|
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.
| 01-21-22 09:05PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
Re: Negative offers
quote:
Originally posted by Curlwalker
What if Nunavut wins LSFE over Gushue. Their reward is to either give up a lead or give up last rock? They cannot just take last rock or else everyone could. So what can they offer? If they lose the draw challenge at least they can either get last rock or a lead. What is their incentive to win the draw?
I don't understand what you're saying here (in particular the "negative offers" title).
Say Team Nunavut wins LSD over Gushue. So now Gushue gets to set the price of LSFE, and Nunavut decides.
If Gushue sets the price at 0, then Nunavut would gladly "pay" it. It's basically a freebie LSFE, just like the way things are right now.
If Gushue sets the price at 5 points, then Nunavut would probably give up LSFE and start the game 5 points up, which is probably a good deal.
If Gushue sets the price at -5 points, then Nunavut would gladly "pay" it. So now Nunavut starts with LSFE and 5 points up!
So the incentive to win LSD is to see what price Gushue sets the LSFE at, then Nunavut can decide whether to accept or reject the price. Depending on how crazy Gushue gets, it can be a good deal!!
But yes, assuming the price is a positive number near equilibrium, LSFE is no longer "free", so it will be less advantageous in the hands of Team Nunavut. It will also be less advantageous in the hands of Jacobs, Koe, and everyone else.
The idea is not to give the whole pie away to one party or the other. The idea is to introduce a system by which the pie can be split evenly between the two parties.
This LSFE komi system is just trying to put a fair price on LSFE. It's not trying to address the skill imbalance between Gushue and Nunavut. That would have to be done via a separate handicap system, if we want to go that route.
It's just like in Go. Given two equally ranked players, whoever is disadvantaged by the move turn order gets compensated with komi. Then, as a completely separate procedure, a lower ranked player playing against a higher ranked player may be allowed to make several "free moves" at the start of the game as handicap, basically to get a bit of a head start with some unchallenged setup moves.
Last edited by curlingclips on 01-21-22 at 09:40PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-21-22 10:22PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
Let's start with MD first: blank end results in loss of hammer. [...] can it even out hammer advantage? It certainly reduces hammer power.
So to be clear, we're talking about what would happen if any time there's a blanked end in 4-person curling, the hammer goes to the opposition in the next end, right?
This is of course a very old idea, and it has been discussed to death over the years. It does have several high profile supporters.
https://twinetime.libsyn.com/betwee...ith-bruce-mouat (at ~40m)
2018 Bruce Mouat: "Me, being a fan of mixed doubles... (YES!!) I kind of like the rule where, if you blank you lose the hammer? (YEP!!) It just kind of encourages more aggressive curling, which, for me is, like, a fun way to curl... (And probably better for fans in general!!)"
I actually had a similar but different proposal: you can retain the hammer in case of a blanked end only if the score is not tied. If the score is tied and you blank an end, you lose the hammer.
I came up with that idea a while ago, way before I explored the pie rule LSFE auction komi idea. So the game starts at 0-0, and theres no incentive to blank the first end.
Similarly, if you're in the 9th end and score is equal, you have no incentive to blank the end. You either pick up 1 or give up 1, and we'd have a classic 10th end drama where a deuce wins the game. This does sacrifice the classic tied 9th end must-force but no blank tension, but it puts a different kind of tension in the 10th end, which to me is worth it. Besides, the 9th end tension usually either blows up and you give up a big end, or it blows up the other way and you get a blanked end, and either way it goes, the 10th end becomes anticlimactic. (It is great when it doesn't blow up and the team successfully get a force, though!).
And of course you can't just blank an extra end and try again, which is good.
The one thing with my proposal is that if you're already down 1, and you see that a deuce is unlikely, you can still try to blank the end and try again next end.
I honestly have no idea how one would analyze this properly, but obviously these kind of ideas has been explored in podcasts and articles, etc.
I can say that this would add more rules affecting play (if we have 100 rules before, we'll end up with 110 rules after, and who knows if those 10 rules are even correct), and it would change how the game is played, which may or may not be a good thing.
Last edited by curlingclips on 01-21-22 at 10:58PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-22-22 03:19AM |
|
Gerry
CZ Founder
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 4002 |
If you force the hammer to switch on a blank, I am concerned there are teams that can "run" a team into a force.
I agree that Mixed Doubles is great but it's not the hammer blank rule that forces teams to play.
