From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Jun 27 11:08:51 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e5RA3Rj12411 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:03:27 +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 e5RA3Oe12385 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:03:25 +0100 (BST) Received: from scrabble.freeuk.net (scrabble.freeuk.net [212.126.144.6]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5RA3JY07549 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:03:20 +0100 (BST) Received: from [212.126.155.197] (helo=default) by scrabble.freeuk.net with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 136klz-0002fd-00 for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 03:06:47 +0100 Message-ID: <008101bfdfdc$5ba1e900$c59b7ed4@default> From: "er2de2" <tammo@freeuk.com> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> References: <40BC86874C46D4118D7D0000F8023F0D57B568@GB-CHW-MAIL2> Subject: Re: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 03:05:20 +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 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk May I respond to some of your postings: Football analogies have been used to explain why DSM needed to be penalised. To that my reply is: Ultimate isn't football. Football isn't Ultimate. In football the team captains cannot agree to play with a non-endorsed ball; in football the time limit and point target can't be modified by the team captains and/or the tournament director; in football you cannot be sure that the guy charging in from your blind side will make every effort to avoid a collision. Need I go on? Here's my view: Ultimate rules were designed to leave responsibility in the hands of the players; rules have been worded to merely provide a protocol to keep the game flowing, to resolve controversy and to take away any advantage gained by an infraction. Penalties have not been considered, as they are deemed unnecessary in a game ruled by integrity and honesty. Having no penalties is a key element of the 'spirit of the game' - lose this concept, and you are indeed one step closer to football. There is no advantage in being outnumbered on the pitch, hence no rule is required to rectify the situation. Without such a rule, BAF couldn't have gained an advantage by refusing to play DSM. You are right, Nolan. Some rules are required. We wouldn't want anarchy, would we? Among other things, rules are required to resolve those issues that the teams cannot resolve themselves. A team not showing up at all - now here's a scenario that needs to be covered, for the sake of sticking to the tournament schedule. As an 'incentive' to make teams more disciplined these point penalties make sense indeed, at least until the moment the latecomers can field a team (not necessarily seven players). Then you can start >playing<. Ultimate >is< about playing the game, isn't it, Nolan? Is it disrespectful of a team to field only six players, or five, or four? If it is intentional and meant to humiliate a much weaker opponent - yes, that's disrespectful and unspirited. However, if it is because the team doesn't have enough players available, for whatever reason - then IMHO the answer is no; they may be disorganised, foolish, depleted, or unlucky, but unspirited? Hardly. But hey, that's just >my< opinion. Some of you want to 'get real', 'get serious', make Ultimate a 'real sport' - if you think you need to compromise a basic concept of the game to get there, then please consider your position. More rules don't necessarily make the game better. Over and out. Tammo P.S. It's reassuring that so many people on Britdisc take an interest in the game beyond reading tournament reports; this list is so much more active than its German equivalent.