Forums Menu

User: 
Pass:  

Curling Scores

W: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: W5 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 8:00am CT
Giroux Final
Schapman (7) Watch Live Curling!
Johnson 10  Final
Scheel (9) Watch Live Curling!
Berg Final
Viau (9) Watch Live Curling!
Pekowitz 11  Final
Berg (7) Watch Live Curling!
: Canadian Wheelchair Championship
Moose Jaw, SK
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 7 -- Wed, Mar 27 -- 6:30pm MT
AB (Kuchelyma) Final
NB (Fitzgerald) (8)
AB (Purvis) Final
ON (Rees) 10  (7)
SK (Dash) Final
MB (Thiessen) (EE)
ON (Morris) Final
SK (Pederson) (EE)
QC (Marquis) Final
NL (Carroll) (8)
M: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: M5 -- Wed, Mar 27 -- 7:00pm CT
Fitzgerald Final
Guentzel (10) Watch Live Curling!
Cenzalli Final
Rose (10) Watch Live Curling!
Church Final
Lannoye (10) Watch Live Curling!
Hebert Final
Brenden (9) Watch Live Curling!
M: Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Championship
Fredericton, NB
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF -- Fri, Mar 22 -- 1:00pm AT
Lott/Lott Final
Walk/Muyr (8) Watch Live Curling!
M: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 3:00am ET
Caccivio Final
Brauchli 12  (EE)
Dryburgh Final
Ringgenberg (9)
W: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 9:00am CET
Schwaller Final
Oberson (9)
Blackham Final
von Arx (9)
W: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 11:00am MT
Stroeder Final
Delorey (7)
M: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 1:00pm ET
Delorey Final
Lockhart (EE)
Full Scoreboard  |  Play Fantasy Pick'em!  
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.
Page 2 of 2 -- Go to: ««   | 1 | 2 |   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   Post A Reply
11-01-14 06:36PM
curlky is offline Click Here to See the Profile for curlky Click here to Send curlky a Private Message Find more posts by curlky Add curlky to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
curlky
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

I am not an experienced enough curler to really understand what the 5 rock rule really accomplishes. However, if the goal is to make more offense, and counter the tick shot, then how about this idea.

I have seen lines running parallel to the center line even with teh 4 foot, and someone told me they are called courtesy lines. How about any rock that is a guard in between these lines cannot be moved outside of those lines You can still throw a tick, but you limit your ability to move it out of the way.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-01-14 07:08PM
jamcan is offline Click Here to See the Profile for jamcan Click here to Send jamcan a Private Message Find more posts by jamcan Add jamcan to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
jamcan
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340

quote:
Originally posted by Gerry
Interesting how you use baseball as an example, as they certainly have made changes to rules to increase or decrease offense. The introduction of many rules over time has evolved the game to it's current iteration over more than 100 years.
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rulechng.shtml

The 5-rock rule is done to force teams to continue playing an aggressive style of game, as you can't just get a 2-3 point lead and try to peel your way home. The game has to adapt to the improving skill level of the players and pristine ice conditions, or we'll see the same thing happen that did in the game before the Free Guard Zone came into place.

It becomes too predictable.



The only recent MAJOR change baseball has made to increase offense is the Designated Hitter rule. And its worth noting that only the AL has adopted it, the NL has not. The only benefit I can see from the DH is how it has allowed some older players to lengthen their careers.

Interesting how you compare the ice conditions prior to the FGZ rule. It was because of the straight ice/rock conditions of decades ago that the rule was sorely needed. Now, you argue, because we have the opposite conditions that the same peel game will dominate?

Ludicrous. You throw out stats showing how good teams dominate when up 2 or more. I suggest that if you want to use that to justify the 5 rock rule, then at least provide a comparison with the same situations prior to the FGZ.