It's the center guard and rock behind the 4-foot. As soon as a Mixed Doubles end break down, where nothing is in play, it's a boring finish.
Some of the best hitting teams in the game can make all the runbacks and doubles.
Imagine, in, corner, throw-away, corner. (same side corner now dead) as that's a double peel.
Non-hammer team maybe throws away again or maybe another in or a guard. All depends how aggressive a team needs to be in the middle. They don't at all, and could throw away all 3 if they want to avoid their opponent drawing around middle.
Hammer goes around the corner with 6th shot. Runback double. Without hammer stone now as corner.
Around other corner with 8th shot. Repeat runback double, leave non-hammer corner stone up.
Onto shot 10th shot of the end. Or maybe 12th or 14th if it took a couple extra shots to make a double.
Now both corners are opposition stones. Going around creates the scenario where the runback is made and it's a force. Contact is all they need to remove shot stone. These teams are good enough to stick it many times.
Now the hammer team is forced into a single, because of the defensive tactics of their opponents.
__________________
CurlingZone
Everything...Curling!
Please click on our sponsors' banners periodically, as visiting their sites helps keep CurlingZone.com Free!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-22-22 06:54AM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry
If you force the hammer to switch on a blank, I am concerned there are teams that can "run" a team into a force.
This is why I proposed that you only give up the hammer if score is tied.
So, yes, in the first end you can "run" a team into a force, but next end the score won't be tied anymore, so you can't just keep repeating this the whole game.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-22-22 09:01AM |
|
Observer
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2016
Location: River Falls, WI, USA
Posts: 445 |
The problem with the extra end seems to be the hammer itself, yes? One team’s got it and the other doesn’t so you can’t have a tie breaking end without that basic unfairness being there.
So let’s diminish that effect like this: make the extra end a race to sit two. Whoever is first to sit two at any point in the end after the fifth rock is thrown wins. So the extra end can end as early as when the seconds are throwing. If we get all the way to the 16th stone, then whoever is sitting one at that point still wins.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-22-22 09:23AM |
|
oliviertoisel
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2021
Location:
Posts: 587 |
quote:
Originally posted by curlingclips
This is why I proposed that you only give up the hammer if score is tied.
So, yes, in the first end you can "run" a team into a force, but next end the score won't be tied anymore, so you can't just keep repeating this the whole game.
I realize I explained my concept incompletely: the no-blank rule (e.g. hammer switches if there's a blank) only applies to the first end. So either a team scores or the team with LSFE forfeits hammer. This negates the power of hammer somewhat without doing so entirely. The rest of the game permits "normal" blanks.
Unrelated but no-blanks definitely does affect MDs more than is given credit here. Teams almost never clear in MD, even run-backs are usually attempts to keep a guard up. If you could blank traditionally that would surely change especially with men usually throwing the middles tones.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-22-22 12:51PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
I realize I explained my concept incompletely: the no-blank rule (e.g. hammer switches if there's a blank) only applies to the first end.
I still like my version better: hammer switches if there's a blanked end when score is tied.
That way, if the team without hammer plays an excellent extra end where there is no choice but to blank, they get rewarded with the hammer in double extra end.
The way it is right now, the team without hammer in extra end can absolutely never get the hammer, which is a bit cruel if you ask me.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-22-22 01:07PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by Observer
The problem with the extra end seems to be the hammer itself, yes?
There's also time allocation issue, especially with regards to TV broadcast, as WCF explained.
quote:
Originally posted by Observer
So let’s diminish that effect like this: make the extra end a race to sit two.
I still much prefer the pie rule LSFE auction komi idea. That way, the players resolve the price of LSFE amongst themselves, then they just play regular curling and see who the better team is.
* If they think LSFE should be free, then set the price at 0, and absolutely nothing has changed about the game.
* If they want to be as close to equitable as possible either way, then let them figure out what the equilibrium price is.
* If they don't want extra ends, then use non-integer price (i.e. 0.5 point).
* If Nunavut wins LSD, and Gushue wants to be nice/crazy and sets a negative price, then Nunavut can start the game with hammer and already up on the scoreboard.
Let the players decide the price of LSFE, then let them play regular curling afterward.
I don't like it when a game of curling is decided by something other than curling that someone else came up with.
