|
|
Post by Rajiv on Apr 11, 2015 17:16:50 GMT 8
Continuing from above, the October 2014 to March 2015 season is over. From the season thread:
The October 2014 to March 2015 season is over. The top three finish level on points but Sean finishes ahead of CH on goal difference and ahead of Charpin on number of included results. Sean is top for the second successive season, and wins $50 and earns a second star. The list of winners set out in the Annex to the Overview page has been updated. The new season, April 2015 to October 2015, has kicked off. For the first time, no changes to the system or the rules at the start of the season, an indication that it has finally settled in. On a separate note, several games over the past couple of weeks where there were no modification to the rules or the line ups to keep the game competitive despite one team falling a player short due to injury: On the first occasion, I raised the following on the report thread: I repeated it on the second occasion. From the report thread for the game on 9 April 2015: .... Rules need to be implemented when this happens. .... .... There are existing rules and guidelines. Under the the "Playing Rules & Principles" thread: .... - If one team is a player short due to uneven numbers, a late withdrawal or no show, a player arriving late, fatigue, injury, illness or a player leaving the game, we try to find a replacement at the venue itself. If a replacement cannot be found, we continue with one team a player short. The team with the extra player is restricted in its scoring to within an imaginary line running through the penalty spot for the opposing goal. The same if one team is short due to a player being late. If the team that is a player short is losing badly in the second half of the game, a player from the side with the extra player should switch to the team with a player short. The scoring restriction is also switched.
.... And under the "Guidelines On Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" thread: ..... Flexibility and accommodation extends to making changes during the game. If one team is dominating the game and take a big lead in the first half of the game which appears unassailable, or one team is a player short due to uneven numbers, a no show, a late withdrawal, an injury to a player, a player having to leave early, or a temperamental player walking out of the game, or a team is significantly weakened by an injured player who continues to play in a limited capacity, team selectors/captains need to consider what changes to line ups and formations are necessary to keep the game competitive. The onus is greater when the scoreline is or approaches one that is grossly one-sided, as defined in the Appendix below. Where the team taking a big lead is largely a group of friends who don't want to be separated, one other player from that team switching over so that the other team has two players extra remains an option, as discussed in the section above. During a game, the two team selectors/captains also have the final say on the application of the Playing Rules & Principles. If the team selectors/captains cannot agree, the issue should be discussed on the report thread after the game, and may be followed up on the appropriate announcements and developments thread. Any residual dissatisfaction after the game can also be discussed on the report thread for the game. .... The issue was recently discussed under the "GIFFA System & Playing Rules" thread, as follows: .... On the WhatsApp group chat for the Saturday game, Desmond also suggested that we do away with the scoring restriction on the team with the extra player if one team is for whatever reason a player short. He suggested that the team a player short should just bear the consequences. Our games are not like other competitive games where teams are put together independently, and then turn up to play. For our games, as players put their names down individually, selectors and the other players on the team have no choice over the pool of players. Nevertheless we have a system to try to get evenly-matched teams, and ensure the game is competitive. If team selectors decide to do away with the scoring restrictions, they can do so. However, they should be willing to switch a player over if the team with the extra player start to run away with the game. .... Feel free to add your views on the rules and guidelines. If it relates primarily to last night's game, you can do so below. If it relates primarily to the rules and guidelines generally, you can do so on the "GIFFA System & Playing rules" thread. I think the rules are adequate. It just requires the players, and the team selectors/captains, sufficient consideration of what needs to be done, if anything. The table is intended to incentivise a degree of positive action. If the team selectors/captains do nothing, and the scoreline becomes too one sided, both team selectors/captains lose out. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 27, 2015 9:17:32 GMT 8
Paul T won the 6th GIFFA season played from April to September 2015. From the season thread: The April to September 2015 season is over. Paul finishes top, and earns $50 credit, and a star against his name. The next season is October 2015 to March 2016. I will keep to the same rules as last season, except that I will broaden the definition of close wins for point scoring. For last season, it was "A close result is where the number of goals scored by the winning team does not exceed the number of goals scored by the losing team by either 2, or by 1.5 times". Players seem more accepting of bigger margins provided that the games are competitive. Therefore, the new definition of a close result will be "where the number of goals scored by the winning team does not exceed the number of goals scored by the losing team by either 3, or by 2 times". However, as team captains don't have a say over their teams, I will use the old definition to decide whether the result should be included at all. The inclusion criteria will therefore be: |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 3, 2016 8:20:19 GMT 8
The outcome of the 7th GIFFA season played from October 2015 to March 2016 was held up as I was busy for much of the first half of the year, and was only able to update the results from the start of January 2016 onwards last month. From the season thread: The October 2015 to March 2016 season is over. Peminder finishes top, and earns $50 credit, and a star against his name. I'm also trying to update the results for the current (8th) season, from April to September 2016, as fast as I can. Some changes to the points and the table ordering for the current season: - 2.5 points for a draw.
