Dan,
Thanks for your thoughtful email. We did chat for a while about what to
do with Kent, and probably I would have been against bumping a team from
the top 16 for them. Because some top-16 teams dropped out, we felt we
had a bit more leeway to play around with things, and their finishing
position does justify our thinking to an extent since they could not
have got that high from outside the top 16.
The wider issue is of course whether we should be messing with seedings
at all; or perhaps there is an even wider issue of how far we are
prepared to bend our principles to a given situation. We have similar
problems all the time with regard to rostering and whether players are
ineligible, amongst other things.
Everyone agrees that rules are rules, and that by bending them
occasionally we create problems. But nearly everyone also fights tooth
and nail to be let off when the rules are against them. We play the game
for fun, and is it really right that we should force a good team to play
meaningless games all weekend (and their opponents to get thrashed), or
should force a player not to play at all because of a rostering mistake?
When the issues become personal, either to you or to your team, it's
very hard not to demand that we should exercise a little judgement.
It seems to me that I receive about the same number of 'Why are you so
inflexible?' emails as I do 'Why did you let them get away with that?'
emails. So maybe we're getting the balance about right.
But I'll be delighted to stick rigidly to every rule in future if that's
what people want - it would make my job a million times easier if the
competitions committee felt under no pressure to apply common sense. We
could just take a quick look at the rules and say yes or no. If the
general feeling on BD is that that's the way to go, then I'll happily
oblige. But have a good think about the consequences if you do somehow
fall foul of the rules.
If people want to post their opinions on this issue I'll hopefully get a
sense of which way people want us to go.
Benji
Daniel Berry wrote:
Hello,
I read this thread with interest when it got sent out at the start of the
month. My initial reaction was to side totally with Dave but Benji's
response showed me that seeding is a very diffficult issue for the UKU and
one they stand to lose on whatever decision is taken. I guess it's taken the
matter to affect my own team to wade in but I hope you'll forgive me for
raising a few more points about seedings and so on. Before I open the stable
door and get out my high horse, I would like to throw in a disclaimer that I
have a lot of respect for the work the UKU do and this is no way a dig at
people like Si, Benji or Felix etc etc. I just think this warrants
discussion and hope it comes across as reasonable debate rather than a rant.
Flaming Galahs 1 had a bit of a slip up at tour 2 and dropped to 18th. I
knew GB and Strange Blue weren't attending Nationals so I had assumed we
would sneak back into the top 16 via the back door for tour 3. It's not
pretty but hey, you take what you can get. The seedings came out and we were
17th. Kent, who had finished two places below us at both previous tours had
been seeded 14th pushing us down one very important position. Another
disclaimer here, this is not a dig at Kent. They are a great mixed team who
work hard on developing the sport. I just think that teams, in general,
should not be moved around in this way.
Kent had to forfeit some games at mixed tour 2 due to some unfortunate
injuries to their women. As a result, it was decided they did not finish
where they should have and so got the benefit of the doubt on the seedings
for tour 3/nationals. From a rather biased position as Galahs captain I did
feel aggrieved by this. Of course I felt sorry for Kent having to forfeit
but should another club be bumped down as a result? It was a real pity for
Kent but we've all seen our weekends stitched up by injuries to important
players before and during the tour weekends. But the order you finished
still stands I guess.
As a result of this we had to battle our way out of the 17-24 bracked on a
three way tie and then win a cross over against 14th to get back into the
top 16. Had we started in 16th we could have lost all our games and still
had a cross over against 17th place to stay top 16. Plus we also missed the
chance to have a pop at the top 12 again. I know it's probably not a huge
deal in the big scheme of things, but I'm just not convinced that bumping
teams up is a good thing in what is our national tournament.
I'd like to point out that in the end it all kind of worked out. Kent came
12th (well done Kent!!!) and we battled our way into the plate final (which
is possibly where we would have ended up anyway) and finished 14th. However
it was a tough weekend with less room for error on our part. We could easily
have lost the three way tie and ended up much lower. This would have been a
pretty disappointing end to our season and then no one would have given my
argument any credence at all saying "oh well look where you finished
anyway!" I guess the point is where you start really affects where you
finish!
I chatted to Si on Friday about this. There were reasons for the decision
and I understand that being flexible is vital to allowing the UKU to do what
they think is right in these situations. On top of this Felix puts more work
in than most of us realise to get schedule out and as a club we are hugely
grateful for all this effort. I just think that moving seeds on the basis of
bad luck/injuries/conjecture and so on is something I would argue against in
the future. I'm pretty sure Kent have been stitched up by it in the past as
well so sure they have had seen both ends of the argument. Just think most
of us would like this sort of thing not to happen, in general.
