Great to see the WDF rule change and the NZDC following suit. It speeds up the game a little and throwing twice for the bull to me always seemed superfluous. For those who have not caught up with what now happens you can see the rule change in my earlier post if you scroll down. Each player throws at the bull to determine who goes first in the first leg. The winner of the bull starts all odd numbered legs and the loser of the bull starting all even numbered legs. You do not throw for the bull in any deciding leg just keep playing in same order.
I just wish the Chartered Clubs Darts Association would do something similar instead of players having to throw for the bull in every leg. It seems a rule from a bygone age. Besides making games take longer there is an element of unfairness about it and luck is allowed to play a part rather than skill. For example I have seen the following scenario play out. A player has the good fortune to win the toss and throw first for the bull. He of course gets an unincumbered shot with no other player’s dart blocking the path of his dart in its flight towards the bull. The second player not only has to try to hit the bull but navigate his dart past the other dart in the board which maybe obstructing his view. If two players are equal in ability it is more likely that the player who wins the toss and gets the unincumbered shot because of this slight advantage wins the bull and throws first. Having won what is in fact a 3 dart advantage over the length of the leg he or she is more likely to win that leg and then in turn again have the advantage of throwing at the bull first and having another unincumbered shot in the next leg. You might say the advantages are slight but slight as they are they are still there and shifts the game slightly towards luck in winning the toss rather than skill on the board. So why not do something like the dart council or at least not throw for the bull on every leg.
The reasons the rule has remained for so long despite there having been at least one move to change it are to do with dart politics and the consitutions of each organisation. The dart politics are that the two organisations are rivals. I have heard Chartered Club delegates say we are not Council we do not do things that way. It is not that it is a good idea to do it is that it is a Council idea and they do not want anything to do with it. The constitutions are different and rule changes in each organisation are made differently. The NZDC executive under their constitution and rules I beleive can make rules regarding the playing of games through their elected executive. They do not have to consult delegates at an AGM. Though on some matters they do. On the other hand the playing rules of Chartered Club events have to be decided at an AGM by the delegates. The executive might introduce a remit but it still has to be agreed to by the delegates. I may be slightly wrong on some of how it works but that is basically how it works. I am sure I will be corrected if it is wrong.
I used to go to the AGM’s and participate but I admit I do not bother now. Change tends to be glacial. The dart players and delegates are a very conservative lot and do not like change. If you want change you have to be persistant over a number of years to achieve it. When you first introduce a radical type of remit like getting rid of the throwing for the bull every leg you are going to loose. If you do it every year for three years in a row you will probally get it. Being conservative it takes that long for the delegates to have a new idea swirl in their heads before they give it ago. I am not political enough or patient enough to endure the process.
What tends to happen is those with the good ideas and the get up and go give up on the normal channels and do their own thing. A fine example is Howard Scott and Craig Dunn with their Mad On Darts tour. Yet another example is Fred and his crew at the Top Shot Bar in Te Puna.
Just my opinion.