thefivetownsquizleague.myfastforum.org

Neil Aspland · Quiz Virgin Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Posts: 27

For many years, there has been a rule that a player has to play at least 50% of their team's matches in each half of the season to qualify for the individual competition. With each team having 18 matches this season, that means 5 out of the first 9 and 5 out of the second 9 (this 9-9 split of the season is explicitly confirmed by the handbook for 2001-02, which like this season had two divisions of 7 teams playing each other 3 times).

The tables published throughout this season have been based on the criterion of having played 50% of matches so far. This may be the best thing to do until a team's season reaches halfway, but afterwards there is obviously no point in including players who did not play 5 matches out of the first 9. The table should now be showing only those who qualified from the first half of the season and have played 50% of matches in the second half.

However, the current Division One table incorrectly includes at least three players who did not play in 5 of their team's first 9 matches (inferable from their absence at that point from the table, a copy of which I have in front of me). Please can this be rectified on the current table, especially as one of these players is in a prominent position?

I did point out this error to the Secretary and Chairman 7 weeks ago, and reminded the former 4 weeks ago, but nothing seems to have happened. It now needs to be sorted out quickly to clarify the position before the last match of the season.

Neil.

Forum Administration

I've already told you, that the season before last this was discussed at an AGM and changed from 50% of matches in each half of the season to 50% of matches at any given point. I know this because I have looked at the individual spreadsheets from the last three seasons and the headings at the top show that this change was not the first time this current season but the first time last season, 2007-08, making this season 2008-09 the second season of this qualification rule. A handbook from 2001-02 is somewhat distant in the past to be quoting from don't you think? If we've changed the rule like we did then it's obviously going to be wrong!

The Division One table is not wrong on the basis of the qualification as it now exists. It's perfectly possible to miss the first 5 matches and end up having played half or more of the total matches.

Nobody had an issue with this the first season it was changed, last season, 2007-08, so why now, is it because you don't like the person in the lead, who can't now be caught?

Neil Aspland · Quiz Virgin Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Posts: 27

You haven't 'already told me' anything. You said that you were going to check the minutes of the AGMs to see if the rule had ever been changed. The result of your research seems to be that the rule was changed at the 2007 AGM, which took place at the Golden Lion in Ferrybridge.

Now, I was at that meeting. So was my (then) fiancee, and so were most of my team-mates. None of us can remember a discussion of this rule taking place. And why would it? The rule was brought in many years ago after one player racked up a good score in the first half of the season and protected it by not playing in the second half - and duly won the individual title. For the AGM to have changed it back again, the membership must have decided that this sort of behaviour was acceptable after all, and that they would be happy for anyone to do the same in future. And this rather unlikely discussion, along with the vote, must have taken place without me noticing! Perhaps you can supply me with the relevant extract from the minutes to prove your claim that the rule was changed? Incidentally, I suspect you may be confusing it with the rule that required a player to have played in the first half of the season to be eligible for the cup competitions - which was rescinded a few years ago.

I quoted from the 2001-02 handbook because that was a previous occasion (the last?) when the season contained three all-play-all sections rather than the usual two. There was a suggestion that the individual rule didn't apply when the season doesn't naturally divide into two halves, but this precedent proves that it does (and it clearly should anyway).

The reason you will have stopped putting '50% of matches in each half of the season' on the individual table heading is obviously that you forgot to add it halfway through last season (there would be little point in including it until that point).

Personalities don't enter into it - not for me, at least. Obviously Barry has not attempted to indulge in any unfair tactics (he has no need to), and he has been unlucky that his busy life has seen him narrowly fall foul of this rule. But rules are rules - even for a television star!

Neil.

peterpotato · Team Captain Joined: 13 Feb 2007 Posts: 101

Just to add, I agree totally with Neil, and said so earlier in the season when the issue was first raised verbally.

The rule about playing 50% of matches in BOTH halves of a league season was a good amendment made several years ago, intended to stop further abuses from individuals running into an early unassailable lead, and then packing in.

I've attended all AGM's since this rule was brought in, and would never vote for it to be repealed. If it had been repealed, I too would certainly have remembered. This wouldn't be the first time that decisions made at AGMs have been "mis-remembered" by certain members of the Committee !

This is not about certain individuals winning it, Simon, and to suggest so is a "cheap shot". Barry Simmons is by some way the best "quizzer" in our league, and I'm sure he doesn't need a FTQL title to confirm this.

This rule wasn't brought in to "Stop Barry", or penalise anybody else for that matter who has commitments preventing them from playing regularly. From this point of view, the "50% of games in each half" is, on the whole, a good rule.

Maybe the solution is to finish with the individuals tables altogether in future, but that is for the AGM to decide.

