Forums Menu

User: 
Pass:  

Curling Scores

M: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: M7 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 8:00pm CT
Lannoye Final
Hebert (10) Watch Live Curling!
Fitzgerald 10th
Cenzalli  Watch Live Curling!
Brenden Final
Church (9) Watch Live Curling!
Guentzel Final
Rose (6) Watch Live Curling!
W: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: W6 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 4:00pm CT
Berg Final
Scheel (10) Watch Live Curling!
Berg Final
Schapman (10) Watch Live Curling!
Giroux 10  Final
Pekowitz (9) Watch Live Curling!
Viau Final
Johnson (10) 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!  

CurlingZone : Powered by vBulletin>
<smallfont><b><a href=CurlingZone > Chat Forums > General Curling Chat > Rock Talk > Continuing evidence for the Five Rock Rule

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 1 of 3 -- Go to: | 1 | 2 | 3 | »»   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   Post A Reply
12-07-14 08:37PM
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

Continuing evidence for the Five Rock Rule

The Howard McEwen game was about as perfect a game as you can get in our game. With the four rock rule that meant a game that featured relatively few rocks in play and a whole lot of blanks. It was kind like watching the titanic battles between Karpov and Kasporov. I.e. really close games with not a lot of action.

The final with McEwen and Jacobs is yet another bit of evidence in favour of the five rock rule.

There is just no chance to make it close when you are down a mittfull and you only get one guard with the hammer.

Which means this game was after two ends. Not exactly what the TV people are looking for.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-07-14 09:47PM
ngm is offline Click Here to See the Profile for ngm Click here to Send ngm a Private Message Find more posts by ngm Add ngm to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
ngm
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 272

I think a big change should be based on recurrent problems, and not just a thing that happened in one game.

There are blanks that happen because teams bail out with triples, which I think are still entertaining, as opposed to blanks that happen because the first rock goes in the house and they decide on 15 hits.

I'm a bigger believer in 5 rock rule for 8 end games. In 10 ends there is simply more time to come back.

But not if you go down 5-0 after two, and I don't think rule changes should be based on that.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-07-14 10:50PM
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

I guess you have not noticed that my commentary is based on a continuing analysis of the games, the seasons, the trending of the game itself. And very much NOT based on any particular game.

If you'd like the technology of this site allows you to round your knowledge as to my contributions. Not saying you have to. Just saying you can.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-08-14 12:34AM
dbsdbs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dbsdbs Click here to Send dbsdbs a Private Message Find more posts by dbsdbs Add dbsdbs to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dbsdbs
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

I could not agree more that it is time for change. As an older curling fan, I remember marvelling at the shot-making in the '01 Olympic Trials in Regina -- it was the first championship event I attended where the 4-rock rule was in effect and the rules impact no the game was obvious. When I went to the '05 Trials in Halifax, the shot-making we still wonderful but the shots were getting easier as the teams had clearly adjusted to the 4-rock rule. The '13 Trials in Winnipeg again featured great shot making but watching those games was more and more like watching pre-free guard zone curling. The Canada Cup this week was much the same. The ice and rocks are almost too good and with the skill of the players the exciting ends initially generated under the 4-rock rule have all but disappeared. The game with the 4-rock rule has evolved to where more change is needed -- and this is clearly the result of "recurring problems" and not just a reaction to one game. TV and event ticket sales demand that the audience be entertained and the 4-rock rule makes it harder to do that.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-08-14 01:34AM
Curlingnut is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Curlingnut Click here to Send Curlingnut a Private Message Find more posts by Curlingnut Add Curlingnut to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Curlingnut
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Alberta
Posts: 19

instad of changing the rules change the equipment, if the rocks where not as lively they would take away a great deal of the big triples and doubles. Flatten the striking bands and see what happens, with that change a rock could be truly frozen and a the big run back isn't such a deadly weapon!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-08-14 07:45PM
dbsdbs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dbsdbs Click here to Send dbsdbs a Private Message Find more posts by dbsdbs Add dbsdbs to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dbsdbs
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

Not a bad idea curlingnut. Perfect ice, lively rocks and incredibly fast houses make possible shots that nobody could make back in their curling clubs.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-08-14 08:02PM
5thstone is offline Click Here to See the Profile for 5thstone Find more posts by 5thstone Add 5thstone to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
5thstone
Hitting Paint

 

Registered: Dec 2013
Location: Southern Manitoba
Posts: 154

Losing hammer for blanking ends like the skin games might do wonders! You may still see blank ends but skips will pick moments when to purposely give up hammer.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-08-14 08:08PM
VAcurler is offline Click Here to See the Profile for VAcurler Click here to Send VAcurler a Private Message Find more posts by VAcurler Add VAcurler to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
VAcurler
Hitting Paint

 

Registered: Jan 2012
Location:
Posts: 136

A skip would never intentionally blank an end to give up the hammer when they could draw for one instead.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-08-14 08:35PM
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Shawzy
Guest

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:
Originally posted by 5thstone
Losing hammer for blanking ends like the skin games might do wonders! You may still see blank ends but skips will pick moments when to purposely give up hammer.


I really don't think there's a rules problem as much as there is a player attitude problem at the moment, but the above would be an interesting change in my book, regardless of the Free Guard rules in play. The drawback that I see though is that the team without hammer would want to keep less rocks in play because then they would either force the hammer team to one or get a blank and the hammer back, which wouldn't be very interesting either.

Watching the Canada Cup I was struck by the amount of blanks, especially on the Men's side. I've seen plenty of Women's games (usually at the levels below the national Scotties) with four or five blank ends but never in a Men's spiel. Teams have just become too afraid to keep rocks in play lest someone miss a shot and give up 3 or 4.

I get the argument that better ice and better players means less chance of misses, but that works both ways and to me that means that one should be more confident of making all your shots, no matter how difficult, and not just being afraid that if you miss you'll be chased out of the building. If I'm confident of the ice I'm more likely to be willing to throw the triple-angle-raise double takeout. And if I'm more confident of making that shot I'm more likely to keep more rocks in play.

That being said, I know there were some "interesting" ice conditions at the Canada Cup this week. That could be a possible explanation for the cautious play, so I'd be interested to see some of the games between top teams/playoffs at the Brier before firmly saying that something is broken.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 70.64.95.5

12-08-14 09:38PM
ngm is offline Click Here to See the Profile for ngm Click here to Send ngm a Private Message Find more posts by ngm Add ngm to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
ngm
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 272

quote:
Originally posted by JB42
I guess you have not noticed that my commentary is based on a continuing analysis of the games, the seasons, the trending of the game itself. And very much NOT based on any particular game.

If you'd like the technology of this site allows you to round your knowledge as to my contributions. Not saying you have to. Just saying you can.



You could use the technology of this site to determine that I am not, in fact, a complete moron, and respond to the points I made on a substantive basis.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-09-14 11:19AM
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

In four rock rule games the statistical difference for comebacks between 10 and 8 end games when one team gets up by two are so small as to make no difference to the viewing experience of the game.

There is not enough data from the five rock rule games to draw substantive conclusions. But on first view at least there was a significant difference in the strategies employed during the two Grand Slams and the Canada Cup. The upshot of that difference being that there more rocks in play. More successful comebacks. More 3 and four enders scored. Less blank ends. Not to mention 'The Shot' by McEwen against Gushue.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-09-14 04:43PM
Jimbobogie is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Jimbobogie Click here to Send Jimbobogie a Private Message Find more posts by Jimbobogie Add Jimbobogie to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Jimbobogie
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2014
Location:
Posts: 538

I have to say that I'm extremely impressed with the way in which rinks have adapted to, first the 3, then the 4 rock rule. The "Chip" shot is now a required element in every lead's (and soon to be every second's) arsenal.

But picture 10 rocks in front of the house-wouldn't we simply be looking at seconds and vices throwing double or triple hits in order to open the house?

Just looking at worst-case-scenario...

__________________
Jim

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-12-14 08:59AM
lolar3288 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for lolar3288 Click here to Send lolar3288 a Private Message Find more posts by lolar3288 Add lolar3288 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
lolar3288
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Burlington
Posts: 638

Didn't we have this same discussion pre-free guard zone?

