Worlds Qualification Discussion #2

Posted by buildingbridges... on 17 Mar 2011

The old thread was getting a bit messy and stale.

It seems like we are getting close to a solution, most people involved with this discussion seem to be pretty happy with where we're at.

Here's a summary of the latest proposal (based around 4 qualification spots):

1. The top 4 teams from nationals get first call to claim a spot at Worlds.
2. If 1 or 2 players from a qualified team pull out from attending Worlds - for whatever reason - the remaining player(s) still have the right to retain their team's spot and fill the places with whichever players they see fit.
3. In the situation that a qualified team splits, the minority player (1/3 of the qualifying team) can join or form with another qualified team.
4. If two minority players (both 1/3 of a qualified team) join to create a new team, they will be ranked as the next highest team below the cutoff point from Nationals.
5. If any of the qualified teams discard their claim for a spot at Worlds, the spot will be offered down to the next highest rank team. As described, this will first be a team of qualified minority players from qualified teams, then followed by the highest ranked team from nationals below the initial cut off point.
6. In the case of there being more than one team created with minority players from qualified teams, the minority team with the highest ranking individual player will have priority.
7. If teams have tied results (placing) from nationals they will be distinguished by the following in order; Head to head results, goal difference, goals for, goals against.
8. There will be a registration that closes one month after Nationals. If a qualified team doesn't register before this deadline the spot will be offered to the "next in line" team. Registration should be a commitment to going (emergencies permitted of course) and definitely NOT be approached as an expression of interest. *Plane tickets should be purchased promptly after registration closes and your spot is confirmed*

Note: Point 3 does not apply to single players from qualified teams where the other 2/3rds of that team is still on one team who is keeping their Worlds spot. This type of player would be what the proposal refers to as a "minority player"

*I don't believe its our place/responsibility to be prepared to have to deal with team politics. A player who chooses to leave, or who is asked to leave a team has no special privileges, and it is between that team to sort out their own business.*

Can all cities please take take this proposal to the next polo session and try get feedback from all players (especially those interested in attending Worlds)

Groups:

Australasia

buildingbridges...

Toronto

Quote:

7. In the case of there being more than one team created with minority players from qualified teams, the minority team with the highest ranking players will have priority.

The "highest ranking players" needs to be clarified.
I suggest it is reviewed based on an averaging of the top 2 (who must both be qualified) players' rankings .
I.e A team made up of 1, 4, 7 ranked players = (1+4)/2 = 2.5,
or 2, )/3, 5 = (2+3)/2 = 2.5.

In this case of a tie preference is given to the team with highest ranked individual (1,4,7)

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

To simplify things, I think it should just be the minority team with the highest ranked player.

With having two 2/3rds minority teams, the only time the 'average' is the same is 1+4 and 2+3 which defaults to 1+4 team anyway.

If there is a minority team of 3 orphan players then there cannot be a second minority team formed.

Personally, i think point 2 should be scrapped. A 'TEAM' qualifies and I think a 5th spot team who didn't qualify should have rank over a fourth spot that only has 1 player from it going.

buildingbridges...

Toronto

Using only the highest ranked player only was my initial thought. Then using 2 seemed for fair. I forgot to take into account the fact that there are so few possible "minority players", that it makes it redundant.

I cleaned up point 3 so it was clear enough to get rid of 2. Nice one.

brox wrote:

I think a 5th spot team who didn't qualify should have rank over a fourth spot that only has 1 player from it going.

Do you mean that you think the orphan clause should only apply to Podium teams, and a 2/3rds rule should apply to the 4th place team?

Makes sense.

virginia

Sydney Bike Polo

I agree with this as well.

www.goalhole.com
www.sydneybikepolo.org

buildingbridges...

Toronto

What if we only end up with 3 spots? Do all 3 get the orphan clause? Or only top 2, and 3rd must have 2/3rds?

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

just to clarify...

my view is that a 'minority player' (a separated player from of a qualified team where the other 2 players have taken their allocated spot) is the same as your described 'orphan' (a player from a qualified team who's other 2 players aren't going).

instead, both these players should have the same rights. yes, its unfortunate if you qualify and your 2 team mates dont want to go, but i think a team ranked outside the cutoff should deserve it more than a single player that did.

its gets too tricky trying to distinguish between what type of 'minority' player you are and the circumstances which got you in that position.

buildingbridges...

Toronto

I strongly disagree. Especially for the top 2 and probably 3 teams (if we have 4 spots).
An orphan from the winning team, plus some well selected players from outside the top 4, is potentially (probably) stronger than the 5th place team.

The rationale behind distinguishing a minority player and an orphan is this: An orphan qualified and for reasons outside of their control their teammates can't go. They still qualified and earned that spot. Teams know what they are getting into and will know the cut off before the start of nationals.
A minority player ends up in such a situation due to team politics - i've said it before, I feel strongly that it's not our responsibility to deal with team politics.

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

Yes, in some situations this is true. I was just thinking that both a minority player, and an orphan player is still 1/3rd of a qualified team and why should one having much more rights than the other?

That was my original idea, but honestly I don't really mind too much on either direction (realistically, i'm more likely to play at worlds with your ruling rather than mine anyway!!!). I'm pretty happy how its looking. Just need to get people to see it and provide feedback.

virginia

Sydney Bike Polo

Regarding ranking, what if the new player did not play at Nationals. Would their ranking be (Number of teams at Nationals) +1?

Also, we need to decide places below 4th. From what we tallked about at polo last weekend, people seemed to favour:
First - on head to head results.
Second - by goal difference
Third - goals for
Fourth - goals against
If teams are still tied after this, paper scissors rock (for real)

www.goalhole.com
www.sydneybikepolo.org

#10

buildingbridges...

Toronto

Yep I agree with that order to separate teams below 4th.

Quote:

5. If two minority players (both 1/3 of a qualified team) join to create a new team, they will be ranked as the next highest team below the cutoff point from Nationals

The thirrd player doesn't matter in my idea. Only averaging the top 2 players from that team (who both have to be minority players from a qualified team). If you don't have the 2 minority players the team isn't eligible to be "next in line".

The individual ranking only comes into effect in these cases formed by "minority players"

#11

virginia

Sydney Bike Polo

Yes that is correct. Got a bit sidetracked by the ranking idea and forgot about 'next in line' rule :)

www.goalhole.com
www.sydneybikepolo.org

#12

squid

Adelaide Bicycle Polo Club

i don't agree with rule 2, i think it should be 2/3, not 1/3 (and it doesn't seem to make sense with the minority rules anyway). a single strong player doesn't make a team, and wouldn't necessarily be a strong player anyway.

as for filling a single spot, i think they should have to have played in the nationals in some sort of team. if there are extenuating circumstances (ie at the worlds itself someone has a serious accident, or their plane is delayed, etc), then that spot can be filled by anyone that is available.

i don't think this should be decided on until the nationals itself though, where we can get representatives from all states to come together and agree on this. i think this also highlights the need for some sort of national body to decide things like this.

#13

buildingbridges...

Toronto

squid wrote:

It doesnt necessarily mean that this player is strong, but if they finish top 4, chances are they are are one of the best in the country, no? Regardless, until there is (if there ever is) a way to individually rank a player's skill. Where they place in Nats is the best measure we have, and we're going to have to trust it.

There is a difference big difference between and "orphan" and a "minority player". With a Minority Player, the other 2/3rds of their team is still attending worlds, ie the team's spot is still filled, you cannot give the minority player a spot without "creating" an extra spot that doesnt exist. An "orphan" is a player whos 2 team mates cannot attend Worlds. Are you suggesting you shouldnt play with the people you want at nationals because they cannot afford to fly to the other side of the world? What if theyve been your team for the last 2 years? You just ditch them now?

As far as I'm concerned if your team earns a spot, you've earned that spot. There's no takesies-backsies. While theres one player of that team still wanting to go, the right is theirs. This especially applies to the top 2 or 3 teams. Maybe you're cutting it fine between the value of one 4th place player vs the 5th place team. But i think if you look at last years champs. A player like Damon with the correct players from outside the top 4 could beat the 5th place team. If they earned that spot you HAVE to give them the benefit of the doubt.

squid wrote:

as for filling a single spot, i think they should have to have played in the nationals in some sort of team

Disagree. As an example, take the situation my team is in. Damon, Leigh and myself were set to play nationals, and if we qualify, play worlds together too. Leigh has since injured his knee and we are unsure at this point if he will be healed by Nationals. If he isnt, we may have to play with someone else for Nats, but potentially still play with him for Worlds. Do you really think Leigh would have no right to play with us at Worlds? Or would I have had no right to play at last years Worlds because i didnt play in Bris?

squid wrote:

i don't think this should be decided on until the nationals itself though

I think its crucial that it happens BEFORE nationals, so players know what the criteria they need to fulfill to attends worlds is. This also has the potential to affect the choices people make in forming nationals teams.

squid wrote:

i think this also highlights the need for some sort of national body to decide things like this.

