New rules and website with scores

MicS

In NUIG, new rules for this season were proposed:
1. Individual league rankings for this year will be based on the best 5 scores (out of 8 competitions). Previously, it was "all scores minus worst", i.e. 7 out of 8 for this year.
2. Team league rankings will be also based on the best 5 scores. Previously, all scores counted towards the total.

With these changes, the scores on UCD web site will use new rules only after I update the software to generate all webpages. Hopefully, I'll do it soon.
Anyway, calculating everything on site of UL IV to give out end-of-year prizes will become more difficult.

For next seasons, I will try to write a new program so that scores can be entered at the competition, and generate all reports and leagues, etc. For that, rules will need to be formalized (not fixed, having parameters is ok).

Panserborn

Nice one MicS

While on the subject, how did people find the hotshot went in NUIG? We used the new formalised rules proposed by MicS and Span.

Yuppie

much better, totally fair in terms of competition between classes

MicS

Today, at UCD intervarsity another change was proposed: to use all team scores for calculating team league rankings for the next year, i.e. revert to the system we always used before.

Ok, here I'm getting really annoyed. What is the point in changing rules for the current season in NUIG (after 3 competitions), and then reverting back for the next season only (after 5 competitions)? Why not then keep it for this season as well (which equates to not changing this rule at all)? You know, making a change during the season, and then later saying that we cannot change rules we already decided for this season, so changing only following ones. It's just illogical.

I can understand that change in individual league rules (i.e. relaxation for individual archers, and that rule already existed). Even though the selection of 5 best scores seems strange. Remember, that it was never "just 5" competitions before, but "all minus one". Yes, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 had 6 IVs, so 5 scores were counted in individual league, but 2005-2006 season had 7 IVs and 6 scores were counted.

The rules I know are all written in this post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52244513&postcount=3, it's sticked to the top of this forum.

(1) The League score for each team will be the sum of the team scores at each competition.
(3) In each category, people’s final score is the sum of their scores from each competition. Minus their worst score. Missing a competition automatically gives a score of zero for that competition.

The only addition was separating barebows and compounds into a separate league. That's what my program uses as basis.

Dermot started to keep all IV scores on UCD web site, and I volunteered to continue doing that since then. Again, I volunteered to write a nice GUI program for everybody to enter score at competition and generate reports, and to continue keeping all scores for next seasons, even after I stop participating myself. Yes, I'm not on any league committee, I was not appointed as records officer of the league. But I kept spending whole evenings after each IV to put those results for everybody else to read.

But if league rules committee continues to change and tweak rules unnecessarily and during the season, I will stop doing this work. Or invite me to rules committee discussions and explain the situation. I will not do any more work until this situation is cleared.

johnreck

Re rule changes.
I feel that it is unfair and undemocratic for rule changes to be imposed during the inter-varsity season. It seems to have come to a stage were rule changes are made by a few and imposed upon the many at a whim without due regard to the representatives of these clubs having been given time to discuss such changes with there respective committees and club members, and to then act in regard to the wishes of there said members.
our own inter-varsity rules state that rules may not be changed during an inter-varsity season and that any rule changes that are agreed upon shall not come into effect until the next season.
with regard to this. Any and all rule changes that have or are planned to be implemented during this inter-varsity season are without merit or foundation and as such may not be implemented. To change the rules, the rule stating that rules may not be changed during season must first be changed and such a change may not come into effect until the next inter-varsity season.
That a few wish to change the existing rules during this season and then change them back next season can only lead one to question there motivation for such drastic and unreasoned changes.
as it stands our inter-varsity rewards those individual's and teams that are most commited and consistent and any changes that wish to detract from this should be seriously questioned.
to change rules in such an undemocratic and dictatorial manner can do nothing but to bring our inter-varsity archery into disrepute.
much as there are those who wish to impose their personalities and personal ideas of how we should run our inter-varsity's we are a union of university clubs who set are rules, regulations and behavior,s by a democratic process that strives to reflect the views of the many in a fair and equal manner. All members have an equal voice no matter their time as a club member or their sporting ability, as such any and all changes must be seen to reflect the wishes of the majority and not just the few.

Memori

i wonder why all of these objections were not raised when the original discussion with 2 members from all colleges present was held in Galway?

johnreck

Memori wrote: »

i wonder why all of these objections were not raised when the original discussion with 2 members from all colleges present was held in Galway?

Because club representatives present did not have an oppertunity to seek the views of there club members whom they represent. neither did they have the authority.
further the fact still remains that rules may not be changed during the season.
you may have meetings to decide rule changes but they are not effective till next season, during which time (one would hope) representatives of clubs may have had the chance to discuss with members of their clubs and their respective committees any and all proposals and to then return with valid views of its members.
is called a democratic process, were all stake holders have an equal and valid say.

PokeyMcArrow

I didn't think rules were to be changed this year.. At UCD i was under the impression that the current rules would remain the same until september of this year and the new season..

