Objections to Grade Limited Competitions

  1. Grades not known at time of entry.
  2. May be difficult to find reserve who doesn't push the team over the limit.
  3. New strong players may be difficult to accommodate part way through the season at clubs not having an open team.
  4. Captains will be submerged in arithmetic.
To some extent these all betray the feeling that the limit is a target that needs to be got as close to as possible. Not only need this not be true, it is also not the case that teams need to be close to the limit in order to stand a chance of winning. What is true is that the closer to the limit a team is the more care it will need to take to not breach the limit. However for a team of say total grade 610 in a 650 competition, the 40 points they have to play with will be proof against most problems yet will leave them knowing that if they play well by their standards they still have an excellent chance in the competition.

Particular comments on the objections above are
  1. Clubs can and do change their entries after the AGM under the current system. For 2005/6 confirmation of the provisional entries of Newcastle D, Creda C and Fenton C and non-entry of the Blind all happened over the summer. The entry of Leek St Edwards E and the withdrawal of Cheddleton D were also post AGM events.
  2. Most teams already need to look downwards for their reserves, so for them looking up for a substitute top board represents an increase in flexibility. The no reserving within a section rule would mean that teams can no longer look sideways, but if this encourages clubs to spread entries across sections it is not necessarily a bad thing as it will both reduce the chance of inconveniently small or large sections and help ensure other teams have a varied fixture list in terms of the clubs they play.
  3. Clearly depends on how strong the newcomer is and how close to the limit the clubs top team is. Clubs may wish to bear this 'might happen' event in mind when making entries.
  4. Not as much as the darts player who may need to reassess his target every time a dart goes astray. If adding a few numbers together is the straw that breaks the camels back and leads to captain resignations, then surely the correct response is to consider the main load rather than the arithmetic - after all a chessplayers idea of a good night out is to spend it planning and calculating at the board. The main load can nearly always be traced to a lack of support for the captain from the ordinary members of their club.
There is no easy solution if the freedom to make entries as desired leads to one of the competitions attracting a small entry. We have sometimes had small divisions under the current scheme, with the teams playing each other more than twice, though this is not universally regarded as a good solution.
Clubs cannot be expected to know what entries they would wish to make for any possible combination of limits, so regularly moving the limits is not a sensible choice. However they do have the option of making additional entries in other sections if they think this is in the interest of their members.
A further possibility would be to write Autumn and Spring Jamborees into the fixture list for small sections, though this would be dependent on finding sufficiently large venues.

Introduction
Procedural Proposal
Main proposal
Whats wrong with Prom and Rel?
Sitemap