From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Tue Sep 28 11:21:23 1999
Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19495
	for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:20:20 +0100 (BST)
Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (snowdrop [137.205.192.31])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19490
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:20:18 +0100 (BST)
Received: from curlew.cs.man.ac.uk (curlew.cs.man.ac.uk [130.88.13.7])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20541
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:20:17 +0100 (BST)
Received: from ccg.acu.man.ac.uk ([130.88.17.200])
	by curlew.cs.man.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #3)
	for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
	id 11VuMr-000IQR-00; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:20:17 +0100
Received: from ccMail by ccg.acu.man.ac.uk (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.20.00.25)
    id AA938514022; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:20:23 GMT
Message-Id: <9909289385.AA938514022@ccg.acu.man.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: ccMail Link to SMTP R8.20.00.25
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:18:41 GMT
From: "Rob Mitchell"<Rob.Mitchell@man.ac.uk>
To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: Nationals - another similar observation 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

In addition to: 

> It struck me as confusing that after three years of the same 
> basic system:
> 
> Sat: 3 days of 90 mins or 17 points
> Sun: 2 games of 120 mins or 21 points
> 
> that there was any change at all.  Esp. since there were 
> clearly no pitch
> constraints (lots of spare time, etc).  It caused confusion 
> in our semi
> against UTI, and evidently had a huge effect on the result ;)

and

> > Chris Hughes duly told me we were playing to 19, but still 90 
> > mins, and
> > 2 timeouts/half/team.
> > 
> > Apparently, this was incorrect (as discovered AFTER 
> half-time) but we
> > stuck with it for that game.
> > 
> > Whether this error had any effect is arguable (and believe 
> > me, we argued
> > about it amongst ourselves!), but not the basis for my comment. My
> > concern is this:

I might add this: The 2hr final started late, at 2.30 instead of 2.15, by
agreement of both teams. However at 4.15 a hooter was blown to indicate the end
of normal time, clearly assuming a 2.15 start. Chevron ignored this, UTI didn't
and during a time-out in the next point, with the score at 16-13, the two teams
found themselves having to discuss whether or not we were in the cap. In the
end, as UTI had taken a timeout assuming that they only had two points left to
score, Chevron were forced to concede and we surrendered the last fifteen
minutes of a game in which we were busily fighting our way back. Neither team
was strictly to blame and neither was the TD, but this shouldn't happen at any
point during National Championships, our showcase tournament, let alone during
the final. 

Next year, at least for Nationals, let's make it a requirement that the
successful Tournament Bid includes provision for Score/Timekeepers. Even if all
they do is warn the teams to start on time and then start taking points it would
be an improvement. 

Rob
Chevron