-
Few questions (not criticisms, just curious)
1) Does Bristol count then? As far as I can tell the only requirement that may not have been met was a designated tournament ref, but we did follow winner stays on.
2) Why not the UK Champs? I get your point about the playing environment, and clearly not every NS event could be the UK Champs, but if the UK Champs met those requirements, why shouldn't it be count towards NS rankings as well?
3) Why only best 3 results? If you aren't concerned about accurately ranking each team in the UK, is it not worth rewarding those that are able to turn up more often?
-
Cheers for the hard work, was great last year and I can see it being even better this year. My one question is the definition of teams again. The "2 core players defined", rather than "any 2 of your 3 person team" seems odd. You effectively define all teams as a 2 person team, and 1 sub, or am I misreading it.
-
Bristol counts.
A UK Champs has totally different aims to the NS for both the organisers of the event and the players. It's like the separation of church and state but different.
3 results because a lot of the teams that attended a lot of the events last year felt a bit burned out by the end of the series. Let's avoid getting burned out.
We needed to define a team, we defined a team. Don't like it? Get involved.
-
Bristol counts.
thanks
A UK Champs has totally different aims to the NS for both the organisers of the event and the players. It's like the separation of church and state but different.
That doesn't answer my question. I agree being NS or not shouldn't be a factor for UK Champs, but if it happens to meet the requirements what's the harm in doing it?
3 results because a lot of the teams that attended a lot of the events last year felt a bit burned out by the end of the series. Let's avoid getting burned out.
Are you saying teams went to a 4th NS just to get points, rather than because they wanted to? I'm not doubting it, just surprised.
-
We needed to define a team, we defined a team. Don't like it? Get involved.
Trying to now. Would this mean that you are effectively Nice Touch's sub player, and if Cam or Josh couldn't make a tourney you wouldn't be able to play as Nice Touch with either of them and a different sub?
-
"Teams will be defined in the same way as last year (may take subs but should have 2 core players defined). In exceptional circumstances, the NS organisers will consider appeals for points reallocation if a team is deemed to have followed the spirit of this ruling (for example, in case of injury a team may be redefined)."
-
So, Josh and Cam are Nice Touch. However, should one of them get injured/move away/get abducted/whatever other situation you need a ruling for, they could let the NS know they have redefined their core members.
The point of the definition is to stop one player entering the NS and using a rotating cast of subs because that is not a team whose performance can be reliably measured over the long-term.
-
The point of the definition is to stop one player entering the NS and using a rotating cast of subs because that is not a team whose performance can be reliably measured over the long-term.
This should definitely be done and it works. But it seems to me that defining a 3 person team rather than a 2 person team, and using 2 of those 3 players is doing the same job without what seems a slightly odd definition of a team as 2 people, and would also mean no need to appeal to the NS if a different sub is needed to play in 2 of the 6 or so tourneys.
Please don't think I'm being overly critical or anything, I just like having a bit of a discussion about things sometimes. I appreciate all the hard work you've put into the NS last year and this year. -
What Max said.
If Team 1 has players x, y and z, then I'd say (x, y and sub) or (x, z and sub) or (y, z and sub) should all be acceptable line-ups for that team's points and rankings. -
^That's what I'm ineffectually trying to suggest.
-
I agree with Otter, Landslide and Max and reckon that's the opinion of the overwhelming majority of players. It's sometimes hard getting all three people together on a specific weekend - let's make it easier to get teams 'on stream' with NS.
-
At what point do those 2 players need to be defined?
So for example if we have the hypothetical team May Bank Holiday, consisting of Bryan, Alan & Ron. Do they have to decide on their two core players at the start, or only once Bryan hurts his foot while working in his car workshop, and they need to get Fred in as a sub?
-
I wouldn't get Fred in, I'd get Kingsley, but good point.
-
^Awesome comedic mathematics text book names.
-
It popped up as an issue with both Erectus and Asbo and possibly Netto last year, it didn't seem to be done the way you were suggesting in the end and the points were counted anyway.
-
Alright there were more posts.
Bryan, Alan and Ron are a team. They need to play 3 tournaments together to get a NS ranking, but really only 2 of them need to play together at 3 tournaments to get a NS ranking. This seems reasonable?
