From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Mon Jun 26 15:52:20 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e5QEp9h09081
	for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:51:09 +0100 (BST)
Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5QEp7w09072
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:51:07 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mailhub1.shef.ac.uk (mailhub1.shef.ac.uk [143.167.1.9])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5QEp7R05764
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:51:07 +0100 (BST)
Received: from snailsden.shef.ac.uk ([143.167.23.249])
	by mailhub1.shef.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #2)
	id 136aE7-0007Ay-00
	for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:51:07 +0100
Received: from SNAILSDEN/SpoolDir by snailsden.shef.ac.uk (Mercury 1.46);
    26 Jun 00 15:51:06 +0100
Received: from SpoolDir by SNAILSDEN (Mercury 1.46); 26 Jun 00 15:50:53 +0100
From: "Jes" <ECD97JS@sheffield.ac.uk>
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:50:52 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation
In-reply-to: <10006261257.AA26920@damson.open.ac.uk>
References: <002a01bfdef7$4aab6c60$059b7ed4@default>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a)
Message-Id: <E136aE7-0007Ay-00@mailhub1.shef.ac.uk>
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

> On a point of information, I'd like it to be noted that the core of 
> DSM are last years Phat'ed team, and it was these who were quite 
> happy to assess points against Wyld Stallyns at Tour 2 last year 
> after they arrived a few minutes late, so its not as if DSM were 
> unaware of how these things work.

On this point I would just like to clarify that DSM may consist of a 
lot of old phat 'eds, but none of us were involved with the decision 
to take points off you as none of us are familiar enough with the 
rules to take such a stance. 

I will however admit that it was DSM's fault for not having 7 on the 
line at the start of the game but personally there is nothing I can do 
to ensure that all my team members are on time. I'm dissapointed 
in them for the lack of commitment shown and if the rules state 
that points can be deducted for not being on time then I can't argue 
with that. On the other hand I feel that it would have been a nice 
and spirited gesture for BAF to allow us to start the game with 6 
players. We would have been a man down and should logically 
have been a few points down when our other players would have 
arrived. The only reason BAF could provide for not allowing us to 
start with 6 was that it had been done to them before so they would 
now do it to us.

I'm sorry it had to come down to this. This is clearly a rule that 
needs to be addressed and stated once and for all so everyone 
knows what will happen if you don't field 7 players on time. 

Jesper
DSM


> As to the mindset of BAF, perhaps it was that of a team who have 
> organised themselves to have a full team on the line at the 
> appropriate starting time and felt they deserved the respect of their 
> opponents doing the same.  Not too great a demand (in my opinion 
> anyway) when camping is provided only yards from the pitch and 
> with the schedule being so readily available on Saturday night.
> 
> I think it's important to note that DSM haven't made any complaint 
> as to their treatment (AFAIK), they were also quick to represent 
> themselves to Red (their next scheduled opponents after BAF) with 
> the news that they couldn't field a full team and would have to 
> concede the game and with an offer to play the game on a fun 
> basis if it was wished,
> 
> Peter Connor
> Red
> but speaking only for myself
> 
> > 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 so
me 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...
> 
> > MOST IMPORTANTLY: What kind of mindset makes Blue Arse Flies refuse to play an opponent, knowin
g that this way they can get points for free? BAF players, I hope you'll be thinking about your dec
ision, 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
>