From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Tue Sep 28 09:02:26 1999
Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28037
	for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:01:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (snowdrop [137.205.192.31])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28024
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:01:32 +0100 (BST)
Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA10733
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:01:29 +0100 (BST)
Received: from actix.demon.co.uk ([158.152.23.8] helo=cayman.actix1)
	by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 11VsCX-000HCX-0K
	for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 08:01:29 +0000
Received: by CAYMAN with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8)
	id <SFRLMPLX>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 08:38:23 +0100
Message-ID: <B07B1BF7F6CED11184E900609739CF8921E3C7@CAYMAN>
From: Simon Hill <simon.hill@actix.com>
To: BritDisc <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Nationals - unhappy observation
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 08:38:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

It struck me as confusing that after three years of the same basic system:

Sat: 3 days of 90 mins or 17 points
Sun: 2 games of 120 mins or 21 points

that there was any change at all.  Esp. since there were clearly no pitch
constraints (lots of spare time, etc).  It caused confusion in our semi
against UTI, and evidently had a huge effect on the result ;)

On a wider note (can you have such a thing?), would it be possible for the
BUF to seek OFFICIAL clarification of how long a game of ultimate is please?
Since (cf WUCC) WFDF haven't got the faintest idea how long they think a
game should be and would appear to need prodding into a decision!  If (as
appears the case) there is a general tendency to shorten the game (I hope
so) then I think it would be helpful if
a) ultimate players knew about it
b) ultimate players knew about it in advance of the season/tourney/etc
whatever they are trianing for...


Usual disclaimers about 
"thanks for organising the tourney"
"wish more people made as much effort as you guys"
"well organised"
"great pitches"
etc, etc, etc...


Si - no team


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wayne Retter [mailto:postmaster@phidelta.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: 27 September 1999 20:11
> To: BritDisc
> Subject: Nationals - unhappy observation
> 
> 
> <happy>
> To Ben, and Red,
> Pitches and rain, much as expected.
> Mostly efficient.
> Thank you.
> </happy>
> 
> 
> <unhappy>
> Before the 5-8 semis on Sunday I asked Ben Ravillious (TD) 
> what the game
> rules were. He confirmed that they'd been muttered about 
> briefly in the
> captain's meeting and that a points limit of 19 had been 
> mentioned, but
> that I should check with Chris Hughes (DoC and schedule boss) for
> specifics and context...
> 
> Chris Hughes duly told me we were playing to 19, but still 90 
> mins, and
> 2 timeouts/half/team.
> 
> Apparently, this was incorrect (as discovered AFTER half-time) but we
> stuck with it for that game.
> 
> Whether this error had any effect is arguable (and believe 
> me, we argued
> about it amongst ourselves!), but not the basis for my comment. My
> concern is this:
> 
> Why was this information not included in either the handouts, at the
> captain's meeting, or available for reference in a form other than
> hunting down Chris Hughes and hoping his brain was in gear... ?
> 
> </unhappy>
> 
> 
> Wayne Retter
> on behalf of the Fluid Druids
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Wayne Retter
> at home: 0181-663-4856                wayne@phidelta.demon.co.uk
>  mobile: 07970-903420
>