Forums Menu

User: 
Pass:  

Curling Scores

Click Event to Show Scoreboard
M: Pyeongchang Winter Games - Men
W: Pyeongchang Winter Games - Women
M: Pyeongchang Winter Games - Doubles
: Alberta Winter Games Mixed Doubles
M: Listowel Mixed Doubles Cashspiel
W: Simms Home Hardware U18 Womens Championship
M: Yukon Senior Mens Championship
M: Simms Home Hardware U18 Mens Championship
M: WCT Tallinn Masters Mixed Doubles
M: USA Mens Club National Championship
W: USA Womens Club National Championship
W: Swiss Curling Championship
M: Swiss Curling Championship
Default (ET)
Full Scoreboard  |  Play Fantasy Pick'em!  

CurlingZone : Powered by vBulletin>
<smallfont><b><a href=CurlingZone > Chat Forums > General Curling Chat > Rock Talk > Women's Olympics

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 9 of 9 -- Go to: ««   | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   Post A Reply
02-19-18 01:53PM
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: 438

quote:
Originally posted by On The Nose

Your argument holds no water, as the intention of rules is to punish offences with a consequence which is proportional to the offence. This is also the definition of striving toward fair play.
In other sports, it is the discretion and judgment of the officials which determines the consequence for the offence. In curling - regrettably - it is the non-offending team which determines the consequence. I say 'regrettably' because this very obviously leaves room for the self-serving abuse of the rule - i.e. to impose a consequence which is not at all in proportion to the offence.
As someone else commented in this thread: Just because something can be done legally in no way means that it is the right thing to do. Something can be legal and wrong at once. Context is very, very important here.



You say " the intention of rules is to punish offences with a consequence which is proportional to the offence." If there is a hogline violation by 1/8", is pulling the rock immediately "a consequence which is proportional to the offence?" I understand the hogline rule totally and agree with it, but if we are to agree with your statement of consequence proportional to the offence, then this is not a proportional consequence.

Rules are put in place to protect the non-offending team. It seems like teams are roasted when doing nothing more than taking an option that is available to them in the rules. For those that claim that the sweeping or the contact on the rock had no affect, if that was the case, why was the offending team still sweeping? They clearly felt that sweeping more would have some affect.

The only reason the rule is not worded such that the rock is immediately removed from play after the hogline where play is happening, is to protect the non-offending team from a situation where the offending team realizes that if they let the rock continue, it will adversely affect their current situation so they "inadvertently" burn it. This gives the non-offending team the option to place the rocks where they feel they would have ended up without outside intervention.

If the burned rock violation had occurred just as the running rock was passing by the tight guard, what should Team Canada have done?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-19-18 02:00PM
dugless_zone 13 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dugless_zone 13 Click here to Send dugless_zone 13 a Private Message Find more posts by dugless_zone 13 Add dugless_zone 13 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 897

The rule for a touched running rock is the same whether it is passing by a tight guard or wide open with no rocks around.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-19-18 02:17PM
fresca is offline Click Here to See the Profile for fresca Click here to Send fresca a Private Message Find more posts by fresca Add fresca to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
fresca
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Oct 2008
Location:
Posts: 2502

lots of burnt rocks in the last year ..
burnt rocks removed as they stopped - 1

pure poor sportsmanship

if 1000 say you are wrong - a sea lawyer cant make it ok

arguing the case does not help rh - just drags it out

like the gerald stanley case - aquited in fatal shooting

3000 + donations to g stanley - $207,000 so far

sometimes justice prevails in the court of public opinion

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-19-18 02:24PM
dugless_zone 13 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dugless_zone 13 Click here to Send dugless_zone 13 a Private Message Find more posts by dugless_zone 13 Add dugless_zone 13 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 897

Nice completely pointless rambling there grapefruit pop.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-19-18 02:25PM
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: 438

quote:
Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
The rule for a touched running rock is the same whether it is passing by a tight guard or wide open with no rocks around.