Last edited by curlingclips on 01-22-22 at 01:45PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-22-22 07:18PM |
|
oliviertoisel
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2021
Location:
Posts: 587 |
You can keep preferring your Go rule and it will keep being pointless because there is only one possible outcome once the stats are known. Just save everyone the headache and award the team without hammer 1.5 points by default.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-22-22 09:14PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
You can keep preferring your Go rule
Pie rule does not come from Go. Pie rule is applicable for many situations outside of Go. In fact, that's why it's called the pie rule, because it's traditionally applied to the splitting of a pie between two parties.
I say let the players cut the pie for themselves. Who are we to cut the pie for them. The process is only fair if one person cuts the pie, and the other person chooses the first piece.
If a third party cuts the pie, then the process is inherently unfair.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-22-22 11:21PM |
|
oliviertoisel
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2021
Location:
Posts: 587 |
quote:
Originally posted by curlingclips
Pie rule does not come from Go. Pie rule is applicable for many situations outside of Go. In fact, that's why it's called the pie rule, because it's traditionally applied to the splitting of a pie between two parties.
I say let the players cut the pie for themselves. Who are we to cut the pie for them. The process is only fair if one person cuts the pie, and the other person chooses the first piece.
If a third party cuts the pie, then the process is inherently unfair.
Are you just trolling people? This is outright gaslighting. You literally introduced this concept by reference to komi and now you write a three paragraph post saying I'm wrong to refer to it as such. I don't think I can keep this (talking to you) up, it's too frustrating. Sorry.
Last edited by oliviertoisel on 01-22-22 at 11:25PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-22-22 11:51PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
Are you just trolling people?
No, I'm not! There are two parts to this idea:
* Should the player who is disadvantaged by move order be compensated in some way? Komi from Go suggests that the answer is yes.
* How much should that compensation be? Pie rule is a fair process to determine the value.
Wikipedia suggests that komi is introduced in 1920's. Pie rule is much older, as it's mentioned in the bible (Abraham and Lot split the land of Canaan into two regions).
Then, you said this:
quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
Just save everyone the headache and award the team without hammer 1.5 points by default.
This means that you're OK with the concept of komi from Go in curling, but you don't want the pie rule, because you think you can just decide that the price should be 1.5 points.
So when you said that this is "pointless because there is only one possible outcome once the stats are known", you're rejecting the pie rule, not the concept of komi from Go.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-23-22 01:26AM |
|
IN-OFF-FOR-2
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 1875 |
quote:
Originally posted by curlingclips
No, I'm not! There are two parts to this idea:
* Should the player who is disadvantaged by move order be compensated in some way? Komi from Go suggests that the answer is yes.
* How much should that compensation be? Pie rule is a fair process to determine the value.
Wikipedia suggests that komi is introduced in 1920's. Pie rule is much older, as it's mentioned in the bible (Abraham and Lot split the land of Canaan into two regions).
Then, you said this:
This means that you're OK with the concept of komi from Go in curling, but you don't want the pie rule, because you think you can just decide that the price should be 1.5 points.
So when you said that this is "pointless because there is only one possible outcome once the stats are known", you're rejecting the pie rule, not the concept of komi from Go.
Trolling. Why yes curling lips. After weeks of BS and clips and links, after ALL that, you’re admitting you’re wrong. Why would you propose the team that LOST the pregame draw the button be awarded points? When in any sport are losers given points or an advantage? Name one. I’m sure you’ll dig back to the Roman or Greek games or something.
Oh yes the lions had the advantage at the collosium.
Why would you ever suggest to give the losing team an advantage over the team that won the draw. Crazy. Just play the game. Team that wins the dtb gets their choice of hammer. They won. They deserve it. Team that ends up with hammer after 8 or 10 ends strategically earned the advantage to have it in the extra end. Just stop. No real curling fan, especially those that have actually played the game instead of watching “clips” know the game should be played to win, not given ill-gotten advantages for losing. I rue the day a team is given an advantage to a team that loses the dtb.
Examples. Without links and clips. NFL. Team that loses the coin toss is given 3 points. Visiting nhl team given one goal. Visiting mlb team given one run. Many more.
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. The integrity of the game is more important than fitting it into a timeline for wcf.
This drivel has gone on for way too long.
Start a new thread. Curling with shorts or not.
Sorry. Hear endeth today’s rant. I do tend to go on at times but this whole thing just irks me to no end. To quote Morgan Freeman, “ I’m getting too old for this”crud”.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-23-22 03:31AM |
|
Gerry
CZ Founder
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 4002 |
This is not "awarding points for losing".
