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.
04-07-20 08:02PM |
|
DrB
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Jun 2015
Location:
Posts: 30 |
To me, a skips deuce means that the last 2 thrown rocks for the team with hammer scored. A deuce typically refers to 2 with hammer, so you probably wouldn’t see anyone call a steal of 2 of skips deuce. You’re probably correct that it shouldn’t be called a skips deuce if the last stone thrower is not the team skip, but it probably still would be.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-08-20 02:37PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
I need more clarification. Let's say skip throws fourth to simplify things.
In a skip's deuce, do the counters have to be the exact same stones thrown out of the hack by the skip? What if instead of 2 draws, the skip plays 2 raises, and both raised stones end up being counters for the deuce? Is that still a skip's deuce?
Does momentum shift matter? Do you have to sit one and only one after the skip's first throw? What if the counters for the deuce are the last 2 thrown stones, but the team had already been sitting 2 even before the skips throws their stones, and they're just exchanging stones with hits and rolls and missed doubles?
And to follow up on that, does heroism matter? There are some who thinks that for the skip to take all that credit, the rest of the team had to be missing their share of shots. If everyone made their shots and the deuce counters are the skip stones, is that still a skip's deuce?
Last edited by curlingclips on 04-08-20 at 05:23PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-08-20 10:55PM |
|
IN-OFF-FOR-2
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 1875 |
Skips deuce is very simple. If the team with hammer scores 2 on the last 2 rocks thrown, regardless of 5 chapters of attempted interpretation, thats a skips deuce. The end.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-08-20 11:36PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote: Originally posted by IN-OFF-FOR-2
Skips deuce is very simple. If the team with hammer scores 2 on the last 2 rocks thrown, regardless of 5 chapters of attempted interpretation, thats a skips deuce. The end.
So would you consider this a skip's deuce?
Elena Stern scores 2 to go to extra end vs Rachel Homan (2019 Canad Inns Women's Classic)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGGuzIzfxhg
Note that Hürlimann throws fourth (skip Stern throws third). Her first was a triple takeout to sit two. Homan missed the double, so that's the deuce. Hürlimann's first rock is actually not a counter for that deuce, because it was taken out by Homan when the double was attempted. Quite heroic, in my opinion, just from the triple, and even more so if you consider the misses by the team earlier in the end.
Using your definition, it can be said that Team Stern, with hammer, scores 2 on their last 2 stones thrown, and not earlier. So is this a skip's deuce? If not, which factor disqualified it from being so?
Last edited by curlingclips on 04-09-20 at 12:11AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-20 05:10AM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
See, now I'm confused again. In Stern vs Homan, the 2 counters for the deuce are NOT the 2 stones thrown by the fourth. So if you define the skip's deuce by looking at the stones, it's not a skip's deuce. If you define it by looking at the throws, then yeah you can say that the deuce was pretty much singlehandedly generated by the fouth thrower.
Let's look at another example:
2016 Brier final, Koe vs Gushue, 4th end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR6rB-7hvL0
Koe sits 2 with Kennedy's last. No double, so Gushue and Koe just exchange stones from that point on.
If you look at the counters for the deuce, they're both Koe's stones. So by some definition, that's a skip's deuce.
However, some would argue that this is NOT a skip's deuce, because the deuce was set up earlier by the whole team. Koe didn't bail the rest of the team. He didn't singlehandedly generate the deuce out of nowhere. Yes, his stones are the counters in the end, but he's just exchanging stones with Gushue, accomplishing nothing more than maintaining status quo. This is not a heroic feat on the skip's behalf, this is just basic whole team effort deuce.
So which is it? Are we just looking at the rocks (regardless of what the throws accomplished), or are we looking at what the throws accomplished (regardless of whether or not the actual thrown stones become counters)?
If we're just looking at rocks, then Koe vs Gushue is a skip's deuce, but Homan vs Stern is not. If we're looking at throws, then it's the other way around.
PS: This may be a US vs Canada thing, now that I think about it, so it will help if you identify which curling culture you're coming from.
Last edited by curlingclips on 04-10-20 at 05:43AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-20 09:31AM |
|
decade
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Jan 2011
Location:
Posts: 1962 |
You are way overthinking this. A skips deuce is a skips deuce whether you are a yank, a canuck, a scot or a falklander.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-20 12:41PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote: Originally posted by decade
You are way overthinking this. A skips deuce is a skips deuce whether you are a yank, a canuck, a scot or a falklander.
This is not true for most things, so I'm not sure why you'd say such a thing.
Any dessert whatsoever is a pudding to the Brits. The Americans insist that it has to have creamy consistency for it to be a pudding.
For what it's worth, ML's definition is closer to how I originally understood what the term means. You need to review how the deuce was generated (dynamic condition), instead of just examining a static snapshot after the last rock has been thrown of where the stones rest and who threw them out of the hack, for evidence of a skip's deuce.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-11-20 08:59PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
I looked for definitions and/or more examples, and I found this self-described skip's deuce from Team Koe.
https://twitter.com/TeamKevinKoe/st...085907850760192
I believe this is from the tiebreaker game vs Ross Patterson at the Masters.
Koe's first throw is a runback double takeout; his shooter rolled to a corner guard. Paterson went behind it, so Koe's second throw is a double takeout and stick for first shot. Second shot was already in the ring the whole time.
I'd love to see how the whole end played out, but given only this 17 seconds clip, I do agree with Team Koe that this is a skip's deuce.
So to say that a skip's deuce is simply when the 2 counters are the stones thrown by the fourth is simply wrong. It's not about where those last 2 stones end up; it's more about what those last 2 throws accomplished.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-20 06:50PM |
|
IN-OFF-FOR-2
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 1875 |
quote: Originally posted by curlingclips
I looked for definitions and/or more examples, and I found this self-described skip's deuce from Team Koe.
https://twitter.com/TeamKevinKoe/st...085907850760192
I believe this is from the tiebreaker game vs Ross Patterson at the Masters.
Koe's first throw is a runback double takeout; his shooter rolled to a corner guard. Paterson went behind it, so Koe's second throw is a double takeout and stick for first shot. Second shot was already in the ring the whole time.
I'd love to see how the whole end played out, but given only this 17 seconds clip, I do agree with Team Koe that this is a skip's deuce.
So to say that a skip's deuce is simply when the 2 counters are the stones thrown by the fourth is simply wrong. It's not about where those last 2 stones end up; it's more about what those last 2 throws accomplished.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!
You've over analyzed this to beyond death. Again, as mentioned by many on this site, Canadian or not, a skip's deuce is when the last thrower on the team with hammer scores 2 based on the last 2 throws. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't matter ANY scenario previous to their last 2 shots ever. 10 video examples and what ifs be damned. When the last 2 throws generate 2 points by the final thrower, skip's deuce. Let it sink in and move on
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-20 09:35PM |
|
prairie guy
Swing Artist
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Southern Sask.
Posts: 364 |
quote: Originally posted by IN-OFF-FOR-2
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!
You've over analyzed this to beyond death. Again, as mentioned by many on this site, Canadian or not, a skip's deuce is when the last thrower on the team with hammer scores 2 based on the last 2 throws. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't matter ANY scenario previous to their last 2 shots ever. 10 video examples and what ifs be damned. When the last 2 throws generate 2 points by the final thrower, skip's deuce. Let it sink in and move on
Yep way too much overthinking on this. It started as an interesting thread and I believe the poster was sincerely interested in the terminology but it's got a little over the top.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-13-20 03:47AM |
|
On The Nose
Drawmaster
Registered: Apr 2014
Location: In the House
Posts: 608 |
I agree with the previous two posters - except that I'd say that it is way over the top, not just a little.
When one focuses on overanalyzing and dissecting every minute element of the game to this degree, it would be very difficult to simply enjoy the game. The actual game gets lost beneath the excessive overanalysis.
A degree of analysis is fine... but what's occurring in this thread borders on obsession.
My advice, then, to 'curlingclips' is to stop worrying about exact definitions and overanalyzing other minute details, and just sit back, relax, and enjoy and appreciate the game for its skill, intelligence, and beauty.
__________________
"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
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-13-20 12:56PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
I'm not trying to start a war, but here's my defense:
(i) curling is a game to be analyzed. It's sometimes called "chess on ice", is it not? Can you overanalyze chess? No, I don't think so. In the same token, I don't think you can overanalyze curling.
(ii) curling is also a 4-person team sport. The term being discussed is "skip's deuce". That is a very big deal, for the skip/fourth to take all/most of the credit for the deuce. I'm trying to improve the Wikipedia article, so I admit that I'm a little nervous with this term. If it was called "last pair deuce" or something more neutral, then I probably wouldn't care too much if I got it wrong.
quote: Originally posted by IN-OFF-FOR-2
When the last 2 throws generate 2 points by the final thrower, skip's deuce. Let it sink in and move on
The counterargument given to me to this definition is simple: why is there no such thing as a skip's 3-ender?
So if the skip/fourth made two great shots and generate a deuce seemingly out of thin air, that's a skip's deuce. But if the two great shots generated an extra point, that's just a regular 3-ender as a team? That makes absolutely no sense!
And what if the attempt at 3 missed by a fraction of an inch and they only get 2? Now we're back to a skip's deuce? Does the skip really deserve all the credit for dropping an extra point?
This is why there's an argument for defining the skip's deuce in terms of the 2 stones, not the 2 throws. If those 2 stones become counters, that's a skip's deuce, simple as that (or so they argued). There are only 2 stones thrown by the skip/fourth, that's why we don't have a skip's 3-ender and so forth.
In any case, Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit, so go ahead and correct the article if you feel compelled to do so. I think it's clear that I'm not qualified to do it, so I'm going to bow out of this task and find something else to do.
Last edited by curlingclips on 04-13-20 at 01:07PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-13-20 02:11PM |
|
hogged again
Drawmaster
Registered: Mar 2019
Location:
Posts: 659 |
If a skip makes a 3 with a split or other tough shot it's a skip's trips.
Unless you are Switzerland where the skip plays second, then it's a deux-trois.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-13-20 02:35PM |
|
DrB
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Jun 2015
Location:
Posts: 30 |
The problem is that curling is still mostly an amateur sport. A lot of these terms haven't been well defined.
Sounds like the best and simplest definition for a skip's deuce is when 2 points are almost entirely generated by a team's last 2 stones.
That is, before a team's last 2 shots, they were not sitting shot or looking like they were going to score and after the 2 shots, they counted 2.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-13-20 03:10PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
The bigger problem with regards to terminology I think is that it's a mish-mash of ambiguous words that gets used and reused. You have to examine the context to really know what they're talking about. That's often true with a lot of things, but curling could've made things simpler by using clearer and less ambiguous language, in my opinion.
"The rock picked!", it means its trajectory was affected by debris etc. "Pick the rock!", it means a rather tricky peel, being very careful to avoid jams, usually out of a scoring position in 4-foot circle, leaving everything else intact as they are (as far as I understand it, I'm not sure if that's the correct definition).
First draw of the game in the last draw of the round robin. Will that rock stay shot by the end of the end?
We're not shot, but this rock is shot over that, so what's our next shot?
Can they get first shot with the third's second shot?
You see where I'm going with this.
Last edited by curlingclips on 04-13-20 at 03:16PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-13-20 03:24PM |
|
decade
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Jan 2011
Location:
Posts: 1962 |
To ever see where you are going with this would require at least 2 more glasses of scotch.
Turn your attention and analyze "burn" and "ice maker" both terms that are not used anymore except by wiki.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-13-20 07:38PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
You can try to define "chasing" if you want to help this thread get back on track.
I know sometimes a team needs to chase on the scoreboard if they got jumped by a front-running team, but I'm talking more about chasing rocks.
Example: Jennifer Jones asked Dawn McEwen to chase Lisa Weagle's double center guard that went too deep ("It's on, can you chase it?"), but then changed the call to a come around to the 4-foot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7ZzPGfCnoM
Last edited by curlingclips on 04-13-20 at 07:42PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-13-20 08:33PM |
|
nelski
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Twin Snowbanks
Posts: 2068 |
I've never heard the term "chase the rock".
I think lots of terms are regional. Flob is a common acronym in our area. Stinker is another common term you hear behind the glass in league play. I think burn is still in common use, as in "burn the rock". Has Icemaker become Ice technician? We still call Stoney our Icemaker. Shrugs. They used to pound the ice with the straw brooms, do people still say that? I like listening to the WCF commentators who sound Scottish, because they do use different terminology. I like this thread.
__________________
Lots of major youth (<21) events. Nice for Murdoch... and us :-D.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-13-20 08:50PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
Unfortunately I don't have more examples at my disposal, but chasing rocks does happen a lot. They're mostly from Canadian teams/TSN commentators, if I recall correctly. The commentators usually say things like how dangerous it is to chase a rock that is behind a corner guard when you don't have hammer, for example.
I think they only chase the very last rock thrown by the opposition, never any other rock. Usually the rock that they're chasing is at least partially buried under a guard. I think chasing it means to follow the same path as that rock, more or less same ice, same turn, same weight, with minor adjustment.
So as far as I understand it, it's a specific form of corner freeze: the target must be the very last rock thrown by the opposition, and it has to follow the same path.
If you're corner freezing another rock, or the same rock but with the opposite turn, then it's not a chase, as far as I understand it.
I could be very wrong on this, though.
Last edited by curlingclips on 04-13-20 at 08:59PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-13-20 09:07PM |
|
IN-OFF-FOR-2
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 1875 |
I think it's finally time for my favourite phrase. The dead horse called, he said stop beating him.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-13-20 09:56PM |
|
DrB
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Jun 2015
Location:
Posts: 30 |
To chase a rock is to throw a take out at a rock that is partially buried.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-13-20 10:24PM |
|
nelski
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Twin Snowbanks
Posts: 2068 |
I get it now. Chase a rock = go after a rock. Don't ignore it and play your own end, get rid of the one they played, or at least make it uncountable.
__________________
Lots of major youth (<21) events. Nice for Murdoch... and us :-D.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-14-20 12:49AM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
Holy moly, I think you got it! That explains why sometimes chasing is a corner freeze, and sometimes (as implied in the Jones vs Homan biter bar case) it's a takeout!
Here's a fun one: what's a choking shot? I think I've only heard it used with regards to the opposition's corner guard, and the shot usually ends up being a halfway come around that is wide open but "plugs the hole", so to speak.
No example handy, sorry, but I'm sure others have heard this.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-14-20 01:05AM |
|
DrB
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Jun 2015
Location:
Posts: 30 |
To choke something off generally means to put a rock in a path to block it so that the other team can’t use that path.
For example, if the other team has last rock and has a corner guard, you could draw half burried around the corner guard in the top of the house to block the other team from being able to bury a draw behind the guard and be shot rock. You would be choking off their draw around the guard.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|