From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Wed Oct 10 18:18:23 2001 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f9AHE4Y11913 for britdisc-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:14:04 +0100 (BST) Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9AHE3X11907 for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:14:03 +0100 (BST) Received: from psych.york.ac.uk (psysgi1.york.ac.uk [144.32.162.63]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id f9AHE2R19995 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:14:03 +0100 (BST) Received: (qmail 9386 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2001 17:13:56 -0000 Received: from earth.york.ac.uk (HELO tower.york.ac.uk) (144.32.162.243) by psysgi1.york.ac.uk with SMTP; 10 Oct 2001 17:13:56 -0000 Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20011010180532.00a7c130@pop.psych.york.ac.uk> X-Sender: D.Grayson@pop.psych.york.ac.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:11:54 +0100 To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk From: David Grayson <D.Grayson@psych.york.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Sudden Death In-Reply-To: <7165D5A55FC4D41184DB00D0B7B9E62D036D5CDC@AURORA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Ooooh. Okay I'll bite a bit. Sorry Roger. You seem to have, purely accidentally of course, missed the point of my message. Of course it is daft to have Nationals 2 months after the last meaningful tournament of the year, I have often wondered why and the only answer I ever remember was that it used to be in November so think yourself lucky. The point I was making was simply that had the final taken place in the World Games then whatever the weather it would have been settled by sudden death penalty shoot out style and it struck me that it might have made it more interesting or exciting. [cue obvious line - "no, it wouldn't have got to sudden death as we would have whipped your asses, ho ho ho" - thought I'd save you the trouble]. It only occured to me afterwards that one of the added advantages of the system would be for wind assisted games such as this years final. It was not an attempt to change the rules, or even a suggestion to do so. It was a question about whether anyone knew if the sudden death rule as used at World games went down well and if it was likely to be suggested to be brought in by WFDF who I presume sanctioned the World Games competition? I thought it was an interesting thought and worthy of discussion but clearly I am the only individual in British Ultimate sad enough to think so and so shall consequently return to my incredibly dull life to contemplate other issues. As for the attempted flame war - ya de ya de ya, I'm afraid even I find that boring. Dave. Apologies for using britdisc other than to ask for a phone number or to rent a room At 17:26 10/10/01 +0100, you wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >Disclaimer: I waited 2 days for someone else to reply but none of you >did.... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >Dave, > >This penalty shoot-out thing sounds like a reasonable idea, and one the new >Director of Competitions should possibly look into. But surely it would just >make far more sense to have Nationals earlier in the year, and surely that >should be a higher priority for the DoC? That way we can play the game we >all know and love instead of the farcical piece of watersport theatre that >was Sunday's final. And it happens pretty much every Nationals as far as I >can remember. Weather like that brings both teams down to a similar level of >chump-like ineptitude: the crowd were deprived of their spectacle and our >first team was deprived the chance of giving Chevron another Prague-style >spanking in front of the home crowd. > > >Ruined as a spectacle by the weather, the game trundled to a not >inevitable, but certainly > >highly probable conclusion as Clapham won by scoring the sudden death point >downwind. > >Were you playing in the same game we were? It was an exciting game to play >in and until Chevron were lucky enough to get the second upwinder it looked >far more likely that Clapham had done enough to earn the win without going >to sudden death, despite the ridiculous conditions and going a break down >very early on. We were repeatedly threatening to score upwind (and would >have scored more but for a questionable call or two <ahem!>) whereas you >guys were struggling to get the disk off your own endzone line apart from >the 2 lucky breaks you scored with. > >More to the point: why on earth did you let us play downwind offence to >start with if that made our victory highly probable or inevitable? You won >the toss!!!! Were we the only ones to realise that a gale force wind and >rain coming down at 45 degrees along the pitch might just mean it was going >to be a really upwind/downwind kind of game and therefore any team should >choose to start with the wind? I'd be careful of your feet if any of your >lot are ever left in charge of firearms.... > >Let me just add the hopefully obvious disclaimer that this mail is purely >about putting the record straight and in no way at all should be construed >as happiness at having kicked your northern arses all over the pitch again >this season, especially when you bleat so much for roster rule changes to >prevent us running two teams like we do, point deductions against our A not >B team, and sudden death rule changes. Have you asked the BUF for a >"Northern teams to get a 4 point lead because of poor diets" rule yet? > >Kind regards, >The Silver Bear > >'Clean Sweep' Clapham > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Grayson [mailto:D.Grayson@psych.york.ac.uk] >Sent: 08 October 2001 10:19 >To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk >Subject: Sudden Death > > >Just to bring another end of season thought to Britdisc. I'm sure most >people would agree that this years Nationals final was a bit of an >anticlimax to a good tournament. Ruined as a spectacle by the weather, the >game trundled to a not inevitable, but certainly highly probable conclusion >as Clapham won by scoring the sudden death point downwind. 4 points had >been scored upwind - a fine effort in my opinion - compared with 22 >downwind. As we hit sudden death, despite everyones best efforts, the >crowd did not feel much anticipation of an exciting finish. To be fair >many perhaps couldn't feel their feet either but the point remains. > >What is interesting is that had this scenario occured at the World Games in >Japan this year, the contest would have been settled penalty shoot out >style. My understanding is that each team would have had one posession at >scoring one way, then the same in the other direction, and so on until one >team scored their posession and the other team didn't. > >Had this been the finish, then we would have had the situation where both >teams would actually have to attempt to score without a turnover - i.e. not >simply huck and chase downwind and it would have been potentially much more >exciting. It may even have answered some of the critics who were >apparently saying "gee these 2 teams aren't even very good at playing >downwind". But probably not. > >I think this sounds a good way of settling a game should it get to sudden >death and would be happy if it was made the norm in Ultimate. Anyone know >how it was received in Japan or if there is any suggestion of adopting it >at World level? > >Let me just add the hopefully obvious disclaimer that this is in no way >sour grapes at having lost the final. Congratulations to Clapham on >drawing 2-2 with us... > >Dave. >Chevron. > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- >Internet communications are not secure and therefore Oyster Partners Ltd >does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any >views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not >necessarily represent those of Oyster Partners Ltd.