Mid table mixed might not seem like the be all and end all, but for a club
like ours, who train through the winter and spring for tour, the chance to
play top 16 and have a go at the bigger teams is why we do it. With only
three tours this year it felt even tougher to miss out on that chance. We
just felt a little aggrieved by it all and so I'm sending this to raise the
point politely and continue the points made by Dave. Hope it came across in
the right way.
Thanks to Hannah, Wigsy, Felix, Si, Benji and all the rest who put on such a
good weekend. We had a great time and appreciate the work put in to make it
happen. Well done on the sun. It was my first visit to Mansfield so I'll
assume the weather is always that good.
Cheers.
Dan.
Berry7
Flaming Galahs.
2009/5/7 UKU Director of Competitions <[email protected]>
This is a difficult issue, and one that the competitions committee struggle
with. There are no right answers - only two extreme viewpoints. One says
that teams should have only and exactly the seeding they earn - this is
'fair', but results in some crappy tournaments, not just for the team that
are bumped down, but also for the teams they play against. There is perhaps
an issue, as you say, with the top 8 crossover being harder, but this is
nothing compared to the harshness of somebody's top 16 crossover being a
complete walkover, through no fault of their own. The more we punish a team
by giving a lower seeding, the more seriously (an)other team(s) get(s)
punished also.
The alternative view is that we seed everybody exactly where we feel they
should be. This creates tournaments in which the games are balanced and fun
(which is what we all play the game for, right?) but basically gives no
reward for making the effort to turn up. Most people's sense of fairness is
offended by allowing teams to just waltz in, and furthermore, if we allow it
to become standard practice that you always get the seeding you deserve
rather than the seeding you earn, then the difficulties facing the
committees who decide seedings are just about insurmountable. Every team
will need to be seeded at our discretion. Better, perhaps, a method which is
objective but unfair than one which tries to be fair but is subjective. We
all feel worse when someone decides we're seeded low than when an objective
rule, written to punish no particular team, seeds us low.
The general consensus on the competitions committee is that we should allow
a small punishment of only 2-4 places for teams that miss an event (though
there are some people who would go with each of the extreme viewpoints
above). In practice, we try not to insert more than one team into a bracket,
meaning that if you win your last game you'll hold bracket next time. It's
harsh if you're knocked down, but at least you played the team above you -
it's not just arbitrary that they stayed up and you didn't.
If you've got a better suggestion, I'd be delighted to hear it.
Regarding open tour, we specifically stated that you wouldn't be seeded in
the top 32 without either attending tour 0 or getting in touch with a damned
good reason why not. Due to a clash of T0 with Irish Mixed Nationals, we're
allowing the Irish to be seeded near the top of the B-tour for T1, which is
not all that different to the above situation with the mixed tour. No other
exceptions are planned, but even in the open tour we have to have a little
flexibility.
Benji
David Povey wrote:
BD,
whilst i appreciate that at Mixed Tour 1 it did say in the captains pack
that finishing positions at the tournament didn't guarantee the same
position at Mixed Tour 2 i think it's harsh on those that did send a team to
seed a team that didn't play at that event in the top 16 at Mixed Tour 2.
This is in no way a dig at Leeds Loco but more highlighting the unfairness
of the situation. For teams that compete in the middle rankings there is a
huge difference between starting at 16th and 17th place for the weekend.
Having worked hard and played well to get into the top 16 at Mixed Tour 1 it
seems harsh to be bumped back to 17th and instead of playing against teams
in the 9 - 16 bracket playing against teams in the 17 - 24 bracket. We all
play to improve and be challenged against the best and the reward of
breaking into the top 16 is just this. To be pushed down a bracket for a
team that didn't play at Mixed Tour 1 seems very unfair. Also to consider is
the team that was seeded 9th but is now 10th, their potential crossover up
to the top 8 is now against seed 7 rather than seed 8, a seemingly harder
game than they earnt from Mixed Tour 1.
This is also something that would never happen in the Open Tour. Can you
imagine a team not playing Tour 0 or Tour 1 and then being seeded 9th for
the next event and pushing someone down into the B Tour? Surely a fairer
positioning would have been to come in at 17th? Why reward a team that
didn't attend Mixed Tour 1 with a position that teams played for and earnt
over a whole weekend? If they are good enough to be in the top 16 then
surely this will show over the course of Mixed Tour 2, something that the
teams at Mixed Tour 1 have already shown
The Mixed division deserves the same level of respect that other
divisions have, currently the highest accolade the sport in this country has
is the GB World Games Squad - a mixed team. Surely to improve the division
it should be treated with the same rules as Open and Womens would be?
As standard my views and not those of my team
Dave Povey
__________________________________________________
BritDisc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
__________________________________________________
BritDisc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
__________________________________________________
BritDisc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
__________________________________________________
BritDisc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
