Spud wrote:
He hasn't won both then. . . . That will be invalid.
You can't play twice in the same half of the match. . . .

I can understand what with it being new that there will be a little confusion to begin with, but it's quite clear and easy to follow I think. . .

chaos wrote:
the same player cant play at 6 and 9
its not rocket science

Deutch wrote:
If you play 7 players and 5,6,7 are going to play again then 6 & 7 will play twice in the same set. If you are going down the lines of not allowing anyone to play twice in the same set (that being the 2nd for obvious reasons) then you are gearing this trial to a 5 man team set up which I feel will be voted out by the majority in September.

Brooker wrote:
Sorry Mark, but how can 6 & 7 play again, where would thier position be in the last 3 frames as there is no number 6 or 7 against any of the playing positions.

Your previous post was as follows (as on the result cards)

1 v 1
2 v 2
3 v 3
4 v 4
5 v 5

1 v 3
2 v 4
3 v 5
4 v 1
5 v 2

This led ne to believe that whoever played at position 3 4 & 5 for the home team must play 8 9 &10 in the second half (unless substituted) & whoever played 5 1 & 2 for the away team must play 8 9 & 10 in the second half (unless substituted)

So how could any player who was playing the 6th & 7th frames then play again in the last 3 frames.

Shaggy wrote:
That was the confusion we had yesterday Mark... Sean played at 1 so as far as we were concerned if he was to be played again he would have to play 6, as indicated on the card, and that decison needed to be made prior to playing players 6,7,and 8.

Our understanding was that even if the 3 subs had absolute blinders tehy couldn't play again.

My personal opinion is that the second 5 games should not be dictated by positional changes, and if you happen to draw the same player again, then thats the way it is.

Golden wrote:
Ok . . It's this simple . .

You put your first five on the sheet . . This in effect is 'dropping' any others that may be in attendance . .

Then for your second set you decide on who out of the remaining players is coming in for the second set and who they are replacing and make the swaps . .

If you have players who you specifically want to get two frames you make sure they're in the first set . . You make your decision at the point of putting your first five down . . It's the same as before when you had to decide who was being dropped for a match each week . .

If you have say 8 players then you decide after the first set of five who are going to get replaced and by default the remaining players get two frames . .

I think the emphasis needs to be taken away from 'substitues in-running' perhaps . .

Simple enough?

Brooker wrote:




Sorry Mark, but how can 6 & 7 play again, where would thier position be in the last 3 frames as there is no number 6 or 7 against any of the playing positions.

Your previous post was as follows (as on the result cards)

1 v 1
2 v 2
3 v 3
4 v 4
5 v 5

1 v 3
2 v 4
3 v 5
4 v 1
5 v 2

This led ne to believe that whoever played at position 3 4 & 5 for the home team must play 8 9 &10 in the second half (unless substituted) & whoever played 5 1 & 2 for the away team must play 8 9 & 10 in the second half (unless substituted)

So how could any player who was playing the 6th & 7th frames then play again in the last 3 frames.

Also this does not restrict it to a 5 man team event, you can change all 5 players in the second half as far as i understood, so it extends it to a possible 10 man team (Minimum 5 players)

Not being able to pick players again who have played the 6th & 7th frames if they have played well is nothing new, in the old rules if someone had a blinder in any positon they couldn't be picked again because you only got 1 frame anyway, & its unlikely the other team would pick the best player if you were using the pick again rule.

I like the set up the way it is. the home team keep the same positions in the second 5 frames (Bar substitutes) & the away team change to number 3 plays at 6, 4 plays at 7, 5 plays at 8 etc (unless substitutes)

So if you wan a substitute to play at position number 9 in the second half then either number 4 from the first half is dropped (home team) or number 1 from the first half if you are the away team.

I don't think its that confusing

Chuckie wrote:
Consider 3 playing 2, 1 playing 4 leaving 5 vs. 6 yet to play. The first set finishing 4-1 to the home team. So say in the second set 7 beat 9, 8 lost to 6 then wouldn?t the first home 3 be forced to play against the substituted away number 10?

That is all well and good but imagine the away number 3 lost to the home number 2, the home number 1 playing the away substituted number 4 then would the 3 vs. 8 match be added to the opposing or imposing team?s total score for that particular night? Or would it just affect the set in which the incident occurred in?

Bare in mind the following: 1 V 1 2 V 2 3 V 3 4 V 4 5 V 5 Continue this with 1,3,5,8,4 vs. 6,1,7,3,5.

What if number 3 was running late and/or can?t always make it every Tuesday night? Especially if it was an away match! How would the very early arrival of the home team?s number 3 result be counted towards the overall rankings and should the offending player be replaced the following week?

If the home substituted number 8 destroyed the away number 5.5, why is it not possible to pick him/her to play 1.4792? Even more so if 9.99?s cue was greasy and 12.756 never had the appropriate chalk!

Also if you?re the secretary playing number 3, and number 3 was their sec too. Does that not entitle a player playing the same player twice? But all this goes against E=MC small 2. Y*X/3+Z. If Y is < 4.3 then there is one last thing? Isn?t it unfair 6 could play 7 because 7 ate 9?

All these issues do need ironing out but other than that it is an extremely basic to understand and greatly enjoyable new format. I truly hope it does work out.

P.S. If anyone replies to this I promise they will never beat me ever again!

Sting wrote:
For my two pennies worth i think that the whole idea of the new system was to accommodate teams that struggle to get 7 players out every week and that the minimum players required is now 5. With this being the case then each player would play twice and i think the mixing up of the order as per the numbers on the card is fair.

If the team has the same number of players as last year ie 7 then the first 7 would be unique and then 3 can play again (although this does have to be considered at the start of the game and after the first 5 frames have been played). The 3 players who play again have to be put down as per the their numbers on the card (which again is fair as the other team has the freedom to do whatever they want).

If you have more than 7 players, eg 10 then you can put down 10 unique players however you want. That is also fair.

Then you can also have matches where 1 team only has 5 and 1 has 7 or 10 and so the logic above also applies and is fair.

The other case raised is where people who say play at an early number and the team do not have enough subs and will therefore have to play again might not be able to stay around long enough to play 9 or 10 perhaps. I personally feel that as you only need 5 players to have a totally fair chance to win the match, then if a player cant stay around for 2 hours on a tuesday then dont play them. The summer league is not that serious anyway.

So in conclusion i feel the current system is 100% fair and i cannot see a real case for anyone needing to play twice in the same 5 frames.

Why dont you class each 5 frames as its own fixture to make this clearer, then people will understand that no one can play in the same fixture twice as per the old system.

If teams have better players who lack loyalty or cant be bothered to put themselves out then i say fcuck them and play your reliable players twice as they are the one who will ensure the teams survive (which was the whole point of the ruls change in the first place)

ta ta

sting