Registered: Jan 2011
Location:
Posts: 1962

quote:

---

Originally posted by curlingclips

That's not true. In boxing, if it's a draw, there's no additional round, that's it, fight's over. And boxing is probably the most lucrative televised sport event there is in terms of dollars.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:

---

Originally posted by decade
Boxing? Not even close. $ wise NFL, Viewer wise Tour de France.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1418

quote:

---

Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
Taking away hammer for blank ends just means the team without hammer will play for the blank instead of the team with hammer. If anything it will lead to more blank ends.

---

__________________
It’s me!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

This blank end talk is a bit of a digression, but I would argue that the most natural way to encourage more rocks in play is to add this new rule:

Rocks only go out of play when they cross the backline. Rocks that bounce off the side bumpers remain in play.

Adding that rule also simplifies the rules, reducing complications, preventing controversies. For example, in this scenario, under this proposed rule, Gushue would naturally score 3 against Koe fair and square, no controversy.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/curling/gu...l-bumper-touch/

This also removes the cat-and-mouse waiting game where teams are wasting rocks putting up and peeling center guard. Now, a half rock peel of a high center guard would send two rocks towards the bumpers that can bounce back in.

Additionally, it becomes harder to blast frozen rocks away, because even after they leave the rings, they can still bounce back in.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

Its not just issues with networks having to buy bigger blocks of times for potential extra ends. And its not just scheduling issues. And its not even having the pebble last that long.

Dont forget that curling extra ends are generally anti-climatic. I know the new rules help, and we will see the exact analytics over time on this, but having hammer in the last end is such a big advantage that the end is somewhat boring.

Most other sports when you get to "over time" it gets way more exciting. I dont feel that way with a curling extra end due to hammer advantage.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

I still haven't heard counterargument against using 0.5 point as the price of LSFE.

As John Cullen argued, this starts the game with the hammer team behind on the scoreboard, so the chase is on right away, and it will hopefully lead to more offense.

We don't even have to literally use 0.5 if it's too weird. We can just say that the game is Koe* vs Gushue, and the asterisk means Koe has LSFE, and Koe has to beat Gushue but Gushue doesn't have to beat Koe.

With LSFE advantage comes the burden to outscore opposition by at least 1 to win. Without LSFE advantage, the team has no such burden and wins by just keeping up with the opposition.

If its not obvious which position is better, then we have achieved our goal of balancing the winning percentage between the two teams.

If having LSFE is still winning, then it should intuitively be less than the current percentage, not more, so that's a good thing.

If having LSFE becomes losing, then we might have to abort the experiment, but I doubt that it would be significantly losing. If it's losing but more winning than the 40% winning percentage currently for not having LSFE, it would still be an improvement.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2016
Location: River Falls, WI, USA
Posts: 445

My problem with a draw shot to an empty house to decide a tie game at the end is it's too different to the way the rest of the game is played. The finish of the game should look like the meat of the game, i.e. having to negotiate with the rock traffic on the sheet.

So, how about this instead... tiebreaker rock challenge. Each team will still get to throw exactly one stone, so it's no longer time-wise than this draw-to-the-button thing.

The difference is at the conclusion of the final end of a tie game, the teams DO NOT RESET THE ROCKS. However they ended up to score that tie is how they stay.

The team that would normally have hammer at this point decides if they want to keep that and throw last, or if they want give it to the other team so that they can choose the Tiebreaker Rocks instead.

The team without hammer will look at the sheet and, from amongst the rocks that are in play, they choose one rock of each color to remove from its current position and return to the far end. Those are the rocks the teams will shoot to decide the game. The teams may decide amongst themselves which player in their lineup will shoot these shots.

If a team does not have any rocks in play at the conclusion of the final end, then that's tough luck for them. They won't get to shoot anything.

If somehow the final end was a completely blank end that led to this tie, then at this point you can do the current draw-to-the-button instead using any rocks.

This way, the way the game, and in particular the final end, progressed still affects the final outcome. With the shooting-at-an-empty-house-draw-shot-challenge, that is lost. It feels to me like they might as well have done that at the start and not wasted the last few hours.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:

---

Originally posted by Observer
My problem with a draw shot to an empty house to decide a tie game at the end is it's too different to the way the rest of the game is played.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2016
Location: River Falls, WI, USA
Posts: 445

No, that ten-end game is different because someone is starting with a lead just because they won draw-to-the-button at the start. All that idea does is move the draw shot that matters from the end of the game to the beginning, and to a time the TV networks aren't covering it because it comes at the end of your practices. It deducts the drama out of the tiebreak.

