Starting a game 5 for your first 5 batons… it happened in Game 2 of the Final!

+1 vote
asked Feb 3, 2013 by Eric A. Kubblic ❚ (7,810 points)
One thing that got lost in what I thought were amazing semifinals, 3rd place game, and Final was there were what we think were two, if not three times when a teamed opened 5 for 5. We have heard countless opinions on this, and quite honestly, there is a good number of people that think that you should be able to go at the king with number 6.

Well, the example that we have given against the idea happened yesterday. After what we thought was just a splendid example of heavyweight Kubb in Game 1 between who we think are two of the top four teams in the US, and both one-time US Champions. Team Knockerheads went five for five and then had to give their six baton (how to give away ones sixth baton is another question, which we saw different versions) to The Ringers. If the rule would have been different, the Final could, and probably, would have ended there. On a side note, doing it is insane that far in a tournament.

So, here is the question. In Game 2 of the Final of the second largest tournament outside of Europe, should The Ringers been given the opportunity throw, or should have Team Knockerheads been able to go for the king and end the tournament?
commented Feb 3, 2013 by thingles Kubblic ❚ (6,110 points)
commented Feb 3, 2013 by thingles Kubblic ❚ (6,110 points)
The other time this happened in the final games was the Team Knockerheads v. Sukface game. Sukface went 5/5 and had to forfeit the final baton to Knockerheads. That game, sadly, was not scored. Knockerheads ended up staying alive and ultimately winning the game, and the match.
commented Feb 3, 2013 by Eric A. Kubblic ❚ (7,810 points)
I think it might have been done in the third place game as well against Kubb Snipers. Eight meters in that final game were 7 of 8. Wow.
commented Feb 3, 2013 by garrickvanburen Kubblic ❚ (7,390 points)
Sukface went 5/5 and Knockerheads came back to win it???!?! That sounds like an amazing game. On the face of it, a perfect game just seems jerky - there's no uniting people when the game is over before they can respond. The possibility that, a team can respond to a perfect open and come back to win it, that's inspiring. Eric - I think at one point you said a Perfect Game can only be a Perfect game when it's 6-person teams. I can get behind that.
commented Feb 4, 2013 by Evan F Ironkubb ✭ (1,960 points)
I have to agree with Garrick on this one as I think it would become a pretty dull game if 1 team isn't allowed to ever respond in a match.  If the game gets to the point (which is quite possible as the game and teams develop) where 5 for 5 on the opener is common, then this could become a pretty boring game.  I remember watching the State finals in horseshoes at the Iowa State fair when I was a kid.  The two players were hitting ringers near 100% for near an hour.  While it was amazing to see, it wasn't very interesting as a spectator.  But, at least the players still had a chance to respond each round and the "perfect game" in kubb takes away from that.
commented Feb 4, 2013 by Chad B Ironkubb ✭ (3,130 points)
In the second game, SF came out and went 5 for 6.  They eliminated our baseline in their opening toss.  On their next turn they left a field kubb and we capitalized on it and took 4 of their baseline down.
commented Aug 21, 2013 by JK Kubbnoob (180 points)
I like the way it is, if five Kubbs (Kubbar) are knocked down, the team abstains from throwing their last baton and that gives the other team the opportunity to match them, and if the other team knocks down five Kubbs it sort of goes into a shootout, like in hockey when it’s tied up, each team then having a chance to knock over the King. I agree with Evan, the other team needs a chance to respond.

4 Answers

+1 vote
answered Feb 4, 2013 by thingles Kubblic ❚ (6,110 points)

After watching this happen at the tournament I feel completely comfortable with the rule standing that you forfeit the 6th baton. I think the only perspective where this is a debate is from the 1st person, player point of view. And even then, only when your the team throwing.

Two trains of thought:

For spectators, and we want spectators at final games and such, it's a pretty boring game that has a single turn. It's a neat parlor trick, but there is no game involved. It's like watching Evil Knieval or the Globetrotters. Neat exhibition stuff, but not a game.

I'm completely comfortable with the forfeiture.

Also, I wonder if these will become less special. We saw two (!!!) of them at the Loppet. (The Kubb Snipers indicate this also happened in a game of theirs, but it took 6 batons so there wasn't one to forfeit.) I think it's entirely possible that this may become something that isn't common, but also isn't that exceptional. If a team can do this say 10-20% of the time, it's a problem for tournaments.

So, I feel really comfortable with the forfeit.

Two other comments:

  1. I don't see anything here about this being gentlemanly or a good sport. I think it's just the rules. Simple.
  2. I don't see any justification to suggest that it should be allowed for a team with 6 players. I don't think the rules should be variable based on player count.
commented Feb 7, 2013 by Eric A. Kubblic ❚ (7,810 points)
In the most recent edition of the rules, we did add verbiage about "good sport"ish type of things.
commented Feb 7, 2013 by thingles Kubblic ❚ (6,110 points)
That is good. My comment is that I don't see this as being a "gentlemanly" thing to do (give up the 6th baton). I think it's just how it should work.
0 votes
answered Feb 4, 2013 by Dobbie Kubblic ❚ (6,450 points)

The Loppet Tournamnet noted they were using World Championship rules on their website, and World Championship rules allow the perfect game. I believe the king could have been attacked legally based on the ruleset used, yet nobody did! I think that speaks to the fact that nobody really wants to win in that setting without affording the opponent a chance.

commented Feb 4, 2013 by EricGoplin Ironkubb ✭ (3,200 points)
If we followed World Championship rules to the letter, I believe every team there would have been DQ'd for not having 6 players.