- 1.5 points for a loss other than a close loss.
- I will use goal average instead of goal difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 22, 2016 20:57:01 GMT 8
I've managed to catch up with the 8th season, played from April 2016 to September 2016. From the season thread: The April 2016 to September 2016 season is over. Keith finishes top, and earns $50 credit, and a star against his name. The above modifications to the points and table. Up to now, games where there are no reports are not included in the table. Also, I have not included one-sided results for team captains, as line ups are suggested by me. However, for the next season, all games will be included. Where there are no reports, both selectors/captains will be awarded 1.5 points each, indicated by "NR". Where the result between captains is one sided, both captains will score 2 points each, indicated by "CRE". Selectors/captains should encourage players to write a report, and if no one does, try to do so themselves. I have been adding a link from the report for each game to each weekly round-up. This is time consuming. From this season onwards, I will only link the first and last games for the week. Other reports can be found by using the "Previous Thread" or "Next Thread" options under "Go to" in the "Actions" pull down menu at the top of each thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Apr 25, 2017 9:31:34 GMT 8
The October 2016 to March 2017 season has ended. From the season thread: The October 2016 to March 2017 season is over. Fred finishes top, and earns $50 credit, and a star against his name. For the last season, I added a "CRE/LCN" column to the table, for the following: - CRE - Captains results excluded, if not close result. 2 points for each captain for each game.
- LCN - Late cancellation due to weather, 2 points for each captain/selector.
As captains don't have the final say on line ups (as I suggest line ups for captains), I have always excluded results that are not close. However, they should still earn points. When the team selectors/captains have done all that is required of them, and the line ups and colours have been finalised, but the game is cancelled an hour or less before the game due to the weather, selectors/captains should still earn points. This will continue for the new season, from April 2017 to September 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 3, 2017 12:20:35 GMT 8
The April 2017 to September 2017 season has ended. From the season thread: The April 2017 to September 2017 season is over. Keith finishes top, and earns $50 credit, and another star against his name. The current season ( October 2017 to April 2018) is the 10th season since we started team selector/captain tables in February 2013 (with 2 seasons a year). Some changes introduced in the current season: - Selectors/captains for all games cancelled after line ups are finalised due to playing conditions (bad weather, haze, or pitch unplayable) will earn 2.5 points instead of 2 (the same as for a draw).
- The weightage is increased from 10 to 13. The weightage benefits those who have more games included.
On a separate note, a reminder from the "GIFFA values, principles & standards" thread:
.... As I repeatedly point out, our games are a balance between social football and a competitive edge. For each game, the regular players, especially the captains, determine where the balance should lie. If a player feels the balance is way off the mark, let me know, and I will see if redress is needed, and what form it should take. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 30, 2019 8:31:15 GMT 8
I updated the October 2017 to March 2018 season in January 2019. From the thread: Late update. Gerard finishes top for the October 2017 to March 2018 season, and earns $50, and a star against his name. I am currently updating the April 2018 to September 2018 season. I hope to update both this season and the October 2018 to March 2019 season by the end of October 2019, and the April 2019 to September 2019 season by the end of this year. To keep each season competitive, I aim to maintain or increase the number of games each month. Unfortunately, there has been a gradual decline in the number of games, as players are reluctant to put their names down for slow-filling games, and rush to play in the more popular games, resulting in more slow-filling games being cancelled due to insufficient numbers. While the GIFFA system is structured to be a contest between selectors/captains as to how best to deploy the players available, it has unfortunately become a "competition" for places in the more popular games.  