What about just alternating the hammer like skins so blanking is no longer an advantage?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-12-14 12:20PM
Curlingnut is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Curlingnut Click here to Send Curlingnut a Private Message Find more posts by Curlingnut Add Curlingnut to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Curlingnut
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Alberta
Posts: 19

I would also say this will further complicate the game for the new fan or beginner. Yes the super teams will figure it out but the borderline fan will not understand and it will further confuse and alienate them. I think it all comes back to KISS, keep it simple stupid!
The more we watch the men playing this the less they seem to want to put more rocks in play and they just peel everything. I don't see an advantage to this.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-12-14 01:30PM
curler2014 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for curler2014 Click here to Send curler2014 a Private Message Find more posts by curler2014 Add curler2014 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
curler2014
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Dec 2014
Location:
Posts: 56

I like the idea of blanking means losing the hammer. I would prefer that rule change before making it the 5 rock rule. Five rock rule has caused some huge scores posted for teams who are trailing which is almost unfair if you get a lead and are trying to keep it. In my eyes, if you get down 5-0, you have no business winning the game.

The rocks and ice need to stay at the quality they have come to expect because this allows our top level curlers to predictably make some fantastic shots which makes it enjoyable for everyone to watch. The top level curlers can hit the broom most times to within fractions of a centimeter and throw the correct weight to within hundreds of a second backline to hog and they should be rewarded with the rock doing what it should do. Missing a shot should happen because you didn't hit the broom and/or threw incorrect weight - not because the ice or rocks are bad.

By giving up hammer on a blank, you will see more aggressive style of play, without compromising shot making ability.

Last edited by curler2014 on 12-12-14 at 01:33PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-12-14 03:47PM
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Shawzy
Guest

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:
Originally posted by curler2014
I like the idea of blanking means losing the hammer. I would prefer that rule change before making it the 5 rock rule. Five rock rule has caused some huge scores posted for teams who are trailing which is almost unfair if you get a lead and are trying to keep it. In my eyes, if you get down 5-0, you have no business winning the game.

The rocks and ice need to stay at the quality they have come to expect because this allows our top level curlers to predictably make some fantastic shots which makes it enjoyable for everyone to watch. The top level curlers can hit the broom most times to within fractions of a centimeter and throw the correct weight to within hundreds of a second backline to hog and they should be rewarded with the rock doing what it should do. Missing a shot should happen because you didn't hit the broom and/or threw incorrect weight - not because the ice or rocks are bad.

By giving up hammer on a blank, you will see more aggressive style of play, without compromising shot making ability.



I would actually disagree that losing the hammer on a blank would mean more rocks in play, it would just mean that the team with more motivation to keep the end clean would be the team without hammer. In this situation, the only real acceptable result for the team with hammer is getting two points - one is a wash and a blank is a loss. So, if I'm the team without the hammer I would want to keep as few rocks in play as possible to force either a blank or a score of 1 for the hammer-holders. Even better though is to have the opposition skip looking at a completely empty house and having to choose between taking the single or blanking, both of which are less than ideal.

Right now the blank is a circumstantial strategy used when the team with the hammer doesn't see a way to get multiple points (also for scoreboard management purposes to try to get the hammer in even ends but no team will pass up a 3-ender if given the shot). Therefore, most ends will be played to score points first and a blank only comes into play when things go wrong. By changing the rules as suggested you make a blank the most logical strategy for one of the teams for every end, regardless of score or situation.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 70.64.82.15

12-13-14 10:54AM
lolar3288 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for lolar3288 Click here to Send lolar3288 a Private Message Find more posts by lolar3288 Add lolar3288 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
lolar3288
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Burlington
Posts: 638

quote:
Originally posted by Shawzy


I would actually disagree that losing the hammer on a blank would mean more rocks in play, it would just mean that the team with more motivation to keep the end clean would be the team without hammer. In this situation, the only real acceptable result for the team with hammer is getting two points - one is a wash and a blank is a loss. So, if I'm the team without the hammer I would want to keep as few rocks in play as possible to force either a blank or a score of 1 for the hammer-holders. Even better though is to have the opposition skip looking at a completely empty house and having to choose between taking the single or blanking, both of which are less than ideal.

Right now the blank is a circumstantial strategy used when the team with the hammer doesn't see a way to get multiple points (also for scoreboard management purposes to try to get the hammer in even ends but no team will pass up a 3-ender if given the shot). Therefore, most ends will be played to score points first and a blank only comes into play when things go wrong. By changing the rules as suggested you make a blank the most logical strategy for one of the teams for every end, regardless of score or situation.



Very good points but scoring multiple points requires a miss, or part shot in most cases. I guess it depends how much advantage you want to give the hammer. If you know you are not going to have the hammer in the last end right from the start, would that make you more aggressive in the early game?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-13-14 11:18AM
5thstone is offline Click Here to See the Profile for 5thstone Find more posts by 5thstone Add 5thstone to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
5thstone
Hitting Paint

 

Registered: Dec 2013
Location: Southern Manitoba
Posts: 154

quote:
Originally posted by curler2014
I like the idea of blanking means losing the hammer. I would prefer that rule change before making it the 5 rock rule. Five rock rule has caused some huge scores posted for teams who are trailing which is almost unfair if you get a lead and are trying to keep it. In my eyes, if you get down 5-0, you have no business winning the game.

The rocks and ice need to stay at the quality they have come to expect because this allows our top level curlers to predictably make some fantastic shots which makes it enjoyable for everyone to watch. The top level curlers can hit the broom most times to within fractions of a centimeter and throw the correct weight to within hundreds of a second backline to hog and they should be rewarded with the rock doing what it should do. Missing a shot should happen because you didn't hit the broom and/or threw incorrect weight - not because the ice or rocks are bad.

By giving up hammer on a blank, you will see more aggressive style of play, without compromising shot making ability.



"....You have no business of winning when you are behind 5-0" Other sports don't have the option of shaking hands and say "I had enough. Game Over" eg. being behind 4-0 nothing at the end of the 1st period in hockey, 6-0 end of the 1st inning in baseball, 21-0 end of 1st quarter in football. Occasionally in other sports, you do see some shockers when an opponent is all but beat but ends up winning ugly. I would prefer seeing losing hammer if you blank an end versus having the 5 rock rule 1st. Atleast we have a good handle of what the former looks like with the TSN Skin Games. At the same time in curling, with the 4 rock rule, if a team is down by 4 in the early ends in an 8 end game, its pretty much game over.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-13-14 05:55PM
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 JB42
I guess you have not noticed that my commentary is based on a continuing analysis of the games, the seasons, the trending of the game itself. And very much NOT based on any particular game.

If you'd like the technology of this site allows you to round your knowledge as to my contributions. Not saying you have to. Just saying you can.



How far back has your analysis gone? In another thread on the same topic, I challenged Gerry to compare historical data to his current stats on win/loss when down three or more after the first ends.

The problem I see with your, and Gerry's, summations is that you are making them on limited information and not realizing that this is a historical trend that dates far back in competitive play.

If you're going to try and justify the 5 rock rule because teams struggle to come back after early deficits, then lets do a proper analysis. One that dates back to what I consider the current, or modern if your wish, era of the game.

That era has to be considered when the brush began to dominate the sport, say circa 1980 forward to the present.

Why the brush? Simple. Prior to then, the corn broom was king. Corn left debris, making rocks swing-somewhat predictably-and keeping ice slow. With the mass adoption of the brush, suddenly ice was quicker but also straighter.

As a result, scores went down, the hitting game dominated, teams could score two early and protect that lead, for the most part, an entire 10 ends-but not always. A score of three, however, was almost always a death sentence.

The 3 rock rule was brought in to force a more aggressive style, put rocks in play and give teams a chance to come back. In the meantime, ice making techniques and rock tweaking became an art and swing returned to the game.

But, just as before, good teams learned how to preserve leads with the 3 rock rule. So we adopted the 4 rock rule. Now, good teams have done it again and can, usually, defend a 3 or more lead.

Gerry, in the other thread, defended the 5 rock rule because-in his words: 'Ice and rocks were so good' Oddly, the 3 rock rule was put in place because ice and rocks were the opposite.

Things still come down to the same starting point. Give up a big end early and you are likely-probably deservedly-to lose. The stats, I am confident to say, will bear this out.

So what really is the issue here?

Earlier, I mentioned my challenge to Gerry, one which he has not responded to. The reasons, I suspect, are that he knows the true answer-as I do-and prefers to put the blame on something other than the reality.

The answer? Good teams dominate and the blank end is a legitimate part of strategy. Its that simple. It's not ice, its not rocks, its not the rules of play. Look back at the data over the past 45 years to 1980. Teams up early tend to win-regardless of the rule in play. I will admit that with the 4 rock rule you have a better chance to comeback than then, but the stats still overwhelmingly will favor a team scoring 3 or more in the first end.

In any sport, good teams or players will dominate. That's just how it is. They adapt to the conditions and the rules and simply play better than other teams. Now there is an argument that the current WCT/CCA setup creates an uneven playing field that allows fewer good teams to develop. But that's a topic for an entire separate discussion.

So do you penalize teams for being good? For superior play than their opponents? Not allow them to protect/defend their lead? What other team sport has a rule that specific?