But Josh, I agree with you. Even if a team "should" be allowed to do it, I personally would rather give the other team the chance and it seems that was the case on Saturday.
commented Feb 4, 2013 by Eric A. Kubblic ❚ (7,810 points)
edited Feb 4, 2013 by Eric A.
I was trying to say something, but couldn't write it the way I wanted. Edited it to death. I'll just delete it.
commented Feb 4, 2013 by Dobbie Kubblic ❚ (6,450 points)
Eric A, I believe the words you are looking for are "Dobbie, quit it."
haha
commented Feb 4, 2013 by Eric A. Kubblic ❚ (7,810 points)
That was part of it. Thanks for helping me out.
commented Feb 4, 2013 by Chad B Ironkubb ✭ (3,130 points)
I prefer giving the other team a chance to toss as well.  It is extremely cool when it happens though.
0 votes
answered Feb 4, 2013 by ChrisHodges Kubblic ❚ (7,300 points)

I have to admit that I tend to go back and forth on this issue because I think there are strong cases on both the pro and the con for allowing the perfect game, but currently I'm leaning away from it---not out of an 'everyone should get to play' viewpoint (although that point becomes especially meaningful in a best-of-one scenario), but rather because I think it narrows what the game of Kubb is.

 

In its most reduced form, Kubb is a race to clear the baseline then topple the King, and if you use this as your guiding star then you should be in favor of allowing the perfect game. In practice however, Kubb becomes an amalgamation of several discreet 'mini games' - Who can be the most accurate with batons (at any distance); who can throw the best groups, who can stand their opponent's field kubbs in the most strategically defensive way, who can be more consistent (and efficient) at clearing the field, etc. Being the better player or team at 8 meters is a big part of the game, but to me it's ONLY part of the game, and I'm resistant to allowing the rest of the game to be glossed over. 

In the game above, The Ringers answered our 5-for-5 open by clearing the field with 3 batons then going 2-for-3 on the baseline to put 7 kubbs in our hands to start the second round. That was AMAZING play, and it put the pressure back on us to seal the game. We struggled a bit with it, and if the group wasn't quite as good or if we'd have had one more miss then The Ringers would have been alive to fight another round. It was a short game of Kubb, but it was COMPLETE. Both teams had to show their mettle in every phase, and the team that played better enough, in enough phases, was the winner.

 

Sukface might feel differently since they were on the other side of the issue, but I've been in their shoes before as well. In a recent ladder tournament match with Dobbie I opened 5-for-5. Dobbie cleared and got a base, and in round two I failed to clear the 6 in play, which Dobbie promptly turned into a win. At the time I didn't think (and even looking back on it now still don't think) "Damn, I wish I'd have had the chance to kill the King turn one", but rather I think "Damn, I wish I would have handled my business in the field round two."

commented Feb 4, 2013 by Eric A. Kubblic ❚ (7,810 points)
All I can say is that S...ace needs to change their team name. Not good for the newspaper when one is reporting results, or for my kids to hear.
commented Feb 4, 2013 by thingles Kubblic ❚ (6,110 points)
Totally agree with that. I think that tournament organizers need to take a position on this actually. Team names should be appropriate to be printed in the newspaper, as a good guideline for what is right. Ya know, this topic really deserves it's own discussion. I'll start it.
commented May 18, 2013 by Rekubblikanen Ironkubb ✭ (1,550 points)
I think Eric is absolutely right, in my opinion team names should be "printable" to make kubb look lika serious sport.
commented May 18, 2013 by thingles Kubblic ❚ (6,110 points)
Just to highlight this. In the printed 2013 results book that the Loppet sent out, on page 54 the Minnesota Kubb Loppet Tournament bracket is printed and Sukface was changed to "(CENSOR)FACE". Not sure where that decision was made, but I'm guessing Eric Goplin would know what happened there.
commented May 18, 2013 by Dobbie Kubblic ❚ (6,450 points)
My next team name is going to be "Censored" Also, Censorface paints a worse picture that Sukface. Funny
0 votes
answered Feb 14, 2013 by C=mxcXKubbSection Ironkubb ✭ (1,330 points)
Interesting discussion. To me, though, there is an important aspect "missing" here, or?
commented Feb 16, 2013 by Dano Ironkubb ✭ (2,330 points)
Looks like the USA kubbers are becoming more accurate with the 8 meter throw.A year ago these situations didn't come up much and now two or three times in one tourney! What aspect is missing ?
commented Feb 16, 2013 by C=mxcXKubbSection Ironkubb ✭ (1,330 points)
The aspect of missing the King shot. When I read these comments, maybe it's only to me, but doesn't everyone treat the King shot as a 100% hit? Nobody misses the King on the other side of the pond? ;)
commented Feb 17, 2013 by Dano Ironkubb ✭ (2,330 points)
edited Feb 17, 2013 by Dano
Good point. I'm thinking that in the final rounds of a big tourney, after downing 5  baselines in a row and only one baton left for the king the pressure would be intense. So intense that in some ways it may be a relief to hand over that six baton rather than risk an embarrassing miss.Myself I always feel better if I have 2 shots at the king.I don't think its an automatic shot on either side of the pond. Like a golfer blowing a 3 foot put in a tourney , it happens.
commented Feb 18, 2013 by C=mxcXKubbSection Ironkubb ✭ (1,330 points)
Wouldn't it be better to aloud the six:th stick, but you have to throw it "Farm style" in just 2 on 2 or 3 on 3 tournaments? And plain in 6 on 6 ditos? IF you believe it's a 100% shot... ;) Just thinking
...