It was a rhetorical question. I know the rule is the same regardless. My question was more towards what the "expected" behaviour of the Canadian team should have been.

Would it become a, "It was going to get by for sure." situation or would it be a, "Hmmm, we're not sure what would have happened."

It seems that unless the Canadian team would have gone the, "We think it would have got by." route, they would have been crucified for their decision.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge Team Homan supporter at all, I just see a team being hugely criticized for exercising one of their legitimate options.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-19-18 02:57PM
dugless_zone 13 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dugless_zone 13 Click here to Send dugless_zone 13 a Private Message Find more posts by dugless_zone 13 Add dugless_zone 13 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 897

Yes it would have come down to would the shot have been made or not and im not clear whether you are talking about a running rock that would have hit a stationary rock and is deflected past the rock by the touch or a stationary rock moved by the sweeping team that allowed the rock to get by. Either way the rule options are basically the same. In this case though you are talking about a hypothetical shot that may or may not have been made with a real shot that was made.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-19-18 04:33PM
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: 438

quote:
Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
Yes it would have come down to would the shot have been made or not and im not clear whether you are talking about a running rock that would have hit a stationary rock and is deflected past the rock by the touch or a stationary rock moved by the sweeping team that allowed the rock to get by. Either way the rule options are basically the same. In this case though you are talking about a hypothetical shot that may or may not have been made with a real shot that was made.


Hypothetical or not, the only reason a burnt rock is not automatically removed from play once it crosses the near hogline is because the offending team could burn a rock intentionally if they know that the result of the shot will be bad for them. The non-offending team would have no option to say otherwise.

In essence, what I'm suggesting is that a burnt rock is a burnt rock regardless of where it may have ended up. The only time it should not be automatically removed from play is when it's burnt after the near hogline when the result of the shot would have definitely been harmful to the team burning the rock.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-19-18 05:00PM
dugless_zone 13 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dugless_zone 13 Click here to Send dugless_zone 13 a Private Message Find more posts by dugless_zone 13 Add dugless_zone 13 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 897

I know the rules well, and agree to a certain extent except your feeling the rock should not be removed if it would be harmful to the team that burns it confuses me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-19-18 05:08PM
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: 438

quote:
Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
I know the rules well, and agree to a certain extent except your feeling the rock should not be removed if it would be harmful to the team that burns it confuses me.


Team X throws a takeout to peel out an opponent rock that is half open behind a guard that is fully guarding their shot stone. When the rock crosses the near hogline, Team X realizes the thrown stone is going to tick the guard and would fully expose their shot stone so they burn the thrown rock.

It is this above situation that allows for the non-offending team to say, "Wait a minute, that rock would have ticked the guard and the 'automatically removed from play' rule does not apply." Otherwise, a burnt rock is a burnt rock. It takes the burden off the non-offending team for exercising their available option.

A high-sticking penalty in hockey is a penalty whether or not the infraction was intentional or not.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-19-18 05:30PM
dugless_zone 13 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dugless_zone 13 Click here to Send dugless_zone 13 a Private Message Find more posts by dugless_zone 13 Add dugless_zone 13 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 897

Yes except that is already covered in the rule and you would have to prove intent to burn the rock. that being said your hockey analogy sucks because there are so many hooks, holds, slashes, and interference in a game that if they called everything by the rules they would drop the puck, throw everyone in the box and call it a game.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-19-18 11:34PM
On The Nose is offline Click Here to See the Profile for On The Nose Click here to Send On The Nose a Private Message Find more posts by On The Nose Add On The Nose to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
On The Nose
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Apr 2014
Location: In the House
Posts: 382

quote:
Originally posted by FollowingAlong


You say " the intention of rules is to punish offences with a consequence which is proportional to the offence." If there is a hogline violation by 1/8", is pulling the rock immediately "a consequence which is proportional to the offence?" I understand the hogline rule totally and agree with it, but if we are to agree with your statement of consequence proportional to the offence, then this is not a proportional consequence.

