Topic: New balls

[alaskan thunder]

We already got a bunch of the dark red balls. They are weird. Im pretty sure that they are not going to be standard fare for use in the US (according to Charles Macintosh).

[bbtuna]

Will,

we are close, you make some good points...I acknowledge that the ITSF may have a positive impact on gobal foosball over enough years but I don't think 8 or 10 years is enough...the average person still thinks competive frisbee, skate boarding, and other smaller much more accepted "sports" and we won't see foosball in the Olympics in our life-time...even if we met every requirement, there are sports waiting much longer that deserve at least a trial before foosball

i am not saying they shouldn't keep working in that direction, it is a nobel cause, but I want to be realistic about what can be accomplished

if you are convinced that foosball will be universally accepted through their efforts in the not to distant future that I can see why it is tempting to embarce the "the end justifying the means"

however, I am not saying that the ITSF should stop their general direction, I am fine with that and even supportive

what I am NOT supportive of is giving up our own countries identify and giving up any say in the process

the players shouldn't be treated like little children by the big overpowering adult who knows better

we are, as a collective, mature men and women who have a vested interest in the direction the game takes

Fooskilla told about Bonzini players voting and NOT accepting the new ITSF foosball that they were told would be standard and they would not play with it....this is what I am talking about

the US is built a democratic way of doing things (principally) and in all our pro sports and in our government there is a balance of power

in sports it is basically a league, the player, and the sponsor/audience…but for our purposes is the Federation and the Table manufactures and there is no voice for the players

this is wrong, the players need a voice…I did not agree to join a dictatorship (well, I mean who does, he, he, but you know what I mean)

I say “NO!” because what they are doing has finally cleared it all up for me…this change in this manner, with this timing is WRONG, UNFAIR, and without PLAYER REPRESENTATION

I say “NO!” because the US game and players need a voice independent of the manufacture and the ITSF

I say “NO!” because the US should have full autonomy/sovereignty in its own foosball life…this means we have our own rules, culture, and goals and then work with ITSF when and how it suits us not when they demand it

[EDGEER]

I think you should leave the rules out of your argument.  I have not met a single person that wants to go back to the old rule book.  Not one.  Tom and Adrian did a wonderful job putting the international standard rules together and every American should be proud of their hard work.

1 man, 3 man who really gives a ***.  The justification for a 3-man goalie are:

1st. It makes the game easier to learn for the beginner.
2nd. It reduces the cost of manufacturing.
3rd. It produces a higher quality cabinet.

Tornado has had a 1 man goalie table option for several years and no one, let me repeat that in bold NO ONE has every ordered one, not here or in Europe.  Why, because the 3-man table is easier and more fun to play.  PERIOD.

If the ITSF, which I am starting to think stands for (It's Farid's) wants a one man goalie then let them buy the 8 sitting in the warehouse.  No one from the Equipment standards committee has posted that the change was requested by the membership.  So if this is the product of the standards committee then I am ok with it.

[Will17]

Ok Tuna. On all of those points I would say we agree. Like I said I know its wrong that they are changing stuff right before this tournament, it especially sucks for me. I just ordered the new ball Tuesday, so hopefully I get 1 week of practice in before I leave. As phil has said on the other board, and you said today, the players need a voice. Maybe there could be an association run by the players, for the players, much like we have in canada. It is VERY democratic, and the president(eric dunn) won’t do anything behind closed doors. He received an email from mary moore asking if he would fly down to try out the warrior. This was before the Kentucky state tournament that it was used at. Because 2 countries need to ask for a table to be made an official ITSF table according to regulations. She figured canada would be the easy choice to get a 2nd country to apply with. Eric posted the entire email thread between her and himself on the Canadian message boards. We are always filled in on what is happening with our association(TSAC) and we have a vote on who represents each area of our country. Then that person has a vote in TSAC. Could you guys emulate that?

