Unlimited Goals For Tournaments?

The bonus reason makes a lot of sense, but reason 2 is surely only going to happen in very early stages (1st round swiss) when games are rarely great spectacles anyway.

Bonus reason, well, that would force people to actually schedule tournaments properly, with plenty of spare time, and not always try to push it.

You cannot forsee unexpected delays, so even if you do your job right, if you start running behind, you know for sure it won't get better.
If we follow the logic of "plenty of spare time", then tourneys will be limited to 16 teams per court per day, with 10 minute matches? (maybe I'm exagerating a bit)
But when you see a registration like the one at Rouen or Greifmasters, that are closed within 2 minutes of them opening, it makes you wonder about restricting even further the amount of teams for the sake of uncapping the goal limit.

You guys are doing it wrong, never cap the number of teams and keep finding bigger/better polo facilities, or run your tournament for a whole week?

If that sounded bitchy it wasn't meant to, I'm as guilty of it as everyone else who's organised a tournament, case in point the LII.

The only ones I've organised that have gone to time have been unlimited goals ones, because the whole "but we might have some shorter games" argument goes out of the window.

the high score thing would probably happen at the start of both days, with random 1st round match ups and then when it's seeded good against not so good for the knockouts

You guys are doing it wrong, never cap the number of teams and keep finding bigger/better polo facilities, or run your tournament for a whole week?

this.

You cannot forsee unexpected delays, so even if you do your job right, if you start running behind, you know for sure it won't get better.
If we follow the logic of "plenty of spare time", then tourneys will be limited to 16 teams per court per day, with 10 minute matches? (maybe I'm exagerating a bit)
But when you see a registration like the one at Rouen or Greifmasters, that are closed within 2 minutes of them opening, it makes you wonder about restricting even further the amount of teams for the sake of uncapping the goal limit.

Yes, that's unfortunately the downside. If you do unlimited goals you have to allow for 5 minute turnarounds between games (which will hopefully be less), you have to allow for 10 minutes of timewasting/injures per hour.

For the LII we allowed 4 x 10 minute games an hour, and it still wasn't enough (and that wasn't unlimited).

I don't think the unlimited goals thing will make it that much worse, we already have the problem that we have far more teams interested in top tournament than there is realistic court time for, and I don't think the first-come-first-served registration is the best way to go. It might be fair, but as an organiser, I'd rather have the best teams that want to come, not the quickest.

So the solutions are more courts (unrealistic without more funding)
More time (unrealistic without being semi-pro)
Less teams, the only option left.

3 minute games?

ESPI 2010 in NYC was unlimited goals, and we saw games that were really painful and tedious to watch. I think some of the scores were like 22-0 or something. Made no sense at all. We (Apologies) beat Adam Menace's team 9-0 I think, and it didn't feel good, I felt guilty and shameful.

Did you punch the air after each of the goals?

only the racoon does that. oh and what Ale said, all of it.

We (Apologies) beat Adam Menace's team 9-0 I think, and it didn't feel good, I felt guilty and shameful.

ha

only the racoon does that. oh and what Ale said, all of it.

fuck you I don't celebrate goals!

MAKE MONAY MONAY MAKE MONAY MONAY MONAAAY

Sorry must have been josh ..

You guys are doing it wrong, never cap the number of teams and keep finding bigger/better polo facilities, or run your tournament for a whole week?

It is all wrong. New Format FTW.

#offtopic

You know who loves unlimited goals.

SHUFFLE COMM improving polo (and drawing dumb pictures) since day one!

unlimited goals would be great! maybe this is something that could be trialed at upcoming tournaments eg bristol?

Partially this, imo. I think it's a good idea but until we know it works and know how to organise this style of tournament can we keep the NS in the classic 1st to 5. If it's trialed for a year or so it will allow the wider community to see the difference between the two styles. As people have mentioned it will change the style of play, if it changes in the way I imagine it would then I am all for it.

Partially this, imo. I think it's a good idea but until we know it works and know how to organise this style of tournament can we keep the NS in the classic 1st to 5. If it's trialed for a year or so it will allow the wider community to see the difference between the two styles. As people have mentioned it will change the style of play, if it changes in the way I imagine it would then I am all for it.

The correct way forward is to change the rule globally, not piecemeal, so please do keep to the NS ruleset.

It may be worthwhile having a trial tourney, whose only purpose is to try out proposed rule changes, but we're not at that point yet.

Yep. Places like the ABC, and the 24 hour (where I did) are places to try this out, not a major tournament.

ABC this year will be unlimited goals.

as yorgo mentioned, one of the main issuses at ESPI 2010 was the crushing and soul destroying defeats in the first round, and partially the second. newer teams were annihilated by A-level teams. losing 22-0 looked humiliating. especially when the other team stopped scoring goals because they got bored.
i'm fully aware that further up the pecking order it becomes more relevant to how the game is played and could make more sense at tournament level. in this tournament however, i noticed no real advantage. I think unlimited scoring makes sense when you're already guaranteed teams of a closer level. in mainstream sports, there division 1, 2, 3 etc. I think we just need a to reach a critical mass of players to allow for this.
But it's always great to know that the discussion is being had. shows that people still give a shit.

So a sensible compromise would be first to five for the Swiss round then unlimited goals for the elimination round?

I don't like changing the format mid tournament, it should really be the same all the way through.

I think those score lines seem so devastating at the moment because they are also alien to the game with the limit at 5.
Although to me being beaten in a few minutes is just as devastating.

But as I see it, it is better to have an unlimited game as there is always a chance to improve on what could be just a bad opening to a game.
Even if a team does not recover and the score lines mentioned above are common in the early stages, at least both teams get the full amount of court time, which is an important part of warming up. If individual games are shown to be less equal because of unlimited goals at least all games are played to the same basis / time, so that teams across the board will have a more equal tournament experience.

I do not want to disuade new teams from entering tournaments, however, if any individual feels their pride and confidence irrevocably hurt by being beaten by a better team, then may be they are not suited / ready for competitive play.

+1

Part of playing getting better is getting creamed, feeling shit, and making sure that doesn't happen again.

I don't like changing the format mid tournament, it should really be the same all the way through.

Agreed, the elimination games are arguably more unevenly matched than the later stages of the qualification round games (depending on the size of the tournament and how many teams make the cut).

Also, big +1 to Boy Wonder.