From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Mon Jun 26 13:28:48 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e5QCQrL28666
	for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:26:53 +0100 (BST)
Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5QCQow28656
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:26:50 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mc-qout4.whowhere.com (mc-qout4.whowhere.com [209.185.123.18])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e5QCQoY18448
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:26:50 +0100 (BST)
Received: from Unknown/Local ([?.?.?.?]) by shared2-mail.whowhere.com; Mon Jun 26 05:26:32 2000
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:26:32  0000
From: "Wayne Retter" <w.retter@england.com>
Message-ID: <GBMMJJBOAHAEBAAA@shared2-mail.whowhere.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sent-Mail: off
Reply-To: w.retter@bigfoot.com
X-Mailer: MailCity Service
Subject: RE: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation 
X-Sender-Ip: 62.172.72.66
Organization: England E-mail  (http://www.email.england.com:80)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk


I'm hoping that the 'rule' to which Tammo refers is:
Should a team be unable to field 7 players at the scheduled start of the game, their opposition may refuse to play against them until seven players are available. In the meantime, the undermanned team have five minutes grace, and then lose points at the rate of one per minute.
(As cited to me by Chris Hughes, at Swindon, when Chevvy were a mite worried that they may not have seven for their first game...)

TR> Where is it written that thou shalt have your
TR> full contingent of seven players on the line at
TR> the start of a game?

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

This troubles me... I can't find the black-and-white proof either. I'm not sure that the Tour Rules would really be the place to look (they don't really deal with the specifics of game length, halftimes, timeouts, etc) and/but I know that this rule (with various tweaks) gets used at other events... and it's not WFDF, 'cos (I've just checked and) they don't deal with the triviality of a lack of players.

It's generally used because there isn't enough available time to just delay the game without havng undesired knock-on effects throughout the rest of the tournament.

I agree that, if such a rule is to be available, it *should* be specified somewhere - even if it's just in the tournament rules (along with things like exactly how long the timeouts and halftime is at this event!)

TR> And more importantly, WHY is a rule required?

Well, here the argument goes both ways... one the one hand, Ultimate is supposed to be a seven-aside sport (that IS in the Rules), and teams should be organised enough to have sufficient numbers (even after injury!), but on the other, it's just a game, we do it for fun, and a team brings on it's own punishment by being short on numbers...

It has been known that a game has been delayed due to late arrival of one team, no points have been accrued in the wait, and that that late team has then gone on to win the game in the remaining available time. Is this fair? Does this not encourage talented but undermanned teams to be late, and then win before the fatigue sets in?

[If, in Aram's example, there hadn't been any extra players in the locker room, would that match have proceeded? Would that undermanned team have been allowed to continue? Would that team have been heavily fined?]

At another recent tournament, the eventual tournament champions were short of players for BOTH their Saturday and Sunday morning (Quarter Final!) games. This *could* (should?) have lost them the tournament, but their opposition wanted to play, rather than hang around grumbling...

Should this be allowed?

Personally, I think not.
I want to play Ultimate with 14 healthy players on pitch for each point, and I think that teams and their players should be committed enough to ensure that they have the numbers to be able to achieve this, taking into account that they may loose some to injury on the day.

Then again, I also think that my view is tainted by too much experience of running tournaments and having teams gripe about their opposition not being organised enough to bring enough players along to each game, making the situation somewhat farcical.

Sadly, I also feel that teams that can't field sufficient numbers, at the required times, is a large part of the difference between "Ultimate, fun with frisbees" and "Ultimate, The Sport". Both have a place, but with the development that has already occured, attempting to mix the two will not keep everybody happy.


Wayne
expressing my own mixed opinion.

---
Wayne Retter
w.retter@bigfoot.com
Fluid Druids



__________________________________________________________________
Get your own free England E-mail address at http://www.england.com