And the new rules seem very fair!

johnreck

changing of rules is not the central issue, what is central however is how and why they are changed.
to attempt to implement a rule change for this year when there are 8 IV's taking part on the grounds that archers can not make all Iv's and to then wish to change it back to its original format next year when one would hope that there are still 8 IV's and maybe more, makes no logical sense in any world.
further the changes required to update present programs only to then reduce them is farcical at best. as it stands the IV's are a fair, in what sport is it fair for teams to be able to say ahhh well these scores we achieved were not happy with so we wont include them, give me a break if thats how its going to be run why not eliminate the 5 best scores of each team and individual.
clubs field teams for there IV's and the best team on the day wins.
at the end of the season scores are tabulated and the team with the overall highest score wins, simple and transparent.

HansEbert

the irish student archery league is meant for students i agree... fair and equal but the meeting was announced 1 or 2 weeks before the intervarsity at nuig... (see the post i put up) and as such any rule changes were to be discussed if anyone had any problems before the meeting. 2 reps from each college were present, and the conditions were that the reps were to be students and students only as our league is for students only and to have a years grace is a privilege granted by the rules...


However a significant majority voted
these rule changes... and that is democracy not dictatorship.

and as u may know from your extensive reading of the rules that it says nothing about 8 intervarsities or the adding of intervarsities... that was one of the chief reasons the meeting was called...

the rules were also set at a time when there were 6 ivs not 8...

8 IVs put pressure particularly in the 2nd semester on students who compete in IAAA events (which i feel everyone should).

MicS

Memori wrote: »

i wonder why all of these objections were not raised when the original discussion with 2 members from all colleges present was held in Galway?

In particular, because many people (me including) were under impression that all rule changes will apply only for the following and not current season. Here is the quote from Joe's initial proposal to host captains meeting in NUIG http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055212071:

i propose we set new rules for the following year ('08-'09). These rules will be no different to the rules already set down but they WILL be enforced and there will be no manipulation or bending of the rules.

Second reason why no objections were raised in time - the changes were proposed and detailed only at the meeting, which had a limited number of participants, and these changes were set for vote and accepted immediately at the same meeting. And contrary to Joe's statement few minutes ago

fair and equal but the meeting was announced 1 or 2 weeks before the intervarsity at nuig... (see the post i put up) and as such any rule changes were to be discussed if anyone had any problems before the meeting.

no proposed changes were actually posted before the meeting. You can simply reread that thread.

MicS

Anyway, with all these discussions ... Are there any minutes of what was discussed and what decisions were taken in meetings in NUIG and UCD? If yes, can they be posted here?

lilRedSmurf

I am not going to comment on the nature of the changes that are being discissed. I simply want to point out that a lot of work went into putting the rules that you work from together in the first place. And none were implemented with out serious consideration and lengthy discussion.

I was around before they came into affect and while they were taking shape.
Dermot put his heart and soul into it as did a number of veterans of the IV's.
Some of us are still around but noone seems to want to listen to the voice of experience.

So sitting at the side lines all I'm seeing now is a group of unorganised individuals with varying perceptions of what is actually going on, arguing almost constantly with no clear strong leadership or notion of how much work keeping the IV's and the league going actually involves.

It is the club representatives' job to be the voice of the club and its up to the members of the club to stay informed and get their opinions heard.

Many people involved in the IV's do the jobs they do out of the kindness of their hearts and because they are so happy keep something they built running as well as it should. Have some thought for these people as they will not be around for ever.

johnreck

rule changes are not the central issue.
how they are made and implemented is.
full information as to the issues to be regarded beforehand and not on the day.
time for those present to consider the issues and seek advice from other club members. you basic considerations and fair play.
as stated earlier there has been a lot of work that has gone into the establishment of the IV and its present rules that have and continue to serve us well. in that regard we have those who effort have brought this about to thank and should not change it willy nilly.

Renegade_Archer

Jesus, if Dermot was dead he'd be spinning in his grave.



Changing rules mid-season is a spectacularly broken idea.



Ewan
(IV veteran. Get off my lawn.)

johnreck

HansEbert wrote: »

the irish student archery league is meant for students i agree... fair and equal but the meeting was announced 1 or 2 weeks before the intervarsity at nuig... (see the post i put up) and as such any rule changes were to be discussed if anyone had any problems before the meeting. 2 reps from each college were present, and the conditions were that the reps were to be students and students only as our league is for students only and to have a years grace is a privilege granted by the rules...


However a significant majority voted
these rule changes... and that is democracy not dictatorship.

and as u may know from your extensive reading of the rules that it says nothing about 8 intervarsities or the adding of intervarsities... that was one of the chief reasons the meeting was called...

the rules were also set at a time when there were 6 ivs not 8...

8 IVs put pressure particularly in the 2nd semester on students who compete in IAAA events (which i feel everyone should).

in relation to your reply yes a years grace is a privaleage it does not however exclude one from holding an opinion nor participating fully within the IV it is an article that is granted to all students,and should not be used in the context of exclusion nor to lessen in any way ones concerns or participation in relation to how the IV is run.
further to your post, in your article about the meeting there was no mention of changes to the leauge rules for 07/08 nor was there mention of the fact that up to 3 inter-varsity team and individual scores were to be totaly discounted.
i agree that participation in IAAA events are important, however the holding and participation in IAAA events should not be used to lessen the import of our own IV and the commitment of teams and individuals to it.

connemara man

i was on the rules comittee for ucd i can only comment on ucd as i was not in the same position to do so at nuig.

i was told what was spoken about at nuig and as i was there on behalf of my club i then agreed to the changes some of which were made on the day granted i'll accept that. but they were relevent on the day. i think they were fair.

i dont mean to pick on clubs but your representative at these meetings is the person at fault in this situation.

i had the backing of my club to make decisions on there behalf. and they were happy with the out come.

i understand where some of the confusion has come from.

this is a new practise it needs time to grow. in a democratic society you give a group more then two meetings to try and organise and prove themselves properly.

johnreck

weather or not club reps had the backing of there members is still beside the point. the question still remains, did those at this meeting in NUIG have the authority to overturn a previous decision that rule changes made mid season can only come into effect in the next season without first informing there clubs as to the decision that was proposed. the reasoning behind such a clause is blatantly obvious. which by the way was not voted on, what was voted on was that 5 out of 8 IV's would count count toward a team score, this decision was taken after three Iv,s had been contested, this decision could be seen as valid if such a decision was to be implemented in the following year. that no decision to overturn the rule that new rules come into effect until the next season makes the decision to count only 5 out of 8 scores invalid.
but No it is only to hold for this year and revert to the norm next year. WHY? to clarify the IV,s were historicaly based on the top 7 scores of the teams
in other words ALL of them, it was the individual score that was based on the the best six. (allowing for a no show) the dropping of a team score was something that arose in the last year or two and the damage of such a decision can now be seen.
the reason why there were only six IV,s last year arose from UCD not holding an IV. the addition of DKIT to our IV this year adds one more IV to be contested and should be seen as a welcome addition and not cause for hasty and unreasoned action. what if RSCI wish to hold an IV next year do we say No you cant, or do we drop the top 4 scores?
the fact is that this decision was made in haste, without fair and proper consultation either before or after the NUIG meeting. then wish to change change it back next season to how it has previously been.
some have stated on this thread that the decision was fair and democratic as it was agreed at a meeting with a show of hands by club reps.
a decision is not dragged out of people after two hours being told that it must be made hear and now, when they have travelled a long distance and need to return home.
it is not democratic to ask people to make a decision when all the facts and themes to be voted on have not been clearly stated in advance of the event.
its not democratic for such weighty decisions as to the abolishment of team scores and effort to be disregarded without first allowing those present to consult with there own club members.

Memori

I understood that it was an emergency meeting that was called in NUIG because of the number of loopholes in the rules and constitution for the ISAA, and that workgroups needed to be set up to correct these loopholes.

There are no committees formed because there is no constitution finalised to allow voting in a committee as yet. There was many concerns raised with the number of intervarsities being held this year and fears that it would continue to grow over the next few years.

Since the rules that are quoted here over and over again state that for individuals all but your worse score is counted, the same goes for teams, and this would make it incredibly difficult for a lot of archers to really have a go for the league titles due to the fact that many have to work at weekends to fund themselves through college. The decision to revert back to the previous scoring method of top five was voted in on a temporary basis until an agreed and voted in set of rules could be put in place. I was at the meeting in 2005 where it was proposed in front of a very small number of captains to change the system from top five scores to all but your worst due to fears that there would only be 5 intervarsities and that it would mean having to attend all of them and I remember there being no issues over the fact that this rule change was voted in by a small group and not the whole association.

Everyone seems to be getting hung up on the teams side of things but the group decided to use the same system for individuals and teams on a one-year-temporary-basis only until a new official set of rules could be implemented by a workgroup that held equal representation from each college. Not every college has participated in these workgroups but each college was asked. The rules workgroup, from what I last heard, proposed that top five scores for individuals and all but your worst for teams would count for the league, so it's not being changed for this year and changed back next year, a new set of rules are being proposed.

doogle deegan

As Memori said this tempory rule change was voted on and passed at the meeting in galway. It is only a tempory fix for this year untill the
association has been officaly formed. At that stage the rule is to reveiwed after this point.

MicS

Memori wrote: »

Since the rules that are quoted here over and over again state that for individuals all but your worse score is counted, the same goes for teams, and this would make it incredibly difficult for a lot of archers to really have a go for the league titles due to the fact that many have to work at weekends to fund themselves through college. The decision to revert back to the previous scoring method of top five was voted in on a temporary basis until an agreed and voted in set of rules could be put in place.

And I'll repeat again. Individual league score "all minus worst" or "best 5" can be misinterpreted, even though the first one is correct. Reasoning was exactly the same - to allow individual archers to miss a competition without affecting league position (for example, before this rule was introduced Sinead lost top league position to Maire in 2003-2004 season, only because Sinead missed one IV).

But team league scores were always based on all competitions. So it cannot be a temporary fix "to revert back to the previous scoring method of top five", simply because that scoring method was never used. Team league changes were not even discussed when individual league changes were introduced. Individual archers may miss some competitions, but team effort is still counted.

Renegade_Archer

I agree with what (I think) MicS is saying.



Allowing an individual archer to miss an IV is a Good Thing(tm).

Teams, however, should be based on their performance at all intervarsities.


My 2 cents, your mileage may vary, this does not affect your statutory rights etc.

johnreck

MicS wrote: »

And I'll repeat again. Individual league score "all minus worst" or "best 5" can be misinterpreted, even though the first one is correct. Reasoning was exactly the same - to allow individual archers to miss a competition without affecting league position (for example, before this rule was introduced Sinead lost top league position to Maire in 2003-2004 season, only because Sinead missed one IV).

But team league scores were always based on all competitions. So it cannot be a temporary fix "to revert back to the previous scoring method of top five", simply because that scoring method was never used. Team league changes were not even discussed when individual league changes were introduced. Individual archers may miss some competitions, but team effort is still counted.

Thanks to Mic S for pointing out that which has been obvious from the start of this thread. and to which I alluded during my previous postings.
that an individual archer who can not due to personal circumstance or otherwise attend a IV the said archer is within the IV allowed to have all but his worst score counted and a no show being counted as zero.
how ever that an archer or archers from a single or multiple teams cannot make a particular IV should not bring about the circumstance were in teams are allowed to discount there worst scores, after all a team is more than just there top 5 archers it is the top 5 scores by that team on that day that count and if a team has an issue with its archers not turning up for IV,s for whatever reason that is a separate issue for that team to deal with how it sees fit, and the consequences of that should not be imposed on other teams . and should certainly not lead to a situation were team scores are discounted. there is a lot of hue and cry that the growth of the IV has lead to this decision the fact is that it is only DKIT that has sought to hold another IV this is an addition of but one more college to our IV and should be seen by all as a good thing, that we have one more IV to contest should not bring about a situation were 3 team scores and 3 individual scores are discounted.
ie an addition of one equals a negation of 3. whatever about and individual archer there should be no change or manipulation of team scores as teams should and must be rewarded on the commitment of there team effort.
weather they be there first choice team or otherwise, in short you field your team and take your lumps. and the best team on the day wins with that teams score going toward there final FULL IV score.
I wonder if we were to turn it around and say lets discount all teams top 3 scores how many would be saying it is fair and right, NuIG's two top and record breaking scores would count for nothing as they would not exist as they are discounted. Harry the machine's record setting score would also just vanish (god i wish) as would other individual archers achievement's. not very fair. is it.

Renegade_Archer

For persistent incredibly-hard-to-follow-stream-of-consciousness posting, I fine John Reck one testicle.

johnreck

Renegade_Archer wrote: »

For persistent incredibly-hard-to-follow-stream-of-consciousness posting, I fine John Reck one testicle.

why thank you. but as i have alternative and fun uses for my testicles im afraid i will be unable to pay such a fine.
i do however have a prosthetic one lying around (dont ask) and you are more than welcome to it.

olymacfoogal

jumpin jeebus that took me ages to read, feel like i just climbed everest! i agree with the testicle fine and even think it might a bit soft...

ill keep my bit short...

say your the best in your club or one of the best. the way the rules are now you are under pressure to go to every single iv regardless of other commitments. this is pressure from yourself and your team-mates. you cant say it isnt there. if you cant make an iv it could fup up your teams chances right?

so what im saying is that the leeway we now have in the individual competition is needed equally, if not more so, in the team competition. the best five or six is a good idea cause it takes the pressure off the top 5 guys having to go to every competition. what do ppl think?

i agree with reck that we cant go changing the rules half way through the year but the idea of the commitee is to make things efficient so that if there is loop holes that need clearing up it can be done without every-one in the whole league debating.

oh and did ucd end up paying for them arrows that got bent when the target fell? what do ppl think of this cause some ppl be shooting v expensive arrows and well... it could end up being a lot of dough to shell out if some eejit yanks on the target too hard / to be out if some eejit didnt set up the target right!

also thanks to mic for all his hard work and commitment. we cant be relying on him in the future tho its not fair. could we do something where each college puts forward a competent member each year and a random lottery picks two ppl who would add up the scores independently and post them up here. what do ppl think?

ok that wasnt short... ill be keepin my testicles tho. :cool:

olymacfoogal

taking all the iv's so far and adding up scores puts UCD 136 points ahead

taking the best 3 iv's so far puts NUIG on 7709 and UCD on 7685.