From a rankings perspective it is more desirable to have Bryan/Alan/Geoff, Bryan/Alan/Vincent and Bryan/Alan/John H play these tournaments than 3 completely different lineups (IE Bryan/Alan/Fred, Bryan/Ron/John H, Ron/Alan/Fred).
-
(IE Bryan/Alan/Fred, Bryan/Ron/John H, Ron/Alan/Fred).
If the team is Bryan/Alan/Fred then Brian/Ron/John H is 2 new players so is more Bryan subbing in for a different team. Ron/Alan/Fred is fine, as would be Bryan/Alan/Reece or Bryan/Solid Snake/Fred, as they have 2 of the 3, but it doesn't matter which 2.
H-Bomb
snottyotter
M_A_X
Bearlegged
danwentskiing-
Post a reply
About
Tourney: National Series 2012
Posted by
@aufbruch
The principle aim of the 2012 National Series will be to encourage the participation and development of UK bike polo. In order to achieve this aim, we have left some things alone, tweaked a few things and will be trialling more things with a view to launching them in 2013.
The overall format will remain the same for 2012. We will still be aiming for a series of 6+ events, a team will still need to play 3 events to qualify for a NS ranking, however this year, only a team’s top 3 scores will count towards their final ranking.
We will be using the same points allocation as before but will come up with a way of making the allocation/reallocation more transparent. Teams will be defined in the same way as last year (may take subs but should have 2 core players defined). In exceptional circumstances, the NS organisers will consider appeals for points reallocation if a team is deemed to have followed the spirit of this ruling (for example, in case of injury a team may be redefined).
We will still be adopting minimum standards for NS events. For 2012, the standards that an event must meet to be considered part of the National Series are:
-Tournaments must give players at least 8 weeks notice
-Tournaments must be able to cope with a minimum of 24 teams
-Tournaments must assign a designated tournament ref who will oversee the continuation of the ‘winner stays on’ reffing system
-Tournaments muse use a National Series approved ruleset
-Tournaments must consist of a seeded group stage and an elimination stage
-Tournaments must provide the National Series with a complete listing of results from all tournament games
-There will be no minimum requirements relating to court size/surface, HOWEVER tournament organisers should communicate with the National Series beforehand
We introduced an 8 week notice period for tournaments. This is just to prevent a tournament popping up with a day’s notice that only 2 teams can play (not that it would happen but it makes sense to have it in there).
We are changing the minimum number of teams to 24. This is to help organisers put on more, smaller events. Want to do seeded groups and single elim on a single court in a single day? Well, now you might just be able to. Hopefully this will make it possible for organisers to stamp their scene's personality on a NS
event (although we are happy to help you come up with a format for your event, explain how swiss/double elim works etc.). The allocation of spaces and the registration process remains in the hands of the tournament organisers.
Rather than use a specific ruleset, we decided to be flexible and say that your ruleset has to be pre-approved by the NS head ref.
The Tournament Ref must communicate with the NS head ref before the event. It will be the job of the designated tournament ref to brief players and refs. They should also take control of important latter stage games (semi-finals/finals). Hopefully this will allow knowledge/debate/understanding of the rules to become decentralised.
The UK Champs will not be part of the National Series. Any UK Championship event has different priorities to that of the National Series. For example, the playing environment may be of primary concern when attempting to gain an optimal ranking of UK teams.
However, the National Series would like to continue allocating points for the London Open, which we believe fully embodies the spirit of open participation that the National Series strives for.
Alongside this year’s official points allocation, we will be trialling a number of alternative ranking systems in parallel. This data will be available publically but will not be taken into account when calculating final National Series standings. For example, we will be assessing a couple of different ranking algorithms that take into account the probabilities of win/lose/draw given both teams rankings,
the reliability of the initial rankings, how recent the ranking is and how it may have decayed over time. These may be applied to teams and individual players.
To sum up, we felt like last year was a huge success for UK polo and we want to continue to prioritise growth and participation. We would like to see more scenes step up and run NS events so that teams have more choice of which events to attend. We remain more than willing to help any scene that asks and are attempting to compile a definitive 'how-to' pack regarding running a tournament. For this year, we hope to see more teams gain a NS ranking and while we understand that lowering the number of tournaments included is more likely to lead to tied rankings, we feel that the NS currently has priorities other than accurately ranking every team in the UK (although we're working on that, as you'll hopefully be able to see over the course of the season).