Labels

Rule-gate? What in the World is World Curling proposing?


Disclaimer: All opinions provided are of the author and do not reflect those of the World Curling Federation, its member associations, or its competitors. All remarks made with the exception of the facts stated are strictly my opinion.

Edit: At this time, the World Curling Federation is in the consultation process


To tick or not to tick? That is the question.

On September 10, 2021 the World Curling Federation shared the news of potential rules being trialled at the upcoming Men's and Women's World Championships in spring 2022. 

It's safe to say that much uproar and criticism has been sparked from the curling community, but most notably and most importantly, the athletes. If you haven't heard the news yet or need a refresher, let's first go over what the federation is proposing.


The Lowdown

According to the World Curling Federation's press release found here, the Board initiated a 'Maximising the Value' (MTV) Working Group back in 2019 when the revision of the length of games was first being considered at that year's Annual General Assembly.

According to the WCF, the group not only debated the implications of the 8 vs. 10 end game length, "but also all of the other issues that have an impact on the presentation of curling at an elite level." In response to this, sports stakeholders were consulted using a major fan survey that was collecting responses during the duration of the 2021 World Men's Curling Championship. The overall feedback of the survey process indicated that the pace of play, length of matches, predictability of a match, and bland ends were all major talking points among the stakeholders. 

Oh yeah, in case you were wondering, the debate of eight vs. ten ends "is still divided, with strong support for both eight and ten ends."


What rules are being suggested?


Rule #1: Thinking Time per end will replace the current Thinking Time rules:

The proposed rule change is that instead of 38 minutes of thinking time for the duration of a regulation game, thinking time will be allotted by end, with 4 minutes for the first five ends and 4 minutes 15 seconds for the ends remaining. If a team should run out of time, the opposition will be allowed to deliver their remaining stones, providing that they do not also run out of time. The final score of the end will be calculated when all opposition stones are delivered. If they also run out of time, points will be calculated at that respective point in the end.

My Opinion:

Thinking time allotted per end was first seen at the 2018 Canada Cup in Estevan, Saskatchewan, as well as the 2018-19 Curling World Cup created by the World Curling Federation. If you can remember, these trials were successful for the most part, but only when looking at how many teams actually ran out of time. The timeclocks did bite teams who were still getting acquainted with them, but most notably Team Kevin Koe (as shown below) and Team Brendan Bottcher who ran out of time on a couple of occasions.


The bottom line is that thinking time per end causes too many problems. Curling is not only about accurately placing your stones, sweeping, and strategy. Curlers also have to think about the more intangible components of the game like scoreboard management. Some could argue that the greater risk of running out of time can add a positive challenge to the game, but I'd disagree with that statement. Thinking time for the entire game allows teams to adopt their own habits when it comes to time management- some like to play fast, others not so quick. Some teams play fast at the beginning of the game and slow things up near the end.

Teams may also have to completely rethink their strategy if thinking time was allotted per end. Running blank ends at the start of the game not only allows teams to get a handle on the ice, but also provides the opportunity to bank a few extra minutes on the clock to be used at a later time. Would this provide enough of a diversion for top-level teams who prefer blanking early to quit blanking and get right into it from the get-go? Would this only encourage teams to use up their entire four minutes if their only intention was to blank the end? Time will tell. 

The only potential 'plus' I see out of this is that if you were to run out of time in the final stages of the game, your chances of winning the match would be significantly lower than if you were to lose time in any given end (or at least in my opinion). But let's be real, how many teams run out of time in the world championships? Right. Really no one has. The cons outweigh the pros (if they're even any?)

In short, I wouldn't really welcome a new time management challenge as I view it as an unnecessary hurdle to get by. Besides the free guard zone, thinking time for the entire match is most definitely my favourite rule introduction of the past few decades. Let's keep it the same, at least for now.



Rule #2: No tick shot rule

The proposed rule is that any stone touching the centre line in the free guard zone prior to the sixth stone of the end cannot be moved off the line. The situation would be reset if a violation of this rule were to occur. 

My Opinion:

Okay let me be honest, I don't really have an opinion on this one. I'll let the athletes decide this one. From my knowledge, this rule was only put into trial once, and quite recently at the 2021 Champions Cup Grand Slam in the Calgary Bubble. It was also part of the unique Elite 10 Grand Slam event which is no longer running. I haven't seen enough opinion from athletes on whether or not they enjoyed this rule or not, but for the most part, it seems fairly unproblematic when compared to the other rule suggestions such as the thinking time revision. 

The seemingly main concern with this one is that the tick shot is such a fundamental component of the game in this day and age. Many will argue that removing it wholly would be a shame. Although I don't have an opinion on this one, I will say that the tick shot provides a positive challenge, unlike thinking time per end. The reward is often massive for leads who have mastered this shot, but it does beg the question of how much predictability this rule would ultimately eliminate. Just from watching the Champions Cup this past year, the free guard zone was noticeably more cluttered which could be both good or bad based on your playing style (I personally love rocks in play!) 