[bbtuna]

Ed,

the point about the rules isn't that they aren't any good, it is that we are no longer in control...we have to play by those rules if it is to be a sanctioned ITSF event...it was good leadership to help quell the uproar of the US players to have 2 of the most respected and best US rules people to head up writing the new standard

the point is that our rules were given away without the general population of players knowing and so not knowing they had no input to approve or even argue about the change...why? because Friad is smart enough to know the general player base would never approve

I am not going to argue about the quality of the current rule book, my point is we no longer have a rule book that we can manage and it was given/taken away without our consent

so next year, if the very few players who get to benefit from the international championship want to qualify they have to qualify at sanctioned ITSF events and the even can't be sanctioned if two things aren't present

1st the tourny has to have the international rules...no domestic option (slight wiggle room for now but eventually that will tighten)
2nd and this brings me to my second point regarding your post

they are using the new one man goalie table at the championships because it is the new approved ITSF table and the second thing needed for a tournament to be sanctioned is an approved ITSF table

this means that tournaments next year in the states that want to be sanctioned have to use the new "approved" table

seriously, can't everyone see where this is going

again, this isn't about the quality or merit of the rules or 1 man vs 3 man, it is about a voice, it is about a say, it is about the United States, and any other country who feels the same, having soverignty over its own game

the PLAYERS not the table manufacture

if the table manufacture wants to make changes to make the table more saleable in Europe that is fine, but don't give our game away in the process and force us to accept those changes without our player base having a voice

[bbtuna]

Will,

I agree, the players need a players union/association but to have a voice several things need to happen

1st leadership needs to be found
2nd players have to unite
3rd players have to have some leverage, some power so if they take a stand, the powers that be, domestic or international, organization or table manufacture, will listen

[TSR_Brad]

"they are using the new one man goalie table at the championships because it is the new approved ITSF table and the second thing needed for a tournament to be sanctioned is an approved ITSF table

this means that tournaments next year in the states that want to be sanctioned have to use the new "approved" table"

Apparently in all your in-depth research you missed the fact that each manufacturer of ITSF tables has more than one competition-approved model, depending on the level of tournament.

Give it a rest.

[bbtuna]

then why Brad, would the ITSF MAKE Tornado use that competition table and not the other hmmmmm?

if you don't like it, don't read it

[TSR_Brad]

then why Brad, would the ITSF MAKE Tornado use that competition table and not the other hmmmmm?

WTF are you talking about? I doubt they're being made to do anything. Your conclusion seems to be that because Tornado has produced a version for international competition... something that every other ITSF table manufacturer has done... it's assumed that this will be the standard tournament table used in every sanctioned event from now on. I'm fairly certain that's not going to be the case.

if you don't like it, don't read it

Nice comeback on that one. How about... If you don't like it, do something to change it.

[pablofoos]

I dont like playing with marbles the new balls are prob better....that is what were taking about right?

[foozkillah]

BBT, Brad,

I believe you guys are arguing over the wrong problem. 

The real problem is that the international representatives to the ITSF are intimately connected to Table Manufacturers!!  In fact they subsidize it, but then you have to live with the consequences!

We cannot have that!  You can't blame the ITSF for trying to add, amend and improve standards, that's part of its agenda.  And you cannot blame a manufacturer like Tornado or Bonzini or Garlando to simplify by incorporating ITSF standards into new manufacturing in ORDER TO STAY CERTIFIED!!!  Multiple models yes, but it's their agenda and their own *sses on the line how much of each to build.  Especially in this new world economic depression order.

The national organizations have to be representative of the players, NOT MANUFACTURERS.  Oh yes, you can say that the reps are honest, and do their utmost.  But the same problem keeps creeping up.  ITSF mandates a rule change for the tables of play, the manufacturers automatically wish to implement them in good faith!  The problem with single manufacturer support (ie money, time, travel) is they often have to standardize their offerings.  And as with Bonzini and Tornado, that goes right up against players who have played and competed for sometimes decades WITH NO PROBLEMS on the older standard.

For an example, the American Bowling Congress is not tied to Brunswick or other manufacturer in its dealings with WBC or any other international or world bowling association.  It's unthinkable!  Brunswick can have its own amateur and pro leagues in as many countries, but no say in the liaison between national and international organizations.  Formula 1 is another example! Any working, thriving international organization MUST BE MANUFACTER INDEPENDENT!

The solution is to have ONLY players & elected officials represent a country, and until that weird idiosyncracy of the ITSF and its member nations and organizations is removed, there WILL ALWAYS BE CONTROVERSY.  In other words, players will have to be willing to pay DUES and FEES to a player org, which can in turn join all the other foos countries' orgs in creating and funding an internatioal org.  YOU HASTA PAY!!  Otherwise YOU LIVE WITH WHAT THE MFRS throw you as a bone.  Get mad at the ITSF, but don't blame them for simply carrying out a normal agenda.  Get mad at Brunswick, but the only way to make them change is with your pocketbook!  And luckily, you now have the choice....  Players can move over (at least in percentage of time allocated) to Warrior or Bonzini.  Tornado Promoters can demand more previous product, and can refuse equipment changes outright by refusing to order them.