Rules are put in place to protect the non-offending team. It seems like teams are roasted when doing nothing more than taking an option that is available to them in the rules. For those that claim that the sweeping or the contact on the rock had no affect, if that was the case, why was the offending team still sweeping? They clearly felt that sweeping more would have some affect.

The only reason the rule is not worded such that the rock is immediately removed from play after the hogline where play is happening, is to protect the non-offending team from a situation where the offending team realizes that if they let the rock continue, it will adversely affect their current situation so they "inadvertently" burn it. This gives the non-offending team the option to place the rocks where they feel they would have ended up without outside intervention.

If the burned rock violation had occurred just as the running rock was passing by the tight guard, what should Team Canada have done?


Why are you entering hypothetical / 'what if' situations?
There was an actual, real situation here, and that is what is being discussed.

Once again - my position is to employ honesty and common sense - which was one of the options to Homan in this circumstance. Honesty and common sense dictate - without doubt - that there was no measurable consequence to the rock having been touched by the broom.
Unlike your example of the hog line violation, there were 3 options available to Homan: A) let the rocks remain where they came to rest (which, given common sense, would be the most logical option); B) place the rock(s) where she honestly felt they would have come to rest had the broom contact not occurred; C) remove the rock which was touched by the broom. This last option is in place so that the non-offending team is not penalized or injured by the offence, and is typically chosen when it is impossible to determine where the rocks would have come to rest had the broom contact not occurred, or if the broom contact obviously altered the trajectory or speed of the thrown rock, or the placement of a stationary rock. In this situation, the broom contact did not alter the trajectory or speed of the rock (I have no clue why you wrote "why was the offending team still sweeping?" - they were still sweeping because they wanted to get the rock to the desired position - as the broom contact had no effect on the rock, their action - sweeping - did not change). As neither the rock's trajectory nor speed was affected, there was no consequence from the broom touch. Therefore, honesty, logic, common sense, and fair play would dictate that option A) be chosen.

I believe most people (or, at least honest people with sound ethics) would agree that the player in Homan's position should choose the same option as an unbiased, objective official would choose given the same circumstance - otherwise, the player in Homan's position would be taking advantage of the rules for her own selfish benefit, which is clearly unfair. Homan obviously did not make the same choice that an unbiased official would have made in this circumstance.. An objective official would never have chosen to remove the rock in this circumstance. Such an official would very likely have chosen to allow all rocks to remain where they came to rest - or, at worst, would have perhaps moved a rock or two a quarter of an inch, if he/she felt that the broom had any measurable effect on the rock (which it certainly did not appear to have).

Homan did not choose the option of honesty and common sense and fair play. Instead, she chose the option under which her team could benefit most. In that decision, there was no honesty, no common sense, and no fair play - there was only a very selfish 'ends justify the means', 'I'll do anything to win, whether it's fair or not' approach. It's very clear.

I wonder how many of you who 'support' Homan's decision are blinded by bias. Likely quite a few of you. If the exact same situation occurred, but the teams were reversed, there is no doubt that many of you would be calling for the Dupont's (the Danish Skip) head for having removed a rock which was not affected by the broom touch.

__________________
"It is easy in the world to live after the worlds 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 02-20-18 at 12:41AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-20-18 01:46AM
On The Nose is offline Click Here to See the Profile for On The Nose Click here to Send On The Nose a Private Message Find more posts by On The Nose Add On The Nose to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
On The Nose
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Apr 2014
Location: In the House
Posts: 382

Second Burned Rock Situation Involving Canadian (Homan) Team...

There has just been another burned rock situation where the Chinese team playing against Canada (Homan) burned their own rock in the House.
The situation was very similar to the burned rock in the game against Denmark in that the Chinese rock was barely moving when it was very lightly touched by the broom. As with the Denmark incident, the touch did not measurably affect the trajectory or speed of the rock.