To use FGZ stats only is poor statistics. How do the same records of Howard, Ryan, Martin, Werenich, Middaugh, Peters etc., (the strong teams of the pre-FGZ era) compare? I think it more than likely that those teams stats would compare equally with those teams you mention today.

And if you argue that the data is not available then limit your sample to Brier stats. Those are available through the CCA website for Briers dating back into the 80's.

The 5FGZ, to use the baseball analogy again, is like giving KC 6 outs in the 9th when down a run just because Madison Baumgardner is such a good pitcher.

__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson

Last edited by jamcan on 11-01-14 at 07:17PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-01-14 08:47PM
Gerry is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Gerry Click here to Send Gerry a Private Message Visit Gerry's homepage! Find more posts by Gerry Add Gerry to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Gerry
CZ Founder

 

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 4002

I don't get why you fight a rule change like this so hard? The way you're making it out to be is a major overhaul of the game (see Free Guard Zone), rather than tweaking an existing rule. At the end of the day, the difference between the 5-rock and 4-rock rule only comes into play in limited situations.

__________________
CurlingZone
Everything...Curling!

Please click on our sponsors' banners periodically, as visiting their sites helps keep CurlingZone.com Free!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-02-14 03:16AM
peteski is offline Click Here to See the Profile for peteski Click here to Send peteski a Private Message Find more posts by peteski Add peteski to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
peteski
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
Posts: 631

quote:
Originally posted by jamcan


The 5FGZ, to use the baseball analogy again, is like giving KC 6 outs in the 9th when down a run just because Madison Baumgardner is such a good pitcher.



It's really not like this at all, because for one thing, the change applies for both teams. Also, outs are a fundamentally different factor of the game than the number of rocks allowed for the free guard zone. Changing the number of outs has more in common with changing the total number of rocks played per end, it's that fundamental a change.

While I'm not sure yet if the five rock rule is better, I hardly see it as an affront. It's just not as simple to defend as it used to be. It forces the defending team play some challenging shots after getting the lead and play well. What's wrong with that? And I could be wrong, but the impression I got was that the players (at least the men) prefer the five rock rule and the players are generally right about the direction the game should go.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-02-14 09:02AM
courtneyshaw is offline Click Here to See the Profile for courtneyshaw Click here to Send courtneyshaw a Private Message Find more posts by courtneyshaw Add courtneyshaw to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
courtneyshaw
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Aug 2012
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 41

quote:
Originally posted by Gerry


Give any of these elite teams a 2-3 point lead after the first end and the game is over. Kevin Martin from 2006-2014 lost 4 games when scoring 2 in the first end with hammer. (123-4)

Since 2010/11:
Glenn Howard: Scoring 2 (82-6), Scoring 3 (28-0)
Mike McEwen: Scoring 2 (56-3), Scoring 3 (14-1)
Brad Jacobs: Scoring 2 (37-5), Scoring 3 (12-0)
Kevin Koe: Scoring 2 (44-10), Scoring 3 (15-0)



Thanks for the stats, Gerry! The numbers really do put it in perspective. This has been a great event to watch, with lots of rocks in play and offense early in the game. There were games with big scores that stayed competitive. I have enjoyed watching it, and I look forward to more 5RR events!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-02-14 12:54PM
TheRake is offline Click Here to See the Profile for TheRake Find more posts by TheRake Add TheRake to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
TheRake
Knee-Slider

 

Registered: Sep 2012
Location:
Posts: 3

Or how about keeping the 4 rock rule, but it make so you can NOT touch the guards, eliminating the tick. Simple. You touch a guard it gets replaced and the shooter removed.

