 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calgary & Edmonton & Vancouver & TSAC
| Topic: To FABI or not to FABI |
| ||
|
I am starting this non-exec thread because I think it might be useful to have broader discussion of an issue that has come up on an Exec thread. Eric started the exec thread to deal with the necessary (but rather mundane) question of which models of Tornado, Garlando etc, would be acceptable for tournament play. However, the broad issue that has arisen is how to include the large base of players that: 1) play on non-ITSF FABI tables, and 2) use a very different set of rules. Alternatives: 1) Don't include FABI tables; 2) include FABI tables as a choice for "players home table", but use ITSF rules for all games; 3) include FABI as a "home table" and use FABI rules for games played on FABI tables; and 4)run some sort of FABI qualifier(s) completely separate from those on ITSF tables, and then have a playoff between the ITSF winner(s) and the FABI winner(s. Anyone have an opinion? |
Posted: Feb 3 2007 6:47AM
| ||
|
Just to comment on Eric Dunn's idea about a champion per table. It would be cool but if we are doing regional qualifiers with some being multi and some not. Wouldn't that make it impossible to send a Garlando/Fabi hopeful from Vancouver/Alberta/Sask to play in the finals for those tables? Would our qualifiers get to send twice as many Tornado players instead to compensate for the imbalence in the number of players? |
| ||
|
My goal would be to try to attract some of the more talented Fabi players. Therefore my response is to have a FABI only event using their existing rules and have a final exhibition match against the other table champions. Make some friends and demonstrate the non-Fabi style of play as well. Then option 2 in the long term and always let the FABI players know the long term intentions. If I were in the FABI camp I would be looking for an avenue to show my best style of play on the table I know best. Perhaps some of the FABI players (like I am guessing Mario did in the past) will see the other tables, what is possible with them, where they might fit in and decide to go for it. No one who thinks they are good, wants to be emberassed by playing on an unfamiliar table or with totally different rules. Many will never want to change but there may be some more Mario's in the group as well who decide their only chance to excel internationally is to rethink their style of play and possibly their table choice. Canada is a small country as far as foos is concerened and needs to cultivate their talented players in unique ways if necessary. My long term vision is in 5 10 or 20 years (ok I will be dead by then) that the most popular tables will all be great choices for Snake, Euro and Pull shooters. Tables like our Chinese table, the Legend, or from what I have heard the Tec-Ball (based on German Pro Masters comments) and the Euro Garlando (based on Boris Atha's comments). With all using a common set of rules which are open to annual debate by a rules committee. Oh yeah, with Canada and China fighting it out for the gold medal. Thanks, Fred Gower |
| ||
|
The Roberto Sport is very similar to a Fabi. Fas, Longoni, Garlando are also similar tables. I don't see a problem. Have the same rules as playing on a Roberto(ITSF) table. Have a Ref for the Fastball and Fabi slowball players when they play. |
| ||
|
Are we talking about Fabi in general terms, or specifically to the UltimateFoos production? As for the Toronto players, it's not just Mario that started on Fabi. It's almost all of us... including Kane, Olavo, Hugo, Mike, Jay Kin, etc etc... there are only a handful of GTA players that were not originally Fabi players. There's probably 300 Fabi tables in locations around Toronto, and a whopping 3 Tornados (plus the 2 in Olavo's basement). Not that I'm saying it's a good thing - personally I wish it was reversed. Fabi passing players won't have an issue with ITSF rules - Fabi 'fastball' players obviously will though. |
| ||
|
Speaking as someone who has not played in very many tournaments,and organized even fewer, I think it would be easier to play the whole event under one set of rules. That way the rules can be emailed to everyone in advance and there will be less confusion in the end. Especially for people like me who only play on one type of table. With one set of rules everyone will be on the same page without having to think "do I have to say 'ready' after placing the ball on my 5-bar, do I drop the ball in the hole, or do I throw the ball in after knocking it against the side of the table?" When nobody likes the rules you will know you have done a good job. As far as multi-tables tournaments go I think it is a great idea to hold local tournaments on the tables that are used locally. This will insure maximum turnout. |
| ||
|
I agree with Fred; start off with being very opening and welcoming to the FABI community by allowing them to play tournaments on their own table, by their own rules. It's what they know, it's what they're used to, and there's nothing that people are more afraid of than change and the unknown. Like Fred said, in the long run, just like everyone else, they'll get used to the ITSF rules. If they happen to get used to other tables as well, e.g. ITSF tables, and start having a greater demand for them in Toronto, that would be awesome. I know quite a few FABI players who tried Tornado for the first time and got hooked immediately. Sean - are you sure fabi passing players won't have an issue with ITSF rules? Especially the 3 walls on the 5, not passing from a dead ball, and, most importantly..THERE'S NO RULE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T SCORE FROM THE 5! :o . |
| ||
|
wait wait.. are you saying that under fabi passing rules, there IS a rule that you're not allowed to score from the 5? wow. |
| ||
|
hahah...it's sort of an unspoken rule...seen as "cheap". not ACTUALLY in the rules as far as i know. |
| ||
|
I don't think it'll be a big issue... nobody bounces even twice off the wall usually, b/c each time is a risk of the ball rolling away.. the dead ball thing can be adapted to pretty easily, most of us had no issues with it.... and even within the passing community, it's split on the 5-bar shooting thing... and usually it's not liked b/c the ball is often thrown in quickly and people shoot while it's rolling... from a ITSF ball-placement start, it's less likely guys will actually want to shoot though. We could allow a couple of 'redo's' for initial transgressions, but I don't think it's a big issue. Jarring will likely be a bigger point of contention... |
The last post to this thread is more than 30 days old.