26-11-2015, 01:49 PM
The SNCL team tournament is, for me, one of the highlights of the season. Many of Scotland’s best players appear, and with 8-team divisions with two promoted and relegated each season, most are involved in significant games right up to the last round. Exciting stuff.
It is, however, marred by Rule 7, which requires clubs with more than one team to play its members in order of grading across all its teams taken together. This means that a ‘B’ team (or, for that matter, ‘C’ team) is forced to become no more than a reserve pool for the team above it, and has no identity of its own. This is not very encouraging for its players, and especially its captain who may work conscientiously to complete his five, only to have his best player snatched by rule because someone pulled out of a higher team at the last minute. The top team captain, of course, has no worries; he knows he has a replacement handy should one of his team not show up, and can blame it on the rule book.
It gets worse. Coupled with Rule 9, the lower team captain, through no fault of his own, could find himself suddenly flagged with a ‘no-show’ penalty that should have gone to the ‘A’ team. Under Rule 9, if this happens three times he loses a precious league point.
There’s more. Suppose the ‘B’ team is a ‘nursery’ team for young players to give them experience, and I’ve seen some of those at the event, with an adult and four young juniors. If the ‘A’ team fails to provide a full team, the ‘B’ team’s highest ranked player, quite probably the adult, is grabbed for ‘A’ team duty. What is he supposed to do? Play for the ‘A’ team while looking after the ‘B’ team, or hand captaincy to one of the inexperienced, and by this time possibly disheartened, juniors? Because Rule 7 is unequivocal on this; he must not move his strongest junior up so that he can look after the rest.
Rule 7 is thoroughly unjust, and should be changed. It is also slightly ambiguous with the use of ‘must’ in the first sentence making the raid on the lower team compulsory, while the presence of ‘can’ in the second hints that it could be optional. This needs clarified. However, I cannot see why, as in other leagues, each team cannot have its own pool, and thus its own identity, with the responsibility for completing his five on tournament day resting with each respective captain.
Jim Robertson
East Kilbride
It is, however, marred by Rule 7, which requires clubs with more than one team to play its members in order of grading across all its teams taken together. This means that a ‘B’ team (or, for that matter, ‘C’ team) is forced to become no more than a reserve pool for the team above it, and has no identity of its own. This is not very encouraging for its players, and especially its captain who may work conscientiously to complete his five, only to have his best player snatched by rule because someone pulled out of a higher team at the last minute. The top team captain, of course, has no worries; he knows he has a replacement handy should one of his team not show up, and can blame it on the rule book.
It gets worse. Coupled with Rule 9, the lower team captain, through no fault of his own, could find himself suddenly flagged with a ‘no-show’ penalty that should have gone to the ‘A’ team. Under Rule 9, if this happens three times he loses a precious league point.
There’s more. Suppose the ‘B’ team is a ‘nursery’ team for young players to give them experience, and I’ve seen some of those at the event, with an adult and four young juniors. If the ‘A’ team fails to provide a full team, the ‘B’ team’s highest ranked player, quite probably the adult, is grabbed for ‘A’ team duty. What is he supposed to do? Play for the ‘A’ team while looking after the ‘B’ team, or hand captaincy to one of the inexperienced, and by this time possibly disheartened, juniors? Because Rule 7 is unequivocal on this; he must not move his strongest junior up so that he can look after the rest.
Rule 7 is thoroughly unjust, and should be changed. It is also slightly ambiguous with the use of ‘must’ in the first sentence making the raid on the lower team compulsory, while the presence of ‘can’ in the second hints that it could be optional. This needs clarified. However, I cannot see why, as in other leagues, each team cannot have its own pool, and thus its own identity, with the responsibility for completing his five on tournament day resting with each respective captain.
Jim Robertson
East Kilbride