so if we do it one way nuig are ahead and ucd will cry and vice versa.

we shouldnt let this years result cloud what will happen in the future. we should pick the method that everyone (by way of the commitee) thinks is the best.

what really defines the best team? the one that goes to all the iv's, or one with higher scoring shooters but arent able to go to every iv? i know ive asked this question in a biased way... what do ye think?

johnreck

olymacfoogal wrote: »

taking all the iv's so far and adding up scores puts UCD 136 points ahead

taking the best 3 iv's so far puts NUIG on 7709 and UCD on 7685.

so if we do it one way nuig are ahead and ucd will cry and vice versa.

we shouldnt let this years result cloud what will happen in the future. we should pick the method that everyone (by way of the commitee) thinks is the best.

what really defines the best team? the one that goes to all the iv's, or one with higher scoring shooters but arent able to go to every iv? i know ive asked this question in a biased way... what do ye think?

I think that if the rules were/are to be changed then that is ok once it is done in a clear and open manner and, as would be so if the newly proposed constitution were to be implemented ( well thought out doc by the way)
what has and remains my point of contestation is that rule changes apparently adopted this year are in breach of how present rule changes should be implemented, and then changed back to how they were next season. (read this thread) IMHO team scores should remain the combined scores of the best 5 individual arches on the day and the individual, all scores minus one. (fair and transparent system) yet if such a change were to take place i would support it if passed by a majority and in accordance with our own rules even though i might not agree with it. the very fact that at present UCD are ahead at this time on scores due to there consistancy and commitment does nothing but highlight my point. is it fair that a team is punished for its commitment to field its best team if god willing ucd were able to continue to shoot as they have been and were to win by overall score only to have that taken away from them due to some dodgy rule change then that would be a poor showing of the IV.
who teams bring to an IV is that teams choice be it there best or worst. top 5 scores COUNT and should not detract from all scores being counted at end of year. would like to say more but a afraid of loosing yet another testicle,
mind you ya dont need balls to play archery.
question! what other sport reduces its teams scores at the end of a leauge.

Bullet Proof

The UCD Committee decided, while shooting, that a butt fell over at our shoot, the archer on the taget (not shooting UCD Club arrows) appeared in no way to blame, so we would pay for her arrows. Cheque issued on the day. (Though they were still perfectly good arrows for shooting round corners)

Re Team league results - Olymacfoogal hits the nail right on the X, what really defines the best club? Thats what the rules should be designed around. Note that at each IV there is a best team prize for that days shooting so the league is surely about the best club OVER A SEASON.

Is the club with the `best` archery prowess over a season one that has 5 archers who are very good but if they dont show up the team is 200 points down or a club that can field a competitive team even if they have to use more than their top 5 archers??

That may be biased too but decide that ( stick to it even if your club circumstances change and it favours you less! ) and it all falls into place !

Also - the latter definition has the benefit of giving more than the top 5 a chance to have a score count in their clubs league performance

Also - if all IVs shoots are counted that has the benefit that each IV is a part of the league competition and not a second division event.

May peace be upon you or you may be in pieces

connemara man

johnreck wrote: »

question! what other sport reduces its teams scores at the end of a leauge.

every sumer there is a series of regatta's in galway bay for the different classes of galway hookers (the boats) and i swear that scoring system is more complicates einstien himself would have one hell of a difficulty coming to terms with it all. taking away scores adding scores. its a world of baffling

olymacfoogal

yeah john you have a fair point there but do you understand where im coming from when i say that the top shooters in a club will feel under ALOT of pressure to go to every iv?

its great that ucd and nuig are so competitive at the top and its just not one club running away with it. (remember DIT the dark side?). but because its so competitive now if one of the 550 guys on either side where to not show up to any of the next iv's and a 450 (which is still an impressive score) is the next in line then it could mean the title.

taking away a clubs worst iv in a year could give a club a small bit of leeway for family emergencies etc.

this could be something for the commitee to talk about?

olymacfoogal

johnreck wrote: »

(read this thread) .

i did man, war and peace didnt have a look in at parts:D

Renegade_Archer

Lads, discounting a team score is a load of bollocks.

A team comprises of the archers that attend the IV. If someone can't make it, such is life. There are many IVs throughout the year.

The "Sinead Cuthbert rule" exists because an archer could lose the title if they miss an IV - in contrast, a team with their number 1 missing generally means a 2nd or 3rd place, not zero points.

It's like Man Utd getting a match result discounted because they couldn't field Rooney or something..

johnreck

olymacfoogal wrote: »

yeah john you have a fair point there but do you understand where im coming from when i say that the top shooters in a club will feel under ALOT of pressure to go to every iv?

its great that ucd and nuig are so competitive at the top and its just not one club running away with it. (remember DIT the dark side?). but because its so competitive now if one of the 550 guys on either side where to not show up to any of the next iv's and a 450 (which is still an impressive score) is the next in line then it could mean the title.

taking away a clubs worst iv in a year could give a club a small bit of leeway for family emergencies etc.

this could be something for the commitee to talk about?

