Huh? So I guess baseball would be more popular if the players wore masks
and the announcer said things like "It's a sharp grounder to I Don't
Know ... underhanded toss to What, Out ... back to Who, DOUBLE PLAY!!"
Or, without relying on Abbott and Costello for cheap humor, how about
"Ball contact by Player A, fielded by Player B ... relayed to Players C
and D. Inning over." I don't know if my heart could stand the excitement.
Sure, real callsigns at WRTC would have allowed non-competitors to
influence the outcome. And in a contest designed to level the playing
field, that would have been a problem. But in more typical contest
situations, I ask "So what?" Sure, people do influence the outcomes of
their friends by spotting them, working them, sending attaboys and more,
even without scoreboards. And member recruitment influences the outcome
of club competitions. And voters influence the outcome of elections in
most jurisdictions. Unfair advantages? What else is new? We compete in
an inherently unfair sport and only the whiners care. Everyone else
knows how to discount high scores from favorable locations and how to
admire lower scores from more difficult ones.
Scoreboards could make contests more interesting, more challenging and
more fun ... not more equal.
/Rick N6XI
Kenneth E. Harker wrote:
>The reason the scoreboard worked at WRTC 2002 was
>that there were anonymous callsigns involved. Will
>this be done for every contest?
>
|