Thanks Bernard,I was right, I didn't understand it! hahaActually then I think it sounds like it could be worth a try.

Oh, so many things to address!

First of all, before any proposals were discussed or voted upon, everyone at the meeting agreed (or at least the ones who were paying attention) that a deadlock vote would be re-voted once, and if it were to be a deadlock after the second vote, the proposal would NOT pass. Everyone also agreed that if a proposal passed by even one vote, that it would pass. This was discussed and agreed upon before any other business at the meeting. Therefore, we can’t say now that “the vote was too close to change the rules on”. And for John or myself to arbitrarily decide that the vote on a proposal was too close to pass would kind of make voting a moot point, and would borderline on the reckless.

Second of all, posts regarding alternating breaks have been on the website since December 7, 2011. John specifically requested that any proposals be brought up prior to the captains’ meeting, and that specific proposals be made, not general suggestions. The agenda has been on the homepage for quite some time. The exact proposal was given to John Saturday night at 10 pm, two hours before the deadline. Greg posted his thoughts about it Sunday morning, and John responded that morning. Also, please keep in mind that the captains voted on this exact same proposal at the organizational meeting at the beginning of the season. At the beginning of the captains’ meeting, a detailed description of each proposal was handed to each participant. Exact voting guidelines were detailed on the paper as well. Prior to voting, I myself brilliantly explained each proposal, neither advocating nor opposing any of the proposals. In many cases, I used hand gestures and pantomime to make it very clear. I then related to the captains the relevant arguments for or against each proposal that people had posted on Off the Break. I then opened the floor for any additional questions or comments. We got a few. I then asked everyone if they were ready to vote on this particular proposal. I even emphasized prior to the vote that this one was quite important, because I was aware that it was going to be close. We took the vote. I asked two other people to help me count the hands. There were 21 teams represented at the meeting, and 21 people voted. 11 in favor, 10 against. Therefore, I would beg to differ that “it wasn't discussed very well”.

Here is the exact description that was provided for the captains to vote on:
“ 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).”

After we asked if there were any other issues or comments, and dealt with those, we adjourned the meeting much to everyone’s delight. It was then when Kyle told me he wanted to change his vote to a no. However, it was not for the reasons that he stated here today. He was concerned that the other team would purposely give his team a loose rack. I assured him that his own team would rack every break for his team. He seemed happy, and said he would keep his vote a yes. He then came back and said he wanted to change to no, because he still thought the other team would give him bad racks. I again explained that the other team would NEVER rack for his team, and he said he wanted to vote yes again. (Whew).

Now, today, I see that Kyle wants to re-vote on the proposal because his vote probably did not accurately reflect the wishes of his team. This is exactly why we posted the agenda on the website and encouraged discussion on Off the Break. We wanted captains to discuss these things with their teams and come prepared to represent their teams’ wishes. We did not want to spend the whole evening debating and coming up with new proposals. Therefore, we don’t have the time or energy to take a re-vote just because a captain wasn’t in tune with how his/her team felt about a proposal.

Finally, if I may give my personal opinion on this particular proposal. I don’t really care either way, but I don’t see any drawbacks with the new system. Everything that Bernard said, I agree with. There are even some advantages to the new system, if you have some stud breakers on your team. Kyle, I am sure that when you were out scouting for your team, you recruited more than one player who had a mighty break. The new system guarantees (if you do it right) that at least one of those players gets a break each set. With the old system, there was always the chance that they would all lose their coin toss and not get to break. I won’t explain how to you, because that’s your job, but think about it and you will see how this might work.

However, even if Kyle were able to change his vote to ‘no’, Charlie just changed his to ‘yes’, so the proposal passes, 11-10.

I need a rest.
Lenny Erickson

Hello IPL Forum Readers! After reading all this hubbub about alternating breaks i'm proposing we vote next meeting on lagging for the break. Personally i'm surprised about all the fuss and i'm cool with the alternating breaks, but I chose the Alt + Break as opposed to the coin flip. I still voted for the lag and i'm not sure why people aren't fond of it. I think that all this business of saving time is a bit silly because it really depends on the players and how long it takes them to put 8 balls into the pockets.
Nota Bene:Awesome meeting, IPL reps. It was fast and fun and, maybe i'm too dumb to notice my imbecility, clear all the way through.

Hi Ralph,
We have voted on lagging for the break in the last two captains' meetings and it has failed on both occasions. In the meeting we had on Sunday, only two people raised their hands for lagging. I'd say that that is a pretty resounding rejection.
We won't be voting on lagging at the next captains' meeting, as we stated that proposals that failed to pass would not be accepted in the next meeting. Neither would it be fair to vote again so soon, as the new system—one coin toss per set with alternating breaks thereafter—won the vote but has yet to be implemented. We'll be giving the new system a try from the start of next season. If you are still unhappy with it, you can propose another vote on lagging in a subsequent captains' meeting.
Regards,John

Hello John,

I read your post. Outrageous! Logical! I agree. I concede! I give up! No more talk of lag!