From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Mon Feb 28 02:18:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id CAA09973 for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:16:01 GMT Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daffodil [137.205.192.30]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA09964 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:15:57 GMT Received: from web1401.mail.yahoo.com (web1401.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.23.165]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAB29210 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:15:54 GMT Received: (qmail 20191 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Feb 2000 02:15:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20000228021550.20190.qmail@web1401.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [165.228.129.11] by web1401.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:15:50 PST Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:15:50 -0800 (PST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Colin=20Wagstaff?= <colinwagstaff@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: What is the Tour? To: Si and/or Jack <JackAndSi.Hill@ukgateway.net>, britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Si, you wrote, I'm in favour of this shortening of games - but it should be in the rules of ultimate. Any WFDF committee people still reading? Charlie? Thomas? Toby? I don't really know if you guys are still on that thing - but if you are - whats the score? We all need to know the rules of ultimate - how long are games? If we found out in time we might be able to do something about this for 2000. I attended the WFDF Forum in St. Andrews, none of the above attended but the majority of the Ultimate Committee and a couple of UPA reps were there too. The topic of game lengths were discussed. Pretty much everyone agreed the duration was OK (100 mins). Some also seemed to think that the points (15) should have been 17 or 19. In any case the result was that shorter games are here to stay. I asked if the Ultimate Committee or the RULES people would consider specifying these in the next rules edition and encouraging standard time lengths of games throughout the world. Response - Ultimate Committee will discuss it.........Also, why are finals played to more points and longer??......Differences do not happen in other sports........ The Ultimate committee of WFDF are the people you need to approach regarding changes in rules, game lengths etc. (BUF, Laura, Ben, Country Rep should have contact details for these people). Trust this is of some help, Colin. P.S. Do you know about the next pull rule amendment wef 1/4/00........ No, you won't be able to drop it....again Suggest you speak to someone in the know ASAP if no one is aware. --- Si and/or Jack <JackAndSi.Hill@ukgateway.net> wrote: > Jaimie asked "what is the tour?". > Chris H has replied with quick summary. But > (probably wanting to keep the email short) focused > on the "rules" and the bit about teams of level > ability playing each other most often. > > There actually were several major motivating factors > behind the tour from my point of view - the one > mentioned above is one of the main ones (an > advantage for all levels of team, not just the top > ones, in my opinion). > > I'd like to mention two others here and add some > comments as I think its important that we think > about them. > > 1. The tourney schedules were set up so that top > teams would frequently get to play games to 21 over > 2 hrs. Games of this length had not been common in > UK tourneys for some time (if ever? Toby? Sammy?) > before we used the tour to make it happen. This aim > has definitely been successfully met - at least top > players are used to playing long games. Whether > this helped anyone to do better at Worlds or not its > rather difficult to say. From Catch's point of view > it definitely made a difference in Vancouver (97). > > However - at the last Worlds (99), games were > shorter - first to 15 (I can't remember the time cap > - but it was about 90 mins). I know I've mentioned > this before, but the BUF (or whatever we are called > these days) should seek clarification from WFDF > about its intentions re game lengths. I would say > that the GB teams need to know NOW. Furthermore, we > need to know in order to plan our domestic tourneys. > If ultimate is a game played to 15, then thats what > it should be, and we should adjust (as quickly as > possible) to this within the major UK tourneys. > > I'm in favour of this shortening of games - but it > should be in the rules of ultimate. > > Any WFDF committee people still reading? Charlie? > Thomas? Toby? I don't really know if you guys are > still on that thing - but if you are - whats the > score? We all need to know the rules of ultimate - > how long are games? > > If we found out in time we might be able to do > something about this for 2000. > > *Conclusion. We need to think about the game > lengths at the Tour.* > > > 2. The aim of the tour was to bring stability to the > ultimate calendar and improve the quality of > tourney-venues - at least for the top tournaments. > We hoped to be able to stage large events - 32 teams > - and still guarantee hot showers, sensible food, > continuous updating of results in central area, > improved publicity, easier access for non-ultimate > types, better medical, physio, first-aid provision, > and many other things... > > On this front, we have largely failed. We do stage > large tourneys (my hat comes off to the hard working > organisers) but we haven't really improved the > standard of venue along the grounds listed above. > We can't even bring much better stability to the > calendar. Worse still, the tour has definitely had > a negative impact on other tournaments because they > have struggled to get a full entry - several have > been cancelled over the last couple of years. > > I am sure (I hope) that all the people who work > really hard to get the tour and other tournaments > running understand that I am NOT in any way > critisising them. But I do think we need to look > again at what we are doing. I believe strongly in > the tour (I would do) - but I do think we should > take stock this season and look at how we can > improve things for 2001. I don't want to start on > details now, but I would love to see and hear people > start to talk about how to solve some of these > things. I already have strong ideas about what we > need to do - but I bet there are lots of others. > > *Conclusion. We need to understand if the exact, > current format of the tour is healthy overall. NB - > I want to keep the tour - I just think it needs an > overhaul.* > > One final point (and the main reason for my mail): > > The majority of ultimate players want "good things" > to happen to ultimate: some more players, higher > standards, more opportunities for casual players, > better organisation, some TV?, ... > Many people also put in lots of work to forward this > cause on several fronts. > > I strongly believe that the best means of moving our > sport forwards is to ensure that we get the > competition structure right. > > After all, the reason we all play, is to play (I > also like arguing, but would suggest that this is in > fact part of the game and is part of "playing" :) > > End of monologue. Sorry it was so long. > > Si > > (I have a team - but I don't know its name.) > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com