This time, Homan did not react the same way as in the Denmark game. This time, she called down to her team to seemingly ask for advice as to what to do (not that they could tell her, as Homan was the only team Canada member who was close to the burned rock).
An official came out, but seemed to do nothing. Homan then decided to allow the rock to stay.

This would seem to suggest that she may realize that pulling the rock in the Denmark game was wrong, or that, after the Denmark controversy, in which many people referred to her poor sportsmanship, she now feels pressure to react honestly and fairly to burned rocks.

Or perhaps she simply felt that the Chinese burnt rock was not as much of a threat as was the Denmark burnt rock (the Denmark burnt rock was a Denmark freeze to the nose of a Denmark rock on the Button, whereas the Chinese burnt rock was a draw to the top/side 8 foot with no backing).

__________________
"It is easy in the world to live after the worlds 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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-20-18 03:41AM
alex is offline Click Here to See the Profile for alex Click here to Send alex a Private Message Find more posts by alex Add alex to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
alex
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Quesnel
Posts: 203

It seemed to me the decision this time was whether or not the rock had been burned.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-20-18 04:57AM
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: 613

Still All to Play For

Well, believe it or not Ripley's fans Team Homan still controls their own destiny. If, and yes it's more than a bit of an if at this point, but if they win out they are guaranteed to be in a tie break.

Here's the break down. Canada plays Great Britain and Russia in their last two games. If they win both they knock GB down to 5-4 and they rise to 5-4. At worse that leaves Canada tied for fourth.

Crazier still it is possible at this point for there to be 6 teams at 5-4 tied for positions 2, 3 and 4.

Here's the breakdown of that unlikely scenario. Sweden loses their last two to U.S. and China. That brings the U.S. and China up to 5-4 and Sweden down to 5-4. As previously mentioned Canada wins their last two and that brings them up to 5-4 and drops G.B. to 5-4. Finally the Japanese lose to the Swiss and that brings them to 5-4. What would their head to head be in that case? And what are the rules for who plays who in that case? It's not like they're paying me for this stuff so....not a clue:-)

That would leave Canada, Sweden, Japan, Great Britain, U.S. and China tied. Can you say whacky?

If on the other hand Sweden wins their last two that puts them in second and knocks out the U.S. and China.

Of course if Canada lose they're out. The U.S. and China are in the same boat. But they have all got to be thrilled that with four losses they still control their own destiny.

Stay tuned sports fans the twist and turns may just be warming up.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-20-18 06:39AM
On The Nose is offline Click Here to See the Profile for On The Nose Click here to Send On The Nose a Private Message Find more posts by On The Nose Add On The Nose to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
On The Nose
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Apr 2014
Location: In the House
Posts: 382

quote:
Originally posted by alex
It seemed to me the decision this time was whether or not the rock had been burned.

No. I was watching it live, and it was very clear that a Chinese sweeper had slightly touched the rock with her broom as she pulled her broom away when the rock was almost stopped. The sweeper drew attention to it. As well, when Rachel called down to her teammates at the other end of the sheet, she said "What do you want to do? She burned the rock."

__________________
"It is easy in the world to live after the worlds 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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-20-18 08:37AM
IN-OFF-FOR-2 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for IN-OFF-FOR-2 Click here to Send IN-OFF-FOR-2 a Private Message Find more posts by IN-OFF-FOR-2 Add IN-OFF-FOR-2 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
IN-OFF-FOR-2
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

Going to need some help to get a schmozzle at 5-4. Not over yet

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-20-18 08:59AM
toeslider is offline Click Here to See the Profile for toeslider Click here to Send toeslider a Private Message Find more posts by toeslider Add toeslider to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
toeslider
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Alberta
Posts: 14

quote:
Originally posted by On The Nose

Your argument holds no water, as the intention of rules is to punish offences with a consequence which is proportional to the offence. This is also the definition of striving toward fair play.
In other sports, it is the discretion and judgment of the officials which determines the consequence for the offence. In curling - regrettably - it is the non-offending team which determines the consequence. I say 'regrettably' because this very obviously leaves room for the self-serving abuse of the rule - i.e. to impose a consequence which is not at all in proportion to the offence.
As someone else commented in this thread: Just because something can be done legally in no way means that it is the right thing to do. Something can be legal and wrong at once. Context is very, very important here.



