4 ms·
>Where do they draw the line? I'd say they just did. They're sticking with what they have now, and not using the newer, better technology. In most sports, the
by TheCraiggers 11y ago
>Where do they draw the line?
I'd say they just did. They're sticking with what they have now, and not using the newer, better technology.
In most sports, there is an intersection of skill and technology. In order to keep things interesting, you typically want to increase the amount of skill required, and lower the amount of technology. However, there are times when that may sway one direction or the other- safety is an obvious exception to the above.
There is no reason to insert fallacies; this is normal and has been going on as long as sports have existed. The only interesting thing here is that the top teams are taking a stand before the ruling body makes a declaration. That will still need to happen, but this will likely sway the decision made.
- igrekel 11y agoThere is that plus the fact that they say it seriously affects the ice for subsequent shots. Curlers are a bit obsessive about the ice, but then again it plays a big role.
- makomk 11y agoIf I'm reading the article correctly, they say that a version of the technology produced as a demo by a competing curling broom manufacturer that doesn't want it in the sport seriously affected the ice for subsequent shots. I don't think anyone's had that problem with the icePad version, which is the one that's actually for sale.
- rpledge 11y agoMy point about drawing a line is that it needs to be defined (i.e. you can't use a broom with coefficient of friction greater than X (for example, I claim not scientific basis on this)). Having top teams indicate they don't like a change is a good signal to the governing body that sets rules but other teams will use the technology if it is better. They can't just add a rule that says you can't use Brand X equipment - it has to declare limits on what the equipment is.