From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Mon Oct 26 12:11:08 1998 Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA09721 for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:56:16 GMT Received: from epunix.biols.susx.ac.uk (root@epunix.biols.susx.ac.uk [139.184.162.2]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA09687 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:56:12 GMT Received: from localhost (4787 bytes) by epunix.biols.susx.ac.uk via sendmail with P:stdio/R:acukbind/T:smtp (sender: <kevinbr>) (ident <kevinbr> using unix) id <m0zXlFo-000A7xC@epunix.biols.susx.ac.uk> for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:56:08 +0000 (GMT) (Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #10 built 1998-Feb-1) Message-Id: <m0zXlFo-000A7xC@epunix.biols.susx.ac.uk> From: kevinbr@biols.susx.ac.uk (Kevin Brooks) Subject: Re: Scott's comment on worlds allocations To: jpg2@st-andrews.ac.uk (Big Funky) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:56:08 +0000 (GMT) Cc: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.981023102613.18942D-100000@purds> from "Big Funky" at Oct 23, 98 10:35:00 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk I hope I'm not starting the 'closed minded argument' that Jon was talking about, but this is a discussion forum, so... I must admit, I find it a bit strange that Scotland has been singled out for *extra* places in Worlds at all. I know the tournament happens to be in Scotland, but were English teams allocated for *extra* places, which could not have been filled by other BUF clubs when it was held in Colchester (before my time)? Was ESSEX given an allocation for itself? Or, equally, if the top teams in the BUF happened to have been Scottish, then would they still have had their 2 *extra* places? Surely the BUF should be aiming to enter the strongest possible set of BUF teams, regardless of geography? I was under the impression that the tour was there (in part) to find out who those teams are. Surely this years tour results are relevant, then. And what is this about a Scottish National team? Isn't this World CLUBS we're talking about? > players up here > who are only willing to play in worlds because they think they will be > on the second team - they don't feel confident enough to play on the > Scottish national team, The idea that these people should play in a World Championships would shock people in most sports. I'm also keen that such people should gain experience, but we are hosting the most prestigious Ultimate tournament in the world next year. This is a showcase to the rest of the world, not a beginners' training camp (no offense meant). Shouldn't we have only the most able taking part? There are also very able players on British teams who want to play and will miss out if extra places are given to teams who have not justified their entry via the competitive structure of the Tour (or whatever). Why should they miss out? > to put the other side of the argument 2 Scottish teams > would be fantastic for furthering the standard of Scottish ultimate ...at the expense of *British* Ultimate. No one can blame enthusiasts for wanting to go to Worlds, but the fact that some people live a little bit closer to the venue than others seems irrelevant to me - we're all in the BUF. The BRITISH Ultimate Federation. There really should not be one set of rules for some, and one for the others. If you want to go to worlds but didn't qualify, then go and spectate or better still, volunteer to help out. I'm sure it'll be a great experience anyway. Perhaps there is an obvious reason, and I'm just being dense, but can anyone explain to me why teams in any region of the BUF's jurisdiction should have any preferential treatment? Locks. > > Scott, > the Sneeeky's team was a combination of Edinburgh players and most > of the best of the rest. Other Scotland players such as myself and MJ have > tour commitments with club teams. Spicer and Charles decided to open up > the Sneeeky's tour team to other players in Scotland so in an effort to > get into the habbit of playing with each other for worlds the other > Scottish players joined in. Why should Scotland now be punished by loosing > a worlds allocation because we wanted to play together as build up for > worlds?? Before this sparks off another closed minded argument from many > people I completely understand why you would be unhappy with WFDF telling > the BUF how to split a British allocation but please don't base you > arguument against 2 Scottish open teams on the fact that only a team > called Sneeeky's played on the tour. There are A LOT of players up here > who are only willing to play in worlds because they think they will be on > the second team - they don't feel confident enough to play on the Scottish > national team, to put the other side of the argument 2 Scottish teams > would be fantastic for futhering the standard of Scottish ultimate. People > up here are really looking foward to worlds just for a chance to play, I > would hate to see that chance taken away from so many up and comming young > Scottish players. > > Jon Good > aka 'Big Funky' of 'Funkian' and 'More than just a Hint' > aka 'Frank LeBoeuf' of 'Blue Arse Flies' > D.O.P.A. S.A.U. (underground) Wine Soc. > Captain S.A.U.U.F.C. - Flying Sorcerers > The loneliest man since time began - all air-fare donations gratefully > received > World of Crack! > > "Je suis la poisson d'amour" > >