Disclaimer: CurlingZone does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any Content posted on any Forums area and you acknowledge that any reliance upon such Content shall be at your sole risk. Any Content placed on any Forums area by users and anonymous posters are the views of the user posting the statement, and do not represent the views of CurlingZone or our partners, advertisers or sponsors. By posting anonymously, you are allowing your IP address to be displayed for identification purposes. CurlingZone reserves the right to remove any post at its discretion without warning or explanation.
02-20-18 09:44PM |
|
Observer
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2016
Location: River Falls, WI, USA
Posts: 445 |
Congratulations to Eve Muirhead, Anna Sloan, Vicki Adams, Lauren Gray, Kelly Schafer, and Glenn Howard!!! Playoffs!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-20-18 09:59PM |
|
toeslider
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Alberta
Posts: 18 |
quote: Originally posted by On The Nose
Fair enough...
The intention of the majority of rules - across the majority of sports - is to punish offenses with a consequence which is proportional to the offense.
I would most definitely include the rule in this particular and specific situation (which you seem to be trying to get away from). The fact that there are three options from which to choose as a consequence certainly shows that the intention of the rule is to have the punishment proportionally fit the crime.
As so many people worldwide have stated, instead of having the consequence be proportional to the offence, Homan chose to have the punishment fit her personal self-serving agenda, which was very much to her team's benefit. And that is classless.
Again - if an official - whose job it is to dispense punishment with an objective, unbiased eye, had been responsible for assessing a consequence in this circumstance, and had chosen to remove the rock, he/she would be crucified by curling fans and and likely fired from the job.
This also demonstrates how Homan's decision was entirely unjust and biased.
You seem to be going to rather great lengths to defend Homan's lack of sportsmanship and fair play, which is interesting in and of itself.
Did you happen to see how differently she handled the burnt rock in the game against China?
“The intention of the majority of rules, across the majority of sports” indicates to me that your argument has weakened. I would like you to support this statement with a reference to a respected and/or reliable source - I would be happy to read it.
With regard to the rule in this particular and specific situation - FULL DISCLOSURE - I did not see this situation, nor do I have to since I have not referenced it while logically defending my position which is, if you remember, that the non-offending team should not be castigated for following the rules while expecting that the offending team should not be required to face the consequences of an infraction of the rules.
You suggest that I am trying to get away from the rule, when, in fact, I continue to reference it to support my case and have provided you with its history and evolution. When the rule was changed to include alternatives other than simply the removal of the stone, the explanation was that this would provide the non-offending team with the ability to extract a greater penalty than simply the removal of the stone, had the stone been in a position to inflict negative consequences on the offending team had the infraction not taken place. If this were not the case, the rule would probably have been changed to include infractions between the hog lines, as well.
At no time since have I seen an interpretation of the rule that indicates that the intention has changed, and it is not indicated in the way the rule is currently written. So your insistence that the fact that there are 3 alternatives is proof that it is intended to be applied as you suggest is logically invalid. If you have a source that indicates otherwise, again, please provide it - I will be happy to read it.
Also, using a hypothetical official in a situation that is only in your imagination is not really a logical and reasoned defence of your argument. You really have provided no concrete evidence to support your position.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how weakly supported that might be, but you might want to refrain from accusing athletes of possessing “lack of sportsmanship and fair play” until you are able to support your position with reason and logic.
I find it tiring and wasteful to argue with people who have no concept of logic and reasoned debate so this will be my last word on the subject. I will, however, read any references that you would like to point me toward, if any exist.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-20-18 10:00PM |
|
nelski
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Twin Snowbanks
Posts: 2068 |
They will live to curl another day. #GoKoreaGo It would do so much for curling in Korea if they medal. Also Eve - well, she's hungry for it. Some games still to come. (btw Tedeschi Trucks Band is LIVE on Facebook. Set Two - #SoGood)
__________________
Lots of major youth (<21) events. Nice for Murdoch... and us :-D.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-20-18 10:06PM |
|
EPMD
Swing Artist
Registered: Jan 2017
Location:
Posts: 202 |
quote: Originally posted by fresca
they will be fine - a great team that represented Canada well
it has happened to Canadians at the Worlds and olympics 25 x
looked good til the dbl raise triple in 9 - sometimes god doesnt want you to win
This all came down to making fewer shots than their opponents did. I don't think God would have a curling preference.