I really do get your point, and it is a fair one, if one assumes that a club or a team is only its best 5 archers, and of course there is pressure on the best to attend but hey thats life. we know our IV dates well in advance so we have to arrange our time to attend accordingly. yes there can be unforseen circumstances (hangovers dont count) but thats life and if you have to choose between an IAAA event and your intervarsity then you make your choice and accept the consequences (of course there should be no contest)
im not against taking out a teams scores, who am i kidding i think its totally NUTS! but if it were to be brought in and certainly it would have to be before a season starts, in a open and transparent manner after reps had an oppertunity to 1 know about it before hand and 2 have a chance to talk to there clubs to get there fellings on the matter than fine it comes in by a majority vote. wouldnt like it but majority rule and all that. otherwise we end up like a a certain political part accused of doing back room deals and having the trust of no one,

johnreck

olymacfoogal wrote: »

i did man, war and peace didnt have a look in at parts:D

i have read war and peace and found it quite the read:eek:

Aryzel

I know this thread kinda finished up a couple of weeks ago, and ye've had two IVs in the mean time, so I assume ye sorted the issues out. {Well done to UCD btw on this years form}. But I'll try to give some background perspective on the IV rules.

Ok on the rules themselves:
- Individual, was decided to count all IV scores minus your worst. This was to allow individuals to miss one IV during the year. Which is reasonable due to study/work/etc. The rules were worded as such, as obviously the number of competitions could change, people were to be given one life line only.
- Team, was decided to count all IV scores. A team is more than just made up of a few gifted individuals, it should have depth and committment. All IV scores count.
- On the number of IV's, we used to have have 4-6 IVs per season. I had intended to cap the number of IVs at 6, any more put too much pressure on people, remember people do need to study. I went through all the colleges timetables, and the reasonable timeframes for competitions were: Nov 15th - Dec 5th, and Feb 5th - April 5th. The intention was that at the end of a season those colleges that wanted to to host and IV next year would put their name forward and if there were more than six, then six would be randomly choosen. Just basic common sense really. If ye do intend to have 8 IVs each year, then I suggest that you change the individual rule to be "All minus two", and team one, well I'm not sure, probably still keep it at "All". But personally I'd just cut the number of IVs back to 6, (and priority to those that didn't host an IV the previous year, or make a scheduled rotation, its all easy, just pick a method).


On 'how' rules are choose/revered/processes etc.
Process:
The way I liked to do things, was if there was an important decision to be made, was outline the issue and possible solutions. This would be send to each club before the next IV, at the IV people would discuss it and take it home. (not so much to discuss with the rest of their club, but to give people time to think things over). Then at the following IV, people talked alittle and voted. End of matter. If it was a simple issue that everyone agreed on, then it might be decided at the first IV straight off.

Democracy/Representation:
Democracy is overrated :P Anyways, whoever is representing the club at the meetings should know all the facts and should have be able to fully act on behalf of their club, if they cannot then the club has sent the wrong person as their representative. That said, I can't imagine any issue that needs to be rushed so badly that people can't take it home and talk to everyone in their club, their priest, their local idiot and their cat, and then make the decision at the next meeting (see Process above).

Also, how the hell was a decision made without imput from all clubs? You never ever make a decision without ALL inputs and votes, its mind bogglingly stupid. If a club will not be at an IV, then they need to give their input/vote before hand. Either they will know how they want to vote, yes/no/abstain(otherwise known as 'we don't mind either way') or if they do not know enough to make a decision, then whatever is decided at the meeting still needs to be brought to the missing club before it is fully approved. There is no quorm thingy, everyone must give an input.

On changing rules mid-season:
Ewan is right, definitely need to dig myself a grave to go turn in. Johnreck, there is no need to agrue that changing the rules mid-season (and then changing back!!!!) is 'undemocratic', cause that in itself is not necessarly wrong, it is however extremely stupid and I agree with you on unfair.

It sounds like two major mistakes were made when this was first discussed,
First the proposal was not clear on whether the change would apply to this year, or come into effect next year. You can apply a change to the current year, IF it is needed for this year and you choose to do it very early in the year, but next year works best.
Second people weren't given time to take it back and think it over (see Process), this is a fairly major decision, but one that would only have an impact at the end of a season, no need to rush. Also when a decision is made, its made, you never, change something then change it back, without and unbelievably good reason.


Summary:
The rule change was messed up, it was unclear what was happening and when. Therefore you should ignore the changes and go with the original rule which is:
Individual = All minus One
Team = All

At ye're meeting ye should have the following three questions and choices:
(1) For this year, use the old method or new method for team/individual scores (will need to actually clearly define the old and new methods here to be safe)
(2) For next year how many IVs will we have: 5/6/7/unlimited
(3) For next year, use the old method or new method for team/individual scores (clearly define both old and new methods here again)

Aryzel

Memori wrote: »

I understood that it was an emergency meeting that was called in NUIG because of the number of loopholes in the rules and constitution for the ISAA, and that workgroups needed to be set up to correct these loopholes.

