From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Tue Sep 28 15:01:20 1999
Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA23319
	for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:00:19 +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 PAA23308
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:00:16 +0100 (BST)
Received: from curlew.cs.man.ac.uk (curlew.cs.man.ac.uk [130.88.13.7])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12916
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:00:16 +0100 (BST)
Received: from ccg.acu.man.ac.uk ([130.88.17.200])
	by curlew.cs.man.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #3)
	for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
	id 11Vxni-0005XJ-00; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:00:14 +0100
Received: from ccMail by ccg.acu.man.ac.uk (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.20.00.25)
    id AA938527221; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:00:23 GMT
Message-Id: <9909289385.AA938527221@ccg.acu.man.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: ccMail Link to SMTP R8.20.00.25
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:59:27 GMT
From: "Rob Mitchell"<Rob.Mitchell@man.ac.uk>
To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Nationals - another similar observation  
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk



> >Next year, at least for Nationals, let's make it a 
> requirement that the
> >successful Tournament Bid includes provision for 
> Score/Timekeepers. Even
> if all
> >they do is warn the teams to start on time and then start 
> taking points it
> would
> >be an improvement. 
> >
> 
> You offering to be one? Or find/organise/make sure they are 
> there on time/
> know what they are doing/make sure they are not abused too 
> much and all the
> extra work that this means?
> 
> Barry - team formerly known as...

Every time someone suggests an improvement to the way Ultimate tournaments are
run, we get this moan. We've had the 'well you try it then' debate a hundred
tedious times and I don't intend to open it again. However, just because it's
hard to run a tournament doesn't preclude us from suggesting improvements, which
is what I'm doing. 

In this case, I'll be honest and tell you I don't think it would be a massive
extra burden for Nationals to have time/scorekeepers. 10 people would have been
more than enough for last weekend, and if an offer for next year is received
from Bristol or Leicester or London or, god forbid, Manchester I can't see any
reason why those places couldn't scrape 10 uninvolved players together to score
the games. You've never been in a game with a dispute over the number of
time-outs? You've never stood on the line trying to work out which end you
started the game at so you can then figure out whether the score is correct?
Never had a dispute over the timing of a game? This year I went to Nationals and
did all those things in the same weekend.

I'm not criticising the TDs, as such mix-ups are standard operating procedure
for Ultimate tournaments in this country, but I am saying that situations like
these are unacceptable at Nationals. Tell me you think it's acceptable for the
two teams involved in the final to have to stop for three or four minutes to
debate how much time they have left to play and I'll call you a fibber.

Rob
Chevron