Meeting started 25 March 2012, 5pm, at Bless U
1. Participation
Of our 31 teams, 21 were represented at the captains' meeting. Representatives for the following teams attended and their teams received two bonus points, which count towards the end-of-season rankings:
3 Alley Pub Wild Hogs’
Bless-U Boomtown Rats
Bless U iTeam
Bulldog Estyle
Dolce Vita Pink Panthers
Dolce Vita Sweet Life
Friend’s The Pain
Hollywood Grill
JR Pub Rising Stars
JR Pub Velvet Fingerz
Old Town Groove
Orange Tree Orangutans
Scrooge Pub Wonky Triangles
Seoul Pub FUTA
Seoul Pub Shava
Sin Bin
The Loft Steel
The Loft Sticks
VFW Canteen AFF
Woodstock Lucky Bastards
Woodstock Rocks
2. Welcome and tournament information
John (President) welcomed all of the representatives and reported on the previous day's tournament.
Details of the upcoming blind-draw scotch doubles tournament were announced.
3. Further announcements
1. Captains were asked to remind their team members to be vigilant against thieves, as one member of the league had been taken into police custody for attempting to purloin a mobile phone in a bar.
2.Captains were reminded (to no avail, it seems) to drop their score sheets off at Bless U after play on a Wednesday night. It was also suggested that captains should press the other team to fill their score sheets in properly—eg, adding the FULL NAMES of new or migrated players.
3. All those in attendance were given sheets summarising the ten proposals. Captains were instructed on how the proposals would be discussed and voted on. Specifically, Lenny (Vice-President) would summarise each proposal, chair the debate, and conduct the vote. For the first nine proposals, representatives could vote yes or no, and no third option would be up for discussion. For the tenth proposal, voters could choose one of three options. The first two proposals on the agenda, if passed, would take effect immediately. The remaining proposals, if passed, would take effect from next season. Proposals that failed to pass would not be admitted to the agenda for the next captains' meeting. Likewise, new proposals designed to supersede proposals passed at this meeting would not be admitted to the agenda for the next captains' meeting.
4. Lenny announced that a vague proposal allowing players to switch teams mid-season was mentioned to the executive. However, no concrete proposal was given as to how this would be implemented. Therefore, it would not be discussed or voted upon at this meeting. All present were invited to discuss this further—either with the executive committee or by posting on the website—with a view to developing a concrete proposal that could be voted on at the next captains' meeting.
5. Bernard (ex-President) addressed the questions of whether: 1) the league could/should have teams send in dues directly to an IPL bank account vs handing over money; and 2) whether security could be improved. He answered by repeating much of what he had posted on the league website forum. For reference, that post is included below:
...in 2008 some of the money went missing, and I believe it happened also in earlier years, before I joined the league. [The] proposal is understandable, as it is in the interest of all members of the league, that our money is safe and wisely spent.
However, we also need to consider the efforts to administer. Some teams might welcome the possibility to transfer to a bank account, but others prefer to just collect the cash from the team members and then hand over the money as is.
As we are not a registered organisation, bank accounts could only be opened by individuals, who would then have access and authority to manage the funds. Every time a league official changes, those accounts would need to be changed. Note that only single name accounts are available in Korea.
There is a significant amount of transactions to be taken during the season. Any measures to increase security would increase administrative load of the league officials, which is already quite high.
All of this puts even more significance to elect league officials who are well known in the league, trustworthy and responsible
4. Proposals
The following proposals were submitted to the executive before the meeting:
Proposal 1: The balls that the visiting team practices with will be the balls used during match play.
Implementation: If a bar uses an alternate set of balls on Wednesdays, they must be provided to the visiting team for their practice session at 7:00 pm.
Vote “Yes” if you want to add this to the official IPL rules.
Vote “No” if you want to keep it the way it is, with no mention in the official IPL rules.