If you're opponent is defending their 3 point lead the following end and you can't generate a deuce due to their fine shotmaking, should you be forced to take a single point? Instead of using a legitimate strategy to wait an end to try and get a mistake-since there is no predicting that any team, good or bad, will continue to play flawlessly? There's no logic in that.

Bottom line is the 5 rock rule will only, at best, temporarily improve things while the dominate teams adapt. And then in 5 years, someone will be hollering for a 6 rock rule.

We need to stop looking at the rule and instead focus on the other issues-which are many IMO-for the uneven playing field we've created in competitive play. Work on those, develop more quantity in good teams than less and you'll see tighter, more dramatic games.

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

Last edited by jamcan on 12-13-14 at 06:29PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-14-14 11:29AM
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 jamcan


How far back has your analysis gone? In another thread on the same topic, I challenged Gerry to compare historical data to his current stats on win/loss when down three or more after the first ends.

The problem I see with your, and Gerry's, summations is that you are making them on limited information and not realizing that this is a historical trend that dates far back in competitive play.

If you're going to try and justify the 5 rock rule because teams struggle to come back after early deficits, then lets do a proper analysis. One that dates back to what I consider the current, or modern if your wish, era of the game.



Love the long response and details to support your position, which I think is: you can't justify the 5 rock rule because teams struggle to come back. You may be right, we don't have all the data yet. We only have large data pools for 4 rock.

Let me begin by stating that I was skeptical of 5 rock when it was first introduced. But I became a very quick convert.

1. From 2003 to Dec 2013 (from start of 4 rock rule) WIn Expectancy (WE) of teams 3 down: 9 ends remain = 13.6% and 7 ends remain 14.6%.

2. WE teams down 2: 9 ends remain = 26.6% and 7 ends remain = 25.9%

3. Baseball: WE when 3 down after 1st inning = Visitor 18% Home 26%
2 down after first inning = Visitor 26% Home 34.5%. Compared to the competitive nature of baseball, curling teams are at a greater disadvantage and a fan should be more apt to change the channel.

4. We don't have enough 5 rock FGZ stats yet and it will be some time before we do. We simply don't know if teams behind early will have a higher WE (we expect they will) or if it will be same or less (because teams take more chances which backfire and more games result in team ahead still winning as often).

5. Is it fair that one team gets 2 free guards and the other gets 1? Invaribly, with 4 rock FGZ the team that starts without hammer will usually surrender 1 or 2 points and then gets 1 less free guard than they had when tied, and they are trying to come back.

6. Games are more entertaining. You can argue "fairness" all you want, but 5 rock FGZ forces me as a fan to still watch (and not change the channel) even when a team gets behind 2 or 3 points. Even for the best teams to win when ahead, they need to make better and more entertaining shots than if they only faced 1 free guard.

7. I've written at length how a 5th free guard is only used in a few ends each game, so it's not even noticeable to the average viewer. But it's existence challenges teams to adjust to a different style of play and one that is, in my mind, more entertaining to watch.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-14-14 11:38AM
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 jamcan

Bottom line is the 5 rock rule will only, at best, temporarily improve things while the dominate teams adapt. And then in 5 years, someone will be hollering for a 6 rock rule.



Better teams will always, in general, beat weaker teams. That's not the argument here (at least I hope it's not). It should be about entertainment and keeping fans interested while a game is being played. 5 rock creates an entertaining contest and I doubt any more free guards will be needed. If the tick shot becomes so proficient as to make a tied game in the last end essentially over (say WE of 95%) then we won't need more guards, but perhaps a different rule (like no ticks).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-14-14 11:42AM
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 Curlingnut
instad of changing the rules change the equipment, if the rocks where not as lively they would take away a great deal of the big triples and doubles. Flatten the striking bands and see what happens, with that change a rock could be truly frozen and a the big run back isn't such a deadly weapon!


Never going to happen. The average and new fan wants to see big hits and lots of wild shots. The crack-crack-crack won't be replaced by a thud-tap.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-14-14 11:46AM
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

Let me add an example of entertainment value:

In the Canada Cup final mentioned above, after the first end I watched it on a fast forward setting on my PVR and gave up after a few ends. The McEwen Gushue final from the Grand Slam (can't even remember which one), they were 4 down late and I watched that end in regular speed (only FF between shots occasionally). So what that tells you is I didn't watch any TV commercials and no goods or services will be purchased because of me watching Sportsnet (sorry sponsors)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-14-14 12:32PM
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

I love curling, but gee whiz can curling fans be annoying.

"Curlers are too good now! The Olympics have destroyed everything! Dull the rocks so people can't make breathtaking, viral-ready shots anymore! Curling should be a charity case instead of a meritocracy! The modern era of curling began in 1980 when the brush was introduced - I should know, because I still use the same one I bought then! I hope the Slams get cancelled, those mean ol' subsidized curlers at the top should have to play my local bonspiel against me instead like they used to. Ban the tick shot! Go back to the 4-rock rule! The top curlers are actually really bad because, HA i'd like to see them try to make those shots on club ice! More and more teams are realizing that they don't have what it takes to compete at the highest level of the sport and are therefore not entering provincial playdowns - this is a bad thing! Canada should not invest in our top curlers, make them work like they used to! We used to win gold medals all the time before they started funding our athletes, the fact that every other country funds their top teams doesn't matter because we've always been the best!"

I'm sure these are the same people who refuse to invest in proper equipment, are still hauling around that hog hair brush from 1987, and think the prices to take in a Slam event or a Brier are too ridiculous but will happily plunk down many times more cash to go to an NHL game.

Here's the truth: today's curlers are MILES ahead of players from any previous generation. Better equipment, better training, better ice has led to the game being played at a higher level than ever before, and at a much greater consistency, and with far more entertainment value. Go watch that 1985 Brier final on curlingtv.ca and listen to the commentators - forcing the opposing skip to draw the 4-foot was considered a difficult situation instead of the automatic it should be nowadays. And this is no disrespect to the greats of the past - I have a tremendous passion for curling history and admiration for so many of the great athletes that have helped set up the steps to where we are today. But even go watch the Ferbey-Dacey Brier final. Or the Ferbey-Morris Brier final. That's just over a decade ago, and the game is way stronger now. Sandra Schmirler's team at their peak was just playing a different game than Jones and Homan are capable of now.

The Olympics have brought the game greater exposure and opened up a highly competitive, INTERNATIONAL field. World Championships are not guarantees any more. It'll be awfully special when Canada wins its next Women's world title.

The Slams, the Olympics, the relegation round at the national championships, the introduction of thinking time, the inevitable introduction of the 5-rock rule by the CCA and WCF.... these will all be seen as incredibly positive steps in the right direction to help the sport reach a greater level of professionalism and entertainment. What's amazing is, as great as our players are now, *it's all going to get even better*.

So carry on whining about the rule changes and the fact that your club team can no longer qualify for provincials, if you like. OR go out and enjoy playing at your club, support live curling in your community when the events come to your town, and enjoy the greatest access and highest level that curling's ever had.

Sorry for the rant. I'm just sick of reading the same arguments against progress and positive change over and over in every single thread. I'll see myself out.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-14-14 12:43PM
Marco2010 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Marco2010 Click here to Send Marco2010 a Private Message Find more posts by Marco2010 Add Marco2010 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Marco2010
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 81

Like many curling fans I've started fast forwarding games on my PVR. The players are getting better at the tick shot and it's a question of time before the tick shot makes the games predictable and boring like peels used to do before the 3-4-5 rock rules. We need guards in play to make it interesting and to give teams a chance of coming back from a bad end. Why not simply have a TWO GUARD RULE i.e. the first two rocks of the end have to be guards on the four foot. Both leads have to put up a guard on the four foot with their first stone. In addition to that I support the idea of a blank end rule: USE IT OR LOSE IT.Imagine a football team being allowed to keep the ball until they scored or a baseball team staying at bat until they scored. There's the shot clock in basquetball.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

All times are GMT. The time now is . Post New Thread   Post A Reply
Page 1 of 3 -- Go to: | 1 | 2 | 3 | »»   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

M: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: M7 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 8:00pm CT
Lannoye Final
Hebert (10) Watch Live Curling!
Fitzgerald 10th
Cenzalli  Watch Live Curling!
Brenden Final
Church (9) Watch Live Curling!
Guentzel Final
Rose (6) Watch Live Curling!
W: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: W6 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 4:00pm CT
Berg Final
Scheel (10) Watch Live Curling!
Berg Final
Schapman (10) Watch Live Curling!
Giroux 10  Final
Pekowitz (9) Watch Live Curling!
Viau Final
Johnson (10) 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 ↑