From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Mon Oct 26 15:46:24 1998
Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA15937
for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:34:30 GMT
Received: from drawbridge.ascend.com (drawbridge.ascend.com [198.4.92.1])
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA15763
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:34:05 GMT
Received: from fw-ext.ascend.com (fw-ext [198.4.92.5])
by drawbridge.ascend.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA24217;
Mon, 26 Oct 1998 07:33:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from russet.ascend.com by fw-ext.ascend.com
via smtpd (for drawbridge.ascend.com [198.4.92.1]) with SMTP; 26 Oct 1998 15:33:43 UT
Received: from ascend.com by ascend.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id HAA29761; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 07:34:02 -0800
Received: from awilson-pc by snoopy.eng.ascend.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id PAA04875; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:27:59 GMT
Message-Id: <4.1.19981026142342.00a10220@snoopy.eng.ascend.com>
X-Sender: awilson@snoopy.eng.ascend.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:26:45 +0000
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
From: Andrew Wilson <awilson@ascend.com>
Subject: Is Scotland a Country? (was Re: Scott's comment on worlds
allocations)
Cc: kevinbr@biols.susx.ac.uk (Kevin Brooks)
In-Reply-To: <m0zXlFo-000A7xC@epunix.biols.susx.ac.uk>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.96.981023102613.18942D-100000@purds>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
At 11:56 AM 10/26/98 , Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>I hope I'm not starting the 'closed minded argument' that Jon was talking
>about, but this is a discussion forum, so...
>
Discussion is good. It's important that if there are 'grievances' of any
kind get discussed and not bottled up. Not that that's likely on Britdisc :-)
>
>I must admit, I find it a bit strange that Scotland has been singled out
>for *extra* places in Worlds at all. I know the tournament happens to be
>in Scotland, but were English teams allocated for *extra* places, which
>could not have been filled by other BUF clubs when it was held in
>Colchester (before my time)? Was ESSEX given an allocation for itself?
>Or, equally, if the top teams in the BUF happened to have been
>Scottish, then would they still have had their 2 *extra* places?
I agree that Scotland has been made a special case this year, but hopefully
for reasons most of us can agree with. Your Essex argument is silly. Essex
isn't a country, so of course it shouldn't go to World Clubs as Host
Nation. You could argue that in British Ultimate, Scotland isn't a
country... This is the crux of the issue.
FYI Colchester 94 was WUGC (ie national teams). Street (Glastonbury) 95 was
WUCC (clubs). As it turned out there were 'extra' English teams, or more
correctly, BUF teams, to fill up the numbers after other countries dropped out.
>
>Surely the BUF should be aiming to enter the strongest possible
>set of BUF teams, regardless of geography? I was under the
>impression that the tour was there (in part) to find out who those teams
>are. Surely this years tour results are relevant, then. And what is this
>about a Scottish National team? Isn't this World CLUBS we're talking
>about?
>
Jon is referring to the Sneeekys team that played the Tour last year. It's
not a 'Scottish National Team'. Players from St Andrews and Glasgow played
for Sneeekys because their usual clubs couldn't make all the tour
tournaments. This was all well within the tour rules. Don't forget that we
have to make a minibus trip of 5-10 hours each way to go to the tournaments
that most UK players drive to on a Saturday morning and get home on a
Sunday before the pubs shut. Even with our civilised drinking hours this is
a rare novelty for us :-)
>
>The idea that these people should play in a World Championships would
>shock people in most sports. I'm also keen that such people should gain
>experience, but we are hosting the most prestigious Ultimate tournament
>in the world next year. This is a showcase to the rest of the world, not
>a beginners' training camp (no offense meant).
None taken. There won't be any beginners playing for Scottish teams at Worlds.
<snip, snip>
>Perhaps there is an obvious reason, and I'm just being dense, but can
>anyone explain to me why teams in any region of the BUF's jurisdiction
>should have any preferential treatment?
>
It would look a bit silly to the rest of the world if the host nation
wasn't represented. In their eyes, they are going to Scotland, rather than
Britain. Believe me, I've travelled - the rest of the world can't get their
heads round the UK.
Sorry for boring those of you who aren't interested.
Andrew (Miggins)
Sneeekys