpone the match providing it was done in time (which i think it was) and I don't think Wollaton have a say in the matter. If you can't get a team out you can't get a team out and as they postponed within the rules ie 24 hours...they have done nothing wrong. Mapperley were being polite in asking Wollaton if they would mind but I don't think Wollaton have the right under the current rules to turn down a postponement therefore how can Mapperley be punished?

If Wollaton now refuse to play the match surely it must be given as an 8-0 to Mapperley.  I guess considering Arnold had a 8-0 walkover this season it kind off evens itself out but i think it's pretty poor from Wollaton to refuse to play the rearranged fixture when it is such an important match which will decide promotion.

I think you're right Steve some of the rules need to be made more clear I was looking today to see if i could find out what would happen if ourselves and Arnold finish on the same points with the same frame difference..will it be a shared title, go on matches against each other or on most wins??? Couldn't find anything. Best get it cleared up before the last match should it happen.

Cheers

Mike

[Alan Cunningham]

Seems hard to believe that Mapperley should have 4 out of the required 6 players on holiday ! ! .

Arnold had their 8-0 walk over because it was cancelled at 7pm on match night.

[Mike Langdon]

If you believe them or not that is not the issue.  The fact is that Mapperley postponed within the 24 hour ruling therefore they have done nothing wrong and can't be punished as far as i can see.

Personally i don't like the 8-0 nil walkover ruling as it seems to punish all the other teams apart from the side that gains 8 free frames and two points.  I think if a side fail to turn up to a match they should be deducted 4 points and the match should be re-arranged with the penalised side having to forefit both doubles frames in the rematch (ie start the match 2 nil down).  This would heavily penalise the team which fails to turn up (correct yes?), would not affect the other sides and would give the side who were inconvenienced by the other teams failure to turn out a headstart in the re-arranged match.  Of course this is only for cases when a side fails to turn up not when a team postpones correctly within 24 hours.

Mike

[Steve Butler]

I think you're right Steve some of the rules need to be made more clear I was looking today to see if i could find out what would happen if ourselves and Arnold finish on the same points with the same frame difference..will it be a shared title, go on matches against each other or on most wins??? Couldn't find anything. Best get it cleared up before the last match should it happen.

Yet again, this would have to be decided by the Committee - I am definitely going to draw up a full set of rules to cover these sort of things, virtually every other league has everything written into the rules.  If it did come down to this, my view would be:

1. Highest points tally
2. Frame difference
3. Frames won
4. Results between the two teams (the team that won most frames)
5. Play-off

But there are 3 other members of the committee who may have a different view and the Chairman would have the casting vote (I think - that's not in the rules either!)