I think it is clear that the UKU Tour is the country's main set of events
for both Open and Women's teams. Therefore, the Tour should be a very
serious affair.
I agree with pretty much all of Brummie's points. I have also just read
benji's email, after reading most of mine, but I think it still applies.
Firstly, with regards to each individual event:
Tour events are making revenues around the £10000 mark. The acceptable
level of services has to grow with this figure. Unless the UKU has decided
that no profit level is too large, which, I believe, is unacceptable for a
sport that is trying to grow and set an example (e.g. spirit, etc), either
the TDs make sure that the basics are secured (and up the costs if need be,
if renting the space is eating up most of this revenue), or teams are
charged less (and "prepare" for rougher conditions). What can not happen is
lack of water (my team and those close by did not have any for several
games), have limited and disgusting toilet facilities, and no real shelter
(for a weekend where thunderstorms were forecasted - we were lucky with the
weather, but that could have not have been the case). If the TDs promised
more than they provided, they should be penalised. More so, because they
leave the UKU with no alternative.
Secondly, with regards to the format:
I would like to stress Brummie's 3rd point (i.e. having players out for 12
hours). I already believe that Ultimate is a ridiculous sport in terms of
the physical stress inflicted on players. What other sport can you think of
where an athlete is required to play at very intense levels for about 9
hours in 2 days and, on top of that, sleep in tents, endure the weather and
think of/carry his/her own food, kit, drinks, medical stuff, etc., around?
The schedule is a fundamental part of making sure that we do not destroy
people's health. And this should be a priority, not just making sure that
the schedule caters for the competitive needs of a few. Interestingly
enough, the schedules always benefit those teams who are fitter and more
prepared for the harshness of such a sport (i.e. they get the late starts,
the fewer number of games, the closest and best pitches, etc). Again, if
this is a case of not having the promised pitches, reduce the length of the
games first, and only then, stretch the day. Playing 7 hours of ultimate is
still a lot. These fewer couple of hours could have made things more
manageable for Felix and co.
Lastly, and because I agree that if you criticise, you should at least try
to think of/provide alternatives, here is something about the structure of
the Tour:
The tour events are becoming too big (Benji stressed it). T1 had 67 teams
and about 900 players. It is not easy to find venues that can accommodate
15+ pitches for a whole weekend, plus the remaining necessary facilities.
The problems with late schedules (unacceptable, by the way, at this level),
changes during the day, lack of parking, and redundancy of seeding
tournaments is partly because there are not enough bids for such a specific
and large demand. And that is because here are not enough/available venues.
My thoughts on this are:
1 - T0 should be a priority. That means that the calendar of events should
be such that there is a suitable venue for the weekend chosen to
accommodate the 40-50 open teams playing it. Think of the football season
next year...
2 - All teams should have to play T0. Teams' levels change from one year to
the next. And if they don't, you should not have a problem securing your
top 4 spot again. Why are some privileged from the start? New season, new
scores. If teams have an European season, then they need to make sure they
have large enough squads. With all the talent they drain from other clubs
as it is, I am sure that a couple more players will not change things
significantly.
3 - The tours should be split into W+A and B+C or A+B and C+W every time
the venue can not safely accommodate the needed pitches/facilities. This
means that with split tournaments, there is less need to use up all the
available grass, even when it is not suitable for playing. Also, it makes
it easier to have extra pitches to make scheduling more amenable to
players' health and last minute changes. I know that there are
transportation issues with split venues (with car pooling, and W+O teams
belonging to the same club travelling together), but clearly, there are
also parking and quality of facility issues in the single venue
alternative. And, I know that some teams would only have a month to make
their travelling arrangements (if you're in between the A and the B tours),
but that doesn't seem to have prevented the coming Tour 2 split venue and
weekend, anyway.
4 - Schedules for Tour 1 - 3, especially for the W (at least the top 8), A
and B tours, should be out the weekend before. This should not be an issue
if the W and A tours are played in one venue and the B and C tours in
another. The "class" of teams in the women's top 8 and A tour should be
enough to ensure that there are no last minute drop outs. And with fewer
teams, it should be easier to accommodate last minute changes in terms of
pitches (especially in the B+C tours). The more flexible nature of the C
tour would be the only issue, but more manageable in terms of
times/pitches.
5 - If Tour 0 is a true placement tournament, the W+A+B Tours could have
the usual top 8 and bottom 8 setup, which means different starting times
and less waiting around.
Let's see what a split Tour 2 event will hold.
Pedro
Strange Blue #9
On Jun 8 2009, M Rose wrote:
A matter I think is of real importance here, above all others, was the
state of the pitches. Every field we played on had dips, holes and even
metal plates covering post holes all over them (ok so someone had
carefully piled soil over the metal plates, not only to create further
lumps at the back of endzones but also only to be washed away during the
night). As a result of the dips in the fields, we had one player turn
his ankle and was out for the weekend, and one player who jarred their
knee because the ground he was running on suddenly wasn't flat anymore.
If somebody is seriously injured due to the state of the fields at
a sanctioned event held at a UKUA approved venue, the UKUA, vicariously
along with the venue, would be open to all manner of negligence claims,
which I hope your insurance would cover.
Matt
Tooting
________________________________
From: Sion Scone <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 12:45:52
Subject: [BD] A list of questions about Tour 1
Some are aimed at the TDs, some at the schedule / format writers, some
at the competition committee. Personally I always try to raise issues
because without feedback how can things be improved? However I
believe that since a lot of concerns, complaints etc fall on deaf
ears, people just don't bother and put up with things they really
shouldn't. Hence I'm making this public in the hope that some people
get in touch with me to tell me they agree / disagree with what I have
to say below. So here we go... feel free to add your voice if you
agree (or disagree, maybe my experiences were exceptional).
1 - If the format for Tour 1 is so open, what was the point in Tour 0?
Tour 0 as a seeding tournament might work in principle, but if you
divvy into North/South then you create a new problem that needs fixing
at Tour 1. Tour 0 should never have happened - what a waste of
effort.
2 - Its commonly said that the "big teams" shouldn't have to play at
Tour 0 because its "a waste of their time". For the second year in a
row, one of the teams that didn't need to go to Tour 0 dropped a
significant number of places (for whatever reason). My point is that
perhaps it should be considered that those "big clubs" aren't as
stable as people assume, and that other teams are closing the gap.
Throw in things like Fire having evenly split squads and things become
less predictable still. Basically, if we're going to have a seeding
tournament then every team needs to be there.
3 - Who wrote that schedule, and who approved that venue? Why were
some teams playing first and last game on Saturday? With a 9am start
and a 7.30pm finish, add in warmup / warmdown time and we were on the
fields for 12 hours. That's a ridiculously long time. Luckily it
didn't rain too much and it wasn't freezing cold; but it could have
been. There was ZERO shelter and the only facilities I saw were
portaloos. There was inadequate parking which resulted in a lot of
people getting parking fines. The pitches weren't even close to flat,
the first one we played on had craters, not potholes.
4 - I was continuously hunting for pitch water. Every single game.
Thankfully (!!!) we had an injured player with us who could act as
water boy and get the organisers to bring water to the fields for us.
No pitch water is unacceptable in my eyes, particularly given the heat
on Sunday.
5 - Our first game on Sunday got moved and *nobody* bothered to tell
us. We only found out when there were three teams trying to warmup on
the same pitch... I understand that if something goes wrong and a
pitch becomes unusable then the schedule might need to be altered, but
the TDs *have* to take responsibility to notify the teams concerned.
Not to do so is simply unprofessional.
6 - I understand that some of the problems with scheduling were
related to the large number of teams on a small number of fields. The
simplest solution to this would be to hold the women's and open events
at different venues... was this considered?
7 - Some of the teams playing this weekend basically have been working
towards that tournament for months. Is there any reason we were left
so long to know the format (not the schedule but the tournament
format, i.e. who plays who)? For the geeks out there who like to plan
ahead, this information is useful! Besides, what if there'd been an
obvious problem with the format? There were a lot of discussions at
the weekend regarding the format, but because it was only released on
Friday afternoon there was no time to make changes if they were
needed. Most people's opinion was to then not bother complaining...
but not mine :-)
I will point out that I thought it was good there was food available
and there were medics on site (who seemed pretty busy from what I
saw). Props for that.
If this is seriously the best that the UKU can do then I suggest a
coup. And before anyone says "well you do better" or similar:
firstly, I'm willing to try. Secondly, remember that not only did you
pay £180 entry fee per team for this event, but every single person
who wanted to play has to register with the UKU and pay £27.50 (unless
you're eligible for a discount) as well. That means that the people
who get this money (TDs and UKU) are accountable, and we have the
right to complain. Do you really think that you get value for money?
Don't accept second best for UK Ultimate! Lets keep pushing the
standards up.
Brummie
__________________________________________________
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
--
University of Cambridge
Department of Land Economy
Jesus College
Jesus Lane
Cambridge - CB5 8BL
UK
__________________________________________________
BritDisc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
