PDA

View Full Version : Retirements Part 2


416_Man
Aug 2nd, 2005, 06:14 PM
I think that the rule of retirements must change. Retirements are part of the game of tennis just as much as racquets, running shoes, and strawberries and cream. But when one PAWs against a retirement (ie. today's match Shaughnessy v. Sugiyama), you get penalized for something not based on skill but luck. vBetting has a solution to this very costly error that aggravates even the best of us. In their eyes, if less than a set is completed then the match is voided for those who "vbetted" on the retiring loser and non-retiring winner. Or, I feel that those who PAWed for the non-retiring winner, deserve the points because in a way, she did "win". But, for those who PAWed the retiring loser that they not be penalized, but rather have a replacement for the match.

To better this nearly perfect ;) game, we must address issues that I'm sure many feel are faulty. SpikeyAidanm, Sandg how can we resolve this issue. Can we have a vote, and the majority rules? And other PAW players, what do you think? Speak out or DIE. ;).

SilK
Aug 2nd, 2005, 07:52 PM
I totally agree....

I'm totally ticked off by the fact that I lost a PAW with a 3-0 ret. score!

:fiery:

twight6
Aug 2nd, 2005, 08:06 PM
I think it should go like this (for example):

Match: Davenport vs. Sharapova

I PAW:
Davenport d. Sharapova

You PAW:
Sharapova d. Davenport

The result of the match is: Sharapova d. Davenport 3-0 RET.

I think that i should get my PAW back and it should not count towards my total, and you should get the points for the paw. So that way, i am not penalized because of the retirement, but at the same time you get points for picking the outcome.

On the other hand, if the score was:
Sharapova d. Davenport 6-2, 2-0 RET.
both paws should count and i should get 0 points. Even if the score was 6-2, 15-love RET it should still work this way.


(btw, this may have been what you said, but i couldn't understand it. ;))

andrew_uk
Aug 2nd, 2005, 10:28 PM
I've wondered if the rule should focus on the length of the match. For example, if the match goes into a 2nd set then the PAW counts, if not then replacements could be used (wavey)

New
Aug 2nd, 2005, 11:16 PM
I always thought that Ret. adds a bit of uncertainty to the game where it is quite predictable already??:confused:

But I myself always fall for the retired trap... though not this week...

Hachiko
Aug 3rd, 2005, 02:46 AM
I think that the rule of retirements must change. Retirements are part of the game of tennis just as much as racquets, running shoes, and strawberries and cream. But when one PAWs against a retirement (ie. today's match Shaughnessy v. Sugiyama), you get penalized for something not based on skill but luck. vBetting has a solution to this very costly error that aggravates even the best of us. In their eyes, if less than a set is completed then the match is voided for those who "vbetted" on the retiring loser and non-retiring winner. Or, I feel that those who PAWed for the non-retiring winner, deserve the points because in a way, she did "win". But, for those who PAWed the retiring loser that they not be penalized, but rather have a replacement for the match.

To better this nearly perfect ;) game, we must address issues that I'm sure many feel are faulty. SpikeyAidanm, Sandg how can we resolve this issue. Can we have a vote, and the majority rules? And other PAW players, what do you think? Speak out or DIE. ;).

Agreed.

SpikeyAidanm
Aug 3rd, 2005, 06:39 AM
I've wondered if the rule should focus on the length of the match. For example, if the match goes into a 2nd set then the PAW counts, if not then replacements could be used (wavey)
totally agreed.

sandg please reply of your thoughts, and I can post a public poll if you agree... any new rule cannot be implemented until the new season (2006), however.

Hayato
Aug 3rd, 2005, 06:41 AM
I've wondered if the rule should focus on the length of the match. For example, if the match goes into a 2nd set then the PAW counts, if not then replacements could be used (wavey)

what if the score is 60 10 ret. or 60 20 ret.? would that still count as a PAW? :wavey:

sandg
Aug 3rd, 2005, 07:32 AM
totally agreed.

sandg please reply of your thoughts, and I can post a public poll if you agree... any new rule cannot be implemented until the new season (2006), however.

In PAW, the players have limited Picks number from Round-1 to Final, different with others betting game. Any players spend many picks to play in Final Round, sometime they had 6-7 PAWs in Quarter Final while 7 matches left until Final, no others match to make replacement.

I agreed just for the match before Quarter Final and the "retirement match" winner didn't win 1 (one) set yet.

A def. B : 3-0 ret, not counted
A def. B : 4-6 4-0 ret, not counted
A def. B : 7-6 ret, counted
A def. B : 6-3 1-0 ret, counted
A def. B : 0-6 7-6 1-0 ret, counted

and Quarter Final to Final match, all retirement are valid although just 15-0 ret.
"Walk Over" match still not counted.

SpikeyAidanm
Aug 3rd, 2005, 08:45 AM
Ok sandg, that new rule won't be implemented until 2006 right?

SpikeyAidanm
Aug 3rd, 2005, 08:46 AM
Why is 4-6, 4-0 not counted? A set is complete...

Nir
Aug 3rd, 2005, 09:13 AM
Why is 4-6, 4-0 not counted? A set is complete...

If the player who retired won a set then its not counted

sandg
Aug 3rd, 2005, 09:15 AM
Why is 4-6, 4-0 not counted? A set is complete...

a set complete but not for the winner

416_Man
Aug 3rd, 2005, 12:00 PM
In PAW, the players have limited Picks number from Round-1 to Final, different with others betting game. Any players spend many picks to play in Final Round, sometime they had 6-7 PAWs in Quarter Final while 7 matches left until Final, no others match to make replacement.

I agreed just for the match before Quarter Final and the "retirement match" winner didn't win 1 (one) set yet.

A def. B : 3-0 ret, not counted
A def. B : 4-6 4-0 ret, not counted
A def. B : 7-6 ret, counted
A def. B : 6-3 1-0 ret, counted
A def. B : 0-6 7-6 1-0 ret, counted

and Quarter Final to Final match, all retirement are valid although just 15-0 ret.
"Walk Over" match still not counted.

What about if:

A def. B : 0-6 7-6 0-1 would that still be counted?

It does not count if:

Less than a set is completed
A set is completed by the "retiring loser" had won it
The "retiring loser" is leading the "non-retiring winner" in games?

And partly, because I'm stupid- I don't understand why these wouldn't work/count if the tournament enters the quarterfinals.

I appreciate everyone replying and putting forth their views. :wavey:

sandg
Aug 3rd, 2005, 02:43 PM
What about if:

A def. B : 0-6 7-6 0-1 would that still be counted?

It does not count if:

Less than a set is completed
A set is completed by the "retiring loser" had won it
The "retiring loser" is leading the "non-retiring winner" in games?

And partly, because I'm stupid- I don't understand why these wouldn't work/count if the tournament enters the quarterfinals.

I appreciate everyone replying and putting forth their views. :wavey:

A def. B : 0-6 7-6 0-1 , counted, the winner win 1 set.

Yes, the rule is looked more complicated than current rules. That's why "retirement" match results always be counted in PAW. PAW has limited picks number, different with betting game.
In Final round (QF to F), only few matches (or no other match) to be replacement pick while in R-1 or R-2 still a lot of matches.