-
Nice.
Please let me know if anything looks out of place. I haven't updated the experimental standings because it takes a lot of work to redo if I've got the lineups wrong.
-
3rd place , did anyone phone Bill this weekend before we did unlimited goals?
-
3rd place , did anyone phone Bill this weekend before we did unlimited goals?
No, but the double elim was according to the usual first to 5 rule, so I'm guessing it's fine.
No-one from Cambridge spoke to me about reffing, apart from a brief conversation that I had with Bogey at Downs, the weekend before. Did you actually have a head ref?
I already said elsewhere that I didn't have a problem with unlimited goals, but it would have been nice if CBG had bothered to speak to me as I don't understand why you switched to first to 5 for double elim, which I can't see the point of, and was slightly perplexed by. Am I missing something?
-
We decide to do unlimited goals at 10am on Saturday, this was discussed between Bogey, me, maybe Josh and Hayden, not sure who else was part of it.
The reason was that lots of teams dropped out, so we decided to go with 15 minute games, otherwise the day would have been over way too quick. With that we made it unlimited goals.
I wasn't involved with the decision for Sunday, but I think there was some thought that unlimited goals might be seen to be invalid for NS, so it was better to play it safe.
-
We decide to do unlimited goals at 10am on Saturday, this was discussed between Bogey, me, maybe Josh and Hayden, not sure who else was part of it.
The reason was that lots of teams dropped out, so we decided to go with 15 minute games, otherwise the day would have been over way too quick. With that we made it unlimited goals.
I wasn't involved with the decision for Sunday, but I think there was some thought that unlimited goals might be seen to be invalid for NS, so it was better to play it safe.
This makes no sense.
-
Well, if I had already said that I didn't have any objection to unlimited goals, why would suddenly decide that I didn't like it overnight?
-
Bogey was head ref . He got a little bit inebriated on the second day and felt he was not fit for any reffing purposes.
Everyone really loved unlimited goals and 15 minute games. More time on court is what it's all about. -
Bogey was head ref . He got a little bit inebriated on the second day and felt he was not fit for any reffing purposes.
Everyone really loved unlimited goals and 15 minute games. More time on court is what it's all about.I agree that unlimited goals is more fun for everyone, including losing teams, as at least losing teams aren't yanked off court in under 4 mins. Personally, I think this is a long overdue change to 3 man polo, but not one I have the power to enforce, even in the NS. If any tournament organiser isn't happy with it, they should stick to first to five, but as far as I'm concerned unlimited goals is the way to go.
-
Yep, I spoke to Newmarket after playing in their first tournament this weekend they were completely stoked that they managed to score some goals against their opponents in the course of a 16-2 drubbing . I guess that is less likely to happen in a first to 5 format.
-
Well, if I had already said that I didn't have any objection to unlimited goals, why would suddenly decide that I didn't like it overnight?
Because the elim means more to the results than the swiss rounds (which are really just an excuse to give everyone more games)?
It's also about James's opinion as the NS organiser.
But in the end I don't know, I wasn't involved.
-
allowing tournament organisers to experiment with unlimited goals
Allowing? (As you were.)
-
No worries. LO2012 will be 15 minutes and unlimited goals unless we get a crazy number of teams registering (in which case, we'll model 15 minute limited goals, then 12 minute unlimited goals, then 12 minute limited goals, etc, until all the games fit in).
Surprisingly around 50% of games go to 5 in podium results-to-date (although I think this figure is lower for UK tournaments-to-date), so we're probably using well over the 2 to 3 minute "turnaround time" that we think we're using... organiser's should probably factor in more turnover time if moving to unlimited goals, etc.
-
Not questioning your plans Jono, just interested in your thinking. Why do you see limited goals as a timesaving method (which it is), then go back to unlimited, then back again?
The implication to me is that you see every possible minute of play as more important than the format of the games.
I'd debate whether limited goals is that much of a timesaver, as you say 50% go to time anyway, and of the rest we don't have any figures of how much time was saved. But more to the point, as an organiser, it's unpredictable, so you have to allow for the worst case anyway.
Wouldn't you be better making it unlimited, and then just reducing the amount of time depending on the number of entries (15,14,13,12 etc).
-
It depends on lots of different things really, I was going to model a few different scenarios.
I agree unlimited is more predictable and it would be my preferred format.
I'd debate whether limited goals is that much of a timesaver
With (potentially) 60+ teams (and with the huge disparity in ability), it could free up a shed load of time.
citygent
Dr_Chan
H-Bomb
RV’s-Balls
Buffalo_Bill
JonoMarshall-
Post a reply
About
Tourney: National Series 2012
Posted by
@aufbruch
A note to tournament organisers: I have no objections to unlimited goals, should you wish to implement this very limited rule change for your tournament, however I would want you to contact me directly (i.e. not on the forum, phone me or text me, my phone number is plastered all over the interwebs) to confirm BEFORE you make a public announcement, at least 8 days before your tournament.
Ideally, this announcement would be made BEFORE entry fees were paid, but Cambridge & Brighton are welcome to change it, should they so desire.