London Bike Polo League

not going to +

shoulda worn your moses glasses, them orange beauties, you would have seen it in 3D.
x

I could have been wearing x-ray vision goggles and I still wouldn't have been able to tell. You hit that ball so hard, there was was chunks knocked out of it.

Seems I've missed a day's worth of heated internet. I know that people are sick of talking about this, but I thought I should put in my two cents worth:

1. The rules decided in the Slaughtered Lamb should be gospel. They can be embellished as time goes on and we encounter these issues, but they are the basis of this league and shouldn't be messed around with. If one team get an advantage because another team turns up, who cares? It's probably not going to be vastly greater than the advantage gained by that team being made to play and not putting any real effort into it.

2. We agreed that games had to be played in a two week period, on a specified game day (although these never got decided on) and it was up to the home team to call the match time and location if an agreement couldn't be reached. I think that we'd all be pissed if teams started being tactical about this (i.e. calling games while people are in Paris), but it hasn't happened so far.

If teams aren't going to play their games, they can take their negative points like men or they can bitch about it, in which case they are welcome to quit the league. The negative points are their because it means that games will get played - why should you be allowed to participate in the league as and when you can be bothered and still potentially finish above an enthusiastic but shit team (i.e. one team only plays one match, gets one point while another plays all their matches but loses them all)?

We agreed on the minus one and the time limits and I think that really, No Sympathy should be made to take the points. However, I accept that this is new and there are teething troubles so I don't object to the rules being relaxed for the first few weeks. There will come a point, however, when I think that teams should be made to take the points (the road to hell, good intentions, etc).

1. If people regularly miss games/fail to arrange them, I think that serious consideration should be given to whether they are allowed to participate in the following season.

2. The goal difference/total goals thing is kinda bullshit. We are ranking the league by points, the rest is just to tie break. We need to agree how this is going to happen. I think that the two options are as follows:

a) Goals scored. This is where you would want to have the 15 points for a team winning by forfeit, otherwise it would effectively nullify their three points. That team would have expected to have scored at least one goal, so some should be awarded. As 3 points = 15 goals, this makes sense.

We then have the minus goals (or nil goals, although I'm leaning towards minus goals) because I think that a forfeiting team should be penalised in all measures of performance. As 1 point = 5 goals, they should get -5. This means that if there was a points draw, they should (potentially) be moved below a team that bothered to play their games.

b) Goal difference. This could be calculated on an average basis, with forfeited games not brought into the calculation. This would mean that at the end of the season forfeit penalties would only show in the league points.

I'm sure I'll wake up to a cubic fuckload of neg rep, but hey ho.

Being logical about this, if you get three points, you must have got 15 goals.
The question is really about how many goals the forfeiting team should be awarded. I say that it should represent a worse case scenario, which would be nil. However, given that they get -1 point, I'm also inclined to say they should receive -5 goals.

;354694']I can't personally think of a substantial argument against that.

I kind of agree. Although I remember the meeting where we decided on the -1, and maybe thats punishment enough, given that the league is prinarily about points. Maybe GD should be assumed as three 5-0 defeats, ie +15 for the team that shows up, with no GD penalty for the losers. I think its about just how much we penalise the no-shows (not just MT..)

Participating in the league is as much about making the effort and being organized to play as it is about playing to win for the points.

If in the end there is a tie and one of those teams had a game where their opponent forfeited, that shouldn't count against them when deciding the tie-breaker.
Also, giving a forfeiting team -5 points will effectively knock them out of the goal difference running.

I propose in the case of a forfeit, showing team +3 league points, +15 goal points and the non-showing team -1 league point and -1 goal point.
What we don't want to happen is a team dropping out just because they forfeited one game regardless of circumstances.
We also don't want a backlog of games happening which will be harder to prevent as winter continues.

Anybody else who has a proposal, make it short and sweet PM/email/phone me and I'll put up a poll so we can be a bit democratic about it.

I have no objection to 15:-1 score for no shows. In fact, I think that it sounds more sensible than my -5, especially as I was torn between awarding 0 goals and -5.

However, I've yet to see a solid argument as to why 3 points isn't 15 goals.

;356982']

I propose in the case of a forfeit, showing team +3 league points, +15 goal points and the non-showing team -1 league point and -1 goal point.

+1

I agree with the mikes points proposal... like its been mentioned, this is the first run at it so its good that these teething problems exist.

I spoke briefly with ryan (MT) about it yesterday regarding the awarding the points and rearranging of the match, and he said he was fine with it... as in he wanted to get on with the next match too.

;356982']If in the end there is a tie and one of those teams had a game where their opponent forfeited, that shouldn't count against them when deciding the tie-breaker.
Also, giving a forfeiting team -5 points will effectively knock them out of the goal difference running.

The nice thing about goal difference is that, by not giving a team 15 points, nor them receiving any goals against, it minimizes the effect on goal difference. It's quite possible that games could end 15 GF, 12 GA, creating a +3 GD. More likely games will end with a team getting +7 or so GD. However, if we automatically award 15 goals, with no GA, GD get a really huge bump up, that is never neutralized by GA, and will remain in the league table till the ned of the season.

That is, in a way, having another team not show up is the absolute best thing that can happen to a team (even better than beating a team 15-0, because the other team also gets penalized). The +3 points on their own seem fine to me. If we really want we could throw +6 GD to the team that did not forfeit (this seems like a compromise). However, I don't think there should be an extra advantage as huge as 15 GD on top of the PTS.

(Unless we calculate by goals, rather than goal difference. In this case, the 15 points are equal to the 3 points, and therefore only fair).

If we really want we could throw +6 GD to the team that did not forfeit (this seems like a compromise). However, I don't think there should be an extra advantage as huge as 15 GD on top of the PTS.

I thought of that as well. It's a very good point.

i agree with Horatio...as always.

The nice thing about goal difference is that, by not giving a team 15 points, nor them receiving any goals against, it minimizes the effect on goal difference. It's quite possible that games could end 15 GF, 12 GA, creating a +3 GD. More likely games will end with a team getting +7 or so GD. However, if we automatically award 15 goals, with no GA, GD get a really huge bump up, that is never neutralized by GA, and will remain in the league table till the ned of the season.

That is, in a way, having another team not show up is the absolute best thing that can happen to a team (even better than beating a team 15-0, because the other team also gets penalized). The +3 points on their own seem fine to me. If we really want we could throw +6 GD to the team that did not forfeit (this seems like a compromise). However, I don't think there should be an extra advantage as huge as 15 GD on top of the PTS.

(Unless we calculate by goals, rather than goal difference. In this case, the 15 points are equal to the 3 points, and therefore only fair).

zactly +1

The nice thing about goal difference is that, by not giving a team 15 points, nor them receiving any goals against, it minimizes the effect on goal difference. It's quite possible that games could end 15 GF, 12 GA, creating a +3 GD. More likely games will end with a team getting +7 or so GD. However, if we automatically award 15 goals, with no GA, GD get a really huge bump up, that is never neutralized by GA, and will remain in the league table till the ned of the season.

That is, in a way, having another team not show up is the absolute best thing that can happen to a team (even better than beating a team 15-0, because the other team also gets penalized). The +3 points on their own seem fine to me. If we really want we could throw +6 GD to the team that did not forfeit (this seems like a compromise). However, I don't think there should be an extra advantage as huge as 15 GD on top of the PTS.

(Unless we calculate by goals, rather than goal difference. In this case, the 15 points are equal to the 3 points, and therefore only fair).

If we play goal difference, there will always be problems. The teams people are most likely to not bother playing will be the better ones, who would expect to have a greater than +6 GD, meaning that the top of the table would be hit hardest and there would be an incentive for teams not to play against better teams.

I still say we need to choose a tie breaking method (be it season goals or goal difference). If we go with goal difference we use a season average and ignore any forfeited matches.

Counting the GD from forfeited matches will almost certainly skew things. I think that cumulative season goals, however, can work with the 15 goals/-1 goals thing.

Perhaps a poll to see which method people prefer?

I still say we need to choose a tie breaking method (be it season goals or goal difference). If we go with goal difference we use a season average and ignore any forfeited matches.