There are no committees formed because there is no constitution finalised to allow voting in a committee as yet. There was many concerns raised with the number of intervarsities being held this year and fears that it would continue to grow over the next few years.

Since the rules that are quoted here over and over again state that for individuals all but your worse score is counted, the same goes for teams, and this would make it incredibly difficult for a lot of archers to really have a go for the league titles due to the fact that many have to work at weekends to fund themselves through college. The decision to revert back to the previous scoring method of top five was voted in on a temporary basis until an agreed and voted in set of rules could be put in place. I was at the meeting in 2005 where it was proposed in front of a very small number of captains to change the system from top five scores to all but your worst due to fears that there would only be 5 intervarsities and that it would mean having to attend all of them and I remember there being no issues over the fact that this rule change was voted in by a small group and not the whole association.

Everyone seems to be getting hung up on the teams side of things but the group decided to use the same system for individuals and teams on a one-year-temporary-basis only until a new official set of rules could be implemented by a workgroup that held equal representation from each college. Not every college has participated in these workgroups but each college was asked. The rules workgroup, from what I last heard, proposed that top five scores for individuals and all but your worst for teams would count for the league, so it's not being changed for this year and changed back next year, a new set of rules are being proposed.

I'm pretty sure their aren't any loopholes in the rules, there might be rules ye want to change (which is fine and I encourage), but pretty sure their aren't any loopholes.

You got the 2005 meeting alittle mixed up, the system was never top five scores, it used to be just ALL for teams and individuals and we decided to change it ALL-1 for Individual to allow them some flexibility for work/study.

Also the 'very small group of captains', was the captain from every club, each of who fully represented their club and was backed by their club. Also the decision was not made there and then, differrent proposals had being discussed for several months over the summer and was formally put forward and unamiously agreed upon after all clubs had time to decide.

Workgroup is a word that makes me cringe I'm afriad. Its stupid to talk of workgroups, and pick over whether a rule is being changed back and forth or to something new. It is being changed, it doesn't matter who is suggesting the changes, for any rule change all that matters is to state the following:
(1) The current rule
(2) The problem or potential problem with the rule
(3) The possible solutions
(4) Get people to pick a solution

Aryzel

johnreck wrote: »

weather or not club reps had the backing of there members is still beside the point. the question still remains, did those at this meeting in NUIG have the authority to overturn a previous decision that rule changes made mid season can only come into effect in the next season without first informing there clubs as to the decision that was proposed. the reasoning behind such a clause is blatantly obvious. which by the way was not voted on, what was voted on was that 5 out of 8 IV's would count count toward a team score, this decision was taken after three Iv,s had been contested, this decision could be seen as valid if such a decision was to be implemented in the following year. that no decision to overturn the rule that new rules come into effect until the next season makes the decision to count only 5 out of 8 scores invalid.
but No it is only to hold for this year and revert to the norm next year. WHY? to clarify the IV,s were historicaly based on the top 7 scores of the teams
in other words ALL of them, it was the individual score that was based on the the best six. (allowing for a no show) the dropping of a team score was something that arose in the last year or two and the damage of such a decision can now be seen.
the reason why there were only six IV,s last year arose from UCD not holding an IV. the addition of DKIT to our IV this year adds one more IV to be contested and should be seen as a welcome addition and not cause for hasty and unreasoned action. what if RSCI wish to hold an IV next year do we say No you cant, or do we drop the top 4 scores?
the fact is that this decision was made in haste, without fair and proper consultation either before or after the NUIG meeting. then wish to change change it back next season to how it has previously been.
some have stated on this thread that the decision was fair and democratic as it was agreed at a meeting with a show of hands by club reps.
a decision is not dragged out of people after two hours being told that it must be made hear and now, when they have travelled a long distance and need to return home.
it is not democratic to ask people to make a decision when all the facts and themes to be voted on have not been clearly stated in advance of the event.
its not democratic for such weighty decisions as to the abolishment of team scores and effort to be disregarded without first allowing those present to consult with there own club members.

To answer your opening quest, Yes the representatives at a meeting have completely authority to overturn a previous decision, infact they should be the exact same people who made the previous decision (which makes overturning it kinda weird). In terms of the league and running it, the representatives ARE the Clubs, it is up to each individual representative how they deal with their individual clubs. That said, no decision can be finalised without input from ALL Clubs, and no decision should need to be rushed, so any representative should have a couple of weeks to talk to their club(if that is the way that club works) before give a decision to the league.

Also the IV's were not historically based on the top 7 scores. The number of IVs changed almost every year, it was always just ALL scores, its clearly worded in the rules, not sure how people are misunderstanding that.

