National Series 2011

Very difficult to get the advantage call right - but it can help if you don't whistle straight away as Jono says, and aren't afraid to bring it back, and turnover the ball if the advantage doesn't work out.

With respect to the courts etc, I think there is no reason why the NS shouldn't specify desirable attributes for tournaments - dimensions of courts is one, my current pet fave is to actually make sure that the goals are symmetrically placed, and that the centre-spot is really dead centre.

At this point, in the first year, I think it's more important to actually get tournaments on, and support them by showing up, than criticising organisers for their respective failings. At the end of the season, we can discuss what improvements can be made, without getting blamey.

Good post.

From the first page:

"The idea is not to create 6 generic tournaments that have the same atmosphere or feel but to build up the polo community around the UK via a competition that uses the same basic framework. These will be six individual tournaments in their own right with their own winners and results. The goal is to bring the UK scene closer together through a developed UK tournament season."

^ this is happening.

All hail the NS!

It's also, in my opinion, a good way to take on the league cough next season. Get a few people who are willing and keen to do the work, let them go at it, and enjoy.

just want to bring this up as its been bugging me for a little while now, and i figure heres the place for it -

in sheffield i played as part of imperial, who didnt win a single game. we were awarded 6 points

in brighton i played as part of casuals, we won several games, and lost several, but were only awarded 2 points.

this doesn't seem to make any sense to me....

Unless there are a uniform number of teams in the tournaments, this will keep happening.

Might it make sense at the end of the NS to redo the scoring for each tournament as if the number of teams playing was equal to that of the largest tournament and score the teams who did play in the same way as in the biggest.

This would align the scoring of tournaments with different numbers of teams.

Does that make sense?

would that work the same as making the points available at a tourney some kind of sum of the amount of teams who entered? because then at least you'd have a better idea of your progress mid season, it does seem a little odd that you get more points from entering a smaller tourney as you'd think it would be easier to place higher, or would that put people of going to ones that less people can get to?

You have to remember that NS points are only truly allocated if a team plays 3 NS events AND that your top 4 results will be combined.

We (well, Josh) spent a lot of time designing the points system so that it would give a true reflection of team's standings.

how does it work? not disputing it and I'm sure it all makes sense, just intrigued as to it's workings

The aim for the NS was to bring the UK scene closer together - more people playing more tournaments in more cities (or something like that).

Points are designed to reward teams for two things: attending tournaments and achieving results. Josh worked to balance the two so that attendance was never an overriding factor. We ran a few models and it took a long time to come up with something that really worked. We wanted teams to get some recognition of their investment in tournaments and the NS.

An effect of this is that teams benefit by attending smaller events. More tournaments means more choice and we worried that perhaps there would be some tournaments with hardly any teams. With extra points on the line, we hoped that more teams would attend more events to mop up those extra points.

You cannot significantly improve your NS placing just by attending tournaments, you still need to get results.

If anything is still unclear just let me know - I'm snatching time to explain and I'm aware it's not as concise as it could be.

no, that's cool, makes sense to encourage people to go to as many as possible, I'll live without an exact formula, it'd only confuddle me anyway

Does anyone recall what the NS rules are for a sub? Once you take one you must stick with them? They cannot be a player already in the tournament? I'd like to get this nailed down before the weekend.

I thought they could be in the tournament but only if their original team had been knocked out

I thought they could be in the tournament but only if their original team had been knocked out

Yeah, I think that's correct. I think NS ruleset = LHBA ruleset?

1.2 – Substitutions.
1.2.1 – A team can substitute a player in response to player injury or unforeseen absence.
1.2.2 – If the player injury occurs more than two weeks prior to the tournament, the substituted player must be chosen and declared before the first day of tournament play.
1.2.3 – If the injury occurs during the tournament a substitute may be chosen to replace the injured player.
1.2.4 – Once the change is made, the team is then set for the duration of the tournament.
1.2.5 – No player can play in two different teams in the same event, unless his/her team has already been eliminated

Does anyone recall what the NS rules are for a sub? Once you take one you must stick with them? They cannot be a player already in the tournament? I'd like to get this nailed down before the weekend.

What are the rules for subs over the duration of the season? I.e, once you've played a sub at one tournament to replace a player and then play a different sub at the next tournament to replace a different player?

I have a feeling this might have already been covered so apologies if I'm dredging up old news, I don't remember being clear on it.

I think it was covered a couple of pages ago. Just after Edinburgh. I was reading about it on the bus though so wasn't to bothered.

Basically two players must play together in every tournament they want to collect points for. (Essentially, it's easier to understand it if you imagine teams to be made up of two players with a floating third). So:

A,B,C play together, you get points.
A,B,D play together, you get points.
E,B,C play together, you don't get points. (Unless you decide to make B and C your stable team members, in which case you don't get points for A,B, and D).

LHBPA ruleset, which we won't edit again until post NAH amends and after the UK NS has finished.

There is no ruling on subs over the season as they're tourney rules, not season rules, you'd have to ask for clarification, but the above seems about right.

It's not particularly important, I'm out for all of October and some of November so should a tournament come up then I figured that would be when to play our 'sub card' if you like. Cheers guys.

Yeah, I think that's correct. I think NS ruleset = LHBA ruleset?

Exactly. And vice-versa.

A,B,C play together, you get points.
A,B,D play together, you get points.
E,B,C play together, you don't get points. (Unless you decide to make B and C your stable team members, in which case you don't get points for A,B, and D).

I don't get this. teams are three people, and if one of them isn't able to play then they should be able to take a sub, whichever one of them can't play. It just seems obvious. Surely this style will just mean people form 2 man teams and go looking for the best sub they can at each tourney?

If this is the case this is IMHO a bit restrictive, we ASBO are made up of Adam, Woody and Ste. (A,B & C)

Ste cannot play in Bristol so we will be force to take a sub so we will have (A, B & D)

After Bristol Woody is moving to Vancouver meaning that when ASBO play again the team will be made of (A, C, & E) and be unable to gain any points for this tournament or any future tournament

This is despite the fact that we will have 2 of the stable ASBO team playing in every game.

So we are left with a choice, make no claim on any points from Bristol and then be able to play future games as ASBO and gain points or play Bristol, take the points and be faced with the fact that ASBO may as well disband as we have no further abilty to earn points.

See my problem with this ruling...?

I think it was covered a couple of pages ago. Just after Edinburgh. I was reading about it on the bus though so wasn't to bothered.

Basically two players must play together in every tournament they want to collect points for. (Essentially, it's easier to understand it if you imagine teams to be made up of two players with a floating third). So:

A,B,C play together, you get points.
A,B,D play together, you get points.
E,B,C play together, you don't get points. (Unless you decide to make B and C your stable team members, in which case you don't get points for A,B, and D).

I could be wrong. I'm pulling this stuff out of memory, not off paper. However, I do think that's the rule agreed to... I think the problem was/is we have to re-create teams from results, not from registration (as it is in the league). So we have to find two common players throughout the season and assign points that way.

I don't know for sure though. The NS mandem can discuss it further.

Any proposal that allocates points in a fairer way is something we'd be willing to listen to.

Until then, no Hurricane Josh, no ASBO points.

Ha....!