I like the 3 or 4 rock rule but increasing the FGZ to include the house as well, that makes it interesting.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-02-14 03:55PM
Gerry is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Gerry Click here to Send Gerry a Private Message Visit Gerry's homepage! Find more posts by Gerry Add Gerry to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Gerry
CZ Founder

 

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 4002

8 vs 10 ENDS

First End Scoring Winning Percentages, Since 2010/11:

MEN - World Curling Tour, Grand Slams, Playdowns, Olympics

EIGHT: Scoring 3 (572W-85L) = 87.1%
TEN: Scoring 3 (268W-44L) = 85.8%

EIGHT: Scoring 2 (1700W-552L) = 75.4%
TEN: Scoring 2 (876W-291L) = 75.1%

WOMEN - World Curling Tour, Grand Slams, Playdowns, Olympics

EIGHT: Scoring 3 (288W-49L) = 85.4%
TEN: Scoring 3 (177W-45L) = 79.7%

EIGHT: Scoring 2 (915W-343L) = 72.7%
TEN: Scoring 2 (547W-169L) = 76.4%

__________________
CurlingZone
Everything...Curling!

Please click on our sponsors' banners periodically, as visiting their sites helps keep CurlingZone.com Free!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-03-14 12:31PM
FollowingAlong is offline Click Here to See the Profile for FollowingAlong Click here to Send FollowingAlong a Private Message Find more posts by FollowingAlong Add FollowingAlong to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
FollowingAlong
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 459

Only a factor if a team is behind and they have the hammer

I'd like to see some medium term statistics on the 5FGZ rule before making an informed comment but if you look at things pragmatically, a Free Guard Zone rule should always be an odd number when stated as it is. A 4 rock FGZ says that an opponents rock in the FGZ cannot be removed until after the 4th rock of the end has been delivered. This means that the team without the hammer gets two chances to place an un-removable stone in the FGZ but a team with the hammer only gets one chance to place an un-removable stone in the FGZ. A 3 or 5 rock FGZ allows both teams to place the same number of stones in the FGZ. That seems more equitable.

OK, that's not really the topic of the thread. The topic of the thread seems to be more about teams facing a challenge with the 5FGZ. As I see it, the 5FGZ is a factor in only one situation - the team with the hammer is behind in the game. If you are behind in the game and don't have the hammer, the 4 or 5 FGZ rule works exactly the same for you. If you are ahead in the game, you neutralize the impact of the 5 FGZ rule by not putting your second rock in the FGZ.

So the only possible negative comments can come from those people who argue that just because I build up a lead and don't have the hammer, I should not have to deal with the extra guard that the team that is behind in the game and has the hammer would be able to deploy. Is this a factor? I don't know yet as I have personally never played a game using a 5FGZ rule. I suspect that aggressive teams may use both their free guards when they would have the hammer even in close games but I'm not sure why since most of the scoring happens in the 4-foot area even when corner guards are used.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-03-14 03:40PM
jamcan is offline Click Here to See the Profile for jamcan Click here to Send jamcan a Private Message Find more posts by jamcan Add jamcan to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
jamcan
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340

quote:
Originally posted by Gerry
I don't get why you fight a rule change like this so hard? The way you're making it out to be is a major overhaul of the game (see Free Guard Zone), rather than tweaking an existing rule. At the end of the day, the difference between the 5-rock and 4-rock rule only comes into play in limited situations.


If you want to call it 'tweaking' sure. But lets be honest, its a major tweak designed only to benefit teams that are trailing in the score. And while your stats about winning percentages when scoring three in the first are no doubt accurate, I would venture that rings true for any year prior to the ones you used.

If you give up three in the first end you probably lose. You also probably deserve to.

However, I get what you're trying to do, but you're wrong if you think adding a stone to the FGZ is the solution. There will always be good teams/players that dominate and win. This is true in all sports.

The real problem isn't the number of stones in the FGZ, its not the good teams, it's the way the points are scored and games are decided.

The solution is simple and has actually been in use for over 25 years-but in limited use. It's Skin Scoring.

Throw away the old scoring system. Instead, you give each end a value and the goal isn't to score up to 8 points per end, but to win the end instead and capture that end's value.