I agree 100%, i've been trying to make this happen for the better part of 18 months. Now we have a situation where such a body would be incredibly useful, and it still hasnt happened.

#14

Dingo

Melbourne

Hi everyone,

Sorry I haven't contributed to this thread number 2 yet, I have alot on at work this week. I think we have come along way, and while there are always people with positions, in the previous discussion, there has been alot of learning along the way where you come into the discussion with an idea, and after a few scenarios, we jointly figure out issues and move the whole discussion forward. This is why we now have things like the minority/orphan concept. Things we had never conceived of now have names and we can each think about how they might apply to ourselves or people we know, or how they might have applied in previous situations.

A few comments in response to Squid's recent message. (though I feel like anyone who was a part of the recent discussion could also say this as I feel that we all came out of last week with broad agreement.

(Also, Colin, I know/think it's squid, but can people please sign with real names/cities at least once in this thread, otherwise it gets
confusing (I thought squid was tom for most of last year)

One thing that I do as I consider all these variations in my mind is to try and place myself in a possible scenario in both positions, if a rule affects me either in a good or a bad way. I also consider how it might affect a scenario involving first vs second or in another way 4th vs 5th.

MUM AND DAD ARE DEAD? (or they threw me out of the nest?)
The orphan clause came about to address an issue, I think we were mainly considering it initially to save a potential national champion (ie first placed player) from being left out after broken bones or sick and dying grandmothers.

When you consider it further down the order it has a different effect. Either way, nobody actually brought it to the table at the very start of the discussion, it came out after a long discussion.

As it stands we still don't have a set of orphan criteria, but as shown by my last minute absent team mate last year as well as Leigh's suspected torn medial ligament (MRI results this week) it can happen to anyone once and some people once a year :)

A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
We also need to consider if we are going to apply a stricter set of rules to ourselves than those who we will be playing against.

CARRIED TO THE TOP (or CARRYING YOUR TEAM)
I also considered how applying this rule would affect
i/a strong/strongest player on a team
or
ii/a weak or the weakest player on a team.

I don't feel we can rule based on this. If there is a scenario where a player has obviously been carried by 2 other players who are then injured or unavoidably prevented from going. This falls down to team internals, and just like a player being dropped I think it up to teams and the bike polo community to address this issue, not the rules. (besides, this person obviously has some positive traits anyway, who are we to judge?) we are not giving these people rights to take up another slot, and if they are still able to win a spot with that team, then good for them.

The only other factor that might help here is if we had team captains and if the slots rested with the captains, but bike polo doesn't have captains and then we might have an issue if there was a crap captain with 2 good workers carrying them to victory :)

DECISION TIME and a NATIONAL BODY
This does need to be decided soon, not this week but definitely before the national (especially if I HAVE to play 2/3rds of my worlds team in the nationals)

Yes we do need a nationals body, but the truth is that we're 90% there. Have a look through the names at bikepolo.com.au/about (or whatever the link is) Sure it may not be those exact people but the great thing is that we are now connected nationally and we communicate regularly. There are some things we could do better, but formalising and officialising things is only part of the process. A few simple things we could do is just to communicate more.

There are a bunch of national e-mails that went around to several people from each city 2009-2010, I'm expecting a few more of these coming from Adelaide in the leadup to the nationals and so far I feel like you have kept us in the loop, which is great, and we don't _need_ an association to do that.

So I think we are more like 85% of the way to a national body rather than 0% or 10%, and with that 85% we can still do lots of useful things... like have a discussion like thread number 1 and make a decision on it.

And I wasn't joking last thread when I said consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

"Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks not only the agreement of most participants but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first – general agreement and, second – group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally feel together.[1]It is used to describe both general agreement and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process."

FORGET THE RULES AND PICTURE THE BEST AUSTRALIAN TEAM YOU CAN IMAGINE...
Finally, there's one thing that dropped out of the last thread, but lets consider that we want to assemble the best teams possible to
represent Australia. Sure we have adjusted alot of the flexibility out of the rules proposed so far. but generally speaking, we are
having city teams at the nationals, and then we head overseas and get our asses handed to us by the americans and europeans. Yet each of our cities has some amazing players who have never been able to team up with each other. Surely if this is to happen then lets at least allow 1/3rd to mix around.

Yes Australia is a big country but people _have_ travelled... alot and I feel like we can now pretty much talk about polo players from all cities as if we are part of one big community.

Imagine whats possible if we didn't revert back to our home states every step of the way, how well an Australian team could do at the world championships?

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

#15

buildingbridges...

Toronto

Discussed the Orphan vs Minority Player thing with a few people today. I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse here, but to make the differences as clear as possible, here we go:

- Both an Orphan and a Minority Player were in a qualifying team, both now find themself alone.

- A "minority player" left or was asked to leave their team for political reasons. The other 2 players from their team are still playing Worlds. Their team's spot is still filled. We cannot create an extra spot to accommodate them. They have a chance to become next in line.

-An "orphan" qualified with their team. Their other 2 players cannot attend Worlds due to injury, financial reasons, work, prior commitments, legally cannot enter the US etc. Their team EARNED that spot. They earned that position. To take this spot away from this player is a very harsh (and wrong in my opinion) thing to do.

Imagine these 2 positions for a minute.
1)You finish 2nd in Adelaide. One team mate is injured. The other is told they are unable to get the time off work to go to Worlds. You finished 2nd in the GODDAMNCOUNTRY! You were going to Worlds! Then one, then the other, of your team mates is unable to travel. You're spot is taken away from you. You are shattered.
2)You finished 5th in Adelaide. You knew going in to the tournament you had to finish at least 4th to qualify. You fell short, you were disappointed, but you know that fell on your own shoulders. You accept the fact that you haven't qualified for Worlds.

Put yourself in both these situations and tell me how you feel. Tell me which is fair.

#16

erin.arwen

London Bike Polo

the first point makes a lot of sense to me, and in my opinion, totally underpins and justifies why there should be a difference what is allowed for a minority player v an orphan - that is, in the first case, the spot allocated is already filled.

secondly, a value formula appears to work here. 5th missed out, they have had nothing taken away from them.

seemingly, lewis has thought about this pretty seriously, has offered two convincing reasons for his points, and in my opinion, is bang on here.

i also accept that, across the universe, the debate between 'team qualys' v 'indiv eligibility' marches on. however, i am increasingly convinced of the validity of the latter, because i haven't really heard a convincing argument for the team qualy argument aside from 'teams should be favoured over indivs'... so i dunno, perhaps we should be talking about WHY teams (coming from a nationals tourney which doesn't necessarily reflect dedicated teams) should be favoured?

not trying to be harsh, or mean or what have you, i just prefer to deal with rationales over moral imperatives.

get me?

smiley winky hearts

NERG!

#17

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

buildingbridgesburning wrote:

-An "orphan" qualified with their team. Their other 2 players cannot attend Worlds due to injury, financial reasons, work, prior commitments, legally cannot enter the US etc. Their team EARNED that spot. They earned that position. To take this spot away from this player is a very harsh (and wrong in my opinion) thing to do.

This is what I'm trying to say, their TEAM earned it, not the player. A team should be considered a majority of the original players.

A 'minority' player would feel shafted that they EARNED a spot too. But I think the only fair way to look at it, is that both orphan and minority player would both just be next (with a 2/3rds team of qualified platers) in line if there are any extra spots.

#18

Dingo

Melbourne

After the whole massive long thread #1 I feel like we came to a consensus about the orphan situation, and now the discussion has gone backwards?

Are we seriously saying that people stranded by unforseen circumstances should lose their spots? Does bad shit need to happen to each and every individual before people gain the ability to empathise with others and think that it might happen to them?

Brook, in the last thread you mentioned that you were concerned about minority players from higher ranked teams grouping together in 2/3rds and forcing lower placed teams down the allotment. (Something that is allowed in NA 2/3rds rule)

We found a middle ground by limiting the number of spots available by differentiating between stranded (orphans) players and dropped (minority) players and I felt like we all made a giant step forwards.

People at the other end of the discussion conceded several factors to accomodate this point of view (including things that would be allowed in NA rules) and now you are disputing those concessions too?

>This is what I'm trying to say, their TEAM earned it, not the player. A team should be considered a majority of the original players.
>A 'minority' player would feel shafted that they EARNED a spot too.