If that is the intention of rules, I really would need to see a reference. I would also suggest that you might want to get on the rules committee because, it seems to me, there are several rules in curling that will need to be adjusted.

It has already be brought up, not just by me, and you haven’t responded on how removing a rock that is not released before the hog line is “proportional to the offense” since, as I have already stated, surely there is not much change to the outcome 93 feet later. As well, the other part of the rule that we are discussing, when a rock in motion is touched, but it is between the hog lines, the rock is immediately removed. Again, if the plastic knob from the end of the broom comes off and comes into contact with the stone as it drops to the ice, it probably has no effect on the speed or trajectory of the stone, but the stone is removed. Proportional? - please explain.

If a team exceeds the allotted time, by even a second or two, they lose the game. They may have been ahead on the scoreboard by a significant amount but it does not matter - the other team is awarded the win.

If a player inadvertently picks up a team mate’s broom and sweeps a rock with it - even just a stroke or two - the team forfeits the game and the player is ejected from the competition. The penalty for this, by the way, was decided by the athletes - the WCF rules committee had proposed a different penalty which was less harsh but the athletes wanted the penalty that is in place.

So, while you believe that my argument holds no water, I am not sure that I am convinced that “the intention of rules is to punish offenses with a consequence which is proportional to the offense” or that “this is also the definition of striving toward fair play”

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-20-18 09:14AM
On The Nose is offline Click Here to See the Profile for On The Nose Click here to Send On The Nose a Private Message Find more posts by On The Nose Add On The Nose to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
On The Nose
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Apr 2014
Location: In the House
Posts: 382

quote:
Originally posted by toeslider


If that is the intention of rules, I really would need to see a reference. I would also suggest that you might want to get on the rules committee because, it seems to me, there are several rules in curling that will need to be adjusted.

It has already be brought up, not just by me, and you haven’t responded on how removing a rock that is not released before the hog line is “proportional to the offense” since, as I have already stated, surely there is not much change to the outcome 93 feet later. As well, the other part of the rule that we are discussing, when a rock in motion is touched, but it is between the hog lines, the rock is immediately removed. Again, if the plastic knob from the end of the broom comes off and comes into contact with the stone as it drops to the ice, it probably has no effect on the speed or trajectory of the stone, but the stone is removed. Proportional? - please explain.

If a team exceeds the allotted time, by even a second or two, they lose the game. They may have been ahead on the scoreboard by a significant amount but it does not matter - the other team is awarded the win.

If a player inadvertently picks up a team mate’s broom and sweeps a rock with it - even just a stroke or two - the team forfeits the game and the player is ejected from the competition. The penalty for this, by the way, was decided by the athletes - the WCF rules committee had proposed a different penalty which was less harsh but the athletes wanted the penalty that is in place.

So, while you believe that my argument holds no water, I am not sure that I am convinced that “the intention of rules is to punish offenses with a consequence which is proportional to the offense” or that “this is also the definition of striving toward fair play”


Fair enough...
The intention of the majority of rules - across the majority of sports - is to punish offenses with a consequence which is proportional to the offense.
I would most definitely include the rule in this particular and specific situation (which you seem to be trying to get away from). The fact that there are three options from which to choose as a consequence certainly shows that the intention of the rule is to have the punishment proportionally fit the crime.
As so many people worldwide have stated, instead of having the consequence be proportional to the offence, Homan chose to have the punishment fit her personal self-serving agenda, which was very much to her team's benefit. And that is classless.

Again - if an official - whose job it is to dispense punishment with an objective, unbiased eye, had been responsible for assessing a consequence in this circumstance, and had chosen to remove the rock, he/she would be crucified by curling fans and and likely fired from the job.
This also demonstrates how Homan's decision was entirely unjust and biased.

You seem to be going to rather great lengths to defend Homan's lack of sportsmanship and fair play, which is interesting in and of itself.

Did you happen to see how differently she handled the burnt rock in the game against China?

__________________
"It is easy in the world to live after the worlds 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 02-20-18 at 09:19AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-20-18 09:56AM
Manitoba Legend is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Manitoba Legend Click here to Send Manitoba Legend a Private Message Find more posts by Manitoba Legend Add Manitoba Legend to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Manitoba Legend
Supreme Champion!

 

Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Hovel of Fame
Posts: 11227

quote:
Originally posted by IN-OFF-FOR-2
Going to need some help to get a schmozzle at 5-4. Not over yet


Raytch wins out she'll make tie-breaker - doesn't need much help other than the mean girls playing up to their norms.

One 'small' problem is one of her 2 remainings is vs. Princess Eve. Eve can do 2 things by snuffing out the mean girls - elevate herself away from a tie-breaker (outright 3rd a possibility) which means she won't have to play the Athletics from Sweden in the semi-final. Homan will be joyed to play anyone in a semi-final.

The apparent downfall of Homan in this event is showing me just how hard it is to win at the world level. Especially now when the world teams have more than form - and technique - THEY HAVE STRATEGY (USUALLY).

Tells me why Jones always has been plagued at the worlds . . . . although Jones usually makes the playoffs - or is a front-runner before running out of gas in the medal rounds!

__________________
I'm one of the good guys now!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-20-18 10:10AM
AlanMacNeill is offline Click Here to See the Profile for AlanMacNeill Click here to Send AlanMacNeill a Private Message Find more posts by AlanMacNeill Add AlanMacNeill to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
AlanMacNeill
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 996

quote:
Originally posted by On The Nose

if an official - whose job it is to dispense punishment with an objective, unbiased eye, had been responsible for assessing a consequence in this circumstance, and had chosen to remove the rock, he/she would be crucified by curling fans and and likely fired from the job.



If an official was responsible for assessing a consequence, the rule would not have options, it would be *either* "restore the rocks to the position they would have been in had the stone not been burned" or "Return the stones to the position they were before the shot". There wouldn't be an either/or.

The rules of curling go out of their way to eliminate officials' discretion, and as one (USCA Level II), I'm quite good with that. in 99% of official interactions, my response is clearly caused by the facts of the situation, my job is only to determine the facts and advise as to the proper response to them.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-20-18 01:36PM
drawthepin is offline Click Here to See the Profile for drawthepin Click here to Send drawthepin a Private Message Find more posts by drawthepin Add drawthepin to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
drawthepin
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Feb 2015
Location:
Posts: 50

Re: Still All to Play For

quote:
Originally posted by JB42
Well, believe it or not Ripley's fans Team Homan still controls their own destiny. If, and yes it's more than a bit of an if at this point, but if they win out they are guaranteed to be in a tie break.

Here's the break down. Canada plays Great Britain and Russia in their last two games. If they win both they knock GB down to 5-4 and they rise to 5-4. At worse that leaves Canada tied for fourth.

Crazier still it is possible at this point for there to be 6 teams at 5-4 tied for positions 2, 3 and 4.

Here's the breakdown of that unlikely scenario. Sweden loses their last two to U.S. and China. That brings the U.S. and China up to 5-4 and Sweden down to 5-4. As previously mentioned Canada wins their last two and that brings them up to 5-4 and drops G.B. to 5-4. Finally the Japanese lose to the Swiss and that brings them to 5-4. What would their head to head be in that case? And what are the rules for who plays who in that case? It's not like they're paying me for this stuff so....not a clue:-)

That would leave Canada, Sweden, Japan, Great Britain, U.S. and China tied. Can you say whacky?

If on the other hand Sweden wins their last two that puts them in second and knocks out the U.S. and China.

Of course if Canada lose they're out. The U.S. and China are in the same boat. But they have all got to be thrilled that with four losses they still control their own destiny.

Stay tuned sports fans the twist and turns may just be warming up.

The Olympics only have one round of tie-breaks so in your scenario with 6 teams tied, teams would be ranked based on W/L amongst those six teams and then the LSA. There would be three tiebreak games with the winners advancing.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-20-18 02:53PM
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: 613

Go Sweden Go

One tie-break? Yowza.

All righty then, Go Sweden Go. If the Swedes win their two games that knocks out China and the U.S.

Assuming Canada at 5-4 along with G.B. and Japan, Team Homan slips into 3rd having beaten both G.B. and Japan. Requires also that the Swiss Miss shake off their major disappointment and discover some form in their last game against Japan.

Man oh man we usually have to wait to the playoffs for this kind of tension. It's white knuckle time tonight.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-20-18 05:26PM
watcher2 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for watcher2 Click here to Send watcher2 a Private Message Find more posts by watcher2 Add watcher2 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
watcher2
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Mar 2015
Location:
Posts: 57

It's all meaningless for Canada anyway. They are unlikely to even be playing for a medal. When I said a few years ago that allowing all these full funded international teams to play in our main events was a bad idea I got jump on. "Canada will always be on top" was the mantra. Even though we under fund teams and over fund egotistic organizations like CAC. So what do you think now? The ladies are all but out and the men very close. CCA, keep up the good work! CAC/CCA, thanks for eliminating most of the coaching pool with the mandatory coaching requirements and training coaches for the rest of the world. Please step up and take a bow! After all, you had the major hand in the demise of Canadian system.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-20-18 06:05PM
fresca is offline Click Here to See the Profile for fresca Click here to Send fresca a Private Message Find more posts by fresca Add fresca to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
fresca
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Oct 2008
Location:
Posts: 2502

Thank you chicken little ...

The sky is not falling and many of us have pointed out how the system works so that many countries win various medals ..

ML with follow up with a list of the interesting gold medal wins .. as Kennedy said this week “ it’s not a war where people are getting killed- we are trying to have fun and enjoy the spectacle “. - if he can you should be able too...

Homan team will probably gold - not likely that the 100% curling that they have been battling will go on much longer

Take a breath old timer

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-20-18 07:43PM
EPMD is offline Click Here to See the Profile for EPMD Click here to Send EPMD a Private Message Find more posts by EPMD Add EPMD to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
EPMD
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Jan 2017
Location:
Posts: 64

I have lost count of how many points Team Homan has squandered with open hit rollouts and draws coming up light.

Homan had to draw the eight foot in End 2 to take a 3-1 lead and could just barely reach the house with sweeping. That means she was at least 10 feet light with her draw. Inexcusable at this level.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

All times are GMT. The time now is . Post New Thread   Post A Reply
Page 9 of 9 -- Go to: ««   | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |   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

Click Event to Show Scoreboard
M: Pyeongchang Winter Games - Men
W: Pyeongchang Winter Games - Women
M: Pyeongchang Winter Games - Doubles
: Alberta Winter Games Mixed Doubles
M: Listowel Mixed Doubles Cashspiel
W: Simms Home Hardware U18 Womens Championship
M: Yukon Senior Mens Championship
M: Simms Home Hardware U18 Mens Championship
M: WCT Tallinn Masters Mixed Doubles
M: USA Mens Club National Championship
W: USA Womens Club National Championship
W: Swiss Curling Championship
M: Swiss Curling Championship
Default (ET)
Full Scoreboard  |  Play Fantasy Pick'em!  

RECENT CURLING POSTS

Recent News

Recent
China's Bingyu Wang Puts Canada On the Ropes

China's Bingyu Wang Puts Canada On the Ropes

China's Bingyu Wang defeated Rachel Homan 7-5 meaning Canada must win 3 straight games to make playoffs.

Curling Blogs

Facebook Feed

To top ↑