And this hasn't happened to Canadian teams before at the Olympics. This is the first one not to medal. It's not a "Sky is falling!" situation, but it certainly stands out as a poor performance.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-20-18 10:25PM |
|
Ajay
Drawmaster
Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 570 |
The rule: perhaps another perspective. I have watched pretty much every televised game ( only world class players are involved when televised) over the past 25 years and the vast majority of "burnt" rocks were resolved by an amiable agreement, either leaving stones, replacing stones or placing stones where they likely would have ended up. The teams involved would have been the Stoughton , Howard, Martin, mcewen, edin etc rinks. These teams obviously were playing by the rules as they understood them.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-20-18 10:29PM |
|
gameon
Hitting Paint
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 116 |
quote: Originally posted by fresca
they will be fine - a great team that represented Canada well
it has happened to Canadians at the Worlds and olympics 25 x
looked good til the dbl raise triple in 9 - sometimes god doesn't want you to win
Agree... wasn't their day and that happens to all teams at certain big events and bonspiels... they are a great team and proved it many times.
What I found disgusting was the interview after with Rachel and the Q's that Jones asked... da... like who asks someone, 'how disappointed are you?' Like who asks such a Q after someone losses a big game? Thought Rachel showed a lot of class by giving an answer. I know where many would have shoved the mic when asked degrading Q's.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-20-18 10:33PM |
|
CURLER1
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Brandon
Posts: 1054 |
quote: Originally posted by gameon
Agree... wasn't their day and that happens to all teams at certain big events and bonspiels... they are a great team and proved it many times.
What I found disgusting was the interview after with Rachel and the Q's that Jones asked... da... like who asks someone, 'how disappointed are you?' Like who asks such a Q after someone losses a big game? Thought Rachel showed a lot of class by giving an answer. I know where many would have shoved the mic when asked degrading Q's.
win or lose - you are a fierce competitor and must be ready for those questions.
I am predicting a break up. They are crusty to each other, don't seem to talk, seems like there is no chemistry at all. They stuck it out for the four year run. Time to find some new teammates.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-20-18 10:33PM |
|
Love2Curl
Hitting Paint
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Toon Town
Posts: 106 |
Homan was within her right to remove the stone. I was really annoyed at the un sportsman like way she removed it. Looking down and bang just pushed to the side. No word said. No attempt to push or quide it out of play. Just bang push it to the side.
__________________
Inturn..I thought you wanted an out.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-20-18 10:46PM |
|
On The Nose
Drawmaster
Registered: Apr 2014
Location: In the House
Posts: 608 |
quote: Originally posted by toeslider
“The intention of the majority of rules, across the majority of sports” indicates to me that your argument has weakened. I would like you to support this statement with a reference to a respected and/or reliable source - I would be happy to read it.
With regard to the rule in this particular and specific situation - FULL DISCLOSURE - I did not see this situation, nor do I have to since I have not referenced it while logically defending my position which is, if you remember, that the non-offending team should not be castigated for following the rules while expecting that the offending team should not be required to face the consequences of an infraction of the rules.
You suggest that I am trying to get away from the rule, when, in fact, I continue to reference it to support my case and have provided you with its history and evolution. When the rule was changed to include alternatives other than simply the removal of the stone, the explanation was that this would provide the non-offending team with the ability to extract a greater penalty than simply the removal of the stone, had the stone been in a position to inflict negative consequences on the offending team had the infraction not taken place. If this were not the case, the rule would probably have been changed to include infractions between the hog lines, as well.
At no time since have I seen an interpretation of the rule that indicates that the intention has changed, and it is not indicated in the way the rule is currently written. So your insistence that the fact that there are 3 alternatives is proof that it is intended to be applied as you suggest is logically invalid. If you have a source that indicates otherwise, again, please provide it - I will be happy to read it.
Also, using a hypothetical official in a situation that is only in your imagination is not really a logical and reasoned defence of your argument. You really have provided no concrete evidence to support your position.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how weakly supported that might be, but you might want to refrain from accusing athletes of possessing “lack of sportsmanship and fair play” until you are able to support your position with reason and logic.
I find it tiring and wasteful to argue with people who have no concept of logic and reasoned debate so this will be my last word on the subject. I will, however, read any references that you would like to point me toward, if any exist.
To say that I am surprised that you are choosing to cease discussing/debating this issue with me would be untrue. Your argument has been weak, at best, from the outset.
That you have not even seen the event which prompted this entire discussion/debate tells me that you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
I am discussing this particular circumstance of Homan removing the Danish rock while you are attempting to change the focus to a much more general subject. In doing so, you are, of course and obviously, avoiding discussion on the actual topic at hand.
You speak of logic, yet you display little of the element yourself. As well, you steadfastly and stubbornly refuse to accept sound and logical points and reasoning as valid because doing so would disrupt your position.
I have stated numerous times that I understand that, under the current rule, Homan was permitted to remove the stone (which you... heh... haven't even seen). I've added that I (and many others worldwide) feel that doing so in that particular circumstance was wrong, unfair, and unsportsmanlike, and I have stated exactly why, and have supported my position numerous times. That your agenda insists that you not accept my argument is not surprising. It certainly does not invalidate my argument in the eyes of objective persons, however.
