From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Jun 27 14:16:11 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e5RDFBS04810 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:15:11 +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 e5RDFAe04798 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:15:10 +0100 (BST) Received: from hotmail.com (f165.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.165]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e5RDF9Y18379 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:15:09 +0100 (BST) Received: (qmail 21416 invoked by uid 0); 27 Jun 2000 13:15:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20000627131503.21415.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.128.102.3 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:15:02 PDT X-Originating-IP: [193.128.102.3] From: "David Eastman" <david_eastman@hotmail.com> To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: Re: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:15:02 BST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Stu, I think I can now remember this incident; we started with our four as soon as the rest of the team was in view (?). Sadly Playthings did not have a great record for time keeping. Yet I would guess Glyn would have forced the points rule if the same situation was reversed because we certainly were not overly generous. Enough nostalgia :-) Today is different; the top 8 surely know that we have a responsibility to represent the game at the top level. This (surely) means turning up on time with a full team, or accepting the consequences. The details are up to the captains; but fixed guidelines would be a comfort. David Eastman (Then Playthings, now Hammerage) >From: Stuart Clark <Frisbee@compuserve.com> >To: Britdisc <> >Subject: Re: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation >Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:40:04 -0400 > >Again, as somebody who has experienced this from both sides, here's my >two-penneth, > >I. for many years, was captain of the aforementioned Village People >(thankyou Paul Meaney!) and I was proud of that team, not because we did >anything fantastic or ever threatened to make a semi-final, but because I >believe we had a good reputation as being a good spirited team. > >Quite a few years ago, around the transitional period between "monster" >nationals of 36 teams and the introduction of the tour we had an >interesting run-in with the Playthings at a nationals at Oxford. We were >on, first game of the Sunday morning, in an important play-off for a top 12 >spot. We used to meet Playthings all the time and had many a good scrap >against them, if they were on form we knew we had a hard fight on our >hands. >We were all there at 8.30am, warming up and throwing around (which for us >was unheard of) and the Playthings were nowhere to be seen. At 9am, the >hooter sounded - the Playthings had, I seem to remember, 3 or 4 people. > >We could have played the game 3 on 3 or 4 on 4, but that seemed pretty >pointless, or we could have played 7 on 3/4, but it would have been a >pasting and no fun for anyone. OR, we could have started taking points off >them for every minute they weren't ready (yes, the rule was in force at >that tournament - what 5(?) years ago). However, we chose none of those >options and waited for the Playthings to arrive. It was about 9.25 before >the Playthings were ready to start. >At the end of game hooter we were level. There was no two point cap. The >game went into sudden death "overtime" and we lost. >Personally I thought that was a spirited decision by us, others may think >it was stupid. Yes, we were beaten fair and square in a "proper" game but >we did feel somewhat robbed of a top 12 position, not because of anything >the Playthings had done, but because on a field not-too-distant from us, >another team had won a game by enforcing the point-a-minute rule. > >And here's the crux of the issue - it's not about cries of "Spirit!" - it's >about enforcement of the rules. A case in point which many of us probably >remember is Catch 22 copping a lot of crap on Britidisc about spirit for >taking a dropped pull and scoring off it. Si Hill promptly and correctly >pointed out that those were the rules of the game and the rules that Catch >played by. It had nothing to do with Spirit. Rarely now do you see teams >letting other teams off for dropped pulls. > >The same applies for this seven on the line/point docking rule. It's in >the tour rules and it has been for a while (at least last season as well as >many teams found to their cost). It needs to be there so that we have >standardisation across the board when this situation arises - so that a >team that shows more "spirit" doesn't lose out in a situation where another >(argueably no less spirited team) enforces the rules and progresses onward >through the tournament. We should all acknowledge that the rule exists, we >should all have no qualms about enforcing it on our opposition and we >should all accept that our opposition will enforce it on us if we don't >have seven on the line at the hooter - without raising questions about >spirit afterwards. Spirit should be about how you as an individual and/or >a team handle yourselves on the field once the game is in play, not about >judgement calls about how and when to begin a game if a team isn't ready - >the tour rules now take that out of our hands. > >I appreciate Aram's comments but the rules can't allow for any individuals >circumstances regardless of how unfortunate or unforseen they are. Your >opposition aren't to know why you aren't there - they just know you aren't. > >I would bore you with the Village People/French Connection story since it's >quite amusing but I think I've rambled enough and hopefully made my point. > >Stu >Ex Village People now.....wait for it......BAF (Co-ed!) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com