Yes: 12 votes
No: 4 votes
Proposal 1 passed and would take effect immediately.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proposal 2: A Magic Rack (or other non-conventional rack) can only be used if both captains agree to use it prior to the match.
Implementation: In bars where a Magic Rack is provided, prior to the beginning of the match, both captains must agree to use the Magic Rack. If either captain objects, the regular rack must be used.
Vote “Yes” if you want to require both captains to agree to use the Magic Rack prior to the match.
Vote “No” if you want it to be the home-team's choice if a Magic Rack is used or not during a match.
Yes: 16 votes
No: 1 votes
Proposal 2 passed and would take effect immediately.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proposal 3: Limit the number of matches that a team can reschedule during any one season.
Implementation: A team will only be allowed to request to reschedule matches a maximum of four times during any one season. The fifth rescheduling will be scored as a forfeit for the other team.
Vote “Yes” if you want to limit the number of reschedule requests per team to four per season.
Vote “No” if you want to allow unlimited rescheduling per team per season (as is now).
Yes: 18 votes
No: 1 votes
Proposal 3 passed and would take effect from next season.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proposal 4: Change the wording in Rule1.1.10
Teams that require rescheduling MUST contact the other team’s captain 24 hours prior to the scheduled time. The League President must be notified also. If the request to reschedule is less than 24 hours prior to the match, the other Team is not obliged to comply, but it is strongly encouraged to do so, if possible.
Proposed change:
1.1.10. Teams that require rescheduling MUST contact the other team’s captain 24 hours prior to the scheduled time. If the request is more than 24 hours then the other Team should make a strong effort to find a compromise date. The League President must be notified also. If the request to reschedule is less than 24 hours prior to the match, the other Team is not obliged to comply, but it is strongly encouraged to do so, if possible. If a request for rescheduling is made on the 18th, 19th, or 20th week of the season, it will be on the sole discretion of the other team if they want to reschedule or take the forfeit.
Vote “Yes” if you want to change the wording of Rule 1.1.10 as proposed.
Vote “No” if you want to keep the wording of Rule 1.1.10 as it currently is.
Yes: 15 votes
No: 1 votes
Proposal 4 passed and would take effect from next season.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proposal 5: The losing player loses zero points when their opponent does a break-and-run on them.
Implementation: If there is a break-and-run, the winning player still gets his/her points, but the losing player does not lose any points (his/her rating will stay the same).
Vote “Yes” if you want the losing player in a break-and-run to lose zero points.
Vote “No” if you want to keep the point system for the losing player of a break-and-run the way it is.
Yes: 5 votes
No: 16 votes
Proposal 5 failed to pass.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proposal 6: Award 10 bonus points to the winning player for an 8-ball-run or break-and-run.
Implementation: If a player does an 8-ball-run or break-and-run on his/her opponent, the opponent loses the points based on the current scoring system, and the winning player gets those points, plus an additional 10 points for that special game. The 10 points would be added to the winning player, but not subtracted from the losing player’s rating.
Vote “Yes” if you want to award 10 bonus points per 8-ball-run and break-and-run.
Vote “No” if you do not want to award 10 bonus points per 8-ball-run and break-and-run.
Yes: 3 votes
No: 16 votes
Proposal 6 failed to pass.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proposal 7: The top four playoff slots given to the winners of each division. The remaining slots determined according to total points.
Implementation: The four division winners are automatically given the top four playoff slots (seeding of the four division winners determined by total points for each team among those four teams) regardless of overall standings, and the remaining slots will be determined by total points for each team.
Vote “Yes” if you want to have the top four playoff slots filled by division winners, regardless of overall standings.
Vote “No” is you want to continue to award playoff slots according to overall standings, not divisional winners.
Yes: 8 votes
No: 13 votes
Proposal 7 failed to pass.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proposal 8: Have zero time outs
Implementation: Eliminate all time-outs during a match (doubles partners may still discuss during their games).
Vote “Yes” if you want to eliminate all time outs.
Vote “No” if you want to keep the current format of having one time out per player per game.
Yes: 1 votes
No: 18 votes
Proposal 8 failed to pass.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proposal 9: Admit RAndy’s Bar to the IPL.
Implementation: Expand the Itaewon Pool League to include RAndy’s Bar, which is located in Dongdaemun (Waedae subway station). It is a 29 minute subway ride from Itaewon. It is about 10,000 won by taxi from Itaewon. The owner of the bar is willing to throw in one extra pitcher of beer and a platter of French fries for the visiting team each week.
(NB: It was decided not to vote on this proposal at this meeting, as some representatives felt the decision should be made only by those who would be participating in the league next season. However, a mock vote was staged anyway.)
Vote “Yes” if you want to expand the Itaewon Pool League to include RAndy’s Bar in Dongdaemun.
Vote “No” if you don’t want to expand the Itaewon Pool League to include RAndy’s Bar in Dongdaemun.
Yes: 8 votes
No: 13 votes
Proposal 9 failed to pass the mock vote.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proposal 10: Changing the way of determining the break.
This is a three-way vote. Choose one of the three options below:
Option 1: Lag for the break
Implementation: Before the balls are racked, each player takes an object ball, line up side by side, and lag simultaneously. The player whose ball comes closest to the nearest rail after the lag wins the break. Then the balls are racked by the winning player or someone from the winning player’s team.
Option 2: Alternating breaks
Implementation: After the line-ups for the first set of games have been set, there is a coin flip (visiting team calling) to determine which team breaks first (if they win the toss, they do NOT have the option of breaking, they must break), and then breaks alternate after that throughout the set. After the line-ups for the second set have been set, there is another coin flip (home team calling) to determine the order of breaking for that set. After the line-ups for the doubles set have been set, a third coin toss (visiting team calling) will determine the breaking rotation for the doubles set. (The team that wins the coin toss must break first, and must ref first for that round).
Option 3: Coin flip prior to each game (current method)
Implementation: Keep our current system of calling a coin flip prior to each game, alternating the call starting with the visiting team.
Vote “Lag” if you want to lag for break, as described above.
Vote ”Alternating Breaks” if you want to alternate breaks, as described above.
Vote “Coin Flip” (white token) if you want to keep the current method for determining break.
(NB: Option 1 only garnered two votes, thus it was bound to fail. Therefore, the two people who voted in favour of Option 1 asked if they could vote to show their preference for Options 2 or 3. It was decided that they could.)
(Option 1: 2 votes)
Option 2: 11 votes
Option 3: 10 votes
Proposal 10, Option 2 passed and would take effect from next season.
5. Any other business
John was asked: 1) how the executive chose which bars would host the league tournaments; and 2) whether they avoided putting the lower brackets at the so-called worse bars/tables for fear of casting pearls before swine.
1): John informed those still listening that no bar would host a league tournament twice in one season. The league currently has need of 10 bars per season for tournaments and the number of bars in which tournaments can be played is surprisingly limited:
Although there are 31 teams in the league this season, they play out of only 19 different bars. We believe a handful of those bars have tables so abysmal that the vast majority of players would not wish to play a paid tournament there. Some bars have declined invitations to host a tournament. In previous seasons, some bars have offered to host tournaments only to repeatedly rescind such offers on the day of the tournament, or simply fail to open up. And while I wouldn't necessarily say such bars are on a black list, the executive is less inclined to think of them first when looking for venues. Finally, we also try to put the two halves of each bracket in bars that are reasonably close to each other.
2): Regarding which bracket plays in which bars, the executive try to be as equitable as possible. Although John (just about) remembered which bars would host the end-of-season tournament, he struggled to remember which brackets would play in which bars. Was that not proof of our integrity? John felt it was. When Lenny confirmed which brackets would be played in which bars, shock and awe was felt around the room. Shock and awe.
On that bombshell, the meeting ended at 6.10pm.