For example, make each end in an 8 end game worth 1 point. First team to amass 5 points wins the game. To win an end, you have to steal a point or score two with hammer. Ends can still be blanked either by the team with hammer forced to one, or no rocks score at all.

And if an end is blanked, its point value then carries over to the next end. If the final end is blanked, then an extra end is played. The 4FGZ is still used to allow guards in the early portion of the end.

Now here is where it gets really interesting. Hammer will be divided equally between the teams. A draw to the button prior to the start of the game determines whether you get the hammer on odd or even ends (you could also toss a coin in club play). The evenly alternating hammer pretty much guarantees most games won't end in 5-0, five end games.

Use this rule and suddenly a score of three in the first end has little impact on the outcome because each end is a mini-game of its own. This type of scoring pretty much ensures the type of all out offensive games that you seem to want.

Try this at your next slam, I dare you! LOL.

__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson

Last edited by jamcan on 11-03-14 at 03:55PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-03-14 04:14PM
doubletakeout is offline Click Here to See the Profile for doubletakeout Click here to Send doubletakeout a Private Message Find more posts by doubletakeout Add doubletakeout to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
doubletakeout
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 480

Don't know what you're LOLing about, jamcan. They've basically accepted your dare, with a few differences. The Elite 10 event will use a new "match play" scoring system inspired by match play golf.

http://www.thegrandslamofcurling.co...lite-10-format/

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-03-14 04:18PM
jamcan is offline Click Here to See the Profile for jamcan Click here to Send jamcan a Private Message Find more posts by jamcan Add jamcan to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
jamcan
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340

Not the same as skin scoring DT. No alternating hammer, no carryovers for blanks. But a more interesting experiment than adding another stone to the FGZ.

__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-04-14 12:11PM
scorer79 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for scorer79 Click here to Send scorer79 a Private Message Find more posts by scorer79 Add scorer79 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
scorer79
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Apr 2007
Location:
Posts: 94

If we want to keep rocks in play, why don't we just move the sport to a 100% skins format? That's really the only way to make it more interesting and that requires a complete overhaul of curling as we know it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-04-14 02:04PM
JB42 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for JB42 Click here to Send JB42 a Private Message Find more posts by JB42 Add JB42 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
JB42
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Nov 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 621

The five rock rule certainly tested very well this past weekend. When was the last time we had a four count in a final? Much less a four count followed right back by another four count? I can't imagine it's ever happened in Grand Slam history. Sportnet must have been over the moon. Normally a three, much less a four count is the end of the game and the rest is at best the admiration of the players skill as they run the opposition out of rocks.

Then there was also of course, 'The shot'. Played over and over again on every sports show in Canada I've no doubt.

Another game I noticed. Howard v Epping. Howard scored 2 in the first. Which has meant that, well, Howard wins about 95% of the time. They then stole 1. Up three at this point is even better than up three after 1, and as we know up three after 1 means, well, Howard wins every time. Not with the five rock rule. Being guaranteed the second corner makes a distinct difference to how the end is played. Guaranteeing offence. In this case Epping cracked a three to tie the game and went on to win.

This is all too the good as far as I can see. The game had to be changed to include a FGZ because ice conditions got too good. At the end of those days the coin flip was a fair determinant of who would win when the top teams played. That's just silly. Even a draw to the button would have been little better. Kinda of like the equivalent of Formula 1 on the tracks where passing just about never happens. I.e. He who has the pole postion wins. An outcome F1 has shifted heaven and earth trying to change.

So we went to the 3 rock FGZ to eliminate this absurdity. It worked well for a bit. But ice conditions continued to improve as did the top players. Once again the winner of the draw to the button was statistically shown to be too significant a determinant for the good of the game. So we went to the 4 rock. In retrospect it probably would have made more sense to go to the five at this point. Be that as it may. If this past weekend was any indication the five rock rule is going to be very popular with the players, the fans, and the networks. Meaning, get used to it cause it is here to stay.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-04-14 02:38PM
Itsjustagame is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Itsjustagame Find more posts by Itsjustagame Add Itsjustagame to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Itsjustagame
Hitting Paint

 

Registered: Aug 2014
Location:
Posts: 106

I love the 5RR.

