QuickTopic free message boards logo
NOTICE: QuickTopic is shutting down soon. Learn more.
Skip to Messages


IDTTL - Postponed Matches

(not accepting new messages due to QuickTopic shutdown)
05:33 PM ET (US)
Thanks to the author for writing the post, it was quite necessary for me and liked it. I wrote a note on the resumecvservice.com about this. I will be happy if you read it and accept it. Thank you for your concern.
andy harvey
04:08 PM ET (US)

   on this point of postponed match their is alot of people who
   do shift work now and their not so many players around to what they
   use to be . So you have to work around peoples life styles now,
   as myself i find harder now to fit it in now to play, because
    of work .
06:52 AM ET (US)
Currently when a team fails to show for a match, the team at fault will be fined 10 pts and still be required to play the match at a later date. So the league has this point covered.
The main problem we are trying to fix is cancellation of a number of matches over and above what might be considered normal.
07:01 PM ET (US)

I agree to the fact that if the game needs to be postponed because of lack of PLayers, However, a No Show to a scheduled match should be Strongly penalised, otherwise when a team is short of players for a particular match, they will just not show instead of playing with 1 or 2 players.
This is not a good example for younger players. IDTTL should analise this problem and enforce measures to stop this happening.
02:19 PM ET (US)
Just another point of clarification: The league allows three weeks after the last fixture week for any rearranged matches. Any matches played after those three weeks are void.
If any more time is allowed then teams tend to be reluctant to get games played. This inturn impacts on teams trying to organise themselves for the new season, entries which have to be in before the end of May.
Richard Goodhand
02:54 PM ET (US)
I take your point Geoff - it is difficult and wrong when you are flexible to the point of costing yourself points. I'm not sure what the answer is to this. If somebody calls to rearrange because they can't get a team out, it would be difficult to just refuse. People will normally have really good reasons for requesting a postponement, eg holidays, illness, injuries etc. I don't think they should be penalised for this either, otherwise teams will be having to ensure they have about 6 players each, to ensure they can always, without fail, get a team together. And this will reduce the numbers of teams that play in the leagues.

I would reiterate just how well I think IDTTL manage this issue by being flexible. There was so much moaning in the Colchester league about not being able to rearrange, it would be really bad if we followed suit. But perhaps this should be restricted in some way, within reason, eg max 5 per season with max 3 in any 1 half. Could the league agree to allow an extra couple of weeks grace at the end of the season, to help teams like Geoff's being forced into playing when they then can't get a team together? Or, rather than agreeing this for all on a blanket basis, the league could consider giving a couple of extra weeks on an individual application from a team with a specific difficulty like this?
Geoff Riley
07:22 PM ET (US)
It can be a pain when a teams cancels, we've had loads cancelled this season which unfortunately will end up penalising our team. We've had a full team for the original match date and have even been at the dome waiting for a team to turn up and they've just not turned up without any notice.

Unfortunately now we will almost certainly have to play our rearranged games with 1 or 2 players due to our teams work committments, surely this can't be fair?

We've had to play some games this season with 2 players which we could instead have cancelled. Surely if your not allowed to cancel games everyone is on the same level footing and the opposition team isn't penalised for no fault of their own?
Edited 03-01-2007 07:24 PM
08:10 AM ET (US)
Just to allay your fears on one point. IDTTL has never awarded 10 points to any team because the opposing team has defaulted. ALL matches HAVE to be played. The only let off is if the match does not effect promotion / relegation and playing is virtually impossible, in which case neither team gets any points.
Thus if a team falls foul of the new scheme, they would get 5 points deducted, and have to score at least 5 points when the match is played to avoid 'losing' points. The opposing team would still score as though it was a normal match.
Richard Goodhand
01:14 PM ET (US)
You can always rely on some grumpy old codger to come along and hi-jack a sensible topic. Can't believe it - the first time in 10 years Graham has agreed with anything I've said!
Graham Mortimer
12:50 PM ET (US)
 At last some sense on this subject from Richard Goodhand.Clearly playing with senior players in his team squad has given him the nous and vision to look beyond yesterday
Richard Goodhand
03:41 AM ET (US)
I play in the Colchester League too, which previously didn't allow teams to cancel, so you would forfeit a match, your opponent getting 10 points. Ipswich must not go down this line as when this happens, it distorts the league positions horribly. Fining points doesn't just penalise the team doing the rearranging. Imagine if you are fighting to stay up and are just above the relegation zone, when a team below gets an injection of 10 points, for doing nothing other than their opposing team not turning up. Not fair.

With a number of players in more than one league, it is important that the leagues remain flexible to requests to rearrange, within reason, because of fixture clashes. This is why Colchester have decided to allow 2 postponements per season. It's still not quite enough, but it helps. I think perhaps you should get maximum 2 per half season. Otherwise, teams will have to get bigger to ensure cover is in place, and we will see the number of teams drop again.

In terms of penalties, I can understand the wish to dock points, but as above, this can swing an end league result which just isn't right. Maybe a small fine would be best, but generally the team already has a financial penalty in having to book their venue for another night. Personally, I think the flexibility of Ipswich is great and should stay. Maybe if a team is getting behind, eg 4 fixtures behind, the league secretary just gives them a warning/kick up the !!!!
Deleted by topic administrator 02-18-2007 02:32 PM
Mark Lewis
06:11 PM ET (US)
The system Clacton uses seems to work very well - each team is allowed to cancel/re-arrange two matches per season. Anything above this they have to conceed. They also fine teams two points per player if they do not field a full team. I'm in my fourth season in Clacton and I can't remember the last time I played against a two man team!

I think along with this, the league should look at the speed results are returned and updated on the website. If you have a look at other local leagues, for the most part these are never more than a couple of matches behind. I know according to the handbook there should be a fine of 2 for late results - rather than that, should it be a points fine, and also perhaps enforced more than is currently done? It's not exactly difficult to put the results in the post, and for those on the net (which is anybody reading this!!) they can send then in electronically...
Edited 02-17-2007 06:11 PM
idttlPerson was signed in when posted
01:23 PM ET (US)
At a recent committee meeting (15/2/2007) the issue of cancelled/postponed matches arose. A number of teams have been cancelling matches for one reason or another, some more than others. When this has been debated at the AGM in previous seasons, the answering reply has always been 'Well, the matches are always played by the end of the season!'

The main problem with a cancellation is that they are a major inconvenience to the opposing team. Everyone prefers regular matches i.e once a week, and having to later fit in two or even three matches a week to complete the fixture list is annoying to say the least.

Ok, teams do have problems getting a team together perhaps due to illness, work commitments etc, but again most teams have four or more players and players they can call upon from lower divisions.

Would you prefer to play a team with two players and be guaranteed a match each week, or do you want to wait to play a three-player team later in the season?

Many leagues do not allow any matches to be cancelled - should we?

If we do impose a restriction on cancelling matches how should we enforce it?

The League Registration Sec's thoughts are as follows (if it's agreed to clamp down on this matter):
Teams are allowed a maximum of 1 match cancellation per season half.
Cancelling a match (over and above the 2 match limit) will invoke a 5 point fine for the offending team.

So it's time for your say.........