Regulation 22:-Conditions of play

Currently WCF requires players to wear predominantly white clothing during play or, wear an approved design of national team uniform.  The regulations covers logo’s and insignia and in general is meant to preserve a “product on the lawn” in keeping with the customs and etiquette of the sport.

Manufacturing logo’s of reasonable size are allowed, but where there is conflict between an event sponsor and any logo on a uniform, WCF would probably refuse to allow that to protect the host association and/or WCF from conflicts of interest.

In some cases, players have played using the uniform of a previous event sponsor or with titling from a previous event like “The MacRobertson Shield”.  Currently both of these also require WCF permission.

The general approach is that so long as the sponsor logo or titling does not conflict with an event sponsor, WCF would make no objection.  This would differ only if the host association or WCF entered into an agreement with a sponsor to provide, free of charge, all players with sufficient quantities of uniform for every day of play.  In addition, sometimes a sponsor wishes to host a “Sponsors Day” and will provide, say, one shirt per player, for their use on that day.  In that event WCF would restrict the use of alternative clothing for that day only.

WCF stipulates that “Appropriate footwear, that will not damage the lawn, particularly in wet conditions, must be worn on the courts”. This is in marked contrast to some jurisdictions where there is a requirement to wear “flat soled footwear”.

However, times and attitude change.

Question

• Should WCF still require players to wear predominantly white clothing or an approved national team uniform?
• Should all member associations be required to have all their players in a national team uniform for all games?
• Should WCF continue to restrict sponsor logo’s of non sponsoring organisations of the event?
• Is the WCF approach to sponsored clothing reasonable?
• Do you have a view of required footwear?

Regulation 22.15 stipulates what practice can be made prior to a days play for a player.  In particular hoop running is partially restricted in that “A shot of sufficient strength, and no more, to hit the ball seven metres will be allowed to practice hoop running, but in doing so, it must not disturb the setting of the hoops”, is allowed.

Question

• Should WCF allow hoop running during a practice period?
• If YES, would you restrict the force used?
• If YES, what terminology would you use to restrict the force used?

Question

Do you have any comments to make about this regulation?

Question

Do you have any comments to make about this regulation?

Regulation 24:-Attendance at functions

Similar to Regulation 23 above, this regulation attempts to promote the sport in a positive manner, supporting the host association at functions they have arranged.

Regulation 24.3 and later Appendix E refer to participation in a supplementary event as being discretionary at the player’s individual choice.

This will be discussed in Appendix E later.

Question

Do you have any comments to make about this regulation?

Regulation 25:-Anti-Doping, Gambling

At this time, WCF member associations have yet to decide whether to adopt any form of Anti-doping process.  Currently the regulation supports the actions of those members that have independently adopted an anti-doping stance.

Gambling can be viewed as a minor interesting past-time with low stakes or a pre-cursor to a wider, sinister backdrop involving betting syndicates, match fixing, and cheating.

It is believed that the sport in the main is clean from these more pernicious influences so that we still enjoy with confidence the situation where a player can still be their own referee.

Question

Do you have any comments to make about this regulation?

Regulation 26 - Impasse Rule

For many years the use of an "Impasse Rule" in Association Croquet has been left to the individual decision of a Referee. More recently it was seriously considered that a definitive rule be inserted into the Laws of AC by the International Laws Committee but that has yet to happen. There can be many variations and the WCF version is just one.

First used in 2005, it provides a common framework so that all WCF events have the same conditions.

Question

Do you have any comments to make about this regulation?

Regulation 27 - Lateness

This Regulations attempts to provide a common standard to deal with late attendance or dilatory behaviour and supports the TM in the overall management of a WCF event.

Question

Do you have any comments to make about this regulation?

Regulation 28 - Breaks

Like Regulation 27 above, this Regulation attempts to provide a common standard to deal with meal and other breaks and supports the TM in the overall management of a WCF event.

Question

Do you have any comments to make about this regulation?

Regulation 29 - Trophies and Medals

This Regulation clarifies who gets what and the responsibility for upkeep of WCF trophies

Question

Do you have any comments to make about this regulation?

Regulation 30 - Discipline

This Regulation provides a framework for possible disciplinary action

Question

Do you have any comments to make about this regulation?

Regulation 31 - Conflicts and Omissions

This Regulation provides a framework for dealing with conflicting Laws, Rules, WCF Statutes and Regulations

Question

Do you have any comments to make about this regulation?

Regulation 32 - Acceptance of these Regulations

This Regulation binds Players and Officials at a WCF event to the WCF Sports Regulations

Question

Do you have any comments to make about this regulation?

Appendix A - Timetable for entry etc

These set out the timetable for entry, replacements and conditions that must be completed prior to an entry being accepted.

WCF acknowledges that the wording of some of the parts of Appendix A is inadequate and do not convey in clear terms what it actually means. This has led to confusion and critical comment.

The Appendix currently gives a wide discretion to WCF to determine the cut off dates for various stages of the organisation leading up to WCF Championship.

Question
A.1            Should the WCF have any discretion to vary such dates?
A.2            If YES, In what circumstances should they operate it?
A.3            What should the ideal dates be for:-
                  A.3.1   Members Invitation;
                  A.3.2   Members closing date;
                  A.3.3   Wild Card nomination closing date;
                  A.3.4   Wild Card WCF confirmation to nominee;
                  A.3.5   Wild Card final closing date from nominee;
                  A.3.6   Qualification Tournament closing date?
A.4            Do you have any comments on the replacement timetable or structure?
A.5            Do you have any further points to make regarding this regulation?