But they are being shafted by their team mates, not by the rules

>But I think the only fair way to look at it, is that both orphan and minority player would both just be next (with a 2/3rds team of qualified platers) in line if there are any extra spots.

That is not fair for an orphan. And it's not their team mates who would be screwing them, its the rules. i.e. everyone.

Please learn from my mistakes, I've been smashed in the face, broken my hand, come 13th in the nationals, been abandoned by a worlds team mate with 4 days notice, my grandmother's funeral was less than 24 hours from the bench tourney, and now the most compatible partner I've ever played with may have a torn medial ligament. I've had my fair (theres that word again) share of unforseen circumstances.

Taking a spot away from a winner _in a team_ who has faced _two_ of these scenarios and giving it to a team that fell below the worlds cutoff just because they stick together isn't fair.

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

#19

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

Relax Damon, i think there's a little bit of misunderstanding.

What Lewis put at the top of this thread is a set of guidelines which I had proposed at the end of the previous thread. I clearly made the case FOR the idea of a minority player being protected. The only difference is the inclusion of point 2. The points myself and Lewis had already made, listed at the top of this thread, still protects a players spot if both the others pull out due to injury or unforeseen emergencies (which everyone has agreed would of course be fair).

#20

Dingo

Melbourne

>brok said on March 22, 2011 - 10:12am
>"I don't think there should be an orphan rule either. "

OK, I'm definitely confused then :)

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

#21

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

Dingo wrote:

>brok said on March 22, 2011 - 10:12am
>"I don't think there should be an orphan rule either. "

OK, I'm definitely confused then :)

That is purely regards to point 2, which i find it hard to accept that we have a 2/3rd rule applying but then also allowing a 1/3rds rule.

Honestly, I don't care, I had just thought we had agreed on a 2/3rds rule already. I just think with everyones views here there are contradictions, myself included. Its obviously harder with only having 3 per team instead of other sports having 11 or so. The main thing is that we have both been saying that a team should be protected in unforeseen circumstances or emergencies. Its just hard to do this over the internet because I think it gets too confusing and its hard to keep track of what everyone has said and is trying to say.

#22

JETNIKOFF

Melbourne

while i think the nationals will give everyone a clear understanding of whom is the best team in australia. it might just be a group of the best players.
i believe that any qualifacation for world competitions should be based on a calender year of tournaments..played.
not just one tournament ..
yes the nationals will have the best team winning. 1st and 2nd should get automatic spots.
as for the remaining spots
what about those teams that played all year together and did well.. but for some reason didn`t achieve a good result a one tournament.. and fail to go..

as for the remaining spots
i think not just a couple of people getting together to form a team just before nationals and get a couple of lucky games go they way and get the chance to go to the worlds.. only to than change their teams again because they werent a team before the nationals..

yes the best players/best teams should go

this post probably wont sort any thing else out for the current worlds spots
but for future. maybe

so what am i proposing is a league of sorts..
which players stay with their teams as much as possible..
players stats are recorded each game( goals scored,assists. +/- winning/losing. goals scored/goals scored against) how many tournaments played...)
at the very least how well the team or the players did at each tournament.

we should be sending the best players. and the most consistant..

jetnikoff bicycle co
&
ruckus bags
custom bicycles
and independent label
www.jetnikoffbicycleco.com
level 1 / 23 Kerr street
fitzroy
melbourne victoria
australia
3065
making stuff since the forever

#23

squid

Adelaide Bicycle Polo Club

that would be good, but i don't think polo is quite big enough in aus yet, and being such a large country, it's hard for people to go to multiple tournaments.

lewis i see where you are coming from, and it is hard, but it is still a team game, and it's the team that qualifies, not a single player.
also it would be nice to decide this before the nationals but that's the only time we actually have everyone together to discuss things, unless we can come up with another way of forming at least a temporary committee, possibly just a group of nominated persons from each city that can communicate by email.
regardless if you want to go to the worlds, you should form a nationals team that intends on going to the worlds.

as for a fill in, i've changed my stance on that. as long as that player is an 'australian' (ie someone who has played in australia for a significant time but may not actually be an australian citizen), they should be able to fill in.

i'm still going to attend the worlds regardless of where i place, and there is always the prelim tournament entry, and lots of other polo to play, so it's not the end of the world.

#24

erin.arwen

London Bike Polo

hi colin!

not sure lewis is questioning the format of the game, but rather, offering a contingency plan in case one of our bestest and brightest gets left out in the cold. (was going to say rain, but seattle will be effing rainy)

it certainly is the team that qualifies, but i think it's important to have some semblance of agreement on what to do in case something goes awry..

perhaps if we can't agree, it will come down to a round table type setting post nationals.. wouldn't be such a bad thing.. most bike polo players i know are reasonable creatures

NERG!

#25

buildingbridges...

Toronto

squid wrote:

regardless if you want to go to the worlds, you should form a nationals team that intends on going to the worlds.

I disagree with this first and foremost because it discourages people from playing with people based on their financial, work or personal situation. It verges on discrimination to me.

squid wrote:

lewis i see where you are coming from, and it is hard, but it is still a team game, and it's the team that qualifies, not a single player.

You're right. But if we are talking in terms of "sending the best teams", can you say without a doubt that one player from one of the top teams could not form a team with lower ranked players that is stronger than the 5th place team (my Damon + 2 players hypothetical from above)? If you can't, i think the benefit of the doubt has to go to the player that already qualified.

As said before i think this especially applies to podium (top 3) teams. These teams are most likely to have the strong players (the Marcus' and Leighs and Damons and Juliens) who could support weaker players and still make a strong team. I can see that a single 4th place player is less likely to be able to rival the 5th place team, and perhaps this type of situation is what your concern is?
I proposed earlier that the Podium teams have a 1/3 rule and the 4th place team has a 2/3 rule.
What do you think of this? More reasonable?

squid wrote:

unless we can come up with another way of forming at least a temporary committee, possibly just a group of nominated persons from each city that can communicate by email.

I would love to see this happen. Just as something temporary to facilitate this decision. We can come up with a more permanent solution for decision making at Nats.

Prawi, Damon, Will, Erin, Colin, do you think you could go back to your clubs and elect 2 (1, 3? how many?) reps that would be willing and able to make this decision? Can we finally make this happen!!??

#26

erin.arwen

London Bike Polo

yup, of course.. i think jamie, geordie and ali, as would dave i'm certain, would be interested in the discussion.. geordie just joined on here, so has prob been lurking (*shifty eyes*)

we've got 2v2 happening friday night/afternoon anyway, which you'll be at..(?) so we can have a wee chat..

NERG!

#27

erin.arwen

London Bike Polo

oh and +1 on the podium or maybe 1st and 2nd getting the orphan clause.. what do those opposed to the idea think about that?

or maybe it has to be ruled out entirely if there is a consensus in the other direction (team qualy etc etc)

NERG!

#28

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

It's not about sending our best players over there, its about sending our best TEAMS. The fairest way to do this is by having a 2/3rds requirement rule.

I do not agree with a podium placed team abiding by a 1/3rds rule and others a 2/3rds rule. I don't think its fair at all and goes too far to protect themselves. We need to keep this process simple and as fair as possible.

I don't think there should be an orphan rule either. An orphan should still be defined as a 'minority' player. Whether a player is kicked out or stranded, they are still only 1/3rd of a TEAM that qualified.

We can't just see each team on its individual merits. Its impossible to guage without being subjective. This we have clearly already established. Then wouldn't protecting an 'individual' be contradictory?

#29

buildingbridges...

Toronto

Yes its about send the best teams. But teams are made of players and the top players are most likely to form the strongest team.

Of course we are trying to protect the highest ranked players. It is the most fair because they proved themself to be the best and already qualified.l finding ways to exclude them and strip them of their makes no sense at all.

You know we agree that you can't judge individually without being subjective. That's why we trust that if you qualified in the top 3 chances are you are one of the countrys best.

We are trying to make concessions here to reach a solution and all we get inb return is back pedalling and lack of co operation. We have already offered up some compromises against what we think is fair. Try meet us at a common ground
.

#30

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

I don't think we are back pedalling (especially after going to freewheel) or not co-operating, it just seems that way because we aren't getting any extra feedback on this and are sitting still. Lewis, I think its great how we've both looked at every angle and come to the same conclusion on practically everything, if anything i've tried to be middle ground the whole time, as well as providing the waiting list idea.

Don't forget that by there being an 'orphan' player, then that means they would be first in line to form a 2/3rds team before it goes down to the teams outside the cutoff.

If anything, I think my viewpoint would make it harder for me to be at worlds within a team with a dedicated spot as I'm heading to the nationals without a team at the moment anyway, I just think its the fairest

For this my best example would be the results from Greifmasters. From what I heard, London had an all-star team and we're wiped by countries that used their best ranked teams as lines.

#31

Dingo

Melbourne

So in your proposal...

'n'= Number of spots. (2, 3 or 4?)

'n' teams allocated spots based on nationals.

'Orphan qualifying player' drops to ranking position 'n'+1 on the list

And must form a team of '2/3rds'

Where is that 2/3rds going to come from if teams 2nd, 3rd... to 'n' are all going?

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

#32

Dingo

Melbourne

>Prawi, Damon, Will, Erin, Colin, do you think you could go back to your clubs and elect 2 (1, 3? how many?) reps that would be willing and able to make this decision? Can we finally make this happen!!??

I feel like we could but I'm not a fan of making a decision like this during a controversy? Sure we are assembling the representatives to make this decision but what are the terms of reference? How long do these positions last and what other tasks will they have to do?

I also feel like this forum is actually working really well, and given the subject matter, it's the right place to be having this discussion too.

It's just the first time we've had a really nutty conversation about something as detailed as this without having delegated it to someone... like the first time we do anything, we'll get better at it with time.

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

#33

erin.arwen

London Bike Polo

yup, happy to get this happening on friday at polo, won't be a problem to find two reps

we're doing fine, we haven't devolved into mudslinging = forum win

NERG!

#34

virginia

Sydney Bike Polo

I really think a club should have 3 reps to ensure that what the majority want is expressed in a vote (in the unlikely event that there is a difference of opinion).

www.goalhole.com
www.sydneybikepolo.org

#35

erin.arwen

London Bike Polo

cool, so 3 is the go?

jamie and i will get the ball rolling

EDIT: just read the part about total number.. 3 from each city might blow it out a bit. what's the consensus? two reps? gc can easily be represented by bris since we chat all the time

NERG!

#36

Dingo

Melbourne

Hey everyone,
I just created a new thread for this and wrote up a bit of a proposal.

http://leagueofbikepolo.com/club/australasia/australian-hardcourt-repres...

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

#37

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

This is definitely the way to go and also how America has now chosen to decide it. This was discussed before last nationals too in regards to 'minor' and 'major' tournaments.

Until its larger here and more organised in terms of set tournaments with MUCH more notice than is currently happening, I don't think its feasible to do. We would also need an elected body to organise it and set a points system.

#38

prawza

im just going to back to Wills comment for a second. I'm all for a league, however it would have to be super organised. The only way this could ever work was if people were given at least 6-12 months notice for each tourney (rather than 2 or 3 months which makes it so hard to get cheap tickets/time off). I've addressed this in the previous thread. At the present moment I and many other Perthians can't keep up with the tourneys as there STILL is not enough notice. Perth teams could never afford a league, and therefore the Nationals is the fairest way to judge worlds teams at the present moment.

Piss Corner Polo is Forever. Storm Boys - Australian Champs '11.

#39

JETNIKOFF

Melbourne

damn didn`t read luigi`s last post

jetnikoff bicycle co
&
ruckus bags
custom bicycles
and independent label
www.jetnikoffbicycleco.com
level 1 / 23 Kerr street
fitzroy
melbourne victoria
australia
3065
making stuff since the forever

#40

mossko

Melbourne

Thanks for summarising the last thread Lewis, much easier to read now
Looks like it's shaping up pretty well, seems quite fair and balanced

mossko / Rob M
http://www.vimeo.com/ mossko | http://www.bikepolo.com.au/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/mosskopolo

#41

Dingo

Melbourne

Thanks for your response Rob,

I think it's important to note that because LOBP is a threaded forum, Rob's reply should be read in the context of what time it was posted and not what contrary replies have appeared above it... after it was posted.

Damon

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

#42

eeno

I think we're most of the way to a solution, my one concern is that we keep assuming we're going to be allocated 4 spots again. I know there were some european teams at the worlds last year who seemed a bit miffed at that as they had much better teams who failed to qualify, so depending on how the yanks do it we may only receive 3 or even 2 places. So, any solution we come up with should not have numbers/allocations hard coded in.

But I honestly don't think it's going to be an issue; how many people are actually planning on attending regardless? how many are in the 'i'll attend if i qualify' boat? I agree that we should make a decision before the nats, but I think this situation will become a lot clearer once we know how many places we have, who has qualified, and who is planning on attending.

Is there any real difference between telling people the exact criteria which will be used to select a team before vs. saying it will be decided by the committee after we have the required information?

I also agree that consensus is the fairest way to decide, but then how do we decide who gets a say? 1 vote per city, 3 votes per city? Allow anyone who gives a shit to say their 2c and have a vote? Melbourne has a much bigger scene than we do and have been playing longer, so do they get more of a say? Canberra has only just started playing and has never attended a tournament, but are still a part of the scene, do they get the same amount of votes as Sydney?

Finally to quote Rawbie Boardz 'if you're good enough, you'll get in, so quit your bitching jarred'. 2/3rds makes sense IMO, if you're unlucky enough to be a 1/3rd but are keen enough to go, and a good enough player, then chances are one of the other qualified teams will be looking for a 3rd and then you're a shoe in. If not? well, bad luck, form a casual team with other people heading over and kick ass at some pickup.

#43

themidnightbarber

Brisbane

I am all for the "Australian Super Team" but at the same time believe that there is no substitute for team experience. If tournaments have tought me anything it is that the underdog team with a good dynamic can easily conquor the super teams. No matter what happens, there is going to be at least 1 person who thinks they were robbed of a spot.

Let's communicate with the worlds organisers to confirm our number of spots and elect representatives from each city that are sending a team. Each rep can present a case for their favored World qualification rules and then it can be voted on. Once registration is open for nationals, each player can be contacted and asked to nominate either themsleves or another registered player as a rep from their city. Not sure how you would determine how many reps each city would get but it could be something like 'one rep per team registered, no more than 3 reps per city'. The reps would also decide, perhaps by vote again, how situations such as the "orphan clause" and the "carried player" situation would be resolved.

Apologies for any typos, written on a mobile.
Jamie (Brisbane)

#44

erin.arwen

London Bike Polo

this^

i like the idea for choosing the reps..i also like the idea of drawing the discussion to its logical conclusion - i.e. a decision. i also like every person who has posted here.. hooray for open forums and discourse and what not

p.s. i leave for london in 8days

NERG!

#45

Dingo

Melbourne

>that the underdog team with a good dynamic can easily conquor the super teams.

I agree with the principal that you're trying to convey here.

A team of 3 working together is better than 3 individuals.

But I cant help thinking that an 'underdog' team that beats a 'super' team isn't actually an 'underdog' team at all. (or are they just nice)

And a 'super team' isn't much of a 'team' if they get beaten by the underdogs... (unless by super you just mean all bark and no bite ;)

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

#46

buildingbridges...

Toronto

Already been in touch. Waiting on an answer.

#47

Leigh

Melbourne

I believe an orphan clause for a qualified team (the term "qualified" being something that we perhaps still need to sort out, as we still don't know how many spots we will be allocated and whether or not we want to base it on the immediately preceding nationals or a combination of this and other tournaments) is an important feature to have. While I agree with the notion that a team qualified and not players themselves, whatever way you look at it a team is still made up of individual players and personally I think we should be sending a combination of our best players AND teams to represent us at a global level. As an example, would we really want to deny someone who finished in a nationally first-placed team the opportunity to play on the world stage? That's getting too close to small poppy syndrome for my liking. Yes, in a way it is about providing a rule that protects individual players, but the suggestion that teams can use this as a device to "protect themselves" is kind of nonsensical. Would anyone go into a nationals tourney with a "not to worry, I've got backup" attitude? I don't think so.
We can debate the meaning of orphans, minorities, ratios, etc. all we like, but extenuating circumstances (i.e. - death, injury, cancelled flights etc.) coupled with our relative isolation (geographically, financially) will to continue to make for scenarios where sending people around the globe to play polo isn't as straightforward as it may and perhaps should be. I think this fact alone should be heavily factored into the equation.
Furthermore, any decision made should be made before nationals so people know exactly what qualifying for worlds entails.

#48

erin.arwen

London Bike Polo

^also this

leigh, IMO you are bang on.

one last thing (from me, for now) i wanted to add:

don't rule out the value of a round table after the fact.. sometimes it is not as productive to have a rigid schedule of rules as it is to have a set of principles that are agreed upon with the view to allow flexibility. bureaucracy expands under its own weight, and, at times the designers lose control and feel like they can't change the system, despite the fact they created it.

NERG!

#49

themidnightbarber

Brisbane

I was just thinking about the eligibility of international players in regards to the orphan clause.
International players have added so much to our community, but if they don't play in this or last year's Australian nationals,and I believe they shouldn't be allowed a spot in one of the world's positions. Let me know if this sounds discriminatory or tall poppy syndrome-esque or if I just dont understand the proposed rule.
International players have the chance to qualify in their own regions.Take for example a team who makes the effort to travel all the way from interstate, at no small cost or amount of effort, and then qualify say third or fourth. It would be a bit of a copout to them and all the other players who made the effort if they missed out because an orphan chose an international player/players, who didn't even play at the tournament, to make up their team.
If the same thing happened in Europe or America, an orphaned, qualified player chose 2 Australian players, they would veto it.
I understand making the strongest teams possible, but an orphaned player choosing international ring-ins who did not even attend nationals is unfair on teams who trained together and blew weeks worth of cash on travelling to Adelaide.
I'm not saying no international players should be allowed to claim worlds spots, but I do think they should have played at least one of the last 2 nationals and should NOT be attending any qualifying tournaments in their own region.

#50

geordie_boy

Brisbane

Just wondering if the team that ranks first at nationals has one player drop out due to unforeseen circumstance, do the other two remaining players reserve the right to then split up and form new teams effectively taking first and second spot? Also i think the idea of 3 local representative for each state to make major decision such as the "orphan clause" is a awesome idea.

#51

buildingbridges...

Toronto

No. Each team only has one spot. The Orphan clause only applies to a player who is left on their own (neither of the other 2 can go to Worlds) due to unforseen circumstances. And not shuffling of players.

#52

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

Just to be clear, what is really on debate here and seems to be an issue is the idea of 'unforeseen circumstances'. Its a gray area. In stead of moving back towards only requiring teams to be 1/3rd of qualified players, i think that we can rewrite the current 2/3rds rule to better define 'unforeseen circumstances'.

As with the last thread, in order to summarize the different views, here is my proposal.

1. Each available spot at Worlds will be offered to the highest ranking teams after nationals. These teams will be defined as now being 'qualified'.
2. To claim a spot at Worlds, a team must be filled with at least 2/3rds of players from a team that 'qualified' at nationals and register to a determined body (this 'registration' can be sorted out later)
3. If for some reason a player must pull out before the close of registration, whether financial, personal or due to injury, a team may replace that player with anyone of their choosing, maintaining the above mentioned 2/3rds rule.
4. If for some reason a player must pull out after the close of registration, whether financial, personal or due to injury, a team may replace that player with anyone of their choosing, and is not required to maintain the above mentioned 2/3rds rule.
5. In the situation that a qualified team splits or a player is left by themselves, the minority player (1/3 of the qualifying team) can join or form with another qualified team.
6. If two minority players (both 1/3 of a qualified team) join to create a new team, they will be ranked as the next highest team below the cutoff point from Nationals.
7. If any of the qualified teams discard their claim for a spot at Worlds, the spot will be offered down to the next highest rank team. As described, this will first be a team of 2/3rds of qualified minority players, then followed by the highest ranked team from nationals below the initial cut off point.
7. In the case of there being more than one team created with minority players from qualified teams, the minority team with the highest average ranking players, followed by highest ranked individual player will have priority.
8. Registration that closes one month after Nationals. If a 'qualified' team doesn't register before this deadline the spot will be offered to the "next in line" team. Registration should be a commitment to going (emergencies permitted, as decribed in point 4) and not be approached as an expression of interest.

to explain point 2 - players dont have to be from the same national team

to explain the orphan thing - this is now split over point 4 (minority player after close of rego) and point 5/6 are if they a minority player before rego closes

to explain the added 'unforseen circumstance' - this is added to point 8. After this, if a player pulls out, the team can fill this with whoever they want. If they pull out before the cutoff in point 8, they would require 2/3rds (in point 3)

#53

virginia

Sydney Bike Polo

I agree with this plan. Very well explained Brook.

www.goalhole.com
www.sydneybikepolo.org

#54

mossko

Melbourne

brox wrote:

Thanks for summarising Brook, makes a lot more sense now

This seems like the fairest way while protecting qualified Teams and offering some contingency for unexpected circumstances. I particularly like the 2/3 rule as it ensures that the majority of the winning team stays together

Personally I don't think that 1st, 2nd, 3rd should be given any special circumstances.. here's why
* The above rules would allow for them to change 1 team member anyway and still remain the same team
* If they lose more than 2 players then it's not the same team any more

mossko / Rob M
http://www.vimeo.com/ mossko | http://www.bikepolo.com.au/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/mosskopolo

#55

buildingbridges...

Toronto

This isn't really a "summary" as much as its one view point of the way things should work.

If you read this assuming it was a summary its not going to give you a full idea of the situation or the different ideas for what the other arguments represent. I know there's a lot to read through but there is alot more ideas going round then what is presented in this version of Brook's proposal.

Its your call, but i'd strongly suggest reading through the rest of the ideas/proposals before passing judgement, if you havent done so already.

While you're right, if 2/3rds of team drops out a single player isnt the "same team". This can be an oversimplification. There are scenarios possible that need other processes to resolve them reasonably (some of which have already been discussed).

#56

buildingbridges...

Toronto

I still maintain the importance of protecting the top ranking players from being orphaned and still would like to see, at the very least, the top 2 teams receiving an orphan protection clause.

No need to attack this as exclusive and elitist because it is. That's exactly the point. To protect the best players, who have earned their place, from being shafted. And giving them the benefit of the doubt (as one of our country's best players) of being able to form the next best team.

#57

erin.arwen

London Bike Polo

is this not covered in brook's proposal? or is issue taken between being orphaned either 'before' or 'after' an arbitrary registration date?

i am actually just asking, for clarity.

NERG!

#58

erin.arwen

London Bike Polo

Ok, so I am thinking through an example.

Here tis:

Example 1

Team 1 qualify first.
It consists of players A B and C

Before the close date, A decides not to go. Leaving B and C. They are allowed to choose ANYONE from the poloverse. They choose D. Now the 1st qualy team is B,C,D (heh). They go to worlds.

Example 2

Team 1 qualify first.
It consists of players A B and C

BEFORE the close date BOTH A and B pull out. Leaving C. C loses their place?

Example 3

Team 1 qualify first.
It consists of players A B and C

AFTER the close date BOTH A and B pullout. Leaving C. C is allowed to keep the place in the worlds and chooses E and F. C E F go to worlds.

Is this correct? So essentially, the purpose of the line is to ensure what in particular? (I am just asking) Is it to ensure that say, in example 2, C can only retain their place if they choose a qualifying Australian (because they have time to do so?) What if there are no qualy Australians left? What then?

Am just picking it apart for clarity, I actually think it was a well rounded and thought out proposal. Just trying to make sense of the rationale.

Peas.

NERG!

#59

erin.arwen

London Bike Polo

also to raise another point:

we need to remember that the world's organisers have a 2/3s entry rule too. So perhaps the only way for our orphan clause to receive the sanction of the world wide polo community is to insert something that says an orphan has to choose at least one qualy individual to make up their team. If no one is available.. then qualy individual next in line - i.e. someone who played at this or last year's nats? It might be the only way to demonstrate, at the world's, that australia's ranking in the worlds reflects the top tier of australian talent willing to go to Seattle - which is the point of the world champs, right?

(i'm obvs talking before the cut off here as after, they may choose whomever they like)

again, just thinking aloud.

NERG!

#60

eeno

I think main point of the orphan clause is to protect people from losing money,

eg. once you've confirmed your place in an eligible team and have bought a ticket, if both of your team mates drop out, you've still ponied up the cash to go and so shouldn't lose your place. this is only going to work if there if everyone is honest though, it'd be easy enough for two players to feign interest, but then pull out 'due to unforeseen circumstances' at the last moment allowing their third player to pick the rest of the team.

#61

erin.arwen

London Bike Polo

sure, they could do this - if they were huge bellends. i am willing to trust that no one would actually do this, and if they did, they'd just look a little silly.

i agree with the orphan clause totally. am just pointing out that at the crux of the issue, we are arguing about who should be chosen to fill the remaining spots right? i think that was the purpose the cut off line - after, well chose who you like, it's prob too close to the day to worry about who they are (i.e. emergency situation).. before - well, you better make sure you meet the 2/3s requirement to ensure that the next in line is a person chosen from the pool of australian talent.

so brook's proposal does protect the spots of orphans; as long as they meet the requirement that to keep their spot, another qualified player (or if none avail, someone from the australian community) has to be chosen.

