From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Sep 28 09:51:23 1999
Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05518
for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:49:40 +0100 (BST)
Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daffodil [137.205.192.30])
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05513
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:49:37 +0100 (BST)
Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20])
by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06175
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:49:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: from trade-indemnity.demon.co.uk ([158.152.139.88] helo=london1.eulergroup.com)
by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
id 11Vswl-000NvT-0K; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 08:49:17 +0000
Received: by LONDON1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8)
id <TP3T7BGR>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:37:18 +0100
Message-ID: <3FEEBE10F61BD2119B0100805FB7A2E4AF4828@lonsex02bkp>
From: "Wagstaff, Colin [euler:eti-lon]" <Colin.Wagstaff@eulergroup.com>
To: "'Simon Hill'" <simon.hill@actix.com>,
BritDisc
<britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Nationals - unhappy observation
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:36:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Si and everyone,
The game length issue came up at the WFDF meeting at Worlds. True, there
was a lot of disparity over what was the true length. We all know the rules
say 21, 2 hours, three time outs per half, hard cap at 25 etc. It became
evident that from the offering at the meeting we in the UK were the only
country who regulalrly played games to 21 in tournaments. WFDF members made
various excuses regarding the trial length of games for this year and that
it would be reviewed in the future, whatever that will mean, who knows.
I made comment remarking on the fact that finals of Ultimate tournaments
always seem to be to a different number of points/duration than the
pool/semi's etc and that this was fairly unique amongst sports. Everyone
agreed but no one seemed to bothered that there was no standard length of
game. 100 minutes was thought fairly good but 15 points too few.
Standard questions non ulitmate players ask about the game that we (the
ultimate community) cannot answer accurately.
'How many people play?'
'How long does a game last?'
'How many people on a team?'
'What do you play to?
There are probably others too.
These basic questions need answering if this sport is going to get greater
recognition.
In my opinion all games (in the Tour), (in official tournaments) should be
played to the same number of points/duration and 100 mins, 17 points seems
like a good starting point.
Chris, have you any intention of changing the game length/points/structure
for next season?
Colin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Hill [SMTP:simon.hill@actix.com]
> Sent: 28 September 1999 08:38
> To: BritDisc
> Subject: RE: Nationals - unhappy observation
>
> 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
> >