From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Mon Jun 26 09:27:17 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e5Q8Pnj01699
	for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:25:49 +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 e5Q8Plw01688
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:25:47 +0100 (BST)
Received: from gatekeeper.astra.com (gatekeeper.astra.com [192.71.102.2])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e5Q8PkR13082
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:25:46 +0100 (BST)
Received: by gatekeeper.astra.com; (5.65v4.0/1.3/10May95) id AA24527; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:25:40 +0200
Received: from somewhere by smtpxd
Message-Id: <40BC86874C46D4118D7D0000F8023F0D57B568@GB-CHW-MAIL2>
From: Suzanne.Penfold@astrazeneca.com
To: tammo@freeuk.com, britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Subject: RE: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation 
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:25:32 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

In support of the BAF open team (and this is my own opinion and not because
I am part of BAF mixed) I agree with their decision not to play unless a
full opposing team was fielded. 
There is a big difference between playing against a team of 6 players if
they only started out with 8 and have 2 injuries, and therefore being
spirited, and playing against a team of 6 players because one of them didn't
get up in time (or whatever - was there actually a more serious reason? If
so then maybe this should have been mentioned).
Its about time a team stood up and started taking the rules seriously
(assuming that a team has the right to refuse to play unless a full
opposition is fielded). Surely if you are in the top 12 teams of the tour
then every game counts and this should be reflected by the teams showing
full commitment to each and every one. Ultimate will never be taken
seriously by outsiders if it is not taken seriously by the players.
Imagine if a team in Euro 2000 wanted to start with 10 men because not
enough people turned up on time?  The whole thing would be a mockery.
I think that is about all.
 
Suze
BAF mixed

-----Original Message-----
From: er2de2 [mailto:tammo@freeuk.com]
Sent: 26 June 2000 00:10
To: BRITDISC
Subject: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation 


Because some Deep South Mentality players were late for their Sunday morning
game, DSM could at first field only six players. Their opponents Blue Arse
Flies refused to start the game, citing some obscure rule that allegedly
applied to this tournament. This allowed BAF to take five points off DSM
before play eventually started, DSM finally having a seventh player. Oh yes,
BAF did proceed to win the game...
 
Questions:
 
Where is it written that thou shalt have your full contingent of seven
players on the line at the start of a game? And more importantly, WHY is a
rule required? 

Is it health reasons? For World Clubs there is a minimum squad size of 12,
given the exceptional physical demands on the players during a six-day
tournament. Over-regulation, if you ask me, but at least you can see the
it's-for-your-own-good nanny state reason behind it. Southampton is a
two-day tournament, however. DSM were going to be short of a player for
what, 10 minutes? Half an hour? Even a full game? Shock, horror, call the
ambulance! Also, following the logic of protecting players' health: Does
this mean Iron Man tournaments are henceforth outlawed? And what happens if
a squad of eight loses two players due to injury? Do they have to forfeit
their remaining games?
 
Is this rule required to run the tournament smoothly, to prevent late starts
of games, penalise teams not showing up, etc. ? Not applicable here, after
all DSM were ready to play, on time. It's their problem if they had to play
6 vs. 7. 
 
MOST IMPORTANTLY: What kind of mindset makes Blue Arse Flies refuse to play
an opponent, knowing that this way they can get points for free? BAF
players, I hope you'll be thinking about your decision, and I hope you'll
feel sorry. This was lame and un-spirited, Chris Hughes, where were you in
all this? Yes, maybe you would have won anyway- why didn't you >play< the
game to find out?
 
 
Comments welcome.
 
Tammo
Playing for Chevron Action Flash
Speaking for myself
 
 
P.S. Yes, I know the world doesn't end because of this episode.