Calling KC, Reg and Shane

china - rule 3

3 - Selections must be posted AT LEAST 1 hour before your selected race. Failure to comply will result in the selection being declared Invalid and treated as a Non Selection.

Have you seen Reg's post on the Division 1 thread Shane

Just china.

Ive always settled as no selection, so if rest days were available as per n/r. If the rest days were take ie all 5 then invalid -£1

Im happy either way, I`ll go along with the majority.

Reg - worksheets posts & output are not picking Chelmsford up, to avoid corrupting them shall I just enter the selections
in the division sheet?

sorry, only just copped this ...

shane, I emailed you this morning about sending me your table ... Chelmsford needs to be put in the database, though you can in the interim put them in manually. This being Sunday you've probably only got half an entry anyway! But I'll need your table at some stahe if this essex malarkey carries on

Not looked at email Reg, sorry, been out all afternoon. I`ll send it now mate.

One the rules, Rule 3 does indeed say invalid selections should be treated as a non-selection. But the rule 8 it refers to makes a distinction between an 'optional' non-selection and a 'losing' non-selection. What it is abundanty clear on is that a Rest Day only applies to those that do not post. Once you post, you come under 'starters orders' and are subject to a deduction for breaking the one hour rule as if you lost. That was why it was written that way.

If you enter Invalid selection in the table (because that is what it is) it will automatically deduct a point rather than allow a rest day. If people feel napsters should get a rest day instead then that's fine, but the rules would have to be rewritten first. It was done the present way because Rest Days are essentially there to help people who can't post for some reason, not to help those who can but are cackhanded or can't tell the time.

I think we have touched on this a while ago. I`m ok with what you`ve said Reg, but then I feel it`s a little harsh on someone who
is a minute or two late who may select a winner but be settled -£1. Not saying the napster should be awarded the winner.

Well its hardly harsh, as they have a rest day saved they would otherwise lose. Swings and roundabouts. But as I say, that's the way they wuz written.

... and don't forget, on the final day there's no choice in the matter because there's no rest days. You lose a point. I would add that a minute late might as well be an hour late. It's late.

Yes, on the final day Reged. I`m ok with what you`ve said Reg if china and kc are.

Must admit I hadn't appreciated the distinction between optional and losing non-selections. I was probably guilty of transgressing the rule a couple of days ago. Someone mixed up the names of two horses and I allowed the use of a rest day.

Upon reflection that still seems fair because a) that's how I would like to be treated and b) this is just for fun after all (although some do seem to take it seriously )

I do agree with Reged that it's irrelevant how late someone posts - late is late.

Oops - cat, pigeons

Of course it's for fun KC, but fun quickly turns into some vicious argy-bargy when someone thinks they're hard done by - look at all the fuss we had over the dreaded LRF! - which is why I think it is generally best all round to stick to the rules without interpreting them where they don't need it. And, as I say, if someone has posted they lose the right to a rest day, whatever they go on to do. If we think that's harsh then lets change the rules.

So its -1 and should be entered as an invalid selection. I've no problem with that as I always check the time of the post when its close to the hour , which is quite often with me.

-£1 is ok with me.

Looks like I'm outvoted. -1 point it is then.

It won't make any difference to me which way you boys decide to go as I am always an early poster, but hasn't the number one rule of betting always been that 'if you can't win then you can't lose'?
So calling a late post a non-selection would seem the fairest way (unless it causes you to exceed your 5 grace days, in which case it should then be -1).

Reg I know you haven't asked for debate on this minor issue but I agree with Madhatter and KC on this one. (sorry)

no need to be sorry pete ... it's a valid viewpoint. I am not arguing FOR the rule, just that is IS the rule

Hasn't the number one rule of betting always been that 'if you can't win then you can't lose'?

mmmm, tell that to the bookies whydoncha?