ISN'T it odd how Bermuda Football Association's decision to disband the Commercial League and form a new Masters division has, ultimately, had the opposite effect to what they intended?

The BFA thought by streamlining their organisation it would result in less wear and tear on the pitches and put less pressure on the limited pool of referees and linesmen.

But with the formation of the breakaway Corona League which, judging from its slick and well organised website, there's more players than ever wanting to take part in the game, and the demand on officials is substantially higher than last year.

FIFA's mandate has always been to encourage more participation and increase the game's popularity in every country. So from that perspective, the changes here should please the world's governing body.

But there's no doubt that the BFA's decision to disband the Commercial League – a competition which produced a number of talented players, those not so talented but simply wanted a Saturday run-out, and many who just wanted to take part without having to train so rigorously as those in the Premier and First Divisions – has, to some extent, backfired. That's not meant as a criticism but simply a reflection of what has transpired.

Eleven of those Commercial teams now make up the Corona League, all of whose matches will be played at BAA. And while that's just one venue, it's one less venue available to the BFA and their various divisions.

The BFA have insisted that they and the Corona League are not rivals, they want to work hand in hand. The new boys are of the same opinion.

However, it would be naiive to believe that there won't be some teething problems when the new season begins.

It seems that many who might have been happy to play in the BFA's new Masters Division (over 30s) are having a change of mind. They're thinking the Corona might be a better option.

After all, Corona organisers are apparently offering their refs $75 per game – a higher fee than they would receive in the BFA divisions. And that could lead to the new competition being better run than the Masters.

It could result in one league surviving, the other not. It could see teams in both leagues scrambling to field a full team, and thus both competitions will suffer.

Perhaps both will survive and everybody will be happy.

But that won't eliminate one of the problems the BFA were trying to rid themselves of in the first place – the over-use of venues and the shortage of referees.

The bottom line is that eveybody in Bermuda from the age of four to 94, male or female, should be encouraged to play football. To discriminate by age, in particular, is ludicrous.

It's a Catch 22. We want to prepare better pitches to produce better football, but we don't want to discourage anybody from playing.

How the game will be played here under the new format is yet to be seen – but hopefully it won't be a case of more losers than winners.

Is it really too late for a rethink? Couldn't the Masters and Corona divisions join forces and operate under one umbrella?

The last thing the BFA want is a repetition of the defunct Reserve Division – a disorganised competition which for years saw players failing to show up, teams slowly disbanding, nobody keeping track of results or standings and general disinterest.

And even before a ball has been kicked, there's some indication the Masters division could be heading that way.

POKER HYPOCRISY

ESPN regards itself as the world's leading sports TV channel, and in the last two or more years has taken on itself to deem poker a sport, regularly showing sessions from the World Series.

On that rather tenuous basis, I'll take the liberty to make a similar stance . . . if only to comment on the hypocrisy shown in this country regarding the hugely popular card game, pointing out my opinion won't be shared by many at this newspaper.

Poker has been in the news all week, following the tragic and cowardly shooting of my good friend Richard Gaglio in his own home last Sunday morning. It followed a poker game in which I played.

Besides the health of 'Gags' – and encouragingly there's far more hope regards his recovery than just a few days ago – the debate on how to stop escalating gun violence has reached an almost hysterical level, justifiably so.

But it's also stirred the debate on whether poker should be legalised or not. At the moment it's not, at least not in licensed premises, although some bars are known to be completely ignoring the law.

The issue contains so many grey areas that even lawyer Llewellyn Peniston appears to be completely confused. In a TV and radio interview yesterday he admitted as much, noting that home poker games appeared to be legal but a ship casino with which he was connected was shut down, although there are some notable differences between the two.

Strangely, bingo is legal and so is crown and anchor (if you want to lose money fast, go play any of those two). Hundreds upon hundreds of punters will this weekend bet on horses, English soccer and, in particlular, NFL as a new season begins – and they'll do it either online or in local betting shops.

So perhaps someone – Police, Government – could explain what's the big deal or different about poker.

And for the information of Police, Gags doesn't own "a house used for organise gambling" . . . unless, of course, they believe our churches organise gambling (bingo) and our cricket clubs run a gambling operation (crown and anchor).

Every weekend golfers gamble on the golf course – often for hefty stakes. Are our golf clubs also houses of ill repute?

The double standards regarding gambling in this country are mind-boggling.

Our MPs gamble, our Union chief gambles, our top businessmen gamble and you can bet that plenty who go to church every Sunday morning enjoy the odd flutter.

I gamble and have done so for more than 40 years, and enjoyed every minute of it – except on the day I lost my house, car and boat!

But seriously, it's a matter of choice. Those who play the stock market are the world's biggest gamblers.

And to those who would describe poker as a game of chance, I'd say they're wrong. Much like bridge, it's a game of considerable skill, obviously entwined with a heavy dose of luck. Legislators in California agreed that skill played a major part in the game and allowed poker clubs to open throughout the state.

Can our leaders here explain what's wrong with a game of poker, not only in your own home, but in any bar which chooses to run the game.

So far, nobody has been able to do so.

– ADRIAN ROBSON