IN T' NET

An occasional Basketball Diary ... (from Yorkshire, in case tha'd not noticed)

HOME; Archive 2003-4; Archive 2004-5; Archive 2005-6; August 06; September 06; October 06; November 06; December 06;

 

23/03/07

Coach to the Wear Valley under-16s, Ian Hirst, leaves no doubt as to his disappointment and annoyance:

"I feel that I need to respond to an article that appears on your Diary with regards to games been forfeited by Clubs.

I for the first time since entering National League Competitions have appeared on your 'hit list'. There is no mention in that hit list of the fact that every other fixture has been fulfilled by the Club in Mens, U18's and U15's national league competition.

I fully accept this issue around freedom of speech and you are quite entitled to express an opinion, but that opinion is not based on anything other that the fact you have been told the game has been forfeited,

There is no mention in your article as to why some teams have had to cancel games. Most people involved in junior basketball are volunteers and have a working life away from the sport. Volunteers who give their time free of charge, drive youngsters to games at their own expense and unfortunately there comes a time when due to other commitments basketball games have to come second to other issues in peoples very busy working and personal lives.

Your article merely criticises teams for having to forfeit games!!!!!!!!!!

Have you spoken to any of the Clubs to ask them why the games have been forfeited you certainly haven’t asked me or my Club you have merely made assumptions.

To be honest if England Basketball enforced all the regulations the sport would die anyway so why are you so forceful in arguing to have teams and clubs excluded from the leagues, by doing that it will sound the death of the junior leagues.

For me to write this e-mail response I'm quite annoyed that your criticism of teams and Clubs is based on your own opinion and not on any facts at all.

I would ask you to comment on one question, why do you want my team Wear Valley U16's expunged from the league and the Club franchise removed? What benefit to you would this achieve?

For your information the reason the U16's have had to forfeit games is quite simple......................... 7 of the squad are U15's players and the fact of the matter is the U15's are now at the quarter final stages of the U15's play offs.

Not all of us live in large urban conurbations where large numbers of players are available some of us are in rural areas and have to compete with what players we can muster.

I'd further point out that I may have to forfeit other games dependant upon what happens so don't be surprised to see the famous 20-0 result marked against my team again this season!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you feel you want to include this response on your web site please feel free to do so, if not so be it."

Taking a very different view, though, are two other coaches (whose anonymity I shall preserve, as they didn't give specific permission for their comments to be published).

First there was the coach of a highly successful multi-team Women's Club, who responded:

"Don't get me started.

It's too easy to knock EB but where else do you start.  There are no standards applied to National League entry other than the ability to pay the entry fee.

My club has had 80 games across 5 teams and we've turned up for every one at the right time in the right place with licences and matching kit.  The only one we didn't … despite making about 20 phone calls to (our hosts) and EB on the day, they decided to claim the game.  It still rankles.

I've just done a match report of (an away) game this morning from a score sheet that doesn't even have the players playing numbers written down (I kid you not).  But does anyone care - of course not.

As far as I am concerned when you send in an entry form you are signing a contract to bide by the rules.  One forfeit and you should have to attend at least with your RDM to explain why.  A second forfeit you're out AND no entry for the following season.

Yes, less teams for next year  but at least we would all know where we stand.

Told you not to get me started."

These views were echoed by a senior men's coach:

"Thought your article on the 20-0 fiascos was spot on mate and I wish more people in the game were of the same mindset.

I have praised EB many times but their inability to enforce the rules really pisses me off.

I am sick of hearing participation levels are up, I want the quality levels to be up. We have too many leagues in my opinion .I’m waiting for a regionalised div 5 next.

Throw these teams out; end of story. If they are serious about development and not just making the numbers up they will come back and do it right next time."

And Northants' Under-18 Women's Coach Dave Clark left no doubt as to his feelings, in their match report following a second 20-0 victory in a fortnight:

"The Northants “Lightning” junior women picked up another unwanted 20-zero win when Sefton declined to make the journey to Northampton. Frustrated coach Dave Clarke commented, “It is very difficult to keep the team motivated in practice when teams keep conceding games.”

16/03/07

I accept that there will be (very) occasional circumstances which leave no option but for a team to forfeit a match, while there have also been times when somewhat harsh awards have been made against teams - such as when Southend Women, in EBL2, were stuck for four hours on the M4 (which had ground to a halt following a dreadful accident), and their hosts Bristol successfully claimed the game.

However, the worrying rise in the number of forfeits suggest that it is becoming an "easy" option, and that losing by default is losing its stigma. That leads us to wonder why this trend has developed, and I would suggest that it is partly due to a failure, in recent years, to apply a relevant Regulation.

Regulation 6.3 quite clearly states that: "If a team fails to fulfil 90% of its scheduled league fixtures in a season, its league record shall be expunged in its entirety. Such failure shall be penalised by automatic forfeiture of its franchise, together with other actions as England Basketball deem appropriate."

Notice that the phraseology is important ... the league record of such teams "shall" (will definitely) be expunged, not "may" (is allowed to be) nor "might" (could possibly).

So why is it that the following thirteen teams are still in the league given their defaults during the season?

Omega London [EBL4 - 3 defaults - fixture fulfilment 81.3%);

Brentwood Fire [U-18 SE Prem. - 3 def. - maximum possible fulfilment 86.4%]; Bristol Academy [U-18 SW Prem. - 2 def. - 87.5%]; Leeds Mandela [U-18 North-East - 2 def. - 85.7%]; Leicester Dynamite [U-18 E.Midlands - 3 def. - 75%]; Barnet Bulldogs - U-18 South - 3 def. - 81.3%]; Islington Panthers [U-18 South - 2 def. - 87.5%]; PAWS Capitals [U-18 South - 2 def. - 87.5%]; Baglan Ballers [U-18 West - 3 def. - 81.3%];

Wear Valley [U-16 N-East - 3 def. - 78.6%]; Leicester Sparks [U-16 E.Midlands - 3 def. - 75%]; Islington Panthers [U-16 South - 3 def. - 81.3%];

Sefton [U-18 Women - 3 def. - 81.3%];

Actually I can answer that question. I'm sure that the argument that would be put forward is that to expel any (or all) of these clubs would deprive young players of the opportunity of playing.

But hold on. What opportunity do youngsters have when their club doesn't fulfil its schedule? What opportunity do their opponents get? And what effect does it have on youngsters (or adults for that matter) when they turn up for a game and then find that there's nobody to play against?

Imagine playing for an efficient club in Under-18 Premier South-east, where there have been nine matches decided by default, or the Under-16 South-east Conference (another 9 defaults ... not to mention the five defaults by teams that have since had the decency to leave!). Isn't that more likely to drive people away from basketball, to playing (or watching) a sport where games actually take place?

Nor is the list of teams which have failed to play 90% of their fixtures yet complete. There are so many postponements and/or fixtures for which no result is available (which usually means that it wasn't played, but nobody's had the decency to tell EB) that it will prove impossible for all of them to be played in the remaining couple of weeks of the league season. In that case, the following teams would certainly be at risk if the 90% rule were applied as it should be:

Camden JAZ [U-18 Prem. South - 1 def. - 1 No Result - 6 Postponed]; Westminster [U-18 Prem. South - 2 def. - 2 Postponed]; East London [U-18 Prem. South - 4 Postponed]; East Durham [U-18 N-East - 3 Postponed]; Tees Valley [U-18 N-East - 2 Postponed];

The simple fact is that, since clubs have tended, in the past, not to be expelled, there is less incentive to avoid forfeits. Applying the regulation that already exists might result in a short-term drop in the number of participating teams, but I'm certain that that would be outweighed by the far greater long-term gains!