Benji,
Dammit, read that three times before sending it and it didn't come over
nearly as personal as it just has when it arrived in my inbox :(
My objection is to the term "common sense" and to the single argument
defence of the treatment of issues which come before the Rules
Committee. It was less intended as a criticism of how you operate,
though I obviously have reservations as regards some of the decisions
that have been made, than of how you presented yourselves. So apologies
if it came over badly.
Also I missed perhaps the most important point that you raised that I
wanted to comment on...
>> But nearly everyone also fights tooth
>> and nail to be let off when the rules are against them.
Well they damn well shouldn't, where is the spirit in that.
Regards,
Paul Holden mailto: [email protected]
Paul Holden wrote:
Benji,
A good presentation of the issues, right up to the penultimate paragraph
where you invoke "common sense", an entirely meaningless concept. If you
want to say that the Rules Committee should be allowed to exercise their
judgement then please do so. I would support you in that. By using the
phrase that you do you imply that anyone else using their own judgement
would obviously come to the same conclusion and that just fundamentally
undermines your argument. You also imply that anyone who disagrees is
displaying less than sense, which belittles your argument. Believe in
yourself, present your judgement as sound, don't present it as a
consensus of the "masses".
I am also concerned that we have some very different situations under
discussion and that you imply that the balance between what you term
"common sense" and application of the rules should be the same in each
case. Is dealing a mistake in the rostering rules really an equivalent
situation to deciding to re-seed a team that did not perform in a
previous tournament? In one case you are using judgement to determine an
appropriate punishment for a breach of a rule, in another you are using
judgement to replace the rules.
Finally you do not touch at all on how the decisions being made impact
on the nature of the competition structure that is supposed to be in
place. My understanding is that the Tour is a series of linked events
where your performance in each is supposed to directly affect your
opportunities in the following event. If teams are to be re-seeded based
on their perceived strength at the start of each tournament why are we
even bothering with a Tour structure*? Hasn't a team that finishes in
the top 16 at Tour 1 earned the right to lose all their games at Tour 2?
Won't this probably leave them better off than losing all their games
from a reseeded 18th (say) and therefore give added meaning to their
efforts at the first event?
*I mean this as a serious question and not a dig. Maybe the answer is we
shouldn't be? Maybe the answer is that I don't understand squat about
how the Tour is supposed to work, I'll admit that's possible.
Regards,
Paul Holden mailto: [email protected]
__________________________________________________
BritDisc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
