From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Sep 28 10:19:24 1999 Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09789 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:18:29 +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 KAA09781 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:18:27 +0100 (BST) Received: from mailgw.chelt.ac.uk (mailgw.chelt.ac.uk [194.81.184.203]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10345 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:18:24 +0100 (BST) Received: from exchpk02.chelt.ac.uk (exchpk02.chelt.ac.uk) by mailgw.chelt.ac.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id <B0001199110@mailgw.chelt.ac.uk> for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:16:00 +0100 Received: by exchpk02.chelt.ac.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <NP14R5D3>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:16:55 +0100 Message-Id: <8102C4585310D211858D0060B01A41337ED5DC@exchpk02.chelt.ac.uk> From: "HUGHES, Chris" <CHughes@chelt.ac.uk> To: BritDisc <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Nationals - unhappy observation Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:16:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Ok since people are asking - I'll start with points in order Congrats to UTI for winning Nationals, and Doughboy for winning Spirit. Similar Congrats to 1st Touch for Div B. Thanks to Ben and Red for all their good work over the weekend, and baring the minor technical hiccups I thought it ran extremely well. The technical hiccups - yes I accept there was confusion, and I take the blame for that as I neglected to tell Ben what was going on. However I don't think that it affected any games as the confusion only arose in the knockout (and only a 2 point change), but I accept there was a cockup. Re: Game length - yes there is no convention across the UK let alone Europe or the World. It is usually dependent on No. of pitches / games / teams. Yes we should be trying to bring the Tour in line with the major events that it is designed to prepare teams for, and it is one of the many aspects of the tour rules that the u8c committee will be reviewing prior to next year. Chris DoC > ---------- > From: Wagstaff, Colin > [euler:eti-lon][SMTP:Colin.Wagstaff@eulergroup.com] > Sent: 28 September 1999 09:36 > To: 'Simon Hill'; BritDisc > Subject: RE: Nationals - unhappy observation > > 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 > > > >