|
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.
| 11-05-16 05:59PM |
|
BlankEnd
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Aug 2016
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 23 |
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
Please. Let's be realistic. Cricket is not a fair or reasonable comparison to 10 ends of curling. Or even the pre-1970's 12 end games
If anything, your repeated statements about Cricket only spotlight the one, pseudo popular sport that actually did need drastic changes.
But, once again, it was change made not really to better a sport. It was changed to appease TV so you'd be forced fed more advertisements.
The pseudo popular sport is orders of magnitude more popular than curling, and if appeasing TV means a fraction of the revenue that cricket has seen flood their sport when they switched to the T20 format a few years back, then I guarantee that organizing bodies will gladly open their wallets.
Imagine Kevin Koe making just under $6mil in salary and over $20mil in endorsements. If cricket players are making that much money, I wonder how much their bosses are making.
__________________
-Chris Conley
@TheBlankEnd
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-05-16 06:08PM |
|
BlankEnd
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Aug 2016
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 23 |
In reality, the sport needs both opinions. Without the stoic traditionalists and memories of a Golden Age, the sport risks revolution that alienates the base and undermines the entire structure. Without people looking to make the sport easier to market, then the curling community withers in a way that matches the average age of many of our club memberships.
__________________
-Chris Conley
@TheBlankEnd
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-05-16 06:14PM |
|
BlankEnd
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Aug 2016
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 23 |
Oh, and one more thing, and I'll shut up. If you have learned anything from my blog, you will see I get great pleasure from poking the bear.
http://blankend.com/
Thanks for the back-and-forth! All well considered and did not delve into the ugliness that often happens in these situations.
__________________
-Chris Conley
@TheBlankEnd
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-05-16 06:36PM |
|
Marco2010
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 81 |
Reply to In Off: not being able to peel guards early in the end was considered unfair by some very good peeling teams. Not allowing hair or harsh synthetic brushes is considered unfair by certain strong sweepers. Rules just try to balance things out. Not allowing blanking by teams ahead in the score is similar. It prevents abuse.The fact that we've gone from a 3 to a 4 to a 5 rock rule recently demonstrate that's it's too easy to play defensively. The top curlers themselves are looking to balance offense and defense. Imagine a NFL or NBA game where a team would keep the ball until they scored. That's what we do in curling by allowing teams to keep last rock advantage. The modified blank end rule (MBER) is like a shot clock in basquetball or having to cover 10 yards in football.
Last rock advantage is huge in curling. So huge that the very best teams on tour see their winning percentage go from 80% to 60% depending on whether they have last rock on the first end. One shot, one draw to the button has way too much impact. The MBER will probably balance that out and the best teams will still win
Last edited by Marco2010 on 11-05-16 at 06:39PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-05-16 07:03PM |
|
Marco2010
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 81 |
Re: Marco
quote:
Originally posted by IN-OFF-FOR-2
Nobody here is suggesting to revert back to the rules of yesteryear. My concern is that you are saying that the team that is behind should be given an unfair advantage over the team that played well enough to be in the lead. Totally not fair to the team in the lead.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe any other sport changes the rules mid game to give one team an advantage over the other, just to make it easier for the team behind a better chance to catch up. And why would there be?
In Off
Interesting point. Maybe no blanking period.
We have to take into account the nature of our sport where having last rock is a huge advantage. A team can miss 7 shots in a row and still take one with last rock. A skip playing 50% could win all his games as long as he never misses his last stone.
You could be losing by 4 points in the 9th inning in baseball or be down by 4 points with 1 minute to go in basketball and still win but you seldom see that in curling.
It's much easier to protect a lead in curling. One or two bad ends and the game is often over. A modified blank end rule (MBER) may be required to balance offence and defence. It will certainly encourage teams with last rock to attack since they can't blank AND they know that if it backfires the other team won't be able to blank them either.
So the MBER could benefit and protect both teams.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-05-16 07:10PM |
|
IN-OFF-FOR-2
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 1875 |
I definitely see both sides. I'd be curious to see if one of the slams would try it out to see the results and the opinions of the players, both in the lead and trailing to see how they like/dislike it. Maybe at a tier 2 event similar to how they try new rules in the AHL first before they do in the NHL.