This is almost the same as just not giving them 15 points (especially if forfeited matches are ignored). The average GD of every team who has not had a game forfeited will be equal to their sum GD, and teams that have forfeited will have an average GD which is proportional to the other teams. I don't really like the idea of averaging (especially when we're talking of a range from 0-5), but this may be the fairest method.

However, if this is the chosen method, it still makes little sense to award a team 15 points when another team forfeits.

And the problem with using season goals as a tie-breaking method is that, in polo, 5 goals = win = 1 pt (since these are not timed games, like other sports). Therefore, there is going to be a very close relationship between goals and points at the top (and possibly the bottom) of the table, which could result in a tie in overall goals as well as PTS (the table currently has a three-way tie and a two-way tie in PTS and goals - however, this may quickly change as the season moves on). We could then need a third tie-breaking method, such as Goals Against (which is what is was being used). However, we are then back to the problem of team which won be forfeit having an advantage in the stats.

That is to say, goals scored is a decent, accurate, and simple method (I personally prefer it to GD). And ideally, it will work perfectly without any skew. But it could go wrong if the is a tie which needs goals against counted, and we won't know if this is the case until the end of the season.

This is almost the same as just not giving them 15 points (especially if forfeited matches are ignored). The average GD of every team who has not had a game forfeited will be equal to their sum GD, and teams that have forfeited will have an average GD which is proportional to the other teams. I don't really like the idea of averaging (especially when we're talking of a range from 0-5), but this may be the fairest method.

However, if this is the chosen method, it still makes little sense to award a team 15 points when another team forfeits.

And the problem with using season goals as a tie-breaking method is that, in polo, 5 goals = win = 1 pt (since these are not timed games, like other sports). Therefore, there is going to be a very close relationship between goals and points at the top (and possibly the bottom) of the table, which could result in a tie in overall goals as well as PTS (the table currently has a three-way tie and a two-way tie in PTS and goals - however, this may quickly change as the season moves on). We could then need a third tie-breaking method, such as Goals Against (which is what is was being used). However, we are then back to the problem of team which won be forfeit having an advantage in the stats.

That is to say, goals scored is a decent, accurate, and simple method (I personally prefer it to GD). And ideally, it will work perfectly without any skew. But it could go wrong if the is a tie which needs goals against counted, and we won't know if this is the case until the end of the season.

It is pretty much exactly the same as not giving them the 15 goals. My point was that we need to choose a tie breaker and stick to it.

The problem with goals conceded is that you have to include hypothetical goals in the calculation for forfeiting teams. As this is the most contentious point (and given the potential for it to produce misleading results) I think we should ignore the idea of goals conceded as a (second) tie breaker.

This leaves season's goals or average goal difference (which I'd be tempted to do as a number between -1 and 1, were it done). I think that they are equally fair (as long as we don't start rounding the averaged figure, etc) and perhaps it would be worth having season goals as the first tie breaker and average GD as the second?

There is always a risk that two teams will have exactly the same stats (especially at the further reaches of the table), but I think that is a problem that we are always going to face. Worst comes to the worst (all measures of performance are tied), we have a single match to decide a winner.

So what's the decision on a forfeit? Should we have a face to face discussion soon? I don't think I'm out and about this weekend, maybe one night this week?

Did NS and MT ever play?

Playing tomorrow at 12.

It seems there's no decision made. A face to face discussion would be good.

Playing tomorrow at 12.

where??

Playing tomorrow at 12.
I hope we weren't. Ray told me it wasn't happening.

Ooooh the other team was there!!!
;)

Results.
JiHaD Vs Debauvoir Townies
5-4 5-3 5-4 (this might be slightly wrong.)

Good even games throughout. Really good play but I think we were all a little tired at the start. Hilights were hassan hitting the wall in the last! And plenty of falls.

Good games everyone and cheers for all the support.

Shinscar is dead to me.

Shinscar is dead to me.

results for Townies vs JiHaD: 3-5, 3-5, 4-5.

as jol said, really good games, first was a bit slow but the pace picked up. and yeah, lots of wall checks.

Shinscar is dead to me.

Can't rep you.

Shinscar is dead to me.

Can't rep you.

results for Townies vs JiHaD: 3-5, 3-5, 4-5.

as jol said, really good games, first was a bit slow but the pace picked up. and yeah, lots of wall checks.

This is correct. Good games!