From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Mon Jun 26 12:55:07 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e5QBrXw19933
	for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:53:33 +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 e5QBrVw19921
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:53:31 +0100 (BST)
Received: from gatekeeper.eaglestar.co.uk (gatekeeper.eaglestar.co.uk [192.147.228.29])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e5QBrPR09216
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:53:25 +0100 (BST)
Received: by gatekeeper.eaglestar.co.uk id AA19238
  (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk);
  Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:41:57 +0100
Received: by gatekeeper.eaglestar.co.uk (Internal Mail Agent-1);
  Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:41:57 +0100
Message-Id: <001601bfdf65$99d901d0$be17010a@w046901.uk.zurich.com>
From: "James Hewitson" <james.hewitson@Zurich.co.uk>
To: "Flores, Aram" <aflores@lehman.com>, <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation 
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:56:45 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

Aram Wrote :
>
>PS: I also found no mention of this situation in the Tour rules!
>


I seem to remember (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that this exact
situation was specifically mentioned in the Tournament Rules that were
distributed at the Captains meeting on Saturday morning (sorry but I don't
have the precise wording to hand).

This does raise the question about "standardising" tournament rules across
ALL tournaments- but that's a different issue

Balti
BAF 34









>> -----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.
>>
>>