Official Simon

I am prepared to accept that although I am certain that this must have been discussed and agreed, that a mistake has been made in not minuting it. I am also prepared to accept that in that case then the previous rule should be applied. I would not have changed this without thinking there was a reason to do so, ie that the meeting had agreed it. I cannot see what there would to be gained by that.

However, whichever rule you use, Barry qualifies, because he played 5 matches out of Wanderers first 9, which is the halfway point for each team, 9 matches (you have 18 matches total, don't forget that two weeks in the season are BYE weeks, one in each half of your fixtures), and 6 of the second 9, so he qualifies either way.

Maybe you are falling into the trap of thinking that "the halfway point" is at the same point for everybody, but it's not, the halfway point is when a team has played half its matches, which for all teams this year is 9 matches, not 10 or 11 (ie half the number of league weeks), and this is especially prevalent in a season which has an odd number of weeks and also a season with BYE weeks.

I accept your point about the 2001-02 season when teams also played each other 3 times but I can only say that at that time I had obviously not spotted the differential provided by an odd number of weeks and/or BYE weeks at that point. I accept that that was in error at that time and should have been provided for in qualification rules.

I have also checked last season's Individual competition for both divisions and this does not affect the final results. Neither does it affect things in 2001-02.

We will take steps to make sure this particular rule is discussed again at the AGM and addressed in next season's rules. Maybe it should be that you need to play 50% of matches in each third of the season in a season split into thirds not halves. This may convolute things, 3 out of 6 (x 3 thirds) is still 9 matches total. What do you think?
_________________
The worst ever contestant in the history of Mastermind...apparently

Official Simon · Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 7:58 am Post subject: Individual tables

Neil Aspland · Quiz Virgin Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Posts: 27

Hmmm... It was discussed but not minuted. Yeah, right... And what points were made in this discussion that nobody else seems to remember? Who originally raised it, and why? Remember, this rule was brought in to combat unsporting behaviour and has been uncontroversial ever since. I'd be intrigued to know why the membership thought it appropriate to rescind the rule.

And just in case we don't believe that (ahem), we're also offered the theory that Barry played 5 of his team's first 9 games anyway. I am perfectly aware of bye weeks meaning that different teams reach their halfway point at different times. But I have in my possession the sheet containing the results from Monday 26 Jan 2009. This shows that the Wanderers had played 9 matches at that point. Lee and Diane appear on the individual table, having played 9 games. Barry does not appear. I also have the following week's sheet (actually two weeks later because of the postponed matches). Barry now reappears having played 5 out of 10.

Now, it's perfectly possible that Barry played the 9th match but not the 10th match and that he was missed off the table accidentally after the former (I remember the website earlier showed he'd played four from eight). However, the Wanderers' 9th match was a 73-68 defeat to Crofton (other Div 1 scores that week being 69-67 and 59-56). That to me has all the hallmarks of a match where Barry was absent. The Wanderers' 10th match was an 83-68 win over Flanagan's (other Div 1 scores being 65-58 and 69-54). That to me looks like a match where Barry played. Perhaps the scoresheets can be re-checked, but in any case the players from those matches ought to have some idea who else played.

It's arguable that, in a season like this, a player should play 50% in each third (and ironically Barry may meet that apparently more stringent criterion). But the precedent from 2001-02 makes it clear that it was a 9-9 split then, so in the absence of any special provision for this type of season, the same pattern will clearly have to apply.

Neil.

Official Simon · Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:06 pm Post subject: Individual qualification

I've made it quite clear that unfortunately I don't specifically remember it myself. All I am saying is why would I have done that specifically if it hadn't been discussed? Why would I do that two years ago without a reason to do so. Why would changing a minor rule of the individual competition spring to the front of my mind as something to change on its own and unilaterally? One point that does spring to mind is that it wasn't "a rescinding" of the rule but a minor amendment, a tweaking to allow more people to qualify for the final table. And it isn't actually a rule either, rather a convention that has developed over the years.

I will go through the scoresheets with a fine toothcomb and establish exactly who played when.

I will also make some phone calls to people and try and find someone who does remember previous meetings and discussions and if it turns out that I am wrong and you are right Neil then the action you request to rectify this situation will be taken.

I'm beginning to think the same as Peter, maybe if things are going to reach this degree of debate then probably we're better off without the individual competition altogether, especially in its new form with the altered scoring system from this season, which as you know I wasn't keen on either.

I would just ask this, on every individual scoresheet in the results leaflet this season and also at the top of the page on the website the qualification criteria has been clearly stated. Why didn't you complain about this earlier in the season when the first of those scoresheets was issued or the first website results appeared?
_________________
The worst ever contestant in the history of Mastermind...apparently

peterpotato · Team Captain Joined: 13 Feb 2007 Posts: 101

Right, just before I settle down to Leicester v. Leeds, my final word......

