BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Tournament announcements + Results + Match Reports
brodie
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:42 pm
Real Name: Brodie Pearson
Location: Oxford

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by brodie » Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:07 pm

I don't know if any were, i was just wondering in case i had to find a new partner. Weren't the semi-pro/amateur events open to everyone in those ranks?
Ex-OUTFC

User avatar
davez
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:17 pm
Real Name: Dave Ziemann
Location: London, UK

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by davez » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:23 pm

Yes.
Apostrophes never make plurals.Incorrect:Table's,Garlando's,DVD's,1900's.Correct:Tables,Garlandos,DVDs,1900s.

User avatar
Boris
BFA Treasurer
Posts: 9447
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:15 pm
Real Name: Boris Atha
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by Boris » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:58 pm

The UKC was open to everyone this year (albeit with qualifiers) so will be ranked (except Handicapped doubles), the multitable events will contribute to rankings on all tables, those held on one table type (amateur/non-pro) will contribute to the rankings for that table type. I am awaiting full results in order to calculate bonus points.

STORMIN NORM

.

Post by STORMIN NORM » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:18 pm

.
Last edited by STORMIN NORM on Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
davez
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:17 pm
Real Name: Dave Ziemann
Location: London, UK

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by davez » Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:12 pm

Boris, I don't think it's right to rank the ITSF UKC events. The purpose of these events is to select national champions. They were not properly open events. I don't believe there was a prior expectation that they would be ranked, which is another factor.
Apostrophes never make plurals.Incorrect:Table's,Garlando's,DVD's,1900's.Correct:Tables,Garlandos,DVDs,1900s.

User avatar
shovie
Posts: 2696
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 2:16 pm
Real Name: Alex Shovelton
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by shovie » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:54 pm

Agree with Dave Z. The Championship events shouldn't be ranked.

User avatar
CannonBallGuy
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:23 pm
Real Name: Matthew "Mac" Simmons
Location: Newport, Wales
Contact:

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by CannonBallGuy » Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:06 pm

It might be helpful to players for this sort of thing to be decided and announced before the event...

User avatar
Graeme
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:23 pm
Real Name: Graeme Addison
Location: Vancouver

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by Graeme » Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:29 am

Boris wrote:The UKC was open to everyone this year (albeit with qualifiers) so will be ranked (except Handicapped doubles), the multitable events will contribute to rankings on all tables, those held on one table type (amateur/non-pro) will contribute to the rankings for that table type. I am awaiting full results in order to calculate bonus points.
Are the new rankings going to be up soon?

If not is there any chance you can at least let me know whether Stanislav Burlakov has become SP on Garlando? He needs to know asap because it'll determine which events he can play in Reading (and hence which day(s) are worth going to, partners and so on).
OUTFC Secretary

User avatar
Zaku
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:49 am
Real Name: Grzegorz Zakowski
Location: Cheltenham

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by Zaku » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:38 pm

Boris
The UKC was open to everyone this year (albeit with qualifiers) so will be ranked
Stephen Lyall
ITSF World Championship Qualifying Events are open only to British Citizens or to overseas citizens who are normally resident in the UK and who have been continuously resident in the UK for a minimum of 5 years and who have not represented another country in ITSF competitions.
:?

User avatar
Boris
BFA Treasurer
Posts: 9447
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:15 pm
Real Name: Boris Atha
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by Boris » Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:35 pm

The rule was relaxed on the day, so non-UK players could and did enter (russian, portugese, polish). If I get the charts/group tables in Mac-readable form then I'll have the rankings up either tomorrow or Monday.

User avatar
davez
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:17 pm
Real Name: Dave Ziemann
Location: London, UK

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by davez » Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:45 pm

It is unfair to give an event ranking status on the day. You can relax the entry restriction on the day, that's fine, but you should not make it ranking status on the day because it is unfair to people who decided not to attend because they thought it wasn't ranking.

