From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Thu Mar 26 15:30:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) id PAA16586 for britdisc-outgoing; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:12:32 GMT Received: from clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@clover-fddi [137.205.4.2]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA16561 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:12:28 GMT Received: from door.bzw.com (door.bzw.com [194.205.158.2]) by clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA03389 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:11:55 GMT Received: (from mailman@localhost) by door.bzw.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) id PAA06796 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:11:21 GMT Received: from gate.bzw.com(194.205.158.68) by door.bzw.com via smap (V2.0) id xma006652; Thu, 26 Mar 98 15:10:53 GMT Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gate.bzw.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA13259 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:11:24 GMT Received: from fwgw01-dmz(194.205.158.129) by gate.bzw.com via smap (V2.0) id xmauk7287; Thu, 26 Mar 98 15:11:20 GMT Received: (from nobody@localhost) by fwgw01.ldn.bzwint.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA16559 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:27:06 GMT Received: from oplss0001.itops.ldn.bzwint.com(30.75.1.4) by fwgw01.ldn.bzwint.com via smap (V2.0) id xma016533; Thu, 26 Mar 98 12:27:04 GMT Received: from nmb01gw01 (oplss0001.itops.ldn.bzwint.com [30.75.1.4]) by oplss0001.itops.ldn.bzwint.com (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA20925 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:25:01 GMT Received: from exintgw02.itops.ldn.bzwint.com (exintgw02.itops.ldn.bzwint.com [30.52.1.41]) by nmb01gw01 (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ya366156 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:17:54 +0000 Received: by exintgw02.itops.ldn.bzwint.com with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id <H435KY6S>; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:28:37 -0000 Message-ID: <3F607EE191F7D011A75E00805FBE8577A6DCBA@exips0004.itops.ldn.bzwint.com> From: "Challis, Andrew: FISS" <Andrew.Challis@barclayscapital.com> To: "'Britdisc'" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Women's rule Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:30:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="MimeMultipartBoundary" Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk --MimeMultipartBoundary Content-Type: text/plain > Surely the issue here is that, as it stands, the Tour could potentially > destroy women's ultimate in this country. > > There's no doubt that the tour supports the promotion of Ultimate as a > serious sport, and for the vast majority of players in this country, it > has made their games more competitive. However, the one crucial area it > does not support is the development of the women's game. > The outdoor Ultimate scene in this country is now heavily dominated by the > tour at the expense of more "open" tournaments. > Harry's points about one rule for all are fine if we live in an Ultimate > Utopia, but we don't. By forcing women (the majority of who want to play > Open as well as Women's) to choose one specific team per tour, you create > obvious problems. While Sue is entering GB women as one team and Bliss > enter another, all the others are playing co-ed, which they will continue > to do until there are enough women's teams to make this division > competitive. Vicious circle? This problem will continue to escalate until > the core people who want to see women's ultimate develop on its own lose > heart and pack it in. > > One way to allow women to play co-ed too at the same tour is to encourage > women's teams register as "A Women's Team", whereby their players can > essentially play for two teams, one Women's and one Open. I accept that > this is backpedalling from the initial idea of the Tour, but which is the > lesser of the two evils: the demise of the women's game as a whole or an > exception made to encourage the growth of this underdeveloped area? > > We can't allow competitive women's ultimate to suffer purely to get > Ultimate more serious recognition. Those of us who went to Vancouver can > testify that the women's match was by far the best game of the finals, and > it would be a great tragedy for us to lose the potential for women players > in this country to compete at that level. The top Open teams always have > international goals as well as domestic, and we often use the domestic > season as a foothold for a summer international. If women's teams aren't > supported more fully at the domestic level and encouraged to play for a > women's team against other women's teams, how else can we achieve these > goals? > > Food for thought, > > Andy - SHOTGUN > --MimeMultipartBoundary--