From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Jun 27 11:01:02 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e5R9TtE29140 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:29:55 +0100 (BST) Received: from wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@wisteria [137.205.192.41]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5R9Tme29065 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:29:49 +0100 (BST) Received: from fmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk (fmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.184]) by wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5R8bSg24355 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:37:35 +0100 (BST) Received: from [195.92.193.23] (helo=mail11.svr.pol.co.uk) by fmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 136j00-0000aH-00 for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:13:08 +0100 Received: from modem-91.neodymium.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.49.219] helo=dgcltd) by mail11.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 136iqo-0005I5-00 for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:03:39 +0100 Message-ID: <003401bfdfcb$3c06d8a0$db31883e@dgcltd> From: "_" <simon@deerglen.freeserve.co.uk> To: "BritDisc" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> References: <l03130301b57dde84517e@[62.137.59.22]> Subject: Re: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:03:26 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Hi Britdisc/Chris/Wayne etc etc Can I just put the record straight that has been brought up twice already today. As being in the car travelling down to Swindon for Tour 1 we knew that we would be on time to play our first match and in the end had 9 players ready to play, Just because other idiots in our team didn't have confidence in us being there is in no way our fault :-) (Kenny being our appointed organiser was in the car also which gave us an added perspective on numbers) Can I point out that its also further to travel from Manchester to Swindon than London to Southampton!!!!!! It does seem too have brought up the issue now though, of clarifying rules for this unfortunate but not uncommon situation, and whilst we are at it can we also have a decision on length of games with regards to time, points, caps etc etc As co-ed/ tour events / nationals all seem to be in the hands of the organisers !!! What I would like to see is a standardising of the rules in general for all BUF "important" tournaments. And before people come up with the numbers of pitches/time constraints argument can I point out that we don't need to have all games to 21 19 or seventeen as was shown at world clubs last year 15 was deemed to be a reasonable points score!!! What's it going to be next time???? and does anyone know yet what this years worlds event will be???? Personally I would like to play to 21 in finals 19/17 in semis and 15 in earlier rounds as then it gives teams time to come from behind (which we are so good at doing) apart from this weekend. And finally thanks again to Skunks for putting on the best organised tournament in the Ultimate calendar with reasonable priced food, beer, prizes, nice pitches etc Little gripe turn the temperature of the showers up next year and hide the Bins after dark especially from I******S :-):-) Si.b Chevy Speaking as usual for himself as the rest of the team will tell you !!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Hughes <cjhughes@talk21.com> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Sent: 27 June 2000 05:37 Subject: RE: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation > From: Chris Hughes <cjhughes@talk21.com> > To: BRITDISC <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>, "'er2de2'" <tammo@freeuk.com> > Subject: RE: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation > Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:04:09 +0100 > > Some how I suspected that this would come up one way or another... > OK - and just so that every one knows the background, I am Director of > competitions, and as such in that role oversee the Tour, and I also play > for Blue Arse Flies, and so I'm going to address this reply on two levels, > as a BAF player, and as DoC. So when Tammo asks where was I during all this > - I was slap bang in the middle of it, talking to Pete Coy, making sure he > knew all of the rules, BAF's options, and DSM's options (including finding > a guest within the tour rules and putting them on pitch.) > > As DoC: > As DoC it is my job to oversee the tour and to try and ensure that the tour > is part of the premier events in the country (and granted, we're having a > bit of a 'mare this year). I also sub scribe to the view of the BUF, that > we need to promote the sport and ensure that it is viewed in a good light > and as a sport that wants to be taken seriously. Part of that attitude must > be that when a tournament schedule is written, it must be adhered to, for > any event to be running smoothly the organisation needs to be in place, and > then followed. So firstly when the hooter goes for the games to start, the > games should start. So why the five minutes grace in the rules, schedules > are not always easy to understand, your opponents may be waiting for you > two fields away wondering why you aren't turning up to play them. It gives > you the chance to check with the TD that you are in the right place. So > lets progress along to all the other things that could have happened;- Why > did BAF not play 7 v 6! > . The second line of the rules says that Ultimate is played 'with two teams > of seven players '. So if a team cannot field seven players, they cannot > play, nor can they start the game to call time-outs. At this stage spirit > gets brought in. As a DSM player pointed out, Spirit is the rule in > Ultimate above all else. Exactly, Spirit is all about respect, respect for > the sport, respect for the game, respect for the rules, and respect for > your fellow players. This also includes respect for the rest of your > team-mates who could be bothered to get out of bed on Sunday morning at > 8:00am after a nights partying and get to the pitch on time to play the > game. (I was the first BAF player at the pitchside on Sunday morning at > 8:25, and already three DSM players were there, not overly confident about > their ability to get a full team.) So what about playing a team with 6 > players due to injury - You make the call. I'm not saying what you have to > do, I've provided the rules to allow the teams on the spot to make the > decision. Do your opponents merit ! > the benef > doubt? > So why did these rules appear this tour? They didn't. These were brought in > last year after a number of incidents, and after a couple of incidents this > year I felt it was time to remind people; T1, Saturday morning - Chevron > running around trying to get 7 players for a 9am game. T2 Sunday afternoon > - Sharks disappear after misreading the schedule leaving Janitors to > twiddle their thumbs for 20 minutes. When the Sharks eventually arrived > Janitors had sat down to watch their other team, taken their boots off and > started to relax. They didn't have to play and claimed the game. > > Chris Hughes > DoC > > > As a BAF player; > As a player, both on Druids and on BAF, I have been on every side of this > argument. I have called games against opposition teams, and conceded games > (at a tournament where if you are not there on time you lose - no point a > minute, no five minutes grace) I have been one of the players waiting for > the rest of my team to turn up, and losing points. I have been late for my > game. Mez tried to make the following point and accepts he did it poorly; > At T3 in Edinburgh last year BAF knew as part of the top 8 teams if nothing > else all we had to do was win out first game on Sunday to stay top eight. > We were playing SOUP. At 9:00am BAF had 3 players to SOUP's 14 or 15. We > conceded 9 points before we had enough people to call time outs and get > ready. We played, we lost. We learnt out lesson - BAF have not been late > for our games since. > I object in principle to the 6 v 7 scenario, since all that does is allow a > team to drag out a game by playing zone, etc, slowing down the turnaround, > until the rest of the team turns up (If they are six due to injury, and > no-one else is turning up they I have a decision to make). > On Sunday morning DSM had no good reason for missing players, other than > people could not be bothered to make sure they got there on time to play. > DSM players admitted to me that they would have done the same if the > situation had been reversed, and I would expect nothing less. Some DSM > players spent the rest of Sunday complaining to anyone who would listen > about our attitude. It was noticeable that these were the players that were > late. The DSM players that I talked to before and after the game were not > only apologetic that they didn't play us properly, but also felt we made a > reasonable call. There was nothing spiteful in the decisions made. The game > was then played in good spirit, and neither team descended in to pathetic > calls. The final result was 15 - 10, with BAF having started 5 points up at > the first pull. Both teams would like to have seen the game played > properly, and hopefully we will at T4, where at least one team will feel > vindicated. > > Chris Hughes > BAF 18 > > > ---------- > From: er2de2[SMTP:tammo@freeuk.com] > Sent: 25 June 2000 23:29 > To: BRITDISC > Subject: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation > > <<File: ATT00000.htm>> > 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. > > >