I never noticed the change to the headings from "50% of matches in each half of the season" to "50% of the games played by your team at any stage of the season". I am happy to conclude though that this was not as a result of an AGM amendment, but more an accidental re-wording by the Secretary from one season to the next. Nothing mischievous or underhand, just a simple mistake.

My thinking behind scrapping them altogether ? Yes, this debate does not reflect well on any of us, but more, these quizzes are in essence a team game. Surely the point is to do all we can for our teams, not get fixated on how many individual points we score on a given night. There are certainly better vehicles for personal quiz glory and status, if that's the motivation.

My worry for our quiz league is that more and more people keep dropping out. One reason that I've often heard is that new people turn up who like quizzes, and in fact are jolly good at their own pub quiz, but go home at the end of one of ours feeling to some degree stupid and humiliated. If "naming and shaming" them by placing them at the bottom of an individual league table adds to this, then I'm all for scrapping them.

Finally, as I've said before, Barry is undoubtedly the best quizzer in our league, and after such a great showing this season, with only two questions wrong after 11 games, he deserves to win the award, so I hope the stats prove this. Incidentally, Chris Cobb in the second division is in an identical position, so hopefully he will claim that award too, and not be robbed on a "technicality".

Official Simon · Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:26 pm Post subject: Individual Qualifiction

peterpotato · Team Captain Joined: 13 Feb 2007 Posts: 101

Have you been drinking, Simon ?

Official Simon · Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:39 pm Post subject: ?

No, and your point is?
_________________
The worst ever contestant in the history of Mastermind...apparently

Neil Aspland · Quiz Virgin Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Posts: 27

Whose timing looks a bit strange, exactly? I first pointed out the error to you on Feb 16, the very same day that the results sheet was published which contained the table on which Barry incorrectly reappeared. At the time I was 9th (really 8th) and was concerned that a 5TQL stalwart like John Howarth (then 2nd, really top) was going to miss out on the individual title due to an administrative error (as indeed he still could).

Despite one reminder since, nothing happened, so I had to raise it on the forum while there is time to clarify the situation before the last match. If I am trying to win the title myself at all costs, then why would I have asked you to deduct the 2 points you incorrectly credited me with at one stage this season?

Missing off the full rules from the heading of the individual table does not constitute a rule change. I still cannot fathom why you think an AGM might have changed the rule. 'To allow more people to qualify for the final table', you suggest. That would be people who play the first half of the season and sit out the second, then?

Let's face it, the '50% in each half' rule has never been changed, and the 2001-2002 handbook confirms that it applies to the first 9 and second 9 matches in a season like the current one. And Barry played 4 out of the first 9*. It's not rocket science, is it?

Neil.

*Incidentally, why do you state with confidence that Barry played 5 of the first 9 and in a later posting say that you'll have to check the scoresheets?

Official Simon · Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:32 am Post subject:

What I mean is it's been two years with this situation, so why only a few weeks before the end of this season, especially with the standings are they are currently, that's what to an outsider observer might look curious?

When I said I will check the sheets it was because I said Barry qualifies without having looked at any records and therfore so as to set everybody's mind at rest. I still haven't done that and I shall do it when I have time. You may be right, you may be wrong, I may be right I may be wrong, and if I am wrong I will concede the point and rectify it. But don't worry it will be sorted out eventually and by that I mean in the next couple of days.

Maybe if you think the Individual tables are being incompently run then you should volunteer to compile them next year with the way you are going on about it to the point of boredom. I'd be happy for that. Mind you, it doesn't matter for next year, because Peter's going to get them abolished.
_________________
The worst ever contestant in the history of Mastermind...apparently

Deborah Aspland · Quiz Virgin Joined: 17 May 2008 Posts: 35

Official Simon · Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:17 pm Post subject: Abolitions...

I was being facetious, as per Peter's posts above re not liking the individual competition and wanting to get rid of it etc. Nothing's going to be abolished if it's anything to do with me (least of all the AGM!).

Can you help me by the way (or anybody!). I have a set of AGM minutes on my hard drive that Jason did and they are dated 2.10.06 at the Golden Lion, Ferrybridge. Did we have AGM at Golden Lion two years in a row, because I could swear that that was the one where we discussed the issue of Scotty not wanting to be promoted after he'd won the Second Division and Steve Kidd had come second and was kicking up a fuss about promotion etc? But that was at the end of 2006-07 season, which tends to suggest that we had an AGM there in September 2007 also? These minutes are definitely from 2006 because they clearly refer to the David Marsh night being set for "Monday 9th October 2006".

That to me says we must have had the 2007 AGM at the Golden Lion also, after Dudes had won the Second Division and didn't want to go up, because I know for certain we discussed that issue at an AGM at the Golden Lion.

