From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Mon Jun 26 09:58:33 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e5Q8uvF09667 for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:56:57 +0100 (BST) Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5Q8utw09653 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:56:55 +0100 (BST) Received: from mx1.organic.com (mx1.organic.com [207.76.139.5]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5Q8usY14683 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:56:54 +0100 (BST) Received: from fwd1-sf.organic.com (fwd1-sf [207.76.139.9]) by mx1.organic.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA08322; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 01:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from po1-lon.organic.com (bath.organic.com [192.168.136.7]) by fwd1-sf.organic.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA19226; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 01:57:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from simonlaptop ([192.168.136.176]) by po1-lon.organic.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA21844; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:57:16 GMT Message-ID: <001801bfdf4c$5b343580$b088a8c0@organic.com> From: "Simon Norris" <simon.norris@virgin.net> To: <Suzanne.Penfold@astrazeneca.com>, <tammo@freeuk.com>, <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> References: <40BC86874C46D4118D7D0000F8023F0D57B568@GB-CHW-MAIL2> Subject: Re: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:56:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk we had a similar situation when we only had 6 against doughboy in T2. we knew they had the option to fine us points but out of good spirit they played 7 on 6. of course after about 5 minutes we were 5 down... Simon Hammerage ----- Original Message ----- From: <Suzanne.Penfold@astrazeneca.com> To: <tammo@freeuk.com>; <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 9:25 AM Subject: RE: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation > In support of the BAF open team (and this is my own opinion and not because > I am part of BAF mixed) I agree with their decision not to play unless a > full opposing team was fielded. > There is a big difference between playing against a team of 6 players if > they only started out with 8 and have 2 injuries, and therefore being > spirited, and playing against a team of 6 players because one of them didn't > get up in time (or whatever - was there actually a more serious reason? If > so then maybe this should have been mentioned). > Its about time a team stood up and started taking the rules seriously > (assuming that a team has the right to refuse to play unless a full > opposition is fielded). Surely if you are in the top 12 teams of the tour > then every game counts and this should be reflected by the teams showing > full commitment to each and every one. Ultimate will never be taken > seriously by outsiders if it is not taken seriously by the players. > Imagine if a team in Euro 2000 wanted to start with 10 men because not > enough people turned up on time? The whole thing would be a mockery. > I think that is about all. > > Suze > BAF mixed > > -----Original Message----- > From: er2de2 [mailto:tammo@freeuk.com] > Sent: 26 June 2000 00:10 > To: BRITDISC > Subject: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation > > > Because some Deep South Mentality players were late for their Sunday morning > game, DSM could at first field only six players. Their opponents Blue Arse > Flies refused to start the game, citing some obscure rule that allegedly > applied to this tournament. This allowed BAF to take five points off DSM > before play eventually started, DSM finally having a seventh player. Oh yes, > BAF did proceed to win the game... > > Questions: > > Where is it written that thou shalt have your full contingent of seven > players on the line at the start of a game? And more importantly, WHY is a > rule required? > > Is it health reasons? For World Clubs there is a minimum squad size of 12, > given the exceptional physical demands on the players during a six-day > tournament. Over-regulation, if you ask me, but at least you can see the > it's-for-your-own-good nanny state reason behind it. Southampton is a > two-day tournament, however. DSM were going to be short of a player for > what, 10 minutes? Half an hour? Even a full game? Shock, horror, call the > ambulance! Also, following the logic of protecting players' health: Does > this mean Iron Man tournaments are henceforth outlawed? And what happens if > a squad of eight loses two players due to injury? Do they have to forfeit > their remaining games? > > Is this rule required to run the tournament smoothly, to prevent late starts > of games, penalise teams not showing up, etc. ? Not applicable here, after > all DSM were ready to play, on time. It's their problem if they had to play > 6 vs. 7. > > MOST IMPORTANTLY: What kind of mindset makes Blue Arse Flies refuse to play > an opponent, knowing that this way they can get points for free? BAF > players, I hope you'll be thinking about your decision, and I hope you'll > feel sorry. This was lame and un-spirited, Chris Hughes, where were you in > all this? Yes, maybe you would have won anyway- why didn't you >play< the > game to find out? > > > Comments welcome. > > Tammo > Playing for Chevron Action Flash > Speaking for myself > > > P.S. Yes, I know the world doesn't end because of this episode. > > >