In any case the ITSF events were effectively closed, and so should not be ranked. The qualifiers only allowed 1 or 2 extra people in. In order to be ranked the event should be properly open, in other words, any BFA member, or any person off the street, could have entered it.
Apostrophes never make plurals.Incorrect:Table's,Garlando's,DVD's,1900's.Correct:Tables,Garlandos,DVDs,1900s.

User avatar
Shovo
Posts: 2774
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:59 pm
Real Name: John Shovelton
Location: Oxford
Contact:

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by Shovo » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:20 pm

I agree with Dave.

User avatar
Messiah
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 4:12 pm
Real Name: Dan Gallon
Location: London
Contact:

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by Messiah » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:32 pm

davez wrote:It is unfair to give an event ranking status on the day. You can relax the entry restriction on the day, that's fine, but you should not make it ranking status on the day because it is unfair to people who decided not to attend because they thought it wasn't ranking.

In any case the ITSF events were effectively closed, and so should not be ranked. The qualifiers only allowed 1 or 2 extra people in. In order to be ranked the event should be properly open, in other words, any BFA member, or any person off the street, could have entered it.
And by this argument:

WImbledon shouldn't be ranked for tennis either, as most of the players get through to the first round proper by way of ranking rather than joining the first round of qualifying.

Question is do we want to be taken seriously or not? And second question is, who in their right mind would take us seriously when we can't even decide if an event is ranking after it has taken place....
Still going....

User avatar
leaks
Posts: 873
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 3:35 pm
Real Name: Oliver Deakin
Location: Southampton

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by leaks » Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:30 am

I think the real issue here isn't about how many people went through from the qualifiers. It's the fact that the qualifiers were restricted to UK residents (or those resident here for 5 years or something along those lines) and so even the qualifiers were not open, not just the knockout rounds. It was advertised as such and to change it on the day and make the tournament ranking because of that change is unfair on those who didn't go because they didn't qualify to enter. Anyway, I thought for a tournament to be ranking it had to be registered as ranking at least two weeks in advance or something along those lines?

User avatar
Jonathan May
BFA Committee Observer
Posts: 3817
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Real Name: Jonathan May
Location: London
Contact:

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by Jonathan May » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:09 am

Who really cares? Everyone will have an opinion and very few people will have no situational bias.

Elo wouldn't throw up this problem, of course. :evil:

Isn't the only thing that matters to make a decision - one way or another - and publish the rankings? If so, let's have a Committee vote and move on.
--
Manager, TeamGB.

Craig
Posts: 1309
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:36 pm
Real Name: CF
Location: London

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by Craig » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:32 am

Messiah wrote:Question is do we want to be taken seriously or not?

Indeed. Changing the ranking status of an event after it has happened is absurd.

User avatar
davez
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:17 pm
Real Name: Dave Ziemann
Location: London, UK

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by davez » Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:18 pm

Jon May wrote:If so, let's have a Committee vote and move on.
I agree with Jon. Is this forum a conduit to the BFA committee then?
Apostrophes never make plurals.Incorrect:Table's,Garlando's,DVD's,1900's.Correct:Tables,Garlandos,DVDs,1900s.

User avatar
Boris
BFA Treasurer
Posts: 9447
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:15 pm
Real Name: Boris Atha
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by Boris » Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:20 pm

No decision to be made, as OS and OD were opened up via the qualifiers they are ranking - end of! They haven't been in previous years because they were not open.

There is a precedent from last year's UKTC where the top x players in the rankings qualified automatically and the rest had to earn the right to compete.

ybbun
Posts: 1231
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:22 pm
Real Name: Andrew Nubbert
Location: Enfield

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by ybbun » Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:32 pm

Were Rob and Joe allowed to enter "open" doubles?

User avatar
Shovo
Posts: 2774
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:59 pm
Real Name: John Shovelton
Location: Oxford
Contact:

Re: BFA Rankings at 14-9-09

Post by Shovo » Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:38 pm

I get the feeling the rest of the Committee will disagree with Boris' OPINION here.

Post Reply