NERG!

#62

eeno

double post.

#63

buildingbridges...

Toronto

As far as I know the Worlds Organisers (Seattle) have no such rule. NA hardcourt, on the other hand DOn but this only applies to NA players and THEIR qualification process for Worlds

#64

erin.arwen

London Bike Polo

ahhhh ok, sorry was going off something i thought damon said. yup yup, got it.

even if there was such a rule, it's fairly irrelevant because 'qualified' can easily be applied to teams or individuals who haven't won a qualy spot - insofar as we say 'here is a qualified team', they are qualified.

anyway, i am rambling.

get rad!

NERG!

#65

themidnightbarber

Brisbane

This proposal is awesome Brooke.
Still waiting on clarification on the issue of international players qualifying for worlds. Is there anything to stop a qualified orphan player from choosing 2 international players for their team who haven't played any recent Australian tournaments?

#66

erin.arwen

London Bike Polo

themidnightbarber wrote:

yes. the cut off line. at least i think. and the reason is - if orphaned before an arbitrary cutoff, to retain their spot, the orphan has to make up a team which consists of 2/3s qualy players. if they can't, the place goes to the next in line..

after the cutoff, they can do as they wish, because it is prob too close to the actual tourney date to be insisting on flying in australians to seattle.

it still protects them, but there is a criteria to qualify for protection.

NERG!

#67

buildingbridges...

Toronto

Woah woah woah. When did the notion of an orphan get so confused?

This idea of a cut off point changes nothing. Obviously if someone has qualified and then bought their ticket, AND THEN something goes wrong with their team mates, no one in their right mind would tell them to surrender their spot.

The whole point of the orphan clause has always been to prevent one of the countries best players (who has qualified) from losing their spot to go to worlds due to the bad fortune of their team mates.
Brooks proposal on protects them as long as a player from one of the other qualified teams is willing to break away from their own team to play with the orphan.

As far as international players go, I was under the impression we had almost universally agreed that players were be Australians or international players who have spent a good amount of time playing here (Marcus, Julien, Maija etc) unless it is a last minute emergency.

#68

erin.arwen

London Bike Polo

sure, i was just breaking it down and making sense of what was proposed.. wasn't necessarily agreeing or disagreeing

like damon, i am a bureaucracy geek, and spend my days unpacking legislation, clauses, policy etc etc so was kind of just getting into the practical application of Brook'sBottomLine (TM)

NERG!

#69

Dingo

Melbourne

Hey everyone,

I think we are generally in agreement on 90% of things. And that we are stuck because:
we disagree on the wording of a few small things, though I feel that we agree on the principles.

Nationals should be used to allocate spots
Australians or people in the australian bike polo community should be in these spots
Teams should generally stay together
Bad things can happen and we should have some kind of allowance for this.

I think we all agree that if we were presented with a particular situation that we'd be able to work it out fairly... but to create a set of rules that are specific and will work for any possible future scenario, is much harder.

Given that we are going to create a national group of representatives. (Somethiung I feel like many people have suggested and nobody is opposed to) I propose that we finalise the things that we do agree on, and list other things for the reps to decide. After all, nearly all our disagreement is around what happens when something goes wrong, (if nothing goes wrong, we shouldn't have a problem :) and if it does, then we have people we trust empowered to sort it out.

From Brook's list
(Note there were 2 item 7's so I have separated them.)

--
1. Each available spot at Worlds will be offered to the highest ranking teams after nationals. These teams will be defined as now being 'qualified'.

2. To claim a spot at Worlds, a team must be filled with at least 2/3rds of players from a team that 'qualified' at nationals and register to a determined body (this 'registration' can be sorted out later)

3. If for some reason a player must pull out before the close of registration, whether financial, personal or due to injury, a team may replace that player with anyone of their choosing, maintaining the above mentioned 2/3rds rule.

4. If for some reason a player must pull out after the close of registration, whether financial, personal or due to injury, a team may replace that player with anyone of their choosing, and is not required to maintain the above mentioned 2/3rds rule.

5. In the situation that a qualified team splits or a player is left by themselves, the minority player (1/3 of the qualifying team) can join or form with another qualified team.

6. If two minority players (both 1/3 of a qualified team) join to create a new team, they will be ranked as the next highest team below the cutoff point from Nationals.

7a. If any of the qualified teams discard their claim for a spot at Worlds, the spot will be offered down to the next highest rank team. As described, this will first be a team of 2/3rds of qualified minority players, then followed by the highest ranked team from nationals below the initial cut off point.

7b. In the case of there being more than one team created with minority players from qualified teams, the minority team with the highest average ranking players, followed by highest ranked individual player will have priority.

8. Registration that closes one month after Nationals. If a 'qualified' team doesn't register before this deadline the spot will be offered to the "next in line" team. Registration should be a commitment to going (emergencies permitted, as decribed in point 4) and not be approached as an expression of interest.

to explain point 2 - players don't have to be from the same national team
to explain the orphan thing - this is now split over point 4 (minority player after close of rego) and point 5/6 are if they a minority player before rego closes
to explain the added 'unforseen circumstance' - this is added to point 8. After this, if a player pulls out, the team can fill this with whoever they want. If they pull out before the cutoff in point 8, they would require 2/3rds (in point 3)
--

Stuff we agree on.
Points: 1,2,4,5,6,7a,8

(Please let me know if I'm being presumptuous here)

Stuff to defer.

I should note under these rules, if you want to go to the worlds, you shouldn't be playing with 2 people who can't go. If you are playing with 1 and then someone gets injured before registration, it'll be up to the reps to decide if you can keep your spot. (I would like to think that the reps would help try to find a suitable team mate from their national network, if all other qualified players are unavailable)

Point 3. Who is a reasonable substitute (all other qualified players may be spoken for or not able to go) other Australians could be suitable? After that some internationals players are reasonable/available, other may not be. The reps could discuss this better than any rules we could write now.

Point 7a. "Ranking" more than 1 team of dropped/minority players. Using different methods gives different results, we need to do more work in this regard and I think this is a perfect job for the reps. ruling on a situation is going to be easier than writing a rule.

And I think we agree with the principal that the ranking should reflect the strength of the teams

Does this sound like a good way to move forward?

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

#70

buildingbridges...

Toronto

Dingo wrote:

Just to be clear, this discouragement is bullshit. I've said it before, its discrimination. It actively demotes the validity of playing Nationals with players who could never dream of being able to afford international travel, who can't take time off work or away from their family, or people who can't travel due to criminal records.

A team who chooses to play with one such player has little room for error under current proposals. If one of the other players is injured the 3rd is screwed out of a spot.

Really all I'm arguing for, all I have been arguing for this whole time is a protection of someone feeling they have been robbed of a spot that at one point was already in their hands. A team who placed outside the qualification never had the spot in their hand, and as such are unlikely to feel slighted by any situations. We would do much better to deal with these situations on a case by case basis. And the existence of such a Committee gives us the tools to do that. To work out a situation where everyone can feel like a reasonable out come has been acheived and no one feels ripped off.

As such, I suggest no line is drawn as far as a firm number of 1/3 or 2/3. this will only prove to damage the flexibilty and adaptive possibilties a committee is able to acheive, and rather, we should SUGGEST 2/3 represents, but doesn't dictate the consistency or quality of a team.

#71

virginia

Sydney Bike Polo

This discussion has gone really quiet. I know a lot of people are reading but given the nature of some responses they do not want to comment.

For the record, the other four people in Sydney who have expressed an interest in attending Seattle (Brook, Stephen, Locky and myself) have discussed this at length and are strongly opposed to the one-third rule. We believe a team should consist of at least 2 qualified players. We will not change our minds on this so there is no need to try. I am just advising everyone of our position.

www.goalhole.com
www.sydneybikepolo.org

#72

buildingbridges...

Toronto

Of course you are entitled to your opinion and have no obligation to chane that. But this is a discussion and, as such both sides of the argument need to be presented. If anyone has felt intimidated and attacked, that was not my intention, I apologise. I do not apologise however, for voicing my own opinion.

As you, I have my beliefs and they are built around my interpretation of reason. It is unlikely at this point to change. However, I am prepared to make compromises as far as making a decision. I've offered up a few suggested concessions with no response.

Taking a hardline stance here is only going to deepen this stalemate, and this discussion is already pretty stiff as it is. I would much rather see a solution wherein both/all points of view are concidered and people can feel content that their opinions have resulted in a well rounded outcome.