That particular rule is obviously not black and white - there are 3 options available. This is so in order to maintain the fairness and good sportsmanship that curling is known for. To that end, Homan failed miserably.
I suspect there is a valid reason that Homan's actions were criticized by curling fans, players, and announcers worldwide. Yet you attempt to pretend that I am the only individual critical of her.
As well, in the huge majority of situations where a broom contacts a rock without measurably altering the rock's trajectory or speed, the opposing team, citing logic, common sense, and fair play, does not remove the rock, and does not rearrange the rocks to their advantage.
I suppose keeping your eyes closed to these realities which conflict with your agenda is a 'logical' position for you to adopt... sigh...
Also, did you see the manner in which Homan dealt with the rock that the Chinese sweeper burned in the game today? (Do you watch curling at all?) It was completely different than what she did against Denmark. The situation was very similar - a rock that was almost stopped being barely touched by a broom. This time, the rock stayed where it came to rest - as it should, and as it does the huge majority of the time in similar circumstances.
I will close with this, which I wrote in an earlier post today...
I know someone who is on the WCF competition and rules commission, and who has been an active curler for several decades. This person told me that, while Homan was legally permitted to remove that Danish stone, she was quite wrong to remove the stone in that circumstance, that she took advantage of the rule for personal (team) gain, that it was not in the spirit of curling, nor in the spirit of good sportsmanship, and that it does not reflect well upon her.
I'll value this person's perspective over yours any day of the week, thanks.
__________________
"It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own... but the great man is he who, in the midst of the crowd, keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Last edited by On The Nose on 02-20-18 at 11:14PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 04:18AM |
|
Loony
Swing Artist
Registered: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 200 |
Rachel's face splat should make people appreciate Jennifer Jones & Co.s' performance last cycle even more. Rachel's team is very good and to not even make the playoffs makes you realize that to go through the whole Olympics undefeated is/was quite a feat and Jen and her whole team should be lauded.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 07:31AM |
|
EPMD
Swing Artist
Registered: Jan 2017
Location:
Posts: 202 |
quote: Originally posted by Loony
Rachel's face splat should make people appreciate Jennifer Jones & Co.s' performance last cycle even more. Rachel's team is very good and to not even make the playoffs makes you realize that to go through the whole Olympics undefeated is/was quite a feat and Jen and her whole team should be lauded.
It's the first thing on Jones' resume, for sure. She was a superstar those two weeks. It may be a long time before we see anything like that again from Team Canada.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 08:12AM |
|
misty1
Supreme Champion!
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 6002 |
i don't think anyone could have seen this coming. i'm stunned. i thought when she got it back to 3-3 alright, here she comes but no. don't know what to think.
it happens to all great teams of course, they have a stumble somewhere. if it was gonna happen here i thought 4th at worst
although the writing may have been on the wall. team homan has looked off for most of this year. they pulled it together for the trials and a couple other events but for the most part they just haven't looked sharp. the struggles at the grand slams. going winless and getting smoked twice as a team at continental cup.
one huge issue for rachel all week was her draw weight. she never got it under control.
Last edited by misty1 on 02-21-18 at 08:14AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 08:45AM |
|
CURLER1
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Brandon
Posts: 1054 |
quote: Originally posted by misty1
i don't think anyone could have seen this coming. i'm stunned. i thought when she got it back to 3-3 alright, here she comes but no. don't know what to think.
it happens to all great teams of course, they have a stumble somewhere. if it was gonna happen here i thought 4th at worst
although the writing may have been on the wall. team homan has looked off for most of this year. they pulled it together for the trials and a couple other events but for the most part they just haven't looked sharp. the struggles at the grand slams. going winless and getting smoked twice as a team at continental cup.
one huge issue for rachel all week was her draw weight. she never got it under control.
seems to be the whole team chemistry too. It is just not there.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 09:46AM |
|
misty1
Supreme Champion!
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 6002 |
thing is i thought canada actually outplayed great britain for the first 5. but you could feel the momentum start to shift in the 6th end and that last end was just nightmarish from canada. rachel didn't have a lot of options when it came time to throw hers
conversely great britain played just about a perfect final end
brilliant shot from eve on her last in 9 too
Last edited by misty1 on 02-21-18 at 09:52AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 09:59AM |
|
decade
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Jan 2011
Location:
Posts: 1962 |
quote: Originally posted by Manitoba Legend
Chemistry is mightily important. But Emma and Raytch have been together longer than Tessa & Moir. .