Can you help, have you any agendas or anything still in your possession because I don't appear to have minutes from 2007 but I feel there must be some somewhere? The problem is that unfortunately I will have pasted the 2008 minutes over them on the same page as the previous year's minutes on the website this year also.
_________________
The worst ever contestant in the history of Mastermind...apparently

Neil Aspland · Quiz Virgin Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Posts: 27

The 2007 AGM was indeed at the Golden Lion, but I'm pretty sure the 2006 one was at the New Junction.

Sorry to be boring, but I still can't imagine why you think we changed this uncontroversial rule.

Yes, I'd love to compile the individual tables next season - I thought you'd never ask!

Neil.

Guest · Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:15 pm Post subject:

Good for you Neil Aspland!

Congratulations on your score in the individual table, you were desperately unlucky last year, but once again you have opened your legs and shown your class. Also thanks for starting off a dynamic thread. May there be many more. Worth reading now these pages.

I am positive everybody wants to congratulate you, Barry and John on making it such a close run thing.

Whatever the outcome, you have put up a stout set of arguments and have obviously paid great attention to detail. If the minutes don't turn up the ruling is a no brainer.

Having spoken to Simon last night, I thought I might have heard something about the rule change, but on reflection, if the AGM was at the Golden Lion I would probably not have been there. I do remember this season's AGM which I turned up for but left as, call me quirky, I would rather not be threatened by other attandees and, of course, I wouldn't want to "kick up a fuss ... etc".

Kudos to Simon for another fab season. I think this year the league has been the most competetive ever. If I could set out my wish list for the future..

* For admins not to take reasonable arguments as personal criticism.
* A Mastermind competition
* The Charity/Memorial nights to be moved to the bank holidays and the season not to be otherwise broken up
* 16 Teams
* Affiliation with other leagues and a champions cup.
* More credit for Barry's acheivment and current national profile - we really do not make enough fuss of members of the league who perform extraordinary quiz things outside the league - Look at SImon - he won 1/4 million yet signs himself with his second Mastermind show

Perhaps that could be another thread

Peace

Official Simon · Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:48 pm Post subject: Butllet points

One Admin's answers to some very good bullet points.

1. Admins not to take reasonable arguments as personal criticism. I don't take reasonable arguments as personal criticism unless I know they are intended as such.
2. A Mastermind competition - What an ace idea. Will try and start one. I might even revise Jim Carrey for this.
3. The Charity/Memorial nights to be moved to the bank holidays and the season not to be otherwise broken up. A billy bonkers idea, nobody would come. The only bank holidays at the time of year when we get good turnout and in proper season rather than silly season are Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year's Day, hardly quiz event material days!
4. 16 Teams - Well naturally this is a good idea, 30 teams would be even better. We are going to make recruiting a 2009 summer priority I can assure you.
5. Affiliation with other Leagues and a Champions Cup. Best idea I've ever heard. I have had the idea of a Yorkshire end of season Champions' knockout knocking around in my head for a while now. Need to make more effort to get this off the ground. Thanks for reminding me.
6. More credit for Barry's acheivment and current national profile - we really do not make enough fuss of members of the league who perform extraordinary quiz things outside the league - Look at Simon - he won 1/4 million yet signs himself with his second Mastermind show. Barry is a fantastic player and I'm sure lots of people come to our website through the profile provided by having a real live Egghead on the membership. For me he really has been far and away the best player in this season's league and with only two individual questions wrong all season. Oh, and thanks for the moral support Steve, but I have really got over it now.
_________________
The worst ever contestant in the history of Mastermind...apparently

peterpotato · Team Captain Joined: 13 Feb 2007 Posts: 101

I'll post some suggestions on another thread, and hopefully stimulate some positive debate, but just to wrap up this thread on this season's individual competition........

Congratulations to both John Howarth and Chris Cobb.

As always, to win this award takes a wide breadth of quiz knowledge, sprinkled with that little bit of luck, so well done to both.

Special mention to Barry, losing out on a technicality, but I'm sure that everybody who knows him would acknowledge him as the best quizzer in our league, not just this season, but from the day he first started. He has his weaker subjects, as we all do, but his depth of quiz knowledge is astounding, founded on years of hard work........the Gary Player quote "the more I pactice, the luckier I get" seems vert apt !

Official Simon · Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:49 pm Post subject:

He was certainly the best player this season, only two questions wrong...
_________________
The worst ever contestant in the history of Mastermind...apparently

peterpotato · Team Captain Joined: 13 Feb 2007 Posts: 101

....Barry has always been the best quizzer in the league, irrespective of where he finishes in any individual table.

Let's not get fixated with determining how good at quizzes somebody is, based on a where they finish in a table after being asked two questions per week.