Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montr�al
Posts: 81

Should you blank the first end in a Grand Slam. Yes because you increase your odds of winning significantly. With everything else being equal you will have last rock on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th ends. So 5 ends with last rock versus only 3 ends for your opponent and last rock on the key 6th and 8th ends. This translates into a huge difference in winning percentage.

According to Gerry�s stats, this season McEwen has a record of 30 wins and only 4 losses with last rock on the 1st end i.e. an 88% winning record. When McEwen doesn�t have last rock on the first end his record is 22 wins and 17 losses for an 56% winning record. It�s mindboggling to see the impact of last rock on the 1st end: 88% versus 56% winning percentage.

It�s a problem when such a talented team sees it�s odds of winning plummet just because of last rock on the first end. How do we correct this? A blank end rule: Last rock, use it or lose it.

With everything else being equal, a blank end rule would often mean last rock on the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th ends for a team and last rock on the 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th end for their opponent. Winning percentages with or without last rock would be closer with the more talented team winning most games anyway.

Some are concerned that with a blank end rule, the team without last rock would always try to force you to one by peeling you to death. It would have happened before the free guard zone in the 1980�s but not today. Leads aren�t allowed to peel and good luck trying to tick a corner guard off without remaining as a corner guard yourself. A blank end rule would often mean corner guards with chances of scoring 2 or more. The team without last rock would probably put up a center guard in an attempt to steal.

Playing conditions have changed dramatically since the rules were first put in place. You didn�t have blank ends playing on a frozen pond with unmatched stones or irons. Blank ends distort our sport. Time to get rid of them.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montr�al
Posts: 81

McEwen's games are usually against other elite teams in major spiels or Slams. hard to find stats against weak teams and those stats wouldn't reflect reality.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 222

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marco2010
Blank ends distort our sport. Time to get rid of them.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 1875

quote:

---

Originally posted by Netz


Could not agree more, the question now is how ?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2009
Location:
Posts: 22

It might make for an interesting change of thinking- with an open house and on skips last throws you would be better off throwing it away, as it will guarantee getting the hammer back. A typical draw with that shot to force a hit and rollout might make the team with the hammer think about giving you 1 to keep the hammer for the next end

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by IN-OFF-FOR-2


What about if the team with hammer does not score, they relinquish hammer. I think this would generate more offense as teams will try much harder to score 2 than to be literally forced to 1. This would have the team without hammer force the issue to make the other team take one and get the hammer back instead of just going through the motions of playing the hit hit hit game.

---

__________________
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

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 6002

i dont think we should get rid of the blank. blanking to have hammer into even ends, like it or not is strategy.you could limit the number of ends teams get to blank. each team can only blank 1 end a game or something.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 261

This has been discussed here before multiple times, and I still don't see how it would create offence. I think it would lead to an even more boring game. If I play the first end without hammer, and I know I get hammer the next end if they blank or score, my first rock goes on the top four. There is zero incentive for me to throw a guard. Now if I have hammer, and the other team throws top four, I'm hitting it. If I don't hit it, and throw the corner, the team without hammer will guard. At that point I am chasing, and the other team has a rock on the 4 foot, while controlling the front of the house with their rock.

Let's suppose I throw a corner with my first one. The other team throws the centre guard. With hammer, I can either freeze to the top four, or I can draw around the corner. If I draw around the corner, the other team throws a freeze, another guard, or peels the corner (depending on FGZ). None of these help me with hammer to get two. For all of these reasons and scenarios, I hit the one on the top four with my first rock, and roll to the side. We exchange hits all end, and I hope to hit and stay with my last one, knowing I give up the hammer with a blank.

The good news is game would be over in about 75 minutes. It's one draw and 15 hits per end. You might see some offence in the last end, but many games will go to an extra. That's not something anyone wants to watch. You saw how boring the first ends were in this year's Scotties. Imagine an entire bonspiel of that.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2011
Location:
Posts: 1962

If you cannot get TSN2 streaming, try this site.
http://cricfree.sx/tsn-2-live-stream

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 1875

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerry


Am curious why you think the team without hammer would choose to play aggressive when the hit hit hit game would suffice since the team with hammer would lose it if they blanked the end?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montr�al
Posts: 81

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerry


Am curious why you think the team without hammer would choose to play aggressive when the hit hit hit game would suffice since the team with hammer would lose it if they blanked the end?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 272

There are two kinds of blanks.

1. The Interesting Blank. This one involves runbacks, rolls, doubles, triples, strategy, shotmaking, bailing out, etc.

2. The Clich�ed First End Blank. First rock in the house. 14 hits and sticks. One hit and roll out. Bank time, work out the nerves, read the ice, etc.

Blank number 1 is not a problem for the televised game.

Blank number 2 is, in my opinion. I certainly make no effort to watch the first end of any televised game.

I don't have a good solution.

Perhaps a special rule for the first rock of the game only. It may not be removed from play.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 272

Welcome to the showcase women's game of the year, in which the first 8 minutes is completely unwatchable!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 459

quote:

---

Originally posted by ngm
Welcome to the showcase women's game of the year, in which the first 8 minutes is completely unwatchable!