[bbtuna]

Brad,

yes, some of the other manufactures have more than one "approved" ITSF table but they aren't changing from one to the other per tournament...it is a sales gimmick so people who can't or won't spend the money on the actual competition model and feel they are getting just as good a table for less

but assuming you are right, riddle me this...why would a manufacture make an "International" model which they force all the current countries/players who have previously chosen the 3 man Tornado as their "home" table for THE biggest multi-table format event when all the players decided on your table when it was a 3 man table? 

the logic is totally lost on me...you put your current dedicated players at a disadvantage on their own home model so you can sell tables to those who haven't chosen your table?  aggravate your current base to get players you don't have?  Why not just put out a news release saying you don’t care about your current players?

Also, if there is a multi-table event ever held in the US are they are going to use the International model or the domestic one?  Based on your comments, it appears you assume it will be the “domestic” model?

Tornado could introduce an "International" "sanctioned" model at the tournament, bring 10 of them, for people to see and play on without forcing your current people to play on it...dumb, dumb, dumb

And why if there are two different “sanctioned” models isn’t it the USTSF and/or the Player(s) who choose which is their home model

I just don’t think it is as simple as you make it out

[bbtuna]

Brad,

you said,
    "How about... If you don't like it, do something to change it."

you don't like what I say and so you reply telling me, essentially, to shut up, except it, and move on

you do this because you don't like or don't agree with what I am saying...However, using your same logic, you should just accept me because that is the way I am

you don't stay silent because you don't like it, that is your right and by speaking your mind, you hope to influence me toward change
this then becomes you “doing” your part to stop the madness which is bbtuna

I the same as you, don't like what I am seeing and hearing and I like you also am speaking out in hopes of influencing people toward change

in the end, it may mean nothing, but at least I am giving my opinion and trying to stir the pot...

when you say, " do something to change it." I assume you mean more than talk…2 things

•   talk is cheap but it is not meaningless and it carries potential risk and reward
•   I may not be the person who steps forward and leads major change but maybe I am one of the voices which motivates the person who will eventually step up…

All that said, even if I had no noble intentions and all I did was preach, that is a basic American right, that is why I said to you, if you don’t like it, don’t read it…

you have seen enough and been close enough to all this to have a different perspective, a bit cynical and aloof from my seat but I respect that even if I don’t agree with you and/or I don’t want to join your point of view, you have a clear right to express your opinion

Brad, who knows, be careful what you wish for, what if I was the person?  He, he, he.

[thebodygroove]

I say “NO!” because the US should have full autonomy/sovereignty in its own foosball life…this means we have our own rules, culture, and goals and then work with ITSF when and how it suits us not when they demand it

The ITSF may be a pain in the ass sometimes, but it's the only international foosball organisation we have. Given that the common goal is to get foosball recognized as a sport, constantly proclaiming national interests can only be detrimental to this common cause.

Don't ask what the ITSF can do for your country, ask yourself what your country can do for the ITSF!

__

[bbtuna]

BG,

I have read your posts on both boards and we are not exactly on the same page.  I am all for an International organization but I am not into world domination.  I want growth but not at the expense of individuality, soverignty, or democracy.

I think France should have its own identify, they play Bonzini and it is its own unique game and should be made to be Tornado table and those players should not be "forced" into the American game.  This is true for each country and table.

If other countries think the trade off of their soverignty is worth it then, that is up to them.  I just don't think it is a good idea and I fail to see, so far after 2 years, the benefit to this country.  I am not saying there is a benefit for other countries, I don't know and I am not going to comment on their situation without a lot more information.

However, I can comment on what this has done and not done for US foosball.  I totally get the long term stated goals but after 2 years, I would expect to see some positive trickle down for US players.  I don't expect the ITSF to have reached their goals by now and I see general progress in their work, overall, but nothing for the US.  And further, it seems all the US has done is give up stuff that has a direct impact on our foosball culture and history.

For me at least, this isn't a US vs Euro or US vs France or US against the world.  I will say it again, I am supportive of the ITSF goals except I don't think countries, ours in my case, should give up its own management of their own foosball and shouldn't be squeazed into conforming.

The ITSF doesn't believe in democracy and I do.  I think their needs to be a voice for the players (US and other countries) and I don't believe in being told what is what AFTER the decision is made.

It really comes down to a difference in philosophy...democracy vs socialism or dictatorship.

I think countries can have their own soverignty and ITSF can still accomplish their goals, I think there can be an international set of rules and standards AND a country specific standard.  These things in my opinion don't have to be mutually exclusive.