From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Thu Oct  1 12:03:56 1998
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) id LAA16093
	for britdisc-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:06:27 +0100 (BST)
Received: from caged.st-andrews.ac.uk (root@caged.st-and.ac.uk [138.251.34.40])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA16088
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:06:26 +0100 (BST)
Received: from purds.st-andrews.ac.uk (jpg2@purds [138.251.34.20])
	by caged.st-andrews.ac.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA26245;
	Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:06:20 +0100 (BST)
Received: from localhost (jpg2@localhost)
	by purds.st-andrews.ac.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA21383;
	Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:06:18 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:06:18 +0100 (BST)
From: Big Funky <jpg2@st-andrews.ac.uk>
X-Sender: jpg2@st-andrews.ac.uk
To: P.M.Connor@open.ac.uk
cc: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Director of Competions
In-Reply-To: <9809301304.AB12293@damson.open.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.981001110347.20830B-100000@purds>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk


I am aware of this. Why not have a pick-up team defaultly enetered to
every tour match: this would accomadate the situation you described
without giving any other teams an unfair adavantage - this would also mean
that people would wanted to play as much as possible could do so aswell.
It's just a thought.

Jon Good
aka 'Big Funky' of 'Funkian' and 'More than just a Hint'
aka 'Frank LeBoeuf' of 'Blue Arse Flies'
D.O.P.A. S.A.U. (underground) Wine Soc.
Captain  S.A.U.U.F.C. - Flying Sorcerers 
The loneliest man since time began - all air-fare donations greatfully
                                     received
World of Crack!

"Love can be flowers, love can be jewels;
 Love can be sold to white slavers, for cammels and mules"

On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 P.M.Connor@open.ac.uk wrote:

> I have to disagree with this, I think to do away with this would 
> penalise people due to other people's lack of commitment or through 
> too many injuries preventing fielding of teams at tournaments.  My 
> team - and I suspect a number of others - have a small player base, 
> we wanted to get to as many tour tournaments as possible this year 
> but circumstance meant we had a lot of injuries and a number of 
> people who had to focus on submitting work and this prevented us from 
> being able to field a squad in the latter half of the season. The 
> guest rule allowed those who wanted to play to continue to do so.  I 
> am aware of a number of players this affected including myself and I 
> feel that the chance to play in the extra tounaments, particularly 
> as I am in my first year of play helped to improve my game.  Removal 
> of the rule would act only  to restrict the amount the numbers of 
> people who can play competitive ultimate, when I thought the idea was 
> to be trying to maximise the figure.
> 
> Peter Connor
> (Mad Kows)
> 
> > Chris,
> >       one improvement that should be made is tighter constraints on team
> > rosters: if you play for one team, then you play for that team. The
> > 'guests' should not have played for another team already. I know that this
> > is hard on players who's teams can't make a tournament. But say, for some
> > unthinkable reason, a top 8 team can't make one tournament, one of their
> > players on a lower team can really make a difference. It happened last
> > tour with 'sharks' only playing 1/2 tournaments and players also playing
> > for another team. This would also make teams that bit more commited to
> > turning up and organising themselves. 
> > 
> > Then again this is only me so you can all tell me to fuck off if you want!
> > 
> > Jon Good
>