This is giving the winning team the choice of rocks/half point OR last rock advantage.
There were days not long ago that teams sometimes chose rocks on the sheet because the hammer in the first wasn't so advantageous and the differences in rocks mattered.
Now teams just auto pick hammer.
__________________
CurlingZone
Everything...Curling!
Please click on our sponsors' banners periodically, as visiting their sites helps keep CurlingZone.com Free!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-23-22 08:53AM |
|
Curlwalker
Hitting Paint
Registered: Jan 2015
Location:
Posts: 109 |
Where to test
I am not against the 1/2 point experiment. In fact the more I see the argument for "pie" the less I like that. If the principle is to prevent extra ends .5 accomplishes that at least. It would take some time to gather the statistics to see if it really changes the win percentages for LSFE. However I think I am leaning to supporting the .5 if only for its elimination of extra ends.
I know the emphasis for this has been on tv influence but extra ends have been a problem as long as I can remember when trying to keep local bonspiels on track. Many of them have moved to one throw to the button to decide the extra end just based on time constraints already Also in local spiels and club curling LSFE is still a coin toss so eliminating or easing the advantage makes sense there as LSFE is in no way earned in that case.
BTW the stats quoted in an earlier article in this thread are largely pre 5 rock rule. Did that rule change the percentages at all do you think?
Also in those stats it surprised me to see that Koe had LSFE less than 50% of the time with Homan not a lot better where Hasselborg and Edin were much more on the plus side.
Records of some of the favourites in the Olympic field when they have hammer in the first end and when they don’t
Team Country Record with Record without
Kevin Koe Canada 25-2 15-14
Niklas Edin Sweden 40-5 16-14
Thomas Ulsrud Norway 29-5 14-23
Rachel Homan Canada 22-4 11-7
Eve Muirhead Great Britain 31-7 14-12
Anna Hasselborg Sweden 36-7 14-7
*Stats provided by CurlingZone
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-23-22 01:26PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
Re: Where to test
quote:
Originally posted by Curlwalker
I am not against the 1/2 point experiment. In fact the more I see the argument for "pie" the less I like that.
That's a fair complaint. I acknowledge that I have reached a cross point of two incompatible goals.
* The perfect mechanism to eliminate extra ends would not significantly change winning percentage. We should be able to just use it, and we would get to the same result as before, but now guaranteed in 10 ends or less.
* The perfect mechanism to put a price on LSFE would make both teams equitable with or without, so it will absolutely change the winning percentage (and it may or may not eliminate extra ends).
Believe it or not, I empathize with those who are against the idea of giving fair compensation to the team without LSFE. Who am I to say that if Koe and Edin play against each other, that we shouldn't be able to predict who wins and who loses based on LSFE. Maybe the philosophy of curling is exactly that we ARE supposed to be able to predict who wins and who loses based on LSFE?
Some (not all) of y'all seems to believe that the answer is YES. And y'all could be right.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 01-23-22 04:12PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by IN-OFF-FOR-2
Just play the game. Team that wins the dtb gets their choice of hammer. They won. They deserve it. Team that ends up with hammer after 8 or 10 ends strategically earned the advantage to have it in the extra end.
No one is against these basic principles per se, except that we don't know for sure if the game is "in a good place" (a vague term, I know) with 8 or 10 end games.
Surely you agree with me that the game would not be "in a good place" if we only play 1 end per game, right? And on the flip side, I think most people would agree that the game would be "in a good place" if we play 100 ends per game.
So what can we say about 10 ends? Is it different than 8 ends? Does increasing skill level and ice quality change the equation?
These are legitimate questions, and if we discover that the game is not "in a good place" in 10 ends (as far as elite teams playing in top quality ice are concerned), then maybe we should think about what can be done about it.
Last edited by curlingclips on 01-23-22 at 04:41PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-06-22 03:50PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
An interesting update.
I found out that there are point handicap system in place in curling, at least in Switzerland.
Discussion thread:
https://www.curlingzone.com/showthr...?threadid=13318
"Unpopular opinion: the Brier/Scotties should have point handicap system"
Last edited by curlingclips on 03-06-22 at 04:48PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-06-22 06:01PM |
|
Statman
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Mar 2004
Location:
Posts: 2011 |
Why eliminate one of the most exciting aspects of curling, the extra end?This contrivance would also alter the very strategy of late ends curling.
Three thumbs down!
__________________
"It's only rock and roll (But we like it!)" Keith and Mick on curling
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-06-22 06:49PM |
|
GregJP
Swing Artist
Registered: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 378 |
Team A has hammer and plays 4 "successful" ends.
blanks, scores two, holds opposition to one, and scores two.
At this point team A has a 4-1 lead and is well on the way to victory.
What about team B that starts the game without hammer. They force, score two, force, and blank.
At this point team B have played 4 "successful" ends and all they've managed to do is get the hammer in a tied game.
No wonder teams with hammer in the first end win a way higher percentage of the time than teams without the hammer. So if after 10 ends team B has managed to tie team A they have in effect outplayed team A and deserve the W.
Doing this will mean that winning or losing among two equal teams will be a lot closer to 50/50 and not 65/35 for the team with the hammer in the first end.
And the comparisons to other sports are ridiculous. Winning the coin toss in football or the first face off in hockey are pretty much inconsequential compared to the effect of having hammer in the first end.
Or you figure out a way to make the extra end closer to 50/50. Start with rocks in play for the team without hammer or something like that.
Last edited by GregJP on 03-06-22 at 06:51PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-06-22 07:01PM |
|
GregJP
Swing Artist
Registered: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 378 |
30-40 years ago the idea of a "free guard zone" would have been dismissed by traditionalists just as this idea is being dismissed by some of you.
Something has to be done about the fact that having hammer in the first end is too much of an advantage. Just as something had to be done about hitting everything made the game unwatcheable in terms of being a spectator sport.
Maybe this 0.5 point handicap isn't the perfect solution. But something has to be done. Especially now with 8 end games possibly becoming the norm.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-06-22 07:07PM |
|
johnnysmoke
Drawmaster
Registered: Nov 2002
Location:
Posts: 612 |
quote:
Originally posted by GregJP
What about team B that starts the game without hammer. They force, score two, force, and blank.
At this point team B have played 4 "successful" ends and all they've managed to do is get the hammer in a tied game.
t.
A flaw in your example perhaps . A succesful team starting without wouldn't blank the fourth end. They would go for 2, making it a 4-2 game with last rock in the 8th/10th, no?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-06-22 07:34PM |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
4 perfect ends
This "4 perfect ends" argument is fun!
Game 1. Let's say, 4 perfect ends for Team A with LSFE is blank-deuce-force-deuce, i.e. up by 3 without hammer, 4–1 score.
Game 2. Let's say, 4 perfect ends for Team B without LSFE is force-deuce-force-deuce, i.e. up by 2 without hammer, 4–2 score.
That's the way things are right now. In both games, both teams played 4 perfect ends, but somehow Team A with LSFE has an extra 1 point margin compared to Team B without LSFE.
However, if we give the team that throws the first rock in a game a +0.5 point handicap, we would have both teams up by exactly 2.5 (4–1.5 in Game 1, 4.5–2 in Game 2).
In other words, after 4 perfect ends, both Game 1 and Game 2 are now exactly equal in every way.
Is that better or worse? You decide!
Last edited by curlingclips on 03-06-22 at 08:05PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-06-22 08:19PM |
|
johnnysmoke
Drawmaster
Registered: Nov 2002
Location:
Posts: 612 |
No one is saying these are perfect end scenarios.
In fact here's an imperfect scenario:
Team without hammer steals 1 point in the first end.
Team without then steals 1 in the second end.
They force the opposition to 1 in the 3rd and they take 2 in the fourth.
They are a better team than the team with the hammer and are up 4-1 after 4 ends.
They win this 8 end game by a score of 8-2. And they don't need to handicap their opponents with sandpaper sliders.
Fun with numbers!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-06-22 08:29PM |
|
GregJP
Swing Artist
Registered: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 378 |
Just like the fact that 98% of the curling leagues in Canada don't need a free guard zone because the players aren't good enough to peel successfully a high percentage of the time.
So why do we have it. Mostly for the elite teams so we don't have to sit through 3-2 games with no rocks in play.
Same thing applies to the points handicap for last rock thing. Not needed for 98% of leagues, but at the highest elite level too many games are being decided by draws to the button before the game even starts. Something has to be done and eventually something will be done no matter how much some of you don't want it.
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 > Idea to eliminate extra ends: award win to the team that throws first rock
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 Womenâs 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)