Appendix B - Allocation of places

WCF is a member’s organisation, reflecting the wishes of those members, particularly the voting members.

Again, critical comment has been made of how and in what circumstances the discretion enjoyed by WCF should be exercised in relation to this appendix.

As a primer into the consideration of the various merits of one association against another, the primary purpose of awarding weighted allocations is to ensure that the most successful member associations are given adequate places to achieve a situation where the top ranked players will be considered first.  This is in keeping with general principle that WCF wants to attract the top 50 ranked AC players as a minimum and as many as possible of the top ranked GC players as possible to its specific events.

The algorithm used has been in use for a number of years with slight refinements to the underlying considerations such as host allocation, MacRobertson Shield involvement, and WCF wild card allocations. In saying all that, there is a fundamental point now, about whether WCF should continue with such a system at all.

If WCF wants to attract the top 50 ranked AC players, why not just invite them direct.  Why go to the lengths of complicated algorithms and judgements, rounding up and down in the first instance?

With the added safeguards of host and MacRobertson Shield minimums, most, if not all, criticisms will be met.  Indeed the algorithm is based on the top 50, then top 100 players nationality, in any case.

Why then should we persist with such a system?

WCF Statutes allows Full and Associate members a guaranteed single place at each WCF event.  Observer members are allowed one place at WCF discretion, which will largely be dependent upon how many there are in the future.

Question

B.1      Should WCF continue to use a members nomination system?
B.2      If NO, what system should WCF use?
B.3      Do you have any further points to make regarding this regulation?

Appendix C - Mechanism for resolution of ties after group play

This directs how the order of players is determined after all Group play has finished.  WCF has never considered that points scored, points difference or aggregated, should play a part in determining placements for qualification or otherwise, but relies solely on the number of wins.

The reason for this is that in Association play, there are tactical situations where a player may wish to peel their opponent through a number of hoops.  A final group placement dependent upon points scored, may deter some players from expressing themselves more freely or using innovative tactics.

The downside of the current approach is that it is more likely that one or more groups will require a Group Play Off. 

Question

C.1      Should the WCF use points gained for deciding final group positions?
C.2      Do you have any further points to make regarding this regulation?

Appendix D - Knock-out stage draw

The main function of the complicated draw for the knock-out stage is to prevent players from the same group or member association from meeting each other in the first round of the knock-out and to seed players appropriately.

The system is the product of much debate and recommendations of a special WCF working party set up in 2003 to examine the best way forward.

When applied correctly, it has to date, done its job in a variety of different circumstances and it is only in the event that there are more than 16 players from a member association qualifying for the knock-out stage first round that it cannot achieve one of its objectives.  (Incidentally in 2005, 13 players for England qualified for the first round knock-out stage and all were successfully placed apart.)

Question

D.1      Should seeding be used at all in the knock-out draw?
D.2      Should same Group players be kept apart in the first round of the knock-out?
D.3      Should same country players be kept apart in the first round of the knock-out?
D.4      Do you have any further points to make regarding this regulation?

Appendix E - The Plate Event

As with other parts of the Regulations, this too has been subject to critical comment leading to a change of its operation by the WCF Appeals Committee during the event in 2008 New Zealand.

WCF is keen to ensure that, apart from those remaining in the main event players have the opportunity, at their discretion, without coercion, to continue to play in a competitive environment subject only to lawn availability.

There are many formats to provide such games but some have major structural problems that militate against a continuous playing scenario.

For example in GC, it had been the custom that all players as they are eliminated from the main event enter into an already constructed knock-out that continues until all places 1 to “n” are determined.  Whilst this is fine on paper there are issues with players waiting for their next games against pre-determined opponents. This led in one event to a player waiting over 12 hours in the same day, for their next opponent due to that opponent waiting for theirs and then a further delay waiting for a lawn. 

It is also questionable if such a system also meets the criteria of continuous play and arguably may lead to under-use of available lawn space.

That is where a swiss type system can be used to good effect.

It is acknowledged that it is more difficult to use at multi-site events but strong local management can be used to good effect.

That said, is there sufficient support for the criteria above?

A swiss event can be organised to take account of overall wins or percentage wins to games played. A points system, sometimes known as an Egyptian or Hands, can also be used to take account of the level of success in previous games.

One or two life versions are available involving straight knock-out with an additional x and y event; some such systems allow for reparcharge for losers at various stages.

All systems try to allow players to continue to play.

Note that a round robin system is not considered feasible due to time constraints.

Some players do not want to play beyond the stage they are knocked-out. 

Some want to play a few matches.

Question

E.1     Should all players be compelled to play in the plate event if they are knocked out of the main event?
E.2     Who should be allowed to enter the plate event?
E.3     Should the Association Croquet plate matches be best of one game?
E.4     If NO, how many best of “n” games?
E.5     Should the Golf Croquet plate matches be best of one game?
E.6     If NO, how many best of “n” games?
E.7     In Golf Croquet how many points should be played in each game – 13 or 19 pts?
E.8     Should the record of games played in the main event be counted towards a final plate table?
E.9     If Yes, what stage game results would you include?

E.10   Which system would you prefer to see used as a plate event at a WCF Championship?

If non of the above, describe your favourite system.

E.11   Do you have any further points to make regarding this regulation?