From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Mon Jun 26 11:49:58 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e5QAmLQ03718 for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:48:21 +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 e5QAmJw03700 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:48:19 +0100 (BST) Received: from firewall1.lehman.com (firewall1.Lehman.COM [192.147.65.82] (may be forged)) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5QAmIR01446 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:48:18 +0100 (BST) Received: from relay3.messaging-svcs5.lehman.com by firewall1.lehman.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) id GAA26180; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 06:48:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lonmailhost.lehman.com by relay3.messaging-svcs5.lehman.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) id GAA00497; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 06:47:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exlon05.lehman.com by lonmailhost.lehman.com (8.8.8+Sun/Lehman Bros. V1.5) id LAA20068; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:47:37 +0100 (BST) Received: by exlon05.lehman.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <MSTCTFA1>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:47:36 +0100 Message-ID: <219065FBE138D211A37400805FB7578A0419FDE5@exlon05.lehman.com> From: "Flores, Aram" <aflores@lehman.com> To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: RE: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:47:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk "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." An odd thing happened last night, as I sat my aching, aged body down on the sofa to watch the second half of the France vs. Spain match, the teams lined up, the ref got ready, and then they stopped! France only had nine players on the pitch. The ref smiled, asked the Spanish player to wait and didn't award them any goals. About 3 minutes later Mr Zidane and a team-mate emerged from the locker room and took their places, then the ref signalled for the game to begin. Now I'm all for games beginning on time, but I think it is important to remember that we play this game for fun. If a team - which might or might not - have a good excuse is late, I feel being short handed is a sufficient penalty. And after having played this game for nearly 20 years, I have never been on a side that took points in this manner from another team. Why do I care? I was the reason the DSM's 7th man was late. As Simon and I prepared to leave my house on Sunday morning, my 3 year old son burst into tears when told he was not coming. The choice was simple, bring him along and be late, or leave him and be on time........... Aram - Doughboy PS: I also found no mention of this situation in the Tour rules! > -----Original Message----- > From: Suzanne.Penfold@astrazeneca.com > [SMTP:Suzanne.Penfold@astrazeneca.com] > Sent: 26 June 2000 09:26 > To: tammo@freeuk.com; britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk > Subject: RE: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation > > 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. > >