|
 |
lixit74
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 38 |
Here's the thing. There's been a lot of discussion around rule changes. The WCF and CCA need to decide if they want 1 set or rules for club and competitive play or 2 sets.
If you have 1 rule set for both groups, your idea of penalizing a team for hogging a rock (deliberate or accidental) isn't a good one. We hog rocks all the time at the club play, even in the "competitive" leagues... Isn't the hogged rock enough of a penalty? Why give the other team a double advantage?
Throwing a rock through is kind of giving the other team an advantage anyways. They have 8 rocks to your 7.
With the 5 rock, no tick rules in play, its very rare to see a throw through now anyways at the competitive level.
I'm not sure what the ultimate solution is, assuming anything needs to change at all. What I do know is that you need to have a goal in mind before you start talking about changing so many rules.
The tick rule solved what it was intended to do. Win %age of team tied with last rock drops to 60-70% @ competitive level from the 95% it was prior. It's still not 50-50, but that that's not what it was intended to do in the first place.
I don't think curling needs a handicap system. If you want to win, make more shots.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
04-12-23 09:23AM |
|
|
| |
|
oliviertoisel
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2021
Location:
Posts: 587 |
Moving to 8 ends is only going to make the boring games problem worse. A big score early is more fatal in an 8 end game and there are fewer come backs in those. Teams will be giving up after 5 or 6 ends if they're down. You wouldn't get a NOR vs. Canada or a Homan vs. Carey. There would be no Dacey over Ferbey. Some of the most exciting finishes ever wouldn't have happened.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 09:49AM |
|
|
| |
|
lixit74
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 38 |
I hear you and I agree, but many teams are still running rocks for the first end anyways to try and get an easy miss or there's a blank...
They do this in part to try and preserve the ice conditions for later in the game...
If they have a full practice vs the minimized one they have now, there's no reason they can't come out with the gloves off in the first end...
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 10:50AM |
|
|
| |
|
oliviertoisel
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2021
Location:
Posts: 587 |
I thought the games at the Scotties, Brier and both worlds had very good first end action. Nothing like the older days.
But before we go about all these rule changes curling should figure out how to actually make its games accessible in a meaningful way. Just this morning we have a rematch of the world bronze medal game and Gushue vs. Koe and neither is televised. Imagine Federer playing Djokovic at the biggest of the tennis slams and it not being available to watch! It's absurd.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 11:29AM |
|
|
| |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by lixit74
Isn't the hogged rock enough of a penalty? Why give the other team a double advantage?
I concede that my proposed "mandatory first 5 stones in play" rule does give the non-offending team double advantage. However, the primary goal of that rule is to make sure that every end of curling is worth watching, so I think this accomplishes that, because viewers would love to see if the double advantage can be milked into something juicy.
I think we can all agree that if we can change the rule of curling so that every end of curling is worth watching after the first 5 rocks no matter what happened, that would be a good thing for TV, which for better or worse is what the sport needs.
quote:
Originally posted by lixit74
Throwing a rock through is kind of giving the other team an advantage anyways. They have 8 rocks to your 7.
You're correct, 8 is greater than 7, but this isn't about the two teams on the ice. It's about TV viewership. Viewers like to see rocks in play, I think we can all agree with that, so let's make it mandatory that every end starts with 5 rocks in play no matter what.
Last edited by curlingclips on 04-12-23 at 02:05PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 12:59PM |
|
|
| |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
By the way, I was listening to Matt Dunstone's Way Inside podcast episode, and they talked about upcoming Best of the West U30 event, 2nd edition.
The inaugural 2022 edition had an experiment where, if I remember correctly, they had an experimental doubles event final, two women vs two men, each team throwing 6 rocks per end, something crazy innovative like that.
I would love if that event uses my proposed "running the opposition out of stones is now illegal" rule. It's fun to watch, fun to play, provides more experience and learning opportunities, extending game length to its full allotted number of ends, no more early concessions, etc., perfect for the intended goal of the event and why it was created in the first place.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 01:20PM |
|
|
| |
|
lixit74
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 38 |
I really think your idea of making it illegal to run your opposition out of stones makes no sense.
If I'm up 1 point with last rock playing the last end, that would mean I HAVE to have an opponent's rock in the ring when I throw my last one?
If he doesn't have a rock in play, he CAN'T win by definition when I come up to throw my last rock.
If this happens, who chooses where to "place" this rock? Me, the officials or my opposition?
I'm sure you could create a series of complex rules to "make it work" but ultimately, it would be cumbersome to follow and ENFORCE from an official's perspective...
Just look @ the games from the slam today. Grandy beat Einarson 13-0 after 5 ends. Technically, can still win because she can score 24 points in the last 3 ends. Is that realistic, not remotely, but it is possible...
Great rules follow the KISS principle...
-2 points for getting the rock on the button.
-Add a new Throwing line 1/2 between the existing hog line & the top of the house to extend the distance the rock travels.
These are easy rules to understand, follow and enforce.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 03:03PM |
|
|
| |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
First of all, thank you for giving my proposal some of your thoughts. Let me answer some of your questions and explain it further.
quote:
Originally posted by lixit74
If I'm up 1 point with last rock playing the last end, that would mean I HAVE to have an opponent's rock in the ring when I throw my last one?