Now yes, my idea has a difference from the main game too, but the core of curling, that having to play neat shots through the obstacle traffic, which is what I come to watch, would be largely preserved.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2018
Location:
Posts: 407

quote:

---

Originally posted by curlky
Most other sports when you get to "over time" it gets way more exciting. I dont feel that way with a curling extra end due to hammer advantage.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990

I'm still trying to figure out this T-ball mentality where both teams should have an equal chance to win in the extra end. As for the 95/5 split on odds off winning, that's pretty good considering that with an undefended last shot to win the team with hammer should win everytime.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1418

quote:

---

Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
I'm still trying to figure out this T-ball mentality where both teams should have an equal chance to win in the extra end. As for the 95/5 split on odds off winning, that's pretty good considering that with an undefended last shot to win the team with hammer should win everytime.

---

__________________
It’s me!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990

Also, there are 8/10 ends before the extra end where the team that does not have hammer could have won the game but were only able to tie. Why should you get a second chance in the extra end?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:

---

Originally posted by guido
Also, this idea that any team should start the game with a half point advantage is ridiculous.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1418

The question does not have to be answered at all.

By the eight end of a ten end game, both teams normally know what they have to do in the next 2 ends to win the game.
If one team meets those goals then they win. ( going an extra end may be the goal).
If anyone has any experience at playing the game, they would know this.

In other sports, the home team usually wins. (Home field advantage). Should these games now be played at a neutral site? Just to make it “fair”.

__________________
It’s me!

Last edited by guido on 09-30-22 at 04:54PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:

---

Originally posted by guido
In other sports, the home team usually wins. (Home field advantage).

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990

The game is already balanced 50/50 at the start of the game. Both teams have an equal opportunity to get the hammer during their draw to the button. After that there is no reason to handicap one team or the other.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:

---

Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
The game is already balanced 50/50 at the start of the game. Both teams have an equal opportunity to get the hammer during their draw to the button.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1418

quote:

---

Originally posted by curlingclips

Honestly, I would be perfectly fine with giving the away team 0.5 point advantage. So the home team has to beat the away team to win, but the away team does NOT have to beat the home team.

It's just like in boxing. Challenger has to beat the champion to win the belt, but the champion retains the belt with a draw. It's not such a crazy idea, and I wouldn't mind seeing more of it in sports to balance the winning percentage.

---

__________________
It’s me!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

I admit that I'm not a general sports fan. That's why I come up with these crazy ideas.

For example, I wholeheartedly believe that the Brier would be better if every Nunavut stone is worth 2 points if they're playing against Gushue. Maybe 3 points, even.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2018
Location:
Posts: 407

quote:

---

Originally posted by curlingclips
Rocks only go out of play when they cross the backline. Rocks that bounce off the side bumpers remain in play.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:

---

Originally posted by hailstone
Notice anything missing here? That's also missing in most curling centers around the world?

---

Last edited by curlingclips on 09-30-22 at 10:08PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1418

quote:

---

Originally posted by curlingclips
[

Most events already use solid bumpers, including at the Olympics and World championships, so this is not an absurd thing to add to the sport.

[/B]

---

__________________
It’s me!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location: Ontario
Posts: 36

quote:

---

Originally posted by guido
The question does not have to be answered at all.

By the eight end of a ten end game, both teams normally know what they have to do in the next 2 ends to win the game.
If one team meets those goals then they win. ( going an extra end may be the goal).
If anyone has any experience at playing the game, they would know this.

In other sports, the home team usually wins. (Home field advantage). Should these games now be played at a neutral site? Just to make it “fair”.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

If you believe that it's a fundamental truth that LSFE must be winning no matter what, then instead of giving 0.5 freebie point to the team without LSFE, we can give it to the team with LSFE instead. In other words, if both teams score the same number of points in 10 ends of curling, the team with LSFE wins.

Jason Gunnlaugson will be sorely disappointed, the game will become even more imbalanced, but we would still preserve that so-called fundamental truth, and we would eliminate extra ends.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged