the deacon
16-01-2004, 10:29 AM
What makes the difference from a good tournament and a great tournament? Does it depend on the number of playing fields, the number of teams participating, the quality level of the teams, the place where it is held, the quality of the organization, all of the above, or non of the above?
In today’s canoe polo playing world, there are many tournaments organized and played be it in London, Amsterdam, Sydney, Zurich, Setubal,Yepers, or Berlin. With scores of teams, different classes, and multiple or single playing fields.
But what makes the difference? To the teams, to the organizers? To the general public? To the single player in a team?
How many of us have travelled around the globe or at least around part of it, playing tournaments in the most different places imaginable? In swimming pools, lakes, canals and rivers. What memories do we bring back to savour? What would make us want to go “there” again?
I have noticed in the last poll that I have posted, that today, the main factors of “bending the rules” seems to be consensus of the vox populous, the absence of a scrutiniser during tournaments, followed by team boats and shirts not complying to uniformity. It seems that a lot of people have something to gripe over.
At the World International at Sydney in 1989, (where I had the pleasure of playing), there was no such problem, as all equipment was controlled, and if the teams were out of sync, they were made to comply to the rules, in ample time before the start, and the games then went on smoothly. This fact was well appreciated by all the teams present.
There are, I am sure, other great tournaments well organized around the globe, where rules are always enforced.
Keeping the above in mind, I think, however, that there are a lot of organizers who should “walk that extra mile” and concentrate on enforcing the rules, as this effort in the long run does make a difference to the overall outcome of the event.
These rules, clearly defined as an integral part of the tournament, should be enforced to the best of our organizing abilities.
I may add that whenever we organized tournaments in the past, it was a challenge for us to be able to abide by these rules, and make the games as much as a pleasure to visiting teams as possible. And every year we still tried harder. And the visiting teams always returned.
Our obligation as organizers, though, was to help teams comply by giving them a hand in doing so.
A scrutinizer, by the way, is just one more person in the organizing team, doing a specific task, like the time keeper, table official or scorekeeper does.
At our tournament, we always put on disposition a set of 8 same colour canoes to use (the turnover of changing canoes was always high due to breakages) in the event that visiting teams were either without canoes or did not have a complete set of same coloured ones to use.
The same goes for the players shirts: we always kept two sets of different coloured shirts for visiting teams to use. Also we kept supplied extra padding and tape for their canoes, if they were not according to rule compliance. Well padded canoes cause less damage to other boats and to players too.
I know that some would say that these efforts are an expense that not many could afford to do, but we thought that these expenses were justifiable for our effort to make that difference. Plus a lot of this additional material we got off local sponsors for free!
It is also very hard on the referees to control the game, with players not complying to unify their colours, as decisions are made on quick reaction times, and it is confusing to understand who is whom with these medley of differently coloured players. If players put themselves into the shoes of referees, they would understand better this problem and comply.
In the long run, it did not really cost us a great expense to comply with the above mentioned rules. it only took a positive effort to enforce them and then to make the teams comply with firmness and courtesy; in the long run, the means justified the end effort.
A small step forward, a big step ahead for the world game of canoe polo.
So why don’t all of us paddle together, and go that extra mile?
In today’s canoe polo playing world, there are many tournaments organized and played be it in London, Amsterdam, Sydney, Zurich, Setubal,Yepers, or Berlin. With scores of teams, different classes, and multiple or single playing fields.
But what makes the difference? To the teams, to the organizers? To the general public? To the single player in a team?
How many of us have travelled around the globe or at least around part of it, playing tournaments in the most different places imaginable? In swimming pools, lakes, canals and rivers. What memories do we bring back to savour? What would make us want to go “there” again?
I have noticed in the last poll that I have posted, that today, the main factors of “bending the rules” seems to be consensus of the vox populous, the absence of a scrutiniser during tournaments, followed by team boats and shirts not complying to uniformity. It seems that a lot of people have something to gripe over.
At the World International at Sydney in 1989, (where I had the pleasure of playing), there was no such problem, as all equipment was controlled, and if the teams were out of sync, they were made to comply to the rules, in ample time before the start, and the games then went on smoothly. This fact was well appreciated by all the teams present.
There are, I am sure, other great tournaments well organized around the globe, where rules are always enforced.
Keeping the above in mind, I think, however, that there are a lot of organizers who should “walk that extra mile” and concentrate on enforcing the rules, as this effort in the long run does make a difference to the overall outcome of the event.
These rules, clearly defined as an integral part of the tournament, should be enforced to the best of our organizing abilities.
I may add that whenever we organized tournaments in the past, it was a challenge for us to be able to abide by these rules, and make the games as much as a pleasure to visiting teams as possible. And every year we still tried harder. And the visiting teams always returned.
Our obligation as organizers, though, was to help teams comply by giving them a hand in doing so.
A scrutinizer, by the way, is just one more person in the organizing team, doing a specific task, like the time keeper, table official or scorekeeper does.
At our tournament, we always put on disposition a set of 8 same colour canoes to use (the turnover of changing canoes was always high due to breakages) in the event that visiting teams were either without canoes or did not have a complete set of same coloured ones to use.
The same goes for the players shirts: we always kept two sets of different coloured shirts for visiting teams to use. Also we kept supplied extra padding and tape for their canoes, if they were not according to rule compliance. Well padded canoes cause less damage to other boats and to players too.
I know that some would say that these efforts are an expense that not many could afford to do, but we thought that these expenses were justifiable for our effort to make that difference. Plus a lot of this additional material we got off local sponsors for free!
It is also very hard on the referees to control the game, with players not complying to unify their colours, as decisions are made on quick reaction times, and it is confusing to understand who is whom with these medley of differently coloured players. If players put themselves into the shoes of referees, they would understand better this problem and comply.
In the long run, it did not really cost us a great expense to comply with the above mentioned rules. it only took a positive effort to enforce them and then to make the teams comply with firmness and courtesy; in the long run, the means justified the end effort.
A small step forward, a big step ahead for the world game of canoe polo.
So why don’t all of us paddle together, and go that extra mile?