The "competition" for places in popular games is meaningless, and in fact, counter-productive for the entire system, which is based on a "pooling" effect, and with the aim of giving everyone who wants a game the opportunity to play. I have modified the priority system for places in games to address the aforesaid imbalance. The changes may take some time to have the desired effect. One of the changes is to give the first player from each team to do a report priority for the following week's game. This has had some effect, as we have seen players who don't usually do reports now rushing to do the first report (see, for example, the report by Kien for the game on Saturday, 24 Aug 2019 and Kenny Aw for the game on Monday, 26 Aug 2019). The first from each team to do a report now has two benefits, priority for the following week's game, as well as the $2 credit. To spread the benefit around more, with effect from the game tomorrow (31 Aug 2019), I will split the $2 credit into $1 credits for the first two from each team to do a report. Priority for the following week's game will only be for the first from each team to provide a report, but I will consider extending it in the future to the second player from each team to do so. I would rather the rush be to provide reports for games (which benefits everyone, and the system) rather than to be the first to put one's name down for the following week's game (which only benefits the player concerned, at the expense of the system). Each selector can also appoint another player on his team as captain. With the changes to the priority system, if a selector does so, both the selector and captain have priority for the following week's game. If a selector wants to share the priority benefit, he can appoint another player on his team as captain, giving that other player priority too. For now, if a selector appoints another player as captain, the result will be recorded under the captain's name in the season's table. However, if the practice becomes widespread, I may have two separate tables, one for selectors, and one for captains. I previously stated that I was not prepared to use the slots for the regular games for team matches. A "team match" is where one or both teams are made up of players from a broader pool of players, arranged or organised by anyone who is able to put together a team from friends, colleagues or other games that he plays in. As I will now be scheduling 6 fixed games and 3 rolling games each week, I will allow anyone to take over any slot on a one-off basis for a team match (to be referred to as a "challenge match" going forward, which was the term I used originally). This includes the more popular games, Saturday evening at Grandstand, Monday night at Macpherson and Wednesday night at Khalsa. Anyone who plays a particular game regularly (or in the case of newer or slow-filling games, any PRG player) must let me know at least 6 days in advance of the slot that he wishes to take over. If I agree, the player must then create a thread for the game on the "OPSAGE" board at least 5 days in advance of the date of the game. I will leave it to him to co-ordinate the game. He can ask for players to sign up for one or both teams on the thread. Or the teams can be organised off-forum. All I require after that is that each team have a designated captain, and the result be posted on the same thread. The result will be recorded in the selector/captain table. We have two somewhat extreme cases this past week:
The "Guidelines On Team Organization and Game Play" post provides:
.... Flexibility and accommodation extends to making changes during the game. If one team is dominating the game and take a big lead in the first half of the game which appears unassailable, or one team is a player short due to uneven numbers, a no show, a late withdrawal, an injury to a player, a player having to leave early, or a temperamental player walking out of the game, or a team is significantly weakened by an injured player who continues to play in a limited capacity, team selectors/captains need to consider what changes to line ups and formations are necessary to keep the game competitive. The onus is greater when the scoreline is or approaches one that is grossly one-sided, as defined in the Appendix below. .... ....
Where, for whatever reason, one team is a player short, a simple solution is for one player from the team with excess players to swap over to the side a player short halfway through the remainder of the game. If an injured player continues in a limited capacity, that player can (and should) be swapped at the half point.
With effect from the game on 31 Aug 2019, if the final score is grossly one-sided (as described in the Annex to the "Guidelines On Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" thread), both captains will lose the $1 credit for being captain. The $1 credit for selectors will not be affected. I will also consider depriving the captains of priority for the following week's game, but I won't implement this for now.
I used to monitor comebacks. From earlier in this thread:.... I have moved all the posts from the "One-sided games and comebacks" thread to this, the "Competitive edge" thread, and renamed the merged thread "Keeping score & the competitive edge". |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 13, 2019 8:20:38 GMT 8
From the post above: .... I am currently updating the April 2018 to September 2018 season. I hope to update both this season and the October 2018 to March 2019 season by the end of October 2019, and the April 2019 to September 2019 season by the end of this year. .... I have completed the updating of all three seasons ahead of schedule. The winners are as follows:
- April 2018 to September 2018 - Raj Singh.
- October 2019 to March 2019 - Sean Luo (his third win!).
- April 2019 to September 2019 - Nazriee.
As the role of selector and captain within a team can be split between two players, the season table will be for captains, not selectors, as captains have the final say over what happens during a game.