Quick answer is NO.
If you're up 1 with hammer in 10th, then there's nothing illegal that you can do by my proposed rule. My proposed rule would have zero effect, and you can do whatever you want, because you can never run your opposition out of stones.
Think about it. Your opposition is down by 1 and has 8 stones to throw that end. Whatever you do, the opposition will always have that 8th stone to throw. Even if you manage to eliminate all of their first 7 stones, you did not run your opposition out of stones, because they still have that 8th stone to throw, and that one stone is enough to tie the game if it scores.
Once the opposition has thrown their 8th stone in 10th, they ran themselves out of stones. They literally have no more stones left to throw in the game. The game gives them 10 ends, 80 stones, 1 timeout, 38 minutes of thinking time, etc., (extra ends doesn't count), and once they threw their 8th stone in 10th, they ran themselves out of stones (which of course is not illegal under my proposal).
You can take out that stone if it manages to get into the rings, because again, you did not run your opposition out of stones.
quote:
Originally posted by lixit74
If he doesn't have a rock in play, he CAN'T win by definition when I come up to throw my last rock.
Correct. If the sheet is empty by the time your opposition is throwing their 8th stone, and they get a hog line violation or something, then that stone gets removed and your opposition ran themselves out of stones.
You did not run your opposition out of stones. Because again, if you're only up by 1 with hammer in 10th, my proposed rule has zero effect and there's absolutely nothing you can do that is illegal under my proposal.
-------------------------------------
Now, if you're up by 2 in 10th with hammer, that's when things get a bit more interesting, and some takeouts that was legal before is now illegal. I'll let you digest what I've just told you, and I'll answer any further questions you may have.
Last edited by curlingclips on 04-12-23 at 03:54PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 03:37PM |
|
|
| |
|
lixit74
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 38 |
So, what happens then if I'm the opposition & I hog my rock on purpose on my last one? Does it automatically go into the rings? Why even bother throwing the rock then?
Just push it down and place the rock in the house...
I hear what your saying, but ultimately, you want to handicap the team that's in the lead.
I make a great shot in the 2nd last end and score a 2 or 3 in a tied game. You want to make it illegal for me to run the opposition out of stones? Again, this makes absolutely no sense. By the same logic, it would be illegal to score in hockey of the other team pulls the goalie. What happens if they're own player puts the puck in the empty net? Is the goal disallowed? Why have a goalie at all if you're down 1 goal if you have to have a 1 goal game.
Although your idea may make sense from a purely entertainment perspective, it make no sense from a sporting perspective. The purpose of playing a sport is to win, not keep it close for the fans. If I want to watch a close game every time, I'll go watch the Harlem Globetrotters instead of an NBA game.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 03:56PM |
|
|
| |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by lixit74
So, what happens then if I'm the opposition & I hog my rock on purpose on my last one? Does it automatically go into the rings?
No, it doesn't. The hogged stone is removed and the team that is up 1 wins without throwing the hammer.
If you hog your 8th stone in 10th, then you ran yourself out of stones, and that's perfectly legal. Again, my proposal only makes it illegal to run your opposition out of stones as a path to victory. It's still perfectly legal to run yourself out of stones as a path to defeat.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 04:01PM |
|
|
| |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by lixit74
I make a great shot in the 2nd last end and score a 2 or 3 in a tied game. You want to make it illegal for me to run the opposition out of stones?
Correct. Einarson played a great 9th end at 2023 Scotties final and scored 5 to go up by 6 points against Jones. I want to make it illegal for Einarson to win by running Jones out of stones in 10th.
Thus, under my proposed rule, Einarson can only take out maximum 2 Jones stones, assuming Jones put every one of her own stones in play.
If Jones blundered and gets 3 hog line violations to start the 10th end, then it's Jones who ran herself out of stones. Einarson wins without throwing skip rocks.
Assuming the best case scenario where everybody played their best, then Jones would put all 8 of her stones in play. Einarson can only take out maximum 2 Jones stones, and she must find a way to defend a 6-point lead under that restriction.
Last edited by curlingclips on 04-12-23 at 04:18PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 04:13PM |
|
|
| |
|
lixit74
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 38 |
Well, I say, let's agree to disagree.
If this is something you are that passionate about, maybe propose a special speil at your local club & see if it works or not.
Our local club is hosting a curlkoob curling event this weekend. Its a Viking in nature & you essentially knock over 6x wooden posts (koobs) that are in the free guard zone. There's a 7th koob on the button. You get points for knocking down the koobs. The trick is you need to knock down the koob on the button last or you get negative points... Really fun and different & its something that's become very popular @ our club.
I want to push the 2 points for a button draw myself & see how it goes...
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 04:22PM |
|
|
| |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by lixit74
Our local club is hosting a curlkoob curling event this weekend.
Thank you for sharing that! I've never heard of anything like it, so I learned something new!
it's good to hear that there are some really out-of-the-box variants of curling being played out there!
quote:
Originally posted by lixit74
I want to push the 2 points for a button draw myself & see how it goes...