Rocks in play, strategy, exciting shots. Nothing like in the (so said) good old days.

To get to the next level, curling needs TV. And TV needs excitement.

Do you know who was watching? A lot of people who enjoy curling but have never played. Maybe now, unlike when we get the so boring ''peel it off'' show for five consecutive ends, will they consider joining this exciting sport.

Anyone against that?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-04-14 03:57PM
Viich is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Viich Click here to Send Viich a Private Message Find more posts by Viich Add Viich to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Viich
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 36

I don't like the 5 rock rule - just outlaw the tick (FGZ violation if you touch a guard rather than remove it, but still non-offending team's choice to enforce or not) and I think it adds some difficulty to the peel game. Some teams will still manage to make the double peel, but at least the degree of difficulty is up.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-09-14 10:09AM
owlhooter is offline Click Here to See the Profile for owlhooter Click here to Send owlhooter a Private Message Find more posts by owlhooter Add owlhooter to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
owlhooter
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Mar 2012
Location:
Posts: 19

The 4rock rule.

As a guy who played the game without any free guard zone, and won games peeling out, and lost games being peeled out, the 3-rock rule (aka, modified Moncton, Merklinger, etc) was better. When the world switched to the four rock rule, my problem with it is it devalued the hammer to a certain extent.

Here's the scenario. You're down 2 playing 8 of a ten end game. It is skip's last rock, and the other team has one in the rings, wide open. There's a solid debate, either way, that taking one is a good result because you get two free guards. If you blank, you only get one free guard.

This game has always been about taking two with the hammer and forcing one without. It was never meant to be about choosing to take one. When an arbitrary rule creates a scenario where there is a perceived advantage in giving up the hammer to get an extra guard, then the rules are wrong and impact the game.

Ever since the Moncton 100, where offense was put the test and people realized that more rocks in play is both more fun and more interesting, we've been moving towards the 5 rock FGZ. The four rock rule of Moncton, wherein you couldn't hit any of the first four rocks, took the game too far to the offense, but the 4 rock rule takes it not quite far enough. 5 rocks is balanced, generates offense, and even at the club level, will make the game as interesting as it is on perfect ice, with people who don't miss.

Finally, it really doesn't matter. My tuesday night league will not care if you can't hit on the 3rd, 4th or 5th rock as we're not gonna peel out a game anyway. On the competitive end of things, not being able to bash means thinking about rock placement more fully. More rocks in play forces more strategic placement of rocks. That makes better players, but you'll have to trust me on that one.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-09-14 04:21PM
Icebound is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Icebound Click here to Send Icebound a Private Message Find more posts by Icebound Add Icebound to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Icebound
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Mar 2004
Location:
Posts: 39

quote:
Originally posted by scorer79
If we want to keep rocks in play, why don't we just move the sport to a 100% skins format? That's really the only way to make it more interesting and that requires a complete overhaul of curling as we know it.


Skins format is "interesting" only because it is played relatively infrequently, and the participants usually spice it up just because they don't do it every day.

If skins became the "common" format, you would find it no more interesting than regular play, maybe even much less so.

That is because... Gerry can correct me..... because people will soon figure out that something like 70% of hammer ends are scored, but only 30 percent of stealing ends. So if I am playing skins, the strategy is to play open without hammer and force the carryover... blank or 1 by the hammer team. Then when I have hammer, I go like h#ll to get the 2, and win the skin and the carryover.... but only when I have hammer

So in the end, it would look exactly like a regular game.

The match-play idea might be interesting... with Stableford-like scoring, it might be more so.

But even so.... what about an elite-10 unintended consequence that goes like this: Both teams play wide-open cautious for 7 ends so as to be tied going into the final end, and then play to win that final end and hence win the game.