Once again you are wrong. T & M started skating together in 1997 when Tessa was 8, R and E did not start curling together until 2001.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 10:01AM |
|
sooner
Hitting Paint
Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
Posts: 158 |
Rachels third gassed two easy shots in the tenth end that was basically the game.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 10:13AM |
|
nelski
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Twin Snowbanks
Posts: 2068 |
World Champion ends up 6th at Olympics. It is not a horrible headline. 6th in the world's toughest bonspiel. I agree that this team might have a shake-up post olympics. As I've said before, "they're not happy because they are winning, they are winning because they are happy" is a core aspect of curling, and Shuster said the same thing in describing his turn-around. Courtney plays with joy - think about her run with Carruthers in MxDbls. No, I believe Rachel is a Jock with Jock mentality. The killer instinct. It can work in brute sports but not so great in this sport. Her long-time mates get that, and she wins more than she loses using that head space. But it lacks the mental finesse required because the bottom will just drop out. Just laugh out loud. Love your opponents. It is a game we are privileged to play. Never forget that.
__________________
Lots of major youth (<21) events. Nice for Murdoch... and us :-D.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 11:32AM |
|
Observer
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2016
Location: River Falls, WI, USA
Posts: 445 |
quote: Originally posted by misty1
thing is i thought canada actually outplayed great britain for the first 5. but you could feel the momentum start to shift in the 6th end and that last end was just nightmarish from canada. rachel didn't have a lot of options when it came time to throw hers
conversely great britain played just about a perfect final end
brilliant shot from eve on her last in 9 too
That's been GB's pattern in all their Olympic wins... one of them starts slow (seems to be a different one each time) and misses some shots but they keep it close somehow, then after the break and some pep talking from Kelly and Glenn, they all start playing sharp and find a way to overtake and win.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 05:32PM |
|
Nine Ender
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2009
Location:
Posts: 338 |
quote: Originally posted by Loony
Rachel's face splat should make people appreciate Jennifer Jones & Co.s' performance last cycle even more. Rachel's team is very good and to not even make the playoffs makes you realize that to go through the whole Olympics undefeated is/was quite a feat and Jen and her whole team should be lauded.
Should also make you appreciate how good Homan's team has been in numerous high end events before this one.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 07:26PM |
|
Bulls Eye
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2017
Location:
Posts: 80 |
Enough of the team Canada post-mortem; its playoff time! Who does everyone like (both in chances and support)?
For the patriots, both GB and Japan have Canadian coaches. The PA countries have slight winning records among the remaining teams; the two European teams are 1-2.
I find it hard to cheer against Japan. They have impressive technique and seem both personable and likable. A win by a PA country would be great for the growth of the sport.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 07:45PM |
|
Bulls Eye
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2017
Location:
Posts: 80 |
quote: Originally posted by fresca
It’s nice when the host country wins a lot of gold ...
Agreed. Korea certainly justified their auto-berth better than Russia in 2014 and Italy in 2006.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 07:48PM |
|
Deliverer
Swing Artist
Registered: Nov 2016
Location:
Posts: 471 |
NEISKI
NO CRITICISM INTENDED HERE, BUT, PLZ, AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, WHY R U STILL WATCHING "ARCHER"? CMIIW, BUT IT'S JUST FOR KIDS ISN'T IT? NRN EOR TC.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 08:04PM |
|
misty1
Supreme Champion!
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 6002 |
quote: Originally posted by Bulls Eye
Enough of the team Canada post-mortem; its playoff time! Who does everyone like (both in chances and support)?
For the patriots, both GB and Japan have Canadian coaches. The PA countries have slight winning records among the remaining teams; the two European teams are 1-2.
I find it hard to cheer against Japan. They have impressive technique and seem both personable and likable. A win by a PA country would be great for the growth of the sport.
i picked muirhead to win from the beginning but im thinking now it's gonna be hasselborg.
for the men ...i am gonna go with edin. it's hard. koe that's been here has not been convincing at all . if he picks up it and they play their best i can see them winning but my guy is just telling me to go with edin
as for who i want to win.. i want muirhead to win the women's event. she is my favorite team left of the 4. if not her fujisawa.
for the men i would love to see decruz win but i doubt he'll even get out of the tiebreaker . that would leave canada, US, sweden and great britain to choose from and to be honest i don't have a preference in that case
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 08:06PM |
|
misty1
Supreme Champion!
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 6002 |
quote: Originally posted by fresca
It’s nice when the host country wins a lot of gold ...
yeah, it's been good to see korea start wraking in the medals over the last couple days. because through the first 6 or 7 days they'd only won like 2 and it was depressing
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
02-21-18 08:09PM |
|
decade
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Jan 2011
Location:
Posts: 1962 |
quote: Originally posted by Deliverer
NEISKI
NO CRITICISM INTENDED HERE, BUT, PLZ, AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, WHY R U STILL WATCHING "ARCHER"? CMIIW, BUT IT'S JUST FOR KIDS ISN'T IT? NRN EOR TC.
Why are you shouting?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is . |
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|