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.
12-10-14 10:56AM |
|
YTQ
Knee-Slider
Registered: Apr 2011
Location:
Posts: 1 |
The Tick Shot
I read in Joe Pavia's article that the CCA is possibly looking at limiting this shot to only be allowed in the 8 foot?
Can someone explain how this is a good idea?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
12-10-14 02:14PM |
|
Viich
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 36 |
Can you provide a link? I'm not sure exactly what you mean in describing that proposal, might if I read the article.
I personally think end the tick shot completely rather than go to 5 rock rule.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
12-10-14 02:22PM |
|
WrongHandle
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 66 |
As a curling fan, I now despise the tick shot. It is too easy for teams on the great ice. The Howard-McEwen semi at Canada Cup is perfect example of ruining a good match with the tick shot. I felt cheated out of watching a great final end because two ticks were made.
One idea is to not allow any rock in the free guard zone to be touched at all by an opposing rock. If it is touched but not removed from play it can be placed back where it was and the shooter also remains where it is. If the guard is removed from play then the traditional rule is followed.
Another method is to have lines 1 foot (like a free guard box) on either side of the centre line and if a guard is in this area, then it cannot be touched or it is replaced.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
12-10-14 02:25PM |
|
Shawzy
Guest
Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A |
The tick shot really isn't a problem at all. Not many players can throw it consistently and you rarely see it in a tight game (the risks of missing are too high). Not to mention the silliness of banning a particular kind of shot. Will they ban the runback next so teams can't make buried rocks disappear?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: 70.64.79.130
|
|
12-10-14 02:38PM |
|
ngm
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 272 |
It isn't really clear what is meant by "only allowed in the eight foot" but I think it means a limit on where a "ticked" shot might end up. Currently it can go anywhere as long as it is still in play. Perhaps it could be limited to "not outside the eight foot line".
Such a change would have pros and cons.
On the pro side, top teams playing on consistently pristine ice conditions with lots of curl have made the tick shot much more routine than it used to be, tipping the already significant advantage of last rock a little too far.
Also on the pro side, it could be a change that could make pro games more interesting in a certain way while having almost no effect on amateur curlers who rarely attempt the shot anyway.
On the con side, the tick shot still requires skill, so it could be argued that restricting it punishes skill. Defence is also entertaining, and it is enjoyable to watch good defensive shots as well. This is an argument that could be used against all FGZ changes over the past 25 years, and obviously it is not always a winning argument since nobody now thinks the 4 rock rule is a bad idea even though it punishes the skill of peeling guards. It's just that that skill is not so impressive anymore. (Rewatch the 1985 Brier final on the CCA website to see how bad they were at peeling back then!) The day might come when the tick shot isn't all that impressive either. I'm not convinced it is, unless there is data to the contrary.
Also on the con side it would require additional lines on the ice.
On balance I would not currently be in favour of such a change. There are still stolen ends late in games at the high level, so I don't think there is a problem serious enough that it needs solving. I don't mind if they experiment with it to see how it goes.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
12-10-14 03:15PM |
|
Viich
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 36 |
quote: Originally posted by ngm
.......On balance I would not currently be in favour of such a change. There are still stolen ends late in games at the high level, so I don't think there is a problem serious enough that it needs solving. I don't mind if they experiment with it to see how it goes.
I think removing the tick shot (which other than Homan's team is rarely played) is a smaller difference than going to the 5 rock rule, to a similar effect in late ends. It doesn't help the multiple score, it more helps the steal, but that can't help but reduce blank ends in the 9th (or 7th) with teams trying to take 2 in the last. Take your risks, take one assuming that stealing in 10 (or 8) is as easy as taking 2.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
12-10-14 04:40PM |
|
decade
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Jan 2011
Location:
Posts: 1962 |
This is copied from the Ottawa Sun
WEAGLE HAS LANDED
Homan’s lead, Lisa Weagle, is a master of the tick shot. It’s even called the Weagle. There are some however who may want to limit its use. Curling Zone guru Gerry Geurts, who does some stats work for the CCA and USA curling folks, told the Sun he and the CCA’s Danny Lamoureux have conjectured about limiting its scope. “Definitely don’t want to take the shot out of the game as it’s a skill shot, but maybe changing the area you can clear the shots.” Geurts is proposing only allowing ticks in the 8 foot. He continued, “it would still allow the tick to be played but make it more difficult and also stones in the 8 foot are still usable to the team trying to steal.”
End copy
Sounds like Geurts and Lamoureux overreacting to great shots by a few people. What next - no more triple take outs from Jacobs?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
12-12-14 08:19PM |
|
johnnysmoke
Drawmaster
Registered: Nov 2002
Location:
Posts: 612 |
This has to be an early April Fool's joke. This "conjecture" barely warrants a response. It does however bring into question the judgement of monsiers Danny Lamoureux and Gerry Geurts to float such a ridiculous trial balloon. Ridicule seems like the obvious response.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
12-13-14 09:19PM |
|
Marco2010
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 81 |
Tick shots make ends boring like peels used to do before the free guard zone. Players will just get better at making the tick shot. What we want is a couple of guards on the four foot at the beginning of the end to make it interesting.Instead of a 3, 4 or 5 rock rule all we need is a 2 GUARD rule: both teams have to place their first rock of the end as a guard on the four foot.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
12-15-14 12:57PM |
|
VAcurler
Hitting Paint
Registered: Jan 2012
Location:
Posts: 136 |
just make it a free guard zone...you can't hit out a guard ever.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
12-15-14 01:01PM |
|
AlanMacNeill
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064 |
that eliminates the raise takeout if there's any kind of angle to it...if there's any risk of the guard stone going out of play (therfore restoring the pre stone condition), are you going to risk the shot?
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
|
|
|
|
|
|