I have also updated the Overview thread. I currently list the top three in each season. I will expand the listing to cover the top six in each season. Everyone who has finished in a top 6 position will have a captain's band added against their name.
As inclusion in the table now extends to challenge matches, I will move the entire "Weekly Round Ups, Tables & Game Records" board from the "Primary Routine Games" category to the "Administration" category.
I am simplifying the criteria for inclusion in the selector polls. For 7 or 8-a-side games, any of the following:
- 20 games in the current 6 month period and 30 games over the past 3 years.
- 15 games in the current 6 month period and 40 games over the past 3 years.
- 10 games in the current 6 month period and 50 games over the past 3 years.
- 5 games in the current 6 month period and 60 games over the past 3 years.
- 3 games in the current 6 month period and 70 games over the past 3 years, or a top 6 finish in any season.
Generally, for every game less 20 in the current 6 month period, 2 more than 30 over the past 3 years (except if falls below 5, subject to a minimum of 3, 5 more), so if number of games less than 20 in the current 6 month period is "n" (up to n=15), number of games required over the past 3 years is 30+2n or more .
For 5 or 6 a-side games, the number of games required over the past 3 years will be reduced by 10.
From the "Team selectors/captains & line ups" thread:
.... ... from the "Keeping score & the competitive edge" thread: .... Where, for whatever reason, one team is a player short, a simple solution is for one player from the team with excess players to swap over to the side a player short halfway through the remainder of the game. If an injured player continues in a limited capacity, that player can (and should) be swapped at the half point. With effect from the game on 31 Aug 2019, if the final score is grossly one-sided (as described in the Annex to the "Guidelines On Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" thread), both captains will lose the $1 credit for being captain. The $1 credit for selectors will not be affected. I will also consider depriving the captains of priority for the following week's game, but I won't implement this for now. .... The requirement to bring both colours (white and red) is mandatory, and if it is reported and verified that a regular player who signed up early for a fast-filled game failed to bring both colours, the $1 admin fee will be automatic. If players can make the effort to sign up early for a fast-filled game, they should also make the effort to bring both colours. I will look at the following on a case-by-case basis: - $1 admin fee for non-regular players not bringing both colours, or players not bringing both colours for a slow-filling game.
- Withholding the selector credit or the priority for the following week's game where selectors fail to correct obvious or serious mistakes in the line ups, or make adequate changes to the line ups when it is obviously needed.
I know being selector is a responsibility, but the players elected or appointed should carry out the task diligently. .... On the other hand, there are benefits, the biggest of which is first priority in the first 24 hours for the following week's game. This is quite a big incentive for fast-filled games. .... Players can opt out as selector when they put their names down for a game. They can opt out any time before the poll goes up, even on the WhatsApp group chat. Sometimes, players opt out even after the poll goes up! On the other hand, players who had earlier opted out can make themselves available for the poll any time before the poll goes up. I think this has only happened once or twice before. ....
Each of the games on Tuesday (8 Oct 2019, on a small pitch at Grandstand), Wednesday (9 Oct 2019, at Khalsa), and Thursday (10 Oct 2019, at Macpherson) ended as a grossly one-sided result. As set out in the Appendix to the "Guidelines On Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" thread:
From the report thread for the game on Tuesday (8 Oct 2019):
.... ..., the turning point (or "collective collapse") was probably when the deficit between the teams extended to 4 goals (at 7-3) and the Reds' heads begin to drop. Whites could have even added to the final tally if not for some misplaced finishing in the final third. ....
"Heads dropping" is really the turning point to consider changes. I hear complaints often enough from regular players of having to pay for a poor game. Apart from the fact that they are paying for the facilities provided, and not for the quality of the game, the complaint is more often heard when there are several less regular players playing. Players seem much more forgiving of other regulars, then of new or newer players.
And from the report thread for the game on Thursday (10 Oct 2019):
Game was even for the first 15 minutes with the score at 4-3 to Red. Red then scored consecutively 6 or 7 goals without any reply from White. There was a consolation goal for White near the end from a long range effort before Reds getting a few more. Final score was around 13-4 to Red.
Whites combined well with some precise passing early on to take the lead first and manage to hold till the 25th minute mark at 4-4 before reds retook the lead at the 30th minute mark. Then reds started to completely overwhelm the whites when they ran out of energy to press and became very static leading to reds bombarding the white goal for another 5 consecutive goals. ....
Reds had most of the new, newer or less regular player. This would have given Whites two benefits - (a) greater fitness; and (b) greater familiarity between players - each of which gives a team a significant advantage. That is why it is clearly stated in the Guidelines that new, newer or less regular players should be spread between the two teams.
Going forward, if a result is grossly one-sided, the captains will not receive their $1 credit unless and until the captain of the losing side explains on the report thread why no changes were made. I will also set out more clearly in the Guidelines what the possible changes that captains should consider. I will in any event be updating all the admin pages by the end of the year.
The October 2019 to March 2019 season has kicked off. However, I will not put up the table until after two months, when the table first begins to take shape. Every primary routine game and challenge match now counts in the table. The following features should be noted:
- Players who are captains more often benefit significantly.
- Games that are not close results garner less points than games with close results. The winning captain does no better than if he lost in a close result. The losing captain does no better than if no result had been provided. A close result is where the number of goals scored by the winning team does not exceed the number of goals scored by the losing team by either 3, or by (GC + 1) x 2, GC being the goals conceded by the losing team. It is closer than a grossly one-sided game.
- If no result is included on the report thread, both captains lose out significantly. The points for both captains is the same as losing in a game that is not a close result. Therefore, captains should make it a point to ensure that the result is provided on the report thread, and if no other player does so, do it themselves. The captain doing so can also benefit himself with credits, $1 for a first or second report for his team, and $1 credit as captain, which is only given after a report is provided.
Overall, the aim is to keep games competitive to the end, and not to leave one team feeling utterly deflated at the finish. If one team is trailing say by 0-6, there is still an incentive to close to say 3-8, as the losing captain benefits from the game being recorded as a close result (or "CRS"), rather than as a result that is not close (which I refer to as an "other result" or "ORS" in the season thread). Currently there is a 2 goal difference in the margin between a close result and a grossly one-sided result. For example, if the losing side scores 3, 8-3 is a close result, but 10-3 is a grossly one-sided result. I will consider increasing the difference to 3, by changing the formula for grossly one-sided results to "((L+2) x 2) + 1", to give captains more leeway. If regular players don't want the degree of supervision I exercise over the balancing of teams and scorelines (which includes the requirement to bring two colours), they can always convert the games they play into challenge matches. From the "Filling places & choices" thread: .... Since the start of the month, I have allowed any regular to convert any slot, even one for a fast-filling game, into a challenge match. The request needs to be made at least 6 days before the slot (because otherwise, I will schedule the usual game 5 days before the slot), and the thread for the challenge match has to be put up on the "Challenge Matches" board in the OPSAGE category at least 5 days before the game. .... .....
- Selectors can be appointed or elected first, and then they put together their own teams from a wider range of players (including guests). Players can even be given incentives to play for a particular team, such as waiving of payment (full or partial).
- A high quality team can be put together to play against an existing team from elsewhere.
For challenge matches, my role can be limited to holding the regular booking (on the venue's terms) or can extend to collecting payment from players. The organiser can decide on a higher payment per player to allow for incentives to be given to certain key players. If payment is on my standard terms, I waive the organiser's payment, for taking on the responsibility of organising.
Even if players organise everything for themselves, including bookings and payments, they can still post the game on the challenge matches board, as a way of keeping a record of their games, or even as a way of picking up players when they are short. However, for such games, if captains are named in the report, and the organiser requests that the result be included in the selector/captain table, I will charge $10 per game, as there is prize money at the end of each season, with two seasons in a year. If there is sufficient interest in bringing outside games under challenge matches, I can increase the prize money. Again, it is about having greater choices.
.... Other than on 21 Sep 2019 and 28 Sep 2019, every Saturday evening game at Grandstand has been converted to a challenge match, twice by Aschkan (on 7 Sep 2019 and 14 Sep 2019), and three times by Raj Singh (on 5 Oct 2019 and 12 Oct 2019, and for 19 Oct 2019). Every result posted on the "Challenge matches" board will be included in the season's table, provided that both captains are GIFFA Players, and either (i) I hold the booking for the pitch or (ii) a game fee is paid. I mentioned $10 in the quote above. $5 will suffice as game fee. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jun 2, 2021 19:55:04 GMT 8
|
|
....
The "competition" for places in popular games is meaningless, and in fact, counter-productive for the entire system, which is based on a "pooling" effect, and with the aim of giving everyone who wants a game the opportunity to play.