So what you might get is one interesting end per game.

We have to understand that what makes a game "interesting" is not necessarily what makes it "skilled"... so what all of these tweaks are trying to do is bring back an additional element of luck. Unfortunately, "skilled" players will always rise to the occasion, no matter what tweaks we try. And when we finally succeed in tweaking it to the point where it truly IS "interesting"... which is to say: "unpredictable"... well, we have to be careful that at THAT time it will not also become less interesting to PLAY.

One stat which I have NOT seen (maybe I missed it)... is exactly what percentage of ends play were actually PLAYED as 5-rock ends. Actually, the relevant stat would be... what percentage of ends where the hammer team was down (because up, the hammer team wouldn't care, and the non-hammer team is not really affected)...then compare the scores attained to a set of ends where the hammer team was down in FOUR-rock rule situations.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

11-09-14 05:08PM
milobloom is offline Click Here to See the Profile for milobloom Click here to Send milobloom a Private Message Visit milobloom's homepage! Find more posts by milobloom Add milobloom to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
milobloom
Administrator

 

Registered: Mar 2005
Location: St. Albert
Posts: 839

quote:
Originally posted by Icebound

One stat which I have NOT seen (maybe I missed it)... is exactly what percentage of ends play were actually PLAYED as 5-rock ends.



I wrote about 5 rock several times. In CWM (there's also a part 2)
http://curlwithmath.blogspot.ca/201...ing-part-i.html

In my book: End Game: An Olympic Viewer;s Guide to Curling
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IDHV2KY/ref=cm_sw_su_dp

And in the April/May digital edition of The Curling News.

I initially was skeptical but have since decided 5 rock is the better method and should have (as another poster mentioned) been the original solution instead of 4 rock. It can be considered unfair to have a team behind only have a single guard when their opponent is given 2.

I like the idea of a Match Play event. It will be interesting to see how strategy differs when a multiple score of 3 or more is irrelevant.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

All times are GMT. The time now is . Post New Thread   Post A Reply
Page 2 of 2 -- Go to: ««   | 1 | 2 |   Last Thread   Next Thread
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to thisThread

Forum Jump:
Rate This Thread:

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
 

Curling Scores

W: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: W5 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 8:00am CT
Giroux Final
Schapman (7) Watch Live Curling!
Johnson 10  Final
Scheel (9) Watch Live Curling!
Berg Final
Viau (9) Watch Live Curling!
Pekowitz 11  Final
Berg (7) Watch Live Curling!
M: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: M5 -- Wed, Mar 27 -- 7:00pm CT
Fitzgerald Final
Guentzel (10) Watch Live Curling!
Cenzalli Final
Rose (10) Watch Live Curling!
Church Final
Lannoye (10) Watch Live Curling!
Hebert Final
Brenden (9) Watch Live Curling!
M: Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Championship
Fredericton, NB
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF -- Fri, Mar 22 -- 1:00pm AT
Lott/Lott Final
Walk/Muyr (8) Watch Live Curling!
M: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 3:00am ET
Caccivio Final
Brauchli 12  (EE)
Dryburgh Final
Ringgenberg (9)
W: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 9:00am CET
Schwaller Final
Oberson (9)
Blackham Final
von Arx (9)
W: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 11:00am MT
Stroeder Final
Delorey (7)
M: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 1:00pm ET
Delorey Final
Lockhart (EE)
Full Scoreboard  |  Play Fantasy Pick'em!  

Recent News

Recent
Homan Brings Home Gold

Homan Brings Home Gold

Sydney, Canada - In front of a full house with over 4,000 spectators, Canada (photo: Stephen Fisher, World Curling) beat Switzerland by 7-5 to take gold at the BKT Tires World Women's Curling Championship 2024.

Curling Photos

Recent

Curling Blogs

Facebook Feed

Twitter Feed

To top ↑