Speaking of playing style, let's talk about strategy again, shall we? It's fair to say that the majority of women's and men's teams play the tick shot on a routine basis, but primarily in the final/extra end. However, some teams with hammer will draw both lead stones into the house under the cover of two opposition centre guards. Many teams were forced to do this in the Champions Cup, so I'd imagine that strategy would have to be replicated with this rule. That would most certainly force a plethora of teams to rethink the placement of their lead stones. I'd also imagine that teams would have a love-hate relationship with this rule above others: a team may deeply miss the tick shot and all its glory, but would happily pounce on the heightened opportunity of a steal in the final end. Centre guards aren't even always perfectly placed on the centre line so you can still tick those when necessary as well.

I've also noticed a caveat with this rule that isn't quite clear in the press release: If I placed a guard on the centre line on my lead's first, but wicked off of it when attempting to come around on my second stone, would the playing surface be rearranged? Or would it be like the five rock rule where you can peel off your own guards whenever you fancy? 

In short, I'd feel for Lisa Weagle but wouldn't mind if this rule was implemented. But again, the athletes should decide if whether or not the challenge presented with no ticks is positive or should be completely shut down.

















Rule #3: No extra ends in the round robin stage

The proposed rule is a team that wins a match in regulation time shall be awarded three points. If a game is tied up, one player from each team will draw to the button with the closest team receiving two points, and the other possessing one point for the round robin standings. If teams are tied for the amount of points in the standings, the team that won the most games within the ten ends will be ranked higher. If a tie still persists, regular ranking rules will apply (head to head, draw shot challenge).

My Opinion:

Many have talked about a point-based ranking system similar to that used in football/soccer. This system was again used in the 2018-19 Curling World Cup. Again, there doesn't seem to be a consensus (at least one available to the public) of what the teams preferred. If I imagined myself playing in that event, I would appreciate the uniqueness of the event and wouldn't completely mind the use of timing per end and a different standings system. The standings, which is a whole debate in itself, hasn't seemed to have drawn as much criticism as opposed to the other part of the rule.

Extra ends have been around for God knows how long. Eliminating them would seem wrong to me, but there is one clear potential upside to eliminating them. Games would almost always stay within their designated broadcasts times (which is obviously not really a direct upside for competing teams, so even though this is clear, it's clear who it really benefits: not the players!). 

Let's brush up on our strategy one more time. Going to a shoot-out would almost equalize teams after 10 ends. I'm sure if this rule was implemented, more teams would elect to go to the shoot-out rather than play a riskier shot for the win. Factoring a shoot-out could also sway some teams to play a more riskier shot FTW if they were not confident in ousting their counterparts in the draw shot challenge. I do think this could cross some team's minds, but ultimately wouldn't play a huge role in shot selection.

My, and probably everyone else's main concern with this rule is that should we really be practically putting teams on equal ground after regulation? Sure if the points are tied, you can say that both performed equally well in securing those points. Extra ends give the advantage to the team that was already leading prior to the 10th end. So the question is, do we reward just points scored even if there's no guarantee who'll win the shootout, or should we also reward scoreboard management and the strategy that leads up to it? We should also keep in mind that some form of luck can factor in to who leads and who trails before the 10th end, so just something else to think about.

I will say that I'm also not 100% certain of my stance on no extra ends, but I am heavily leaning on keeping them. Revising the standings is a whole other story and as previously stated, a whole debate in itself. I would not be completely against a points-based ranking, but I would take that change in a heartbeat over ending extra ends if I was given a choice.


My Poll Statistics

I asked my followers on Instagram and Twitter what they thought of these proposed rule changes, as well as whether or not they'd prefer games to be 8 ends instead of 10. This is a relatively small sample size, with almost all respondents being fans and curlers, but not elite curlers, so keep that in mind.





It seems that an overwhelming majority of people prefer thinking time for the entire game and for extra ends to remain. But as expected, the 8 vs. 10 end tick shot discussions are fairly split.


So What Now?

The WCF's main goal of all of this is to "broaden the appeal for audiences, broadcasters and sponsors". Don't get me wrong, many of us would agree that growing the game is a priority. But what is even a bigger priority is the consultation of the athletes, which was almost certainly neglected this time around. The Federation has said they are currently asking those apart of the Athlete Commission and the Competition and Rules Commission to provide support and guidance for the consultation process before the changes be voted on by the Members at a General Assembly.
Edit: At this time, the World Curling Federation is in the consultation process

 


Thank you for reading! Make sure to follow me on Twitter/Instagram @onthebuttonblog if you haven't already to support my blog :) 


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Total Pageviews

Twitter Timeline

Popular Posts