I guess we won't know until we try.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-05-16 07:10PM |
|
jamcan
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340 |
I believe this is also Marco's 2nd or 3rd anti-blank end thread...
__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-05-16 07:34PM |
|
Marco2010
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 81 |
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
I believe this is also Marco's 2nd or 3rd anti-blank end thrcead...
Actually my 5th thread on the subject. The best argument for a modified blank end rule (MBER) is last year's tour final where Carruthers blanked both the 8th and 1st extra end and went on to win in the 2nd end extra end. Carruthers is a great player but it's not fair for a team to have last rock in 3 consecutive ends.
MBER allows you to blank only when you are losing.
Last edited by Marco2010 on 11-05-16 at 09:12PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-05-16 07:57PM |
|
jamcan
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340 |
quote:
Originally posted by Marco2010
Actually my 5th thread on the subject. The best argument for a MBER is last year's tour final where Carruthers blanked both the 8th and 1st extra end and went on to win in the 2nd end extra end. Carruthers is a great player but it's not fair for a team to have last rock in 3 consecutive ends.
"...but it's not fair..."
This is an argument I hear all too often without any justification whatsoever.
How do you justify fairness in sport Marco?
In curling you win by outperforming the other guys. You win because someone misses. When you score or amass a big lead on your opponents should you be penalized for that?
Should a team trailing by two in the 7th be forced to draw for one (when they could blank, retain hammer and score 2 or more to tie or win in the final end) because a valuable strategic option has been removed?
You want argue it's unfair to retain the hammer by blanking but you don't back that up with facts. Did Carruthers have no other option in those ends? Did he have to make spectacular shots to blank them and give his team a chance to win?
We've already gone to a 5 rock rule because, aw shucky darn those guys are just good and it's so unfair they ain't missin no shots. What's next? Get up by 3 and now you're only allowed 7 stones/end because it just ain't fair?
__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
Last edited by jamcan on 11-05-16 at 08:04PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-05-16 09:08PM |
|
Marco2010
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 81 |
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
"...but it's not fair..."
This is an argument I hear all too often without any justification whatsoever.
How do you justify fairness in sport Marco?
In curling you win by outperforming the other guys. You win because someone misses. When you score or amass a big lead on your opponents should you be penalized for that?
(A)Should a team trailing by two in the 7th be forced to draw for one (when they could blank, retain hammer and score 2 or more to tie or win in the final end) because a valuable strategic option has been removed?
You want argue it's unfair to retain the hammer by blanking but you don't back that up with facts.
(B) Did Carruthers have no other option in those ends? Did he have to make spectacular shots to blank them and give his team a chance to win?
(C) We've already gone to a 5 rock rule because, aw shucky darn those guys are just good and it's so unfair they ain't missin no shots. What's next? Get up by 3 and now you're only allowed 7 stones/end because it just ain't fair?
Fairness is when talent is the deciding factor Jamcan.
-- We now have rules on sweeping materials.
-- When peeling became easy we created a free guard zone.
-- Now that strategy focuses so much on last rock advantage we have to look at limiting it's impact by forcing the teams to use it or lose it unless they are down in the score.
(A) The modified blank end rule (MBER) allows blanking by a team who is behind in the score so if you are down by 2 playing the 7th end and can't score more than one, you can and should blank.
(B) Carruthers missed. He wanted to score but he missed in the 8th and 1st extra end. He is a great player and other great players have missed before. My concern is being able to keep last rock in spite of missing 2 opportunities to win. Does a kicker get to try again and again when he misses a field goal to win? Do you get to try again on a missed breakaway?
(C) The free guard zone is a great evolution but we keep on increasing the number of rocks you can't peel with: 3, 4 and now 5. Where will it stop? As long as teams tied or leading can blank, defensive curling will prevail. The MBER will help solve this. An evolution, not a revolution Jamcan.
Last edited by Marco2010 on 11-05-16 at 09:13PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-06-16 12:15AM |
|
jamcan
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340 |
Your suggestion of an MBER is not an evolution but a de-evolution (let's call it DEVO for short, shall we?).
You state: "fairness is when talent is the deciding factor"
We'll, talent got one team ahead of the other and in all sports of any type there is defence and offence. Your MBER would punish talent, not reward it.
And you don't honestly believe the MBER would stop teams peeling do you? LMFAO it would increase it! Teams ahead in points would peel constantly to force the blank or single on the trailing team. Sorry, but your logic here is laughable.
Like I asked several posts back, let's see some real data on blanks ends versus actual game lengths. Let's add to it these questions:
Which team is blanking more, the team leading or trailing?
What's the conversion rate following blank ends? Does the team retaining hammer score more than a single point?
And just how many blanks ends/game are occurring? What's the average?
And again, you bring up fairness but no real facts to justify your statement.
__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
Last edited by jamcan on 11-06-16 at 12:23AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-06-16 01:13AM |
|
Marco2010
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 81 |
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
And you don't honestly believe the MBER would stop teams peeling do you? LMFAO it would increase it! Teams ahead in points would peel constantly to force the blank or single on the trailing team. Sorry, but your logic here is laughable.
Teams ahead in the score are already playing defensively for a soft (easy) two and bail when it gets dangerous. It's the wise strategy when you can blank and start again. They also play to force teams to one. The commentators said this time and again in last Sunday's final between Edin and Jacobs. A lot of teams wait for mistakes before attacking. It's logical because 1 or 2 bad ends and you're toast. I don't question the strategy, I question being allowed to blank when a team is leading.
As for stats, Gerry can confirm that having last rock on the first end makes a huge difference in the win-loss percentage.It's unfortunate that one shot before the game has so much impact. The MBER would reduce this difference in winning percentage. The better teams would still win most of the time.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-06-16 07:13AM |
|
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990 |
I'm all for the TANLEW rule ( There are no losers, everyone wins) rule. Seriously, if you play in the event you enter knowing the skill level you need to compete. If you do not possess that skill level do not enter. The game is fine as it is and trying to change it so lesser skilled teams have a better chance of beating better teams is just plain dumb.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-06-16 10:25AM |
|
Curlwalker
Hitting Paint
Registered: Jan 2015
Location:
Posts: 109 |
No Blank Rule
If you are going to modify the Blank rule why not go the whole way? Whoever has last rock in the first end gets last rock in every odd end (including the first extra end). The other team obviously gets last rock in even ends. The winner of the draw to the button chooses which they prefer.
For the team making a comeback they can steal and still get last rock.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-06-16 11:25AM |
|
jamcan
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340 |
quote:
Originally posted by Marco2010
Teams ahead in the score are already playing defensively for a soft (easy) two and bail when it gets dangerous. It's the wise strategy when you can blank and start again. They also play to force teams to one. The commentators said this time and again in last Sunday's final between Edin and Jacobs. A lot of teams wait for mistakes before attacking. It's logical because 1 or 2 bad ends and you're toast. I don't question the strategy, I question being allowed to blank when a team is leading.
As for stats, Gerry can confirm that having last rock on the first end makes a huge difference in the win-loss percentage.It's unfortunate that one shot before the game has so much impact. The MBER would reduce this difference in winning percentage. The better teams would still win most of the time.
Actually you are not questioning the strategy, you're questioning the right of a leading team, whose talent and superior execution have put them in that position , to defend their lead.
What you propose is tantamount to telling a football team, in the lead, that they no longer have the option to punt on their final down but must, regardless of field position, put the ball in play because, horror of horrors, they've played better than the other guys up to that point.
In short, you want to punish the better team with a DEVO rule.
I'm also not sure why you bring up last rock in the first end, except as a way to deflect discussion on your MBER. As for the draw off determining that 1st end hammer, we'll it's better than a coin toss and at least it's being determined by talent.
__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
Last edited by jamcan on 11-06-16 at 11:31AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-06-16 11:38AM |
|
jamcan
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340 |
Re: No Blank Rule
quote:
Originally posted by Curlwalker
If you are going to modify the Blank rule why not go the whole way? Whoever has last rock in the first end gets last rock in every odd end (including the first extra end). The other team obviously gets last rock in even ends. The winner of the draw to the button chooses which they prefer.
For the team making a comeback they can steal and still get last rock.
And to add to your idea, we get away from points/end and go directly with Skins Scoring where the goal is not how points you get but winning the end with a deuce or steal.
With an alternating hammer, blanks would still occur but they would increase the value of the next end. And with ends now only worth a single base point (presuming no carry over) a team down 4 with 4 ends to play still has a chance of a comeback.
Personally, things are just fine the way they are. But rather than a silly MBER I'd rather see the game go Skins.
__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-06-16 05:38PM |
|
CContherocks
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: May 2008
Location:
Posts: 14 |
New rules
I think the curling world should go one step further. If you blank you lose hammer. More offence I think much more exciting than peeling rocks when you are up. Better for the curling fans to see more offence.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-06-16 09:07PM |
|
Marco2010
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 81 |
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
I'm also not sure why you bring up last rock in the first end, except as a way to deflect discussion on your MBER. As for the draw off determining that 1st end hammer, we'll it's better than a coin toss and at least it's being determined by talent.
I totaly agree that a draw to the button is much better than a coin toss to determine last rock on the first end. My concern is the statistical impact on elite team's win/loss ratios related to having last rock on the first end. To go from an 80% to a 60% win ratio just because you don't start the game with last rock is strange.
As often stated by television commentators, teams are very concerned about having last rock in the 1st end and on even numbered ends late in the game. I think that eliminating the option of blanking when you are leading or if the score is tied would eliminate the jocking for last rock.
In baseball both teams want to score in every inning. I think the modified blank end rule would encourage curlers to try to score on every end and I can't see why that would be a bad thing.
In hockey, baseball, football or basquetball the rules don't allow you to keep the ball/puck for as long as you want. In those sports you can be down by a few points late in the game and a comeback is very possible. Blanking ends and retaining last rock when you are leading kills most comeback opportunities.
I used to favor totally eliminating the option of blanking and keeping last rock. Thanks to comments and ideas shared by fellow curling nuts/nerds/fanatics I now believe that the MBER would make elite championship curling even more exciting and challenging.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-06-16 09:27PM |
|
jamcan
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340 |
All those sports you refer to don't limit teams in the manner of which they defend a lead. Teams ahead in any of those sports aren't required to get extra outs, or can't use certain plays just because they have the lead.
In those sports, teams have the ability to make but they are not given an advantage like you propose for curling.
Once again you've made a hollow argument for your case with nothing factual to back up your statement.
I'm also not sure who is supposedly supporting your argument. The comments here are 90% against your MBER.
Are you living in a dream world Marco?
__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-06-16 10:21PM |
|
curlky
Drawmaster
Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559 |
To anyone who makes the argument "But if we shorten from 10 ends to 8 ends and you give up a big end early there is not time to come back". My advice is shut up and dont give up a big end early.
If curling really wanted the best to win, then they would go to a best of 3, best of 5 or best of 7 type of scenario. But as the rules arent that, stop whining, and dont give up a big end. Give up a big end, guess what, you deserve to lose. This applies to me, or anyone else.
Outside of that, I find it stupid that at every level except world competitions you play 8 ends, and then at these special events or playdowns for those events you switch to 10. And 8 end game and 10 end game are different strategically. So if you agree to play 8 all the rest of the time, deal with just playing 8 in those events as well. But in the mean time, just dont give up the big end.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-07-16 12:20AM |
|
Marco2010
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 81 |
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
All those sports you refer to don't limit teams in the manner of which they defend a lead. Teams ahead in any of those sports aren't required to get extra outs, or can't use certain plays just because they have the lead.
Are you living in a dream world Marco?
In all those sports there isn't a need for a limit since teams can't keep the ball/puck for as long as they want. In curling you can theoretically blank a team to death.
In basquetball they have the shot clock.
In baseball both teams get to bat 9 times.
In football you have to cover 10 yards or you lose the ball.
In hockey you can go and get the puck.
Only in curling can you blank and keep the scoring advantage for as long as you want.
Totally abolishing blanking would be a way of encouraging more offence but a compromise could be to allow the team behind in the score to blank. One or two bad ends wouldn't mean the game is probably over.
** Dream world: People initially laughed at the free guard zone concept. Brushes were for wimps back in the cornbroom era. Tricky/runnish ice and unmatched rockss weren't that bad since both teams had to deal with them. Curling has evolved for the better and there is always room for debates on ideas on how to make our sport more challenging and fair to the athletes Jamcan.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-07-16 03:50AM |
|
On The Nose
Drawmaster
Registered: Apr 2014
Location: In the House
Posts: 608 |
Re: Marco
quote:
Originally posted by IN-OFF-FOR-2
Nobody here is suggesting to revert back to the rules of yesteryear. My concern is that you are saying that the team that is behind should be given an unfair advantage over the team that played well enough to be in the lead. Totally not fair to the team in the lead.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe any other sport changes the rules mid game to give one team an advantage over the other, just to make it easier for the team behind a better chance to catch up. And why would there be?
Not exactly the same, but quite similar... In Formula 1 auto racing, if a car is 1 second or less behind another car, the car that is behind gets the benefit of DRS at two distinct points on the track, where the car that is ahead does not.
DRS is 'Drag Reduction System', which flips up part of the rear wing, thus making the car faster on the straightaway. The purpose of this is to help the car that is behind to pass the car ahead.
Personally, I find this to be ridiculous and absurd. It makes for a completely artificial circumstance. It was done to (artificially) create more passing - in order to (artificially) create more excitement for both the TV and live audience.
__________________
"It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own... but the great man is he who, in the midst of the crowd, keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Last edited by On The Nose on 11-07-16 at 03:53AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-07-16 07:22PM |
|
Three
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 278 |
Re: No Blank Rule
quote:
Originally posted by Curlwalker
If you are going to modify the Blank rule why not go the whole way? Whoever has last rock in the first end gets last rock in every odd end (including the first extra end). The other team obviously gets last rock in even ends. The winner of the draw to the button chooses which they prefer.
For the team making a comeback they can steal and still get last rock.
This makes the most sense. Four ends with last Rock and four ends without. The better team will always win. Scores will be higher since teams won't blank anymore which is good for tv.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-07-16 08:16PM |
|
Marco2010
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 81 |
Interesting option but a concern is that a team that steals a point automatically gets last rock on the following end.
Let's say you don't have last rock on the first end therefore you will have last rock on the second end. So if you steal 2 points on the first end you get last rock on the second end anyway..... That could be a problem.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 11-08-16 04:44PM |
|
Three
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 278 |
quote:
Originally posted by Marco2010
Interesting option but a concern is that a team that steals a point automatically gets last rock on the following end.
Let's say you don't have last rock on the first end therefore you will have last rock on the second end. So if you steal 2 points on the first end you get last rock on the second end anyway..... That could be a problem.
So what...you get four ends with last rock and four ends without last rock. It tests you as a team being able to handle both situations an equal amount of the time.
Linescores might look like:
________LastRock____Stolen___Total
Team_A_____7__________2________9
Team_B_____8__________4_______12
If the game gets out of hand the losing team can shake-hands whenever they want, just like they do now. The more I think about it the more it makes sense. If this is the way curling had "always" been played then the way we play it now with a blank end causing a hammer carry over would seem outrageous.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
CurlingZone > Chat Forums > General Curling Chat > Rock Talk > Warren Hansen supports 8 ends
In the run up to Christmas Day, 1893, the Aberdeen Peoples's Journal offered a prize of one guinea for the best letter about curling! That's the invitation... (read more)
A quick break for the Memorial Day holiday and we're back with our guest and new USA Curling Women’s National Team & Juniors Director Jessica Schultz.... (read more)
I am in week 3 of isolation/quarantine/home schooling and getting a little squirrel-y. Personal hygiene has become optional. The kids have watched the entire... (read more)
On today's World Curling Report...we recap Day 1 of the 2019 Canada Cup. (read more)