Some teams are behind in league games, behind in cup games, and one of the factors in this is Major precidence over 'domestic' fixtures. Some clubs have better parks than others, Some clubs have better facilities in general than others.

So should the 3 game strike rule be re-considered in the push for getting Major Cup games played sooner rather than later?

I think it should be reduced, I voted for two strikes but I would also add another option, 2 strikes and on 3rd attempt home club either sources 3G pitch or the tie is reversed. So 2 strike with option?

I just think 3 strikes, coupled with the ruling that if over a certain percent of all games is off with weather then it doesnt count as a strike, means certain games can be off for AGES. I reckon they should get 2 chances to get it on MAX.

i would go for 2 goes and then reversal but also if on the 2nd go the game gets called off and the away team can get a park thats playable then can switch it around aslong as its not too late

Yeah. If the tie is off on the second go and its gonna get reversed anyway then it should be opened up to either team to get a park. Makes sense.

simples but the clowns in charge dont take these things into consideration. ooppps that will be more onto my suspension ha

I voted for no whilst i was doing it u musta changed the poll, so it checked yes "two strikes" instead...


I think you should get 3 attempts, if it fails the first two , then book 3g.. otherwise ye deserve to lose home advantage

Its more frustrating than anything else. Especially when your own park is playable but its too late to get a league game. 3 chances is too many.

Cleland.....I'm one of the "clowns in charge" if you are talking about the guys like me who organise national or district cups.

"Simples" is it? Well, if its that simple I've got a suggestion for you. Sit yourself down with the current rule book, and draw up your simple rule to replace what we have. Then we can ask what everybody thinks about it. What could be more simple than that?

As to your forthcoming case, you'll just have to hope that not too many of the "clowns" read your postings!

thats the main one for me... having a park available more often than not but its not being used (competitively). frustrating.

cleland/morris. lets keep this on topic. any other issues I am sure you can both discuss in private or on another dedicated thread in the appropriate section.

cheers

After 2 failed attempts the home side shoulf book a 3G park.

lol..

belter

Morris looked after me at ma wee visit up to the circus

I think taking the 3rd game to a 3g is probally the most sensible thing however i do feel this takes the slight romance of goin away and playing on a cow heep but with fixture pile-ups its only fair solution !!

the romance of playing on a cowheep? Its barely possible to play on a cowheap - why anyone would ever want to play on a pitch described as that is beyond me.

If the rule was changed, that teams lost home advantage sooner - maybe as a collective the clubs who suffer from this could apply pressure to their local councils for better treatment of the parks. There are parks out there which are never forked & rolled, and ones which are rarely cut and lined! I dont think that anywhere enough time is put into looking after the grass parks.

lol had to laugh at that 1.... a cowheep!! dougie u r right.... who wants to play on a sh*** park?? as we talked about on another thread about 3g... simply we all want to play on a good grass park but theres hardly any decent ones available!! so its 3g for me

as for the poll....... i think 1 attempt then another grass or 3g attemp, im sure the clubs will have a rough idea if the grass will be on... if not get a 3g park..... no 3rd attempt for me

theres nothing romantic about a tattie field

My case has already been up and I know the outcome but ok I will look over rule book and give it to a amateur team to submit

Cowheap - thats where the "shocks" come from so i can tell where corkerhill was coming from, it happened 20 years ago in the FA cup Scottish cup senior etc

But any footballer wanting to "play" football the way it should be pass move etc should be wanting 3G......its as close to a flat surface and as perfect for football conditions as we will get...... allthough they i do still prefer a good decent grass park. Just feels natural.

When the 3 strike rule came in, a lot of clubs said it was wrong that they lost home advantage when some of their postponed matches were on days when virtually nobody could play. So the West Committee agreed that if at least one of the three postponements was on a "wipe-out" date (with more than half the ties off) the club would get a fourth shot at getting it played then it would switch. Looking at the poll a lot of you are saying two shots then switch.

If you change the rule in a way which penalises a club which doesn't go for 3G, that will go down very badly in some places. What if a club has a postponement on a Thursday or Friday and can't get a 3G? Some areas have very few 3G pitches available. For the Sunday Trophy, all the District Cups and Scottish replays, matches can go to extra time and penalties. Most 3Gs are allocated in 2 hour slots - you can't complete extra time never mind penalties in a two hour period. And a lot of clubs will tell you they just can't afford the cost of 3G hires and having to book it for more than two hours makes it even more expensive. If we are going to force clubs to go for 3G (or penalise them if they don't go for 3G) we would need to have more of them, a better booking system and lower hire fees. Local councils are telling us they don't have the funds to do all we want them to do and there is no sign that is going to change anytime soon.

But there seems to be a strong view that the present situation is just not working and I'm sure the various match secretaries would agree on that. The problem is going to be finding something everybody can agree on.

Whats the opinion on sides making no effort to play on their grass pitch and playing each home tie on 3G giving them a good advantage over their opponents who mainly or only play on grass ?

I agree that 3 attempts is too long . 2 goes then switch tie .
I also believe that there is no need for replays. I personally prefer getting the tie settled on the first day it is played ,ideally by playing extra time and then penalties if necessary however I fully understand the reasoning behind going straight to penalties as we now do in the Sunday Trophy.
On the other point about teams preferring to play on 3g/4g surfaces rather than grass - we have 2 teams in our league who play all of their home games on 4g so have no issue whatsoever with them choosing to play their Scottish games on the same surface ,all part of the home advantage scenario I reckon .As Match Secretary in our local league I am delighted with this option .

wattie - I had forgotten that the Sunday Trophy matches now go straight to penalties if a draw after 90 minutes. That takes care of the problems caused by 2 hour slots for 3G bookings. One for the Saturday clubs to think about I think!

the straight to penaltys on a sunday is a lot of poopy

Couldnt disagree more. The theory works in reverse. Teams who always play on grass by your logic will have an advantage over those teams who play predominantly on 3G if the game goes ahead on grass.

Anyway, playin on 3G I dont think is advantageous... Easier to play football I'd say. Not to mention the fact that I'd be suprised if almost every team going didn't train on 3G every week.