Season 4 Games

Season 4 - Game 1 :: 06/21/06
Players: Jake, Jumpy, Todd (2 Ball)
Winner: Jake, Jumpy, Jumpy, Todd, Jake, Todd

Season 4 - Game 2 :: 06/23/06
Players: Jake, Jess, Mark, Morris, Todd (1 Ball)
Winner: Jake, Mark, Todd, Morris, Jess

Season 4 - Game 3 :: 06/23/06
Players: Jumpy, Morris, Todd (2 Ball)
Winner: Jumpy, Todd, Todd, Morris, Morris, Jumpy

There ya go.

Season 3 Ends

I calculated the standings for Season 3, they are pretty dismal. I first calculated with 18 games since 2 games were in question on eligibility, I talked to Todd and then decided these games should not count. If anyone disagrees let me know, although it does not effect anything in this season. Also a congratulations to everyone for getting a season finished so quickly, its been really enjoyable watching Jumpy win everything......ever.

Jake: 41/48= 85.42% (8/20=40%)
Jumpy: 101/108= 93.5% (18/20=90%)
Mark: 48/84= 57.14% (14/20=70%)
Morris: 47.5/84= 56.55% (14/20=70%)
Todd: 69/114= 60.53% (19/20=95%)

If you notice Jumpy is clearly the leader. Jake would technically be in second, but he has only 40% standing. It seems that weekend games are difficult for Jake to make, does that matter? So either its a Jumpy-Todd final, or Todd and Jake play a semi-final to get to Jumpy. Personally, I feel it should be a Jumpy-Todd final.

New Games

Saturdays games.... actually a nice return to the old school double bottle of Black Swan days...

06-17-06

Game 1: Clint, J-Doh, Jumpy, Mark, Morris, Todd (1 Ball)
winner: Jumpy, Mark, Morris, J-Doh, Todd, Clint

Game 2: J-Doh, Jumpy, Mark, Morris
winner: Jumpy, J-Doh, Mark, Morris

I'll, as well as anyone else who wishes, need to calculate that I think we may be in a new season. Although, we did play these games as Association. Is that something new?

Square Heads, USCA Compliance

The new set came in Monday, 6-11-06 and we played its maiden games.

Below are the results of the games played this week, and are posted here based on my recollection. Please comment and post corrections if needed:

6-11-06
Game 1: Jake, Jumpy, Mark, Todd (1-ball)
winner: Jake, Todd, Jumpy, Mark

Game 2: Jake, Jumpy, Mark, Todd (1-ball)
winner: Jake, Jumpy, Todd, Mark

6-13-06
Game 1: Mark, Jumpy, Todd (2-ball)
winner: Jumpy, Todd, Jumpy, Todd, Mark , Mark

Game 2: Mark, Jumpy, Todd (2-ball)
winner: Jumpy, Todd, Jumpy, Todd, Mark, Mark

The set meets USCA specifications, and has radically changed the dynamics of the games. We have each voiced some frustration with the USCA wicket width, but since this first game we have all adapted our play and are improving our accuracy. Some have made the rather important point that friendly games will be less inviting with this new set. Novice players will not likely pass through more that the 3rd or 4th wickets, and will likely not find it an enjoyable experience overall.

While I do not think it necessary to do for competition games, social games may want to be played with either the old wickets or the old balls. The new wickets are just under 1 and 1/4 the width of the old balls. The old wickets are just over 1 and 1/2 the width of the new balls.

Wicket Debate

So we have the new set, which keeps reminding me of being in the Giant World of Super Mario Bros. 3. The mallets are giant, the turning stakes are giant. Its either a nice croquet set, or professional vampire hunting gear. Though with a very festive killing spike. And the length of the spike is a great modification for todays more chunky American draculas!

Anyway, we have several options about how or if to deal with the new, smaller wickets. First off, yes, we would get used to them in time. This would also probably (hopefully) greatly reduce the amount of time its taking to play one stupid, long, and boring game. But their are other issues.

The biggest problem with getting used to the small wickets is that we will be essentially walling ourselves off from ever inviting non-regular players for a game. Someone would probably get pretty bored when they came out for a friendly game and never got past the third wicket. For championships or whatnot, bring out the small hoops and big balls. Although the thought of watching a three hour long champ game is more fun than making out with Todd's gf Abby. Which I do quite frequently.

So anyway, we could use bigger wickets, smaller balls, etc., whatever. Debate, staaaaaaaaaaaaaaart!

Weekend Games

06-09-06
Game 1- Jeff, Jumpy, Lori, Luke, Morris, Todd (1 Ball)
winner: Jumpy, Luke, Morris, Jeff, Todd, Lori

Game 2- Jumpy, Morris, Todd (2 Ball)
winner: Jumpy, Todd, Todd, Jumpy, Morris, Morris

06-10-06
Game 1- Jumpy, Morris, Todd (2 Ball)
winner: Jumpy, Jumpy, Todd, Todd, Morris, Morris

Game 2- Jumpy, Morris, Todd (2 Ball)
winner: Jumpy, Morris, Jumpy, Todd, Morris, Todd

The new set should be coming in someday.....unless Todd is just ripping us off.

Re: Rule Clarification

Keep in mind, we are playing USCA Backyard Rules, not Association Rules. According to the USCA website the border is 6" from the middle of the wicket.

But, perhaps I am misunderstanding your rule interpretation. I would request a clarification post with your interpretation for procedures for a ball struck out of bounds. Do you suggest we should place the ball a mallets head (or mallets length) from the border? Or are you suggesting that the border be a full 36" from the outside of the wicket?

If I understand your interpretation of the rule, and the border is 6" from the middle of the wicket, then a ball struck out of bounds is effectively placed 33" inside the pitch as measured from the middle of the wicket (a wicket is 6" wide. the distance from the middle of the wicket to a wicket leg is therefore 3". Likewise the distance from the outside leg of the wicket to the border is also 3". So, 36" = 3" from border to wicket leg + 3" from wicket leg to middle of wicket +33" from middle of wicket to suggested ball placement).

This differs from our current play in only one major way and can easily be adapted to. Currently we place the ball on the border (which is measured as 6" from the outside wicket leg as we've been playing), which promotes exploiting out of bounds relatively close to the wicket, since the angle will almost never be too sharp to make. A ball placed out of bounds at a distance of say a foot from the wicket is still and easy shot. My understanding of the rule you cite would only change this tactic in one dimension: striking the ball out of bounds at a greater distance from the wicket. In other words, rather than aiming a foot behind the wicket, a player would have to aim two to three feet behind the wicket when sending the ball out of bounds to maintain a makable shot.

Please comment and correct my understanding of this.

Rule Clarification, & the Cost of Pro Croquet

I was perusing croquet.com and found a clarifying rule on the rules page:

(Under PART 5. BONUS STROKES)

29. Bonus strokes may not be accumulated. Only the last earned bonus strokes may be played. The exception to this rule occurs if you score both wickets at the starting and turning stakes.

This suggests that you can't rack up with two shots. Say you roquet a ball (2 shots), but then use only one of those shots to go through a wicket (1 shot). Normally, we say that you still have 2 shots, yet this rule states that you would only have one (going through the wicket was your last bonus shot earned).

And a clarification on out-of-bounds:

(Under PART 7. BOUNDARIES AND OUT-OF-BOUNDS BALLS)

41. A ball sent out of bounds should be placed on the boundary margin ONE MALLET LENGTH (36 inches) inside the boundary line at the point of exit. If the player has a second bonus shot he/she then plays it. There is no penalty for going out of bounds. (capitals added)

42. All balls that come to rest within the boundary margin (closer than one mallet length to the boundary) are immediately replaced on the boundary margin, with the one exception of the players ball being still in play on a bonus stroke.

Wow. This definately puts to death the idea of smashing it up to the wicket. From what I read from these rules, if you get your ball closer than a mallet's length to the edge of the pitch, its brought in. At the same time, it seems to help the game. It requires a lot more skill on the side wickets than previously thought.

And for some fun, check out some of the pro stuff on croquet.com (i mean the cost)

http://www.croquet.com/croquet-equipment/hoops-wickets/shop.cfm?N=2720+2723+4294775863

http://www.croquet.com/croquet-equipment/flags/shop.cfm?N=2720+2723+4294775865

If you look at the 'other equipment' you'll see a 'hoop smasher' for $70, theres also a drill type thing to bore holes for the hoops. It looks like anything about pro croquet is at least $70-$5000 dollars. Yeah.

Pitch Changes and Deadness and Aliveness

Deadness and Aliveness: I second Morris' motion for adopting ball deadness before the first wicked as standard game play. If asked why this makes sense to me, I would cite an existing deadness rule, and consider this a logical extension. An existing deadness rule states "Deadness occurs after a roquet is made and the striker is unable to score his/her wicket. The consequences are that the striker is not allowed to roquet the ball(s) again until scoring the wicket. Once the wicket is scored, the striker becomes 'alive' and is able to roquet the ball(s) again. If a striker roquets a ball he/she is dead on, all balls are replaced to their positions before the shot, and the turn is over. Deadness carries over from turn to turn." (USCA backyard 9-wicket rules) I don't think that it is a reach to extrapolate from this rule the following: Because at the beginning of the game, the striker's ball has not scored a wicket, it is dead. I submit this for discussion at Saturday night's game.

The new Pitch got some changes. Some good, some bad. For the good, we moved the playing area approximately 10 feet north and 1.5 feet west. This gives us better lawn consistency, bypassing the shrub patch on the east side. The downside to this is that in a lack of foresight and knowledge of adopted boundaries, the pitch now has a two-foot post boundary rather than the traditional six-foot. In other words, out-of-bounds behind the post is now two-feet rather than six, effectively promoting further exploitation of the boundary rules. I think we all have a consensus that exploitation of these rules on the sides of the pitch is both fair and sensible. I anticipate some frustration and disagreement about the effective two-foot border at the ends of the pitch. We can take this up also at Saturday night's game.

your numbers

I arrived in Norman early today (~430) and was rewarded with being locked out of the house I sleep in. Anyway, to kill time I thought I would go ahead a post the numbers so far. I didn't include Meuki (if thats how you spell her name) since shes only played a few games. At the rate shes going though, she might become a fairly regular (and good) player. Heres the numbers:

Jake: 29/36= 81% (6/12 games= 50% standing)
Jumpy: 50/54= 93% (9/12= 75%)
Mark: 29/48= 60% (8/12= 67%)
Morris: 32/54= 57% (9/12= 75%)
Todd: 50/72= 69% (12/12= 100%)

If you remember, we actually changed our standing rules. We decided to lessen the standard from 75% to 66% of the season games. This though makes an akward game play number of 13. 5 games. As said before its within reason, so I guess it doesn't matter anyway.

But this does bring me to a new point. We have several issues that come up, and we never really decide on anything. Are balls that haven't gone through the first wicket (or hoop) be in play? I don't think they are, as the ball has only been hit, but hasn't done anything else to suggest it has began the game.

Another issue is standing. I don't want to go through another senario like we did with season 2. We need a definate system, and we needed one in the first season. For Jake to come into standing, he has to play 7 of the 8 games (that would bring him up to 13 games). But what if he plays 12? 11? Can we (or do we) decide on what is "reasonable"? Is "within reason" 10 games? I for one don't really care that much on this issue, but I need some feedback from everyone else. One thing that might help is looking at professional golf. If you are in the PGA, do you have to play every tournement? If not, then how does the system work?

I'll post later when I get some more questions we need to answer thought out.

Weekend games

First off, we need to get Todd his bottle.

Anyway, heres the weekends results:

06-02-06
Game 1- Amanda, Jake, Mark, Morris, Todd, Scott( 1 Ball)
winner: Jake, Todd, Mark, Scott, Morris, Amanda

Game 2- Jumpy, Mark, Meuki, Morris, Todd (1 Ball)
winner: Jumpy, Todd, Mark, Morris, Meuki

06-03-06
Game 1- Jake, Jumpy, Mark, Moni, Morris, Todd (1 Ball)
winner: Jumpy, Jake, Mark, Moni, Morris, Todd

Game 2- Jumpy, Miyuki, Morris Todd (1 Ball)
winner: Jumpy, Todd, Morris, Miyuki

I'll try to complie the stats later.