Forcing a decion on people is only going to alienate and divide what is already a small community. That is really not something we need right now. Creating a strong, encompassing agreement has the potential to go the other way and strengthen our bonds and instil confidence in our community.

If I have seemed angry through this, trust me when I say I am not. I am passionate and frustrated. I have felt that while my voice has been strongly spoken, a few people have chosen not to hear it. This is not constructive. I have heard and considered every opinion spoken here, and when I have asked for clarification or tried to further explore ideas I have been accused of attacking people. Trust me, I know how reactionary such an approach would be.

We CAN acheive a reasonable solution for EVERYONE, and not just a few. Let's not dig our heels in now. The next few steps might not be easy, and I'm sure they'll be just as boring and tedious as the last few, but I know that they'll be worth it. And we'll then have a strong system that people will be happy to use again in the future and save us from repeating this again in a year.

I love this stupid game, and I love you all.

#73

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

buildingbridgesburning wrote:

Well put. I think many of us have been guilty of this at some point, myself included. I think its important to keep in mind that none of us has had the same view from the beginning - we have all developed these ideas through these discussions. It seems as though we all have a clear idea as almost all the opinions have been voiced, how we go about choosing/voting etc is the tricky part. Virginia has done well to get the ball rolling canvasing ideas from those interested that aren't on LoBP, I suggest other cities do the same and report back.

My view is to keep that part as open as possible with everyone thats been posting here involved. Going through the process of choosing reps, deciding what job they'd have, then going off to discuss and go through and repeat it again might be a longer process.

In regards to the actual thread discussion, we seem to be pretty clear what the option is if we decide on a 2/3rds ruling. Perhaps Lewis, you could propose/describe a clear ruling with a 1/3rds option? Keeping in mind all possible outcomes of combinations (i.e. if a team splits and all 3 want to form new teams). Or if you want to go by your last post regarding some sort of 'committee', and what that would involve?

Polo wins!

#74

virginia

Sydney Bike Polo

Thanks Lewis. I know you are passionate about this and I don't expect or want you to change your opinion. Differences in life are what keeps things interesting.

Now let's try to use that dirty C word - compromise. What if we applied a 1/3 rule to the winners in recognition of them being national champions. 2/3 applies to all other teams with the exception that after tickets have been bought and injuries or emergencies occur a single remaining player may keep their place and replace other player/s with anyone. Australian players/foreign players that have played in Australia should be used. If this is not possible due to time constraints or lack of interest an unknown foreign player can be used

www.goalhole.com
www.sydneybikepolo.org

#75

whitey

Melbourne

Polo is the winner. You guys are champs for nutting this all out.

#76

eeno

This works for me.

V for president of the Australian polo committee!

#77

virginia

Sydney Bike Polo

Tom for vice-president!

www.goalhole.com
www.sydneybikepolo.org

#78

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

I am trying to see a compromise, but so far still think that there should be a single minimum proportion for all the qualified teams. Whether 1/3rd or 2/3rds - which ever has more support.

So far there have been only 3 players to clearly support a 1/3rds rule: Damon, Lewis and Leigh. I'm not trying to start a division, but I would like to see other teams support such a rule before compromising on the 2/3rds rule which has had more support so far.

#79

virginia

Sydney Bike Polo

You know that I support the 2/3 rule and would prefer to keep it for all teams. I was trying to find some way past this deadlock we find ourselves in. I can probably assume from the lack of response to my proposal from the 1/3 supporters, that they don't like this suggestion either.

Good. Let's drop it.

Can anyone reading this please express an opinion as to whether they think a team that goes to worlds (i.e. teams entitled to take up the qualification places) should be made up of:
(a) 1 player from the team that played at Nationals (with any 2 other players)
(b) at least 2 players from the team that played at Nationals (with any other player)
(c) 1 player from the team that played at Nationals plus another player from the qualified teams (+ any other player)
(d) I really don't care

As far as how places are distributed if any of the qualified teams don't want to go, we cannot decide that until we decided the above.

Although, I prefer option (b), my vote will go to option (c)

www.goalhole.com
www.sydneybikepolo.org

#80

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

#81

Dingo

Melbourne

I don't think it splits up into separate options as easily as this.

a/ is not an option if the other players are still playing.
c/ is not an option because we dont have a qualification system beyond that actual team winning one of the spots we have.
and d/ is not really helpful but probably how 90% of the country feels.

We all support option (b) but the point of disagreement is a contingency provision, not a primary one.

Can we go back to what I proposed here:
http://leagueofbikepolo.com/club/australasia/worlds-qualification-discus...

That is:
Agree on what we DO agree on. and refer contingencies/problems to the reps?

We don't have to sort _everything_ out here and now.

And please stop dividng us into groups like "1/3rds supports" and "they" because we are all one group and my aim here is to get agreement and not screw anyone over... not to get a 1/3rd rule or agree with Lewis all the time.

We also need this group of reps to sort out other things that we havent even thought of yet.
For example. what if a player is injured and cannot continue to play? (what if my nose was broken?) Leigh said that in my position last year he would not have continued. But would he or I have been allowed to represent if a substitute player had finished the match?

I know this has been a really big issue in Sydney, but really, beyond that, I dont think it has registered with many people as a serious issue at all.
the bigger issue is that we havent even got half an agreement.

we need to move forward on this, and the best way for this in my view is to. agree on the non controversial bits.
and setup the national group to rule on contingencies on a case by case basis.

Note, I am not suggesting that we form the committee and then look at these rules again before the nationals. I am proposing that the committee looks at each issue and considers the injury/allocation/issue as it arises as all the scenarios we've proposed are different and unique in their own ways.

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

#82

virginia

Sydney Bike Polo

Dingo wrote:

I know this has been a really big issue in Sydney, but really, beyond that, I dont think it has registered with many people as a serious issue at all.

You are implying that Sydney are involved in a big fight. I have told you before that this is not the case. Just because people in Sydney do not agree does not make it a "big issue" for Sydney. Off-topic, I know, but I felt it had to be said.

www.goalhole.com
www.sydneybikepolo.org

#83

Dingo

Melbourne

OK, I take that back, sorry.

I was trying to say that it's not really a big deal here in Melbourne (as you can see by our e-mail list)

Looking forward to your response to the more detailed parts of my last message.

We are SO close to an agreement!

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

#84

virginia

Sydney Bike Polo

Dingo wrote:

We are SO close to an agreement!

I would say we are about 2/3 of the way there :)

www.goalhole.com
www.sydneybikepolo.org

#85

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

Dingo wrote:

We all support option (b) but the point of disagreement is a contingency provision, not a primary one.

So you're agreeing with B or C (2/3rds)? but asking to add some sort of clause so a team can indicate before the nationals if one of their team is injured and that if they make it through, this player is able to step back in? i.e. as with the case with Leigh at the moment.

Damon, this is completely understandable. I think we could work it in to option B or C if you'd like.

We should try and work this whole thing out now as forming reps could take a long time, then having them decide on this could be even longer.

#86

Dingo

Melbourne

>So you're agreeing with B or C (2/3rds)?

No, Those 4 options are an oversimplification of our current predicament and by continuing to think along those lines we aren't setting up any processes that will make things easier in the future.

I am not looking to create a clause specifically for my team in it's current situation, I am looking to make a robust ruleset for all future situations.

I have written up a highsticking rule for 2011 after I was hit in the face in 2010.
I wrote up a seeding and substutions sections in the 2010 rules after those were big issues in the 2009 nationals.
(these are all at bikepolo.com.au/rules and you can download pdf's as well as word documents (open source rules :)

Personally I'll never get hit in the face ever again because I won't go out onto any court without a cage on, but I will still promote a highsticking rule for bike polo.

Every time my name or my team mates names have been mentioned above are to refer to situations or scenarios that could apply to anyone. Perhaps we should have only used the names of people who dont exist. This discussion should not involve an assumption that people around only looking out for themselves and their own situations.

So what do you think of the idea of agreeing on what we do agree on and deferring contingency situations to the reps?

(Having them decide on this wouldn't need to happen, they would only need to decide on actual cases after nationals)

--
and does anyone know how many spots Australia is going to get?

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

#87

buildingbridges...

Toronto

Dingo wrote:

and does anyone know how many spots Australia is going to get?

Not yet. Still in touch with Seattle. Will post when i know, when they know.

Sorry ive got a bit quiet, I've been holding off, hoping we'd have an answer to this question so I could write a reply that factored in exactly how many spots we have.

#88

Rob B

Why don't we wait to see how many allocations Aus gets, but while we are waiting someone (AJ?) could set up a voting poll in bikepolo. com.au so everyone interested can vote on the different scenarios a,b,c,d,etc and register their interest in going to the worlds! We may not have a too many issues anyway!

#89

virginia

Sydney Bike Polo

That sounds like a very good idea Rob.

www.goalhole.com
www.sydneybikepolo.org

#90

Dingo

Melbourne

Hey Rob.

>Why don't we wait to see how many allocations Aus gets.

It doesn't actually matter how many we get, it's still a formula.

>'n'= Number of spots. (2, 3, 4 or 547!?!)
>'n' teams allocated spots based on nationals.

>while we are waiting someone (AJ?) could set up a voting poll in bikepolo.

We still cant agree on what to vote on. those scenarios don't account for the problems we may face.

a/ is not an option if the other players are still playing.
c/ is not an option because we don't have a qualification system beyond that actual team winning one of the spots we have.
and d/ is not really helpful and most people who would select d wouldnt bother voting.

Basically, I dont believe it's possible to agree on a set of rules that will cover every possible situation, (this thread is a perfect example of this) as a result, we should not lock ourselves into a strict set of inflexible rules before we know what the scenario is that we have to account for.

A reasonable group of representative poeple should be able to agree on a situation better than a set of rules written before the scenario existed. I believe there have been many of these example scenarios posted in this threa that are not accounted for in the rules that people are proposing.

>register their interest in going to the worlds!

Great idea. I think we have a good idea of this already:
Melbourne:
People who have told me they want to go regardless:
Vive, Ray, Robm, Leigh, Damon, Will, Scott.

People who have told me they either haven't got a team(3), just want to go to be there, will be in the US anyway (2), or may not have enough money to go(1). Vive, Ray, Will, Scott.

There may be more but this is what I've heard from the few conversations we've had.

>We may not have a too many issues anyway!

This year, I agree. But we are trying to write a solid set of guidelines for the future, not just sorting out 2011.

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

#91

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

Dingo wrote:

Basically, I dont believe it's possible to agree on a set of rules that will cover every possible situation.

Damon, could you please list any other situations we would need to factor in? Don’t forget that we already have clauses for emergencies both before and after the nationals.

As for Virginia's voting, that was for the ruleset that was posted earlier (post 52), and the options were to replace point 2. Change option D in Virginia's list to "decided by a committee" if you would like.

I think that this is possible to make a vote on as its the only last remaining item you haven’t agree on. I think it is a fair compromise to be able to resolve this now.

Could you please clearly outline what would forming this committee involve? I.e. Would the committee contain any of the interested parties? Would that be considered biased? Who would be left to vote? Please keep in mind that we should try to reduce the number of process to keep it painless, as well as the fact that if it’s not clear after the nationals, that it will be harder to get consensus if it means going or not going.

#92

buildingbridges...

Toronto

"brox" wrote:

Could you please clearly outline what would forming this committee involve?

I believe he is referring to the potential National Representative Committee.

"brox" wrote:

I think it is a fair compromise to be able to resolve this now.

Im not sure if i misread something? What is the compromise? I dont see any concessions being made.

The idea of having the ability to refer situations to an "appeal" process facilitated by the Rep Committee makes sense to me. I think we all agree that 2/3rds players represents a level of consistency within a team. But consistent players doesn't necessitate a more highly qualified team.

If the guideline we are still following is "sending the best teams" then we should at least entertain the possibility of a lone member of one of the top ranked teams to form a stronger team then the "next in line". If a player is already qualified we shouldnt be looking for ways to take their spot away because of bad fortune and and set of arbitrary criteria that isnt even agreed on by all players. I agree that there are potentially scenarios where this wouldnt be appropriate, but depending on who the qualified, "orphaned" player is, and who the suggested replacements are (do they play in the same city? have they played together on a team before? where did they place in nationals? where have they ranked in previous tourneys)? etc) it may be. So allowing this to be reviewed by Representatives on a case by case basis, makes sense to me.

V previously suggested the concession that the 1st place team from Nations may deserve an Orphan Clause for winning. I would like to agree with this compromise, with the addition of this "appeal" process. This way for the 2nd place and on teams, 2/3rds rule would apply, and under extenuating circumstances they could appeal for special consideration.

Everything else from Brooks last proposal is pretty solid.

#93

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

buildingbridgesburning wrote:

"brox" wrote:

I think it is a fair compromise to be able to resolve this now.

Im not sure if i misread something? What is the compromise? I dont see any concessions being made.

This was in regards to changing the voting options to include 1/3rd as well as adding an option to make it go to a committee.

In regards to compromising on the qualification methods - this would be Virginia's proposal of 1/3rd for winning team and also to the proposal to allow a team at nationals to formally indicate whether a player who should be on the team, is not due to an injury (as with Leigh). This way if Leigh could be registered as injured before Nats and Damon qualified but his 2 team mates pulled out, Leigh could make 2/3rds with Damon. Damon's response didn't seem to agree to this though.

#94

buildingbridges...

Toronto

brox wrote:

also to the proposal to allow a team at nationals to formally indicate whether a player who should be on the team, is not due to an injury (as with Leigh).

Yes I read what you proposed about this situation. I agree with the sentiment, but it only covers 1 potential situation that could arise. Your proposal, while making sense, has been written around a situation we are already faced with and already aware of. You wrote it because it is REASONABLE. Who would a team "formally indicate" to? Maybe a committee?

The ability to refer an appeal to the committee allows flexibility in a range of situations. It means we are able to make decisions based on REASON, and aren't bound by a set of rules, even if it is agreed that it is unreasonable or unfair.

#95

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

Just to keep everyone up to date and informed, I have sent an email out to everyone who has posted here or who has express interested in attending Worlds. If you have not received an email by now, please let me know 'brook [at] sydneybikepolo.org'

I feel that the vast majority of people who should be involved have lost interest and the thread has reduced in relevance.

The feedback from the email should provide a clear indication on whether we have a decent majority to make a decision. If it is not clear, it would at least provide a good base of information for any future committee that may be formed to have an easier discussion and vote.

If you feel that I have overstepped any line or have any alternative view, please let me know. I think we can all agree that this has now taken long enough and we should be getting back to what really matters, playing polo.

#96

buildingbridges...

Toronto

Im not sure I'm entirely comfortable with this. I've emailed you my concerns privately.

#97

brox

Sydney Bike Polo

thanks lewis for the email.

Just to let everyone know, I am removing my view/opinion as well so to make it as unbiased as possible. I don't intend to make it a 'vote', just simply to get feedback so I can make a proposal that would best be supported by all.

Whether or not the method is the best, it has gone far to re-involved all interested parties. If people don't agree with the method or what i've done, ill accept that concede if ive crossed a line - the remaining info/feedback can then be given to a committee or whatever other means is decided to go with and hopefully help them gauge what people are thinking.

#98

scottles

Melbourne

Thanks for the email Brook.

I had been following the thread for a while, and basically agreed with the points raised. If there were further complications down the line then discussion, either informally (through emails swapping etc to cobble a team together, possibly on this forum) or formally (national representative body) would be able to sort out sticky situations that arise without locking us into a fixed ruleset. Having the ruleset helps set the framework for arriving at the selected teams/players, but there are bound to be unforseen circumstances which will need to be addressed. For that it would be best to have the discussion in a committee.

The ruleset proposed by brook, clarified by damon seems to be the best guideline we have at the moment, but I agree with Lewis that your selection of a nationals team should not be governed by who promises to go to the worlds. Maybe there needs to be a national ranking system / league for next year? The whole trouble is that polo teams are sooo small! bring on bench

#99

buildingbridges...

Toronto

FUCK! YEAH!

Scott's first paragraph is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

Can I get an AMEN!

#100

whitey

Melbourne

Scott, you are forever the voice of reason. More Symes, more places, more often.

#101

buildingbridges...

Toronto

If people are happy with having a sensible process for dealing with unforeseen circumstances, it could potentially make the need for stand alone "orphan protection" redundant, as an appeal process has the ability to do the same thing if deemed reasonable by representatives.

#102

buildingbridges...

Toronto

I'm done.

This has become more about having a result, than having the right one and achieving it in the right way.

Any outcome that is "achieved" from here is going to have absolutely no meaning to me. If this is how you guys wanna make decisions then I want no part of it.

I'm out.

I'm done caring. Do whatever you want.

Forget the profanity and listen carefully.

See you on the court.

#103

squid

Adelaide Bicycle Polo Club

woah, this discussion has really ballooned out.
we can't decide from this thread as there is not equal representation from all parties, so we just need to get around to forming a national body.
now let's all have a beer.

Login / Register

Worlds Qualification Discussion #2

Newest polo bike

New clubs

Who's new