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2015
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 50

I don't see how you use a blank end rule to force offence. Previous posters have already explained better than I can how that won't work all that well. The 4 rock FGZ doesn't stimulate enough offence for you? I guess the next move is to the 5 rock FGZ, which I don't really care for. I have barely noticed the 5 rock FGZ in the Grand Slams and I was watching closely for a change. I don't think it made much of a difference really, there are still blank ends due in part to the skill of the players (double peels and runbacks). I would say the majority of blanks that occur outside of the first end were fairly exciting to watch. Why do people want to change the rules all the time? Why does the game have to be more "exciting"? Nobody is changing the rules to golf to make it more "exciting" are they? Keep messing around with the rules of game play and your going to end up with a confusing mess.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by propane_cooker
I don't see how you use a blank end rule to force offence. Previous posters have already explained better than I can how that won't work all that well. The 4 rock FGZ doesn't stimulate enough offence for you? I guess the next move is to the 5 rock FGZ, which I don't really care for. I have barely noticed the 5 rock FGZ in the Grand Slams and I was watching closely for a change. I don't think it made much of a difference really, there are still blank ends due in part to the skill of the players (double peels and runbacks). I would say the majority of blanks that occur outside of the first end were fairly exciting to watch. Why do people want to change the rules all the time? Why does the game have to be more "exciting"? Nobody is changing the rules to golf to make it more "exciting" are they? Keep messing around with the rules of game play and your going to end up with a confusing mess.

---

__________________
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

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 272

quote:

---

Originally posted by FollowingAlong
Let's find out when you last played a game for a national championship? It's so easy to criticize the style of play when you're not involved in the game.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 261

quote:

---

Originally posted by propane_cooker
I don't see how you use a blank end rule to force offence. Previous posters have already explained better than I can how that won't work all that well. The 4 rock FGZ doesn't stimulate enough offence for you? I guess the next move is to the 5 rock FGZ, which I don't really care for. I have barely noticed the 5 rock FGZ in the Grand Slams and I was watching closely for a change. I don't think it made much of a difference really, there are still blank ends due in part to the skill of the players (double peels and runbacks). I would say the majority of blanks that occur outside of the first end were fairly exciting to watch. Why do people want to change the rules all the time? Why does the game have to be more "exciting"? Nobody is changing the rules to golf to make it more "exciting" are they? Keep messing around with the rules of game play and your going to end up with a confusing mess.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064

quote:

---

Originally posted by ngm
Welcome to the showcase women's game of the year, in which the first 8 minutes is completely unwatchable!

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montr�al
Posts: 81

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squiggsy


The biggest thing the 5 rock FGZ rule gives you is 2 corners. The 4 rock FGZ isn't much different than the 3 rock. Let's suppose you are down, and have hammer. The opposing team throws their first one through (or top 4), and you put up one corner. The other team does one of a few things, and then you throw the other corner. If this were a 3 rock FGZ, those things would have all happened the same as it does in the current 4 rock FGZ. Hammer still wants 2 corners, and not hammer can't hit them yet.

The big difference in the 5 rock is what happens now. A good peeling team will just start ripping the guards, and make it very difficult for the hammer to get more than two in the 4 rock FGZ. In the 5 rock, those corners have to stay there (or be ticked). Ticking can create some problems, as the shooter likely stays in play. This creates options for both teams. Does the non hammer team go aggressive and play the guard? Do they dare throw three in a row through the house? Do they block the come around by going top 12? All of these should give the team with hammer the opportunity for a big end, not just in the last end, but in every end. There is also the risk that the team without hammer might set it up too well, and there is a steal.

In my opinion, I think curling should go to the 5 rock FGZ rule. I also think everyone should follow the WCF sweeping rules, where there must be a side to side motion. I'm all for using hair brooms and IcePads, but I'd rather sweepers weren't behind the rock.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 407

quote:

---

Originally posted by ngm
Welcome to the showcase women's game of the year, in which the first 8 minutes is completely unwatchable!

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montr�al
Posts: 81

quote:

---

Originally posted by Par


If you start the game with the hammer and you blank the first end, you have the advantage of last rock on an even end. This is a well known tactic. The STOH final was only the most recent example.

And therefore, in my view, if you start the game without the hammer, you should know that your opponent will want to blank the first end. And your strategy should be tailored to prevent that from happening. Or at the very least, you shouldn't give them an easy opportunity to do that.

And therefore NO's decision to bring their first stone of the game into the rings has to be seen as a blunder. The first 8 minutes were what they were because Krista McCarville made a poor decision, and Chelsey Carey jumped all over it.

This is not a problem that needs a new rule to fix it. But I do wish that certain skips would smarten up about it.

And that's just my opinion, but you are welcome to share it.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Quesnel
Posts: 420

If it is that simple to blank the first end why wouldn't the other team simply blank the third end to get back on track after they hold the hammer team to one in the second. There is far too much emphasis on the even ends. Score when you can. I am pretty sure if Gerry does an analysis there will be few games where the hammer progresses alternatively with singels being scored or consistent deuces. Teams are just using the first end to settle nerves. The good men's teams are going for it from the start. If you think you are the better team (and most do) why limit the game to 9 ends?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montr�al
Posts: 81

Kevin Martin and Russ Howard often mention the importance of even ends. C. Carey blanked the first end and had last rock in the 8th and 10th ends of the Scotties final.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged