From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Wed Oct 30 07:07:12 1996 Received: from thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk by clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk with ESMTP id HAA11158; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 07:07:01 GMT Received: by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk id PAA09316; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:45:03 GMT Received: from amsta.leeds.ac.uk by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk with SMTP id PAA09223; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:42:39 GMT Received: from newton.leeds.amsta (newton.leeds.ac.uk [129.11.36.64]) by amsta.leeds.ac.uk (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA13233 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:44:08 GMT Received: by newton.leeds.amsta (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA16824; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:46:22 GMT Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:46:22 GMT From: amtsjh@amsta.leeds.ac.uk (S J Hill) Message-Id: <199610281546.PAA16824@newton.leeds.amsta> To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: apologies X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Status: RO I'm going to re-order what Andy has said somewhat: > It was a great weekend, although the weather was an uncontrollable > disaster. Yes - and whilst you can get this sort of weather at any time of year it does seem to strengthen the argument for finding some way of moving Nationals forward. > However, there were a couple of things that I really thought were out of > order, and I feel should be addressed - what do people think about the > following: > Secondly, the end of tournament cermony was a real anti-climax. Why Chris > could not organise a proper spirit vote is beyond me (for those who weren't > there, none of the organisers thought to collect spirit votes, and the > trophy was given to Stan by default, it seems). I'm not trying to deny Stan > the spirit trophy; my point is that this is one of the most important > aspects of the game, especially for the teams who don't get into the top 5 > or 6; it angered me that this aspect of the tournament was ignored. This > *was* the National Finals after all, so every aspect of our sport should be > afforded the utmost respect - including the women's tournament, which Chris > also didn't seem to care about, either. I think the buck stops here for this undeniable cock-up. Had I realised that Chris and Wayne hadn't sorted Spirit then I would have done so whilst the final was on. Of course - I *should* have realised because nobody had asked for our nomination. I was too busy enjoying our post-game gags and watching the final. Once I realised (too late of course) we tried quickly to take a quick pole of teams around us. Stan's name came up more than anyone else. Nonetheless this was a cock-up. I am extremely embarrased. I take the blame. Women's tourney: I don't think that Liz had let Chris know how it had gone - given him results etc. So he asked her to let us all know how things had gone. (Congrats to Twin Peaks!!) The organisation of the women's tourney was done last minute and owes some thanks to Chris (as Liz mentioned). The number of teams involved also varied wildly from day to day in the week leading up to the tourney. I also would like to refute the implication that spirit is not important to teams in the top 5 or 6. > Most teams yesterday (Sunday) had to play three consecutive games. Now, I > know that long games are better than short, but expecting players to play > over 4 hours of games without a real break is not only gruelling, but > potentially dangerous. Three points: 1. Yes - there was (another) mistake here. Games were supposed to be 90 mins. So that the 2 hour slots still gave time for quick break; refill water bottles; have a fag (joke); etc etc. (I suspect you would have said the same in this case also however.) 2. The schedule has been known for sometime. And I believe I managed to communicate this to people from most teams - esp. those expecting to be at finals. Who is the more foolhardy? He who schedules 3 back to back games? or he who turns up to such a tournament with 11 players (2 of whom are known to be getting over injuries)? 3. The schedule could have been different and avoided this difficulty: a) There could have been less teams. (I wonder what would have been said about that.) b) Games could have been much shorter. (Do we want to play proper ultimate at Nationals.. or just pretendy-short-game-frisbee?) c) We could have scheduled games to continue whilst the final was on. (This too would have prompted complaints.) d) We could have played the final in the dark... except we couldn't get the venue with floodlights that Scott tried for. > This was made worse by the fact that the 'breakfast' > provided at the campsite wasn't served until 30 minutes before games begun > - not enough time to get anything eaten and digested. Also, the breakfast > was a rip off. Ten pounds per team for the cheapest bread and jam that can > be bought does not get appreciated. Didn't see the breakfast - so I can't comment. It should have been served earlier than 30 mins before. Given the difficulties in finding a venue for finals a better solution might have been not to offer any accom or breakfast and leave people to solve these problems for themselves.... > These were my gripes about an otherwise okay tournament, and asking around > briefly, I know that there were a good number of people who agreed with me > - anyone have any opinions on this? Hopefully that might help to explain some of Andy's points and also to apologize for the undeniable mistakes. I am learning. Some things we got right - some we got wrong. Hopefully we will learn from the mistakes. I know I will. Please don't bother discussing for a week the merits of my spirit straw pole. We were shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted. My final point is this: if you can do better, I think Chris & Wayne would be the first to join me in saying: "Please do." > Looking forward to indoors, > Andy C > Chevron Looking forward to practising outdoors all winter, Simon Catch 22 Director of Competitions