APA rating question
Snooker412
I have a teammate who played in a high level team tournament in Las Vegas as a
"5" . He was just raised before that tournament from a "4" . I was told that
once he played as a "5" in an HLT,he could not go back to a "4" no matter what
his record shows. Another person told me that he can go down but must play as a
"5" in any HLT's. Anyone know what the real story is? I am very curious because
he's had a losing record for several seasons now.
Bradley Cook
I believe the latter is correct, but I'm not sure. I'm almost positive
that once you've played in upper level competition as a 5, you'll never
be lower in upper level competition.
I've defected and won't play APA anymore because the system sucks! Some
of the organizers(I won't name anyone) are crooks and treat the players
like crap. And the handicap system REALLY sucks. It really bothers me
that there is a "handicap review committee" that is made up of players
in your division. I played as a six in APA, and another player on our
team played as a four. The week before cities, he got bumped to a six
by the handicap review committee. He may have been a five, but this guy
gets the 7 ball from me, and is NO six.
Anyway, to make a long story short.. I play BCA now and am MUCH
happier!
Larry Haynes
On 27 Mar 1998 03:58:30 GMT, snook...@aol.com (Snooker412) wrote:
>I have a teammate who played in a high level team tournament in Las Vegas as a
>"5" . He was just raised before that tournament from a "4" . I was told that
>once he played as a "5" in an HLT,he could not go back to a "4" no matter what
>his record shows. Another person told me that he can go down but must play as a
>"5" in any HLT's. Anyone know what the real story is? I am very curious because
>he's had a losing record for several seasons now.
Lent my current rule book to one of my players for a few days,
but I'll give this a shot from an older book. I don't think
there was a change on this issue. I'll also forward this to the
Denver LO to verify my answer. If he says there is any change
to this, I'll post a followup.
What you're asking about is called the Lowest Attainable Rule.
"Once a player has 10 league matches behind him and, therefore,
an established skill level, he will not be allowed to drop more
than one skill level, except for the rare instances of physical
disability or other extreme circumstances which might permanently
change a players true ability. This is known as the LOWEST
ATTAINABLE rule.
Also concerning lowset attainable:
"In general, players who have participated in a National Singles
or National Team Championship on the Regional or National Level
will have their LOWEST ATTAINABLES raised to the highest exit
skill level they attained during any one of these championships.
The APA maintains a permanent record of players who have so
participated. Some exceptions may be made, but only if Local
League Management specifically appeals an individual along with
Justification."
--
Larry L Haynes larry....@worldnet.att.net
Denver, Colo
USA Where there is a will, there is a way
Brown Dog
Larry is correct to my knowledge...
Iluvpool10
In response to your question regarding the Lowest Attainable Rule in the case
of players who have participated in Higher Level Tournaments: Players who have
participated in a National Singles or National Team Championship on the
highest exit skill level they attained during any one of these championships.
with justification.
Additionally, the reason we have a Handicap Review Committee is to ensure that
all players are playing at the correct skill level and to preserve the overall
fairness of the League. We pride ourselves on being a League for amateurs; a
League in which people of ALL skill levels can compete and win. We are
recognized as the Governing Body of Amatuer Pool in the United States and our
rules are the result of years of accumulated experience and input from Players,
Boards and League Operators. Fairness to players of all abilities was the
prime final consideration for adoption or rejection of a rule or procedure.
Elaine Rose
American Poolplayers Association, Inc.
10235...@compuserve.com
http://www.poolplayers.com
Stoney
Iluvpool10 wrote:
>
> In response to your question regarding the Lowest Attainable Rule in the case
> of players who have participated in Higher Level Tournaments: Players who have
> participated in a National Singles or National Team Championship on the
> regional or national level will have their lowest attainables raised to the
> highest exit skill level they attained during any one of these championships.
So a 4 goes to 'Vegas, plays above speed, gets raised to a 5 and then
comes home and has to struggle because he truly is a 4? Raising a
player's skill level based on a small sampling of games defeats the
premise of your handicap system.
> Local League Management may appeal a specific individual to the National Office
> with justification.
I have been an APA player for three years and haven't seen it done yet.
> Additionally, the reason we have a Handicap Review Committee is to ensure that
> all players are playing at the correct skill level and to preserve the overall
> fairness of the League.
Where and/or when does this Handicap Review Committee meet? On a
mountain top under the light of a full moon? Again I haven't heard of
this Committee being active in the three years I have been playing APA.
> We pride ourselves on being a League for amateurs; a
> League in which people of ALL skill levels can compete and win.
There are amateurs and then there are 'amateurs'. If the handicapping
system were accurate and fair there would be no need for the 23 rule as
a team of 3's would be sufficiently compensated by the handicap to give
them a fair chance at winning without penalizing the 7's.
> We are
> recognized as the Governing Body of Amatuer Pool in the United States and our
> rules are the result of years of accumulated experience and input from Players,
> Boards and League Operators.
I think other sanctioning bodies may disagree with your statement that
you are the Governing Body of Amateur Pool in the United States.
> Fairness to players of all abilities was the
> prime final consideration for adoption or rejection of a rule or procedure.
It is a bar league and was established to bring patrons into bars on a
regular and periodic basis. The strategy of selecting players for
matches from all members of the team reinforces that. If you have eight
players but can only play five then three players end up sitting around
all night long waiting to see if they get played. The rules doubtless
consider the players abilities and attempts to equalize the difference
between good players and not so good players but I don't think fairness
to players of all abilities was the prime final consideration in the
beginning.
Snooker412
>Players who have
>participated in a National Singles or National Team Championship on the
>regional or national level will have their lowest attainables raised to the
>highest exit skill level they attained during any one of these championships.
>
When you say 'attained during any one of these championships',does the player
have to attain this rating in the actual playoff match and exit at that rating
to make that rating his lowest attainable rating? For example, my player has
been a 4 for several seasons and my team has a good seasonand we make the
regionals. Two weeks before the playoffs,my player gets raised to a 5.In the
playoffs ,he loses 2 matches but doesn't get lowered. When all is said and
done, is his lowest attainable a 4 or a 5?I understand if he is raised to a 5
during the playoffsbut two weeks before is a different story.
Larry Haynes
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 10:57:33 -0500, Stoney <wst...@tconl.com> wrote:
>Iluvpool10 wrote:
>> Local League Management may appeal a specific individual to the National Office
>> with justification.
>
>I have been an APA player for three years and haven't seen it done yet.
>
>> Additionally, the reason we have a Handicap Review Committee is to ensure that
>> all players are playing at the correct skill level and to preserve the overall
>> fairness of the League.
>
>Where and/or when does this Handicap Review Committee meet? On a
>mountain top under the light of a full moon? Again I haven't heard of
>this Committee being active in the three years I have been playing APA.
Stoney, I've been in the APA for just over 6 years and have seen
local (LO) League Operator's get handicaps lowered for justifiable
discrepancies/reasons. Also, at least here, there are active
Handicap Review Committees, used both during normal league sessions
and playoffs. Sounds like maybe you either have a problem with
your LO or need to talk to him/her and find out what's going on.
I'm not saying that the league/rules/handicap system is perfect.
I doubt if you will find any that will make everyone happy and
every system is dependent on the players/LOs in a particular area
to make it work. But, as a way to bring more people into the game
this system works well and is reasonably fair. IMHO
As to your comment about not playing all players in a night:
>If you have eight players but can only play five then three
>players end up sitting around all night long waiting to see
>if they get played.
You don't have to have 8 on a team. If you don't want to sit
then put together a team of 5 and play every week. If you do
this though, don't bitch about it being unfair when someone
gets sick, has to work, or goes on vacation. Even with 8 the
team capt should have enough scheduling abilities to not make
everyone sit around all night (unless they want to). If not,
vote in a new team captain. From the rules: "A team may elect
a new Team Captain by a simple majority vote at any time."
Bradley Cook
Iluvpool10 wrote:
>
> Additionally, the reason we have a Handicap Review Committee is to ensure that
> all players are playing at the correct skill level and to preserve the overall
> fairness of the League.
Yes, but why is that committee made up of players in your division?
Don't you think that those players realize it's in their best interest
to raise other players that might be a threat at their current
handicap? I realize you want to eliminate sandbagging, but why not do
it by coming up with a handicap system that doesn't take innings into
consideration?
> We pride ourselves on being a League for amateurs; a
> League in which people of ALL skill levels can compete and win. We are
> recognized as the Governing Body of Amatuer Pool in the United States and our
> rules are the result of years of accumulated experience and input from Players,
> Boards and League Operators. Fairness to players of all abilities was the
> prime final consideration for adoption or rejection of a rule or procedure.
Then there are several rules that need to be reconsidered. One is the
fact that the table is not open after the break if you make one stripe
or solid. I've seen several cases where the breaker was forced to give
up ball in hand because of this rule.
Ron Hudson
On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 10:57:19 -0400, Bradley Cook <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Then there are several rules that need to be reconsidered. One is the
>fact that the table is not open after the break if you make one stripe
>or solid. I've seen several cases where the breaker was forced to give
>up ball in hand because of this rule.
Bradley,
Are you saying that if I break and make one or more balls of BOTH categories
(solids and stripes) on the break shot, then the table is not open? If so, then
you are wrong. On and after a break, the table is open and continues to be open
until one player (on a legal shot) makes one or more balls of a single category.
Ron
Bradley Cook
No, that's not what I said. If you'll read my original post I say
stripe *OR* solid, not both. I just don't like the fact that there are
instances where the table is NOT open after the break. In the BCA, it
is always open after the break.
Ron Hudson
On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 11:59:06 -0400, Bradley Cook <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Then there are several rules that need to be reconsidered. One is the
>stripe *OR* solid, not both. I just don't like the fact that there are
>instances where the table is NOT open after the break. In the BCA, it
>is always open after the break.
Sorry, yes, I read it as stripe *AND* solid, which was incorrect.
I still don't understand this sentence: "I've seen several cases where the
breaker was forced to give up ball in hand because of this rule." What do you
mean by this?
Ron
Ron Shepard
In article <352e186c...@enews.newsguy.com>, Ron Hudson
<R...@Netcams.com> wrote:
>I still don't understand this sentence: "I've seen several cases where the
>breaker was forced to give up ball in hand because of this rule." What do you
>mean by this?
I think that he means that he pocketed only balls of one type on the
break, but was snookered so badly that he could not hit one of these balls
on the next shot. I think that this is unusual, but it does happen from
time to time. What happens more often is that you make balls of one type
on the break, but would prefer to shoot at balls of the other type on the
second shot; in this situation, you are penalized by having to shoot at
one set of balls, whereas with BCA-like rules when the table is always
open after the break, you always have the choice on the second shot and
are never penalized in this way by succeeding in pocketing balls on the
break.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Bradley Cook
Ron Hudson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 11:59:06 -0400, Bradley Cook <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Then there are several rules that need to be reconsidered. One is the
> >No, that's not what I said. If you'll read my original post I say
> >stripe *OR* solid, not both. I just don't like the fact that there are
> >instances where the table is NOT open after the break. In the BCA, it
> >is always open after the break.
>
> Sorry, yes, I read it as stripe *AND* solid, which was incorrect.
>
> breaker was forced to give up ball in hand because of this rule." What do you
> mean by this?
Ok, let's say I break and make a solid. Then by some horrible luck, the
cue ball ends up frozen to the end rail with a stripe or two frozen up
against it. I am solids, and have to hit a solid first, but that
doesn't seem to be an option here. I've seen many breaks where the
breaker was forced to kick at his object ball after the break. I think
that's a flaw in the rules.