Finally, from what you describe people were rushed abit on the decision, but incorrect to say it was wrong because it was undemocratic (democracy or lack thereof doesn't make something right or wrong). It was wrong because people need time to think, and if a club representative needs to get approval from his club, then they need to be given sufficient time to do so.

Aryzel

doogle deegan wrote: »

As Memori said this tempory rule change was voted on and passed at the meeting in galway. It is only a tempory fix for this year untill the
association has been officaly formed. At that stage the rule is to reveiwed after this point.

Its silly to call it a temporary rule change, if the rule needed to be changed for this year that is fine, its a rule change. If next year it needs to change again, thats fine, its a rule change. It doesn't matter if it changes every year or every 10 years, its a rule change, all types are equally valid and meaningful.

The association is officially formed, it is formed when ye show up, putting titles on people doesn't change anything. Also the association was actually 'officially' formed back in 2004/5, and probably several times before that too. All ye have to do is decide how many IVs there are, when they are, and if a rule needs to change. Thats its, we're not talking rocket science here people.

Aryzel

Final post and I can finally go to sleep. To cover misconceptions in alot of posts above.

- There is a difference in 'loopholes' in rules and wanting to change the rules. I'm pretty sure there aren't any loopholes in the rules.

- The rules were always All-1, or ALL. There ever NEVER any fixed numbers in the system (we're not first year computer science students ffs)

- Sorry Johnreck but something being democratic or not, doesn't make it right or wrong. Explain why it is wrong instead. Democracy is vaguely speaking just not doing things that are wrong, so your not completely incorrect. Its a subtely your missing, but is very important, especially if you want to win an arguement.

- Not sure how it happened, but people seem to think no rules or organisation ever existed for the archery league. Its all being done before, infact like 3 years ago (and probably many times before that). Go read the damn rules: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055006508

- Finally for goodness sake do not get caught up in talking about 'committies', 'workgroups', 'process', etc, just step up and do what needs to be done. The rules and organisation are more or less fine, just limit the number of IVs to 6, and have some common sense when ye are trying to get a decision.

- Also ye need 1/2 people running the league, by which I do not mean making the decisions, I mean organising the meetings after IV, if there are issues/decisions to discuss then he/she should type it all up and email to all the club reps. Talk through the meeting schedual, keep things focused etc. You need a focus point. The roles and titles can change, it used to be Ewan as Chairman and myself as Secretary. But the titles never matter, doing the job is all that matters.


Oh, and I should probably introduce myself to the current archery crowd.
I'm Dermot, hi :P And if you think this alot of posts then you should go look over some of my other threads here.

Aryzel

One last point, honest.

olymacfoogal
On the pressure on the top archers in a team. Some seasons will have an obvious top team, and there will not be so much pressure. On season with two closely competive teams then yes there is pressure. The team with the greater committement will probably win out. Committement and grinding out a win is equally important as talent.

For example look at the 01/02-02/03 seasons, DIT had Sinead and Ciaran, but they had just the two archers, and weren't at every compeition, did they deserve win the league? The league is a competition between teams, a team does not get days off. Matches are not postpone because one team has one person with a cold and the other team does not. The individual tables are for the individuals, the team tables are for the team. But thats just my opinion, ye have to decide how ye want the league to work.

PS: Given how forums work, if anyone has just jumped directly to this page, I've a few posts on the previous page that i just made, read them :P

Renegade_Archer

Dermot you legend


We miss you dude.

SonicTheBadger

some tings never change, massive posts!!! all we need is for someone(??) to go on a rant about flash photography....

Ahhh...back in the day..dermot propping himself up on his bow..after a few too many spritzers in carlow. did anyopne ever find tht bottle of whiskey??

My post from last night seems have to gotten confused by johns post and dissapeared...

lilRedSmurf

Renegade_Archer wrote: »

Dermot you legend


We miss you dude.

Seconded with big wavy hand gestures!!!!

The League misses you too.

The voice of reason seems to have emerged with zeal so i think you "young folk" should probably give it a listen. You might learn something...

By the way Demot and Ewan are right in saying that the association has come into being and disappeared again quite a few times in the past. GMIT archery has been around since the late 70's and he's gonna hate me for saying this but Paul set some of the first big record scores (567 if i remember correctly... i kid you not people...) but most of the paper trail from previous decades has been lost. Now you have archives of scores and details that are accessible to everyone so count yourselves lucky guys cos i dont think you know how fortunate you are to have had the people who came before you to set this all up and standardize everything in a defined and fair format.

i remember when there was no such thing as a 40cm face at an IV never mind three spots.... things have changed a lot and for the better so please please please dont let things get messed up over minor disagreements, misunderstandings and technicalities.

Aryzel

Ye guys, I miss ye all too, ahh the good old days Give me a shout if ye are passing through london at some stage.

johnreck

AYRZEL.
I bow before your obvious wisdom and depth of understanding.
I only hope that others read your post,s and see the error of there ways.
and that we can get this sorted in a manner that is fair to all.