From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue May 23 17:50:53 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e4NGnlg28636 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:49:47 +0100 (BST) Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4NGnjp28624 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:49:46 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.jakinternet.co.uk (qmailr@[212.41.41.61]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e4NGnjV12909 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:49:45 +0100 (BST) Received: (qmail 23292 invoked by uid 101); 23 May 2000 16:27:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?212.41.39.111?) (212.41.39.111) by smtp.jakinternet.co.uk with SMTP; 23 May 2000 16:27:40 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.4] by daletaylor.co.uk (CommuniGate SMTP 2.9) with ESMTP id S.002128312484 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>,...; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:49:41 +0100 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:51:27 +0100 Subject: Re: Dodgy fields From: Nolan Taylor <nolan@daletaylor.co.uk> To: Colin Smith <colin@08004homes.com>, <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Message-ID: <B550759F.20A0%nolan@daletaylor.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <008c01bfc4d0$fce87e40$6e8852c1@home2home> Mime-version: 1.0 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk ? 3?R 3? Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > From: "Colin Smith" <colin@08004homes.com> > Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:07:16 +0100 > To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> > Subject: Dodgy fields > > Given the apparent widespread feeling that this event was not up to the > standard everyone would like, and given that one of the stronger teams in > the tour was not involved, why are ANY results from the event still > standing? Do Catch still have any chance of gaining a representative placing > at the end of the tour? > > I'm sure that the teams who played and improved on their positions from tour > one would disagree, but if the pitches were that bad, and a number of > unnecessary injuries occured as a result (possibly to key players?), are the > final placings (and therefore points allocated) any reflection of the > relative standard of the teams involved in the tour. > > And for the record: > > No, I wasn't there - injury that I'm glad I rested. > > I applaud anyone who has the time, dedication & application to host a > tournament or run the sport. > > No, I don't believe that teams who took the time to travel long distances > should be rewarded for their dedication. Had I travelled up from London I > would definitely have played (long way to go without playing - and I'm sure > some had longer journeys), but wouldn't have had a problem with Tour points > not counting. > All fine & dandy, but how far do we take this... If players injured in the event are still injured come tourIII & maybe even IV, do we not distribute points from those? If someone (Please no!!!) acquired an injury that will trouble them for the rest their playing career, do all points from all future GB events stop being distributed? I have nothing against C22's refusal to risk their fitness. In fact, on reflection I think it was a brave decision. However, that decision was taken in the full knowledge of the facts at that time. IE that the event went ahead without them, and points would be issued to the teams still participating. It is also fair that C22 are deemed 'not to have attended' and therefore carry over their seeding from tourI. BUT let's not set further dangerously wide-reaching precedents. Cheers Nolan