Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

So in curling, neither team scores until all 16 rocks have been thrown, and then only one team scores, unless it's a blank end.

But what if we can change the scoring rules so that teams score even before all 16 rocks have been thrown?

For most sports, frequent scoring is usually associated with more excitement, so that's why I'm wondering if this is possible in curling.

If we design it carefully, this may also address the problem of boring blanks with no rocks in play, and it may also help reduce the need of extra ends.

One easy proposal (which I haven't given much thought) is awarding 0.1 point every time a team puts up a guard. More precisely, if the shooter ends up in FGZ, that team gets 0.1 point immediately on the scoreboard.

0.1 point is small enough that if a team is crazy enough to put up 8 guards, that's still only 0.8 points, still worth less than a single stone on the paint. For the purpose of determining who has hammer next end, only stones in the house matters (i.e. if the house is empty after 16 stones have been thrown, the team with hammer gets to keep it, even if there were guards that scored).

Recall that prior to FGZ, the crowd used to cheer whenever the team with hammer puts up a corner guard instead of hitting, so I think awarding 0.1 point for a guard in modern era isn't too far fetched.

If one team keeps putting up center guards and the other team keeps hitting half rock to peel them, that's one team slowly racking up 0.1 point one guard at a time.

A super defensive team with hammer may tolerate one blank end, but several blank ends in a row will probably start racking up too many points for the team without hammer.

A team that has an open draw for 1 point now may also consider tapping one of their guards in for 1.1 point, getting the bonus 0.1 point from the shooter. If that's too crazy, then maybe we can say hammer doesn't qualify for the 0.1 point, and only the first 15 stones of the end do.

Thoughts? Do you have better ideas?

Last edited by curlingclips on 02-22-23 at 08:15PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 1875

I can't believe I'm taking the bait... but I think you need to put your helmet back on.

For someone who has admitted to never playing the game, barely understands the game, why is it your goal in life to relentlessly post never ending and ridiculous possible changes? I just don't get it. Just sit back, relax and enjoy the roaring game.

It ain't broke. Don't make up cr@p to try and fix it..

PS Scotties so far so good. Some great games, a few not so great, but that's curling. Hoping for an underdog.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

I guess one potential problem with this rule is, are we going to use the six-foot measure for stones 5-15, to determine whether the shooter should be awarded 0.1 point for being in FGZ?

As far as I know, the six foot measure used to only be used after stone 16, i.e. to determine scores. Then, with the introduction of FGZ, it's now also used for stone 1-4, to determine if a stone is in FGZ in context of 5-rock rule.

This creates additional complication, because there could be other stones in the way of the stick. We've since invented a stick that is taller so it can go above other stones, but if the pin is covered, then even the tall stick is unusable for stones 1-15.

So maybe we should limit the 0.1 point only for stones 1-4 in 5-rock era. Yes, it can be a pain to determine whether the stone should be awarded 0.1 point or not, but we have to do that right now anyway to determine if the stone is protected by 5-rock rule or not, so we can just piggyback on that existing burden.

----------------------------------

Alternatively we can also start from scratch and propose this rule instead: if the number of stones in play increases by 1 after a team completed their shot, the team gets 0.1 point.

Determining whether a stone is in play or not is already an existing part of the game, so this rule just piggybacks on that burden entirely, and still may have the desired effect of rewarding offensive style and deterring boring blanks.

This does mean that drawing for 1 is now worth 1.1 points.

Last edited by curlingclips on 02-23-23 at 07:26PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2023
Location:
Posts: 3

Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have enjoyed reading your blog posts. Anyway, I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon. Big thanks for the useful info stumble guys

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2023
Location:
Posts: 2

This is a difficult situation to solve. Have you found the most suitable solution? Geometry Dash Scratch

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

The 2 most popular/watched sports in teh world, American Football and Football/Soccer are both slow to score, and actaully score at a lower rate per minute than curling.

So I'm not sure if this would help curling.

If you want to make the game more exciting, try adding new camera angles to show shots in a more exciting way. The manner that shots are shown being swept down the ice really downplays what is going on

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:

---

Originally posted by curlky
So I'm not sure if this would help curling.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

Here's another example. Consider this very common first end scenario.

Red puts their first stone into the house. Yellow hits it, and they start exchanging hits, "target practice", "running them up and down", the typical boring first end blank.

Yellow accidentally rolls out with the first skip's stone, so red puts their last stone top 4.

Right now, obviously yellow will hit it with the hammer and roll out for a blank. However, if we give 0.1 point every time a team puts one more stone in play, then this blank attempt will concede 0.2 points to red, for the 2 draws with their first and last stone.

They can hit and stick to score 1. Or they can tap the red stone to back 8 or come around the red to cover the pin to score 1.1.

I think that makes the game a lot more interesting.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

Here's another example. 2019 Scotties final, Homan up 1 in 10th with hammer, Carey must steal at least 1 to not lose the game.

You can watch a replay to see that this is how that end went.

+ Carey center guard.
+ Homan tick.
+ Carey center guard.
+ Homan tick.
+ Carey center guard.
- Homan peel.
+ Carey center guard
- Homan peel.
+ Carey buries one in the ring behind shrapnel from ticks.
- Homan peel shrapnel.
+ Carey corner guard.
- Homan peel.
+ Carey high corner guard.
+ Homan freeze.
+ Carey tap to sit 2.
+ Homan draw for the win, but it was light leaving Carey sitting 1.

So under current scoring rules, Carey stole 1 point, that's it. That's indeed what happened in 2019, and Carey went on to steal the extra end to win the game.

Under my proposal, every + in that shot list above scores 0.1 point. So Carey scored 1.8 points this end, while Homan only scored 0.4 points, meaning that Carey basically outscored Homan by 1.4 points.

If Carey was behind by exactly 1 point at the start of the 10th end, she wins immediately instead of going to extra end.

-----------------------------------

Speaking of extra ends, sometimes they're blanked, either accidentally (hit and stick rolled out instead) or deliberately (button is occupied by opposition stones, no way to score, must blast to blank and try again).

Under my proposal, chances are the team without hammer will win those "blanked" extra ends immediately, because they probably made more draws than the team with hammer, who are more likely to hit.

I think this is more interesting than going to double extra end and letting the team with hammer try again.

I feel strongly that double extra ends are incredibly cruel to the team without hammer, that I think even if you reject this 0.1 point proposal and you insist that a blanked extra end must go to double extra end, I think we should at least switch the hammer to the other team for kindness sake.

Last edited by curlingclips on 03-15-23 at 12:46AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged