BrisbaneRhino Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 Thought I may as well start this topic here as its getting quite long on the FB page. As clubs seem to have varying methodologies, Neil has proposed a "Club" Number where standard rules can be applied. The basic rules would be that the players must have made an appearance in at least one competitive game. This excludes WW1 "emergency league" games and friendlies, but includes appearances on loan/as a guest (e.g. in WW2). I think this is a good idea. Given the reality that updated game details are found with great regularity, I also think the "Club Numbers" should move as well, rather than adding a's and b's to chuck in extra players or leaving gaps when players are deleted. The Club Numbers are going to vary from club-based "Heritage Numbers" anyway, so I don't think they need to be cast in stone in the same way. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrisbaneRhino Posted June 5, 2020 Author Share Posted June 5, 2020 Its always going to be a case of "lesser of two evils" - flexibility causes problems, as does setting them forever. If the numbers are movable we could always link to club Heritage Numbers, which are static. I guess in the end it depends on what you want the numbers to mean. If we go "fixed" we may as well just use Heritage Numbers anyway. Otherwise we'll just have a slightly different set of fixed numbers due to the oddities some clubs have applied (Leeds including WW1 will add a lot of players the RKC would not count), and have to apply the same sort of workarounds as new information comes out. Personally I'd see the RKC "club numbers" as point in time indicators of where players stand based on today's data. The fact they move doesn't matter too much to me - we'll have a bunch of fixed information on players that ought to be enough to identify them (name, DoB, Heritage Number etc). Just my view - this is exactly the sort of topic that we ought to be discussing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil_Ormston Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 On 05/06/2020 at 15:19, BrisbaneRhino said: Its always going to be a case of "lesser of two evils" - flexibility causes problems, as does setting them forever. If the numbers are movable we could always link to club Heritage Numbers, which are static. I guess in the end it depends on what you want the numbers to mean. If we go "fixed" we may as well just use Heritage Numbers anyway. Otherwise we'll just have a slightly different set of fixed numbers due to the oddities some clubs have applied (Leeds including WW1 will add a lot of players the RKC would not count), and have to apply the same sort of workarounds as new information comes out. Personally I'd see the RKC "club numbers" as point in time indicators of where players stand based on today's data. The fact they move doesn't matter too much to me - we'll have a bunch of fixed information on players that ought to be enough to identify them (name, DoB, Heritage Number etc). Just my view - this is exactly the sort of topic that we ought to be discussing.. I think you've understood the point of my suggestion here exactly BR. All the 'club numbers' are in effect is a ranking of players by order of date of appearance (with a little more clarity around how these are determined when more than one player debuts in the same game). Effectively this is what Heritage Numbers are, the problem being that there is no standardised approach. This makes the useless for comparison purposes, and therefore statistically irrelevant for anyone looking at the games overall history, where standard definitions are required. This the problem that Club Numbers solve. For more information on the Rugby League Record Keepers' Club please visit our official website at www.rugbyleaguerecords.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.