You probably already know this, but they tried that at 2017 Everest Challenge. I'm not sure why they gave up on the idea.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 04:58PM |
|
|
| |
|
myhouse911
Hitting Paint
Registered: Mar 2022
Location: Canada
Posts: 154 |
I cannot believe I am biting - again.
The intended goals for the BOTW: https://www.bestofthewest.ca/about and also "Our main goal for the SGI Canada Best of the West is to help aid in these young athletes' development by providing opportunities to compete against the best U30 Western teams and provide increased exposure for the teams through professional live streaming."
I'm not sure how crazy innovative it is that the first two rocks in play were not stationary, or having women play women and men play men in doubles until the final was, but ok..
But what I do know is that Matt and co. did not create some farce of this sport. And for someone who does not curl, how would you even know your idiotically proposed illegal rules are fun to play and watch..when literally no one has done this, and hopefully no one ever will.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 05:02PM |
|
|
| |
|
myhouse911
Hitting Paint
Registered: Mar 2022
Location: Canada
Posts: 154 |
quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
I thought the games at the Scotties, Brier and both worlds had very good first end action. Nothing like the older days.
But before we go about all these rule changes curling should figure out how to actually make its games accessible in a meaningful way. Just this morning we have a rematch of the world bronze medal game and Gushue vs. Koe and neither is televised. Imagine Federer playing Djokovic at the biggest of the tennis slams and it not being available to watch! It's absurd.
Sportsnet must not have a big enough budget to include any of the first two days draws of the slams. Recast at least offers viewing on multiple sheets even if there were no commentators. Which was fine tbh. Maybe TSN/Sportsnet could seriously look into this moving forward. If you want to grow the game, you need to make it accessible to people. And most will have access to a tv/streaming device.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 05:11PM |
|
|
| |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by myhouse911
some farce of this sport
Please explain what makes it a farce. I've already argued that making it illegal to run your opposition out of stones is a defensible idea using the Spirit of Curling, "Curlers play to win but never to humble their opponents", because I would argue that running your opposition out of stones is basically humbling your opponent.
If you have the hammer in 10th, you can still do absolutely anything you want with that hammer.
If the game is tied in 10th, nothing has changed.
If you're up by 1 in 10th, nothing has changed.
If you're up by 2 without hammer in 10th, then you no longer can win by eliminating 7 stones, but who does this anyway? When was the last time a team that is up by 2 without hammer wins by eliminating 7 stones? (Bottcher up 2 in 10th at 2021 Brier final only needed to eliminate 3 Koe stones). So practically speaking nothing has changed for the most part.
I acknowledge that up by 3 without hammer in 10th is probably the scenario that is affected the most. I can't recall specific instance where a team that is up by 3 without hammer in 10th won by eliminating 6 stones, but it's probably been done before.
The more we go up, the more this proposal is justified, i.e. the Einarson up by 6 scenario vs Jones.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 05:30PM |
|
|
| |
|
Love2Curl
Hitting Paint
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Toon Town
Posts: 106 |
quote:
Originally posted by curlingclips
Thus, under my proposed rule, Einarson can only take out maximum 2 Jones stones, assuming Jones put every one of her own stones in play.
I have another suggestion. In the 8th end, the team leading must throw from the opposite hack. If they are still leading by the 10th end, all their shots must bank off the boards. This will add a lot of excitement to the game and without a doubt increase viewership.
Seriously, all the rule changes are doing nothing to grow the game. With curling clubs shutting down all over Canada, we have bigger problems.
The no tick rule is just stupid in my opinion. If a team is up, there is a reason. They either are playing better than the other team, or they are skipping a better game.
__________________
Inturn..I thought you wanted an out.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 05:31PM |
|
|
| |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by Love2Curl
The no tick rule is just stupid in my opinion. If a team is up, there is a reason. They either are playing better than the other team, or they are skipping a better game.
If we substitute "no tick rule" with "Free Guard Zone rule" in that statement, would you still stand by it?
I don't think you would.
So I think you're okay with some rules (such as FGZ) that give chances for a team that is down for whatever reason. The no-tick rule is just an extension of that same principle.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 05:38PM |
|
|
| |
|
myhouse911
Hitting Paint
Registered: Mar 2022
Location: Canada
Posts: 154 |
quote:
Originally posted by Love2Curl
I have another suggestion. In the 8th end, the team leading must throw from the opposite hack. If they are still leading by the 10th end, all their shots must bank off the boards. This will add a lot of excitement to the game and without a doubt increase viewership.
Seriously, all the rule changes are doing nothing to grow the game. With curling clubs shutting down all over Canada, we have bigger problems.
The no tick rule is just stupid in my opinion. If a team is up, there is a reason. They either are playing better than the other team, or they are skipping a better game.
Throw with their opposite hand, too. Or just from the opposite hack? This would definitely add excitement and viewership!!! That would also mean everyone now has to have an extra slider/gripper, but with increased viewership and assumedly increased revenue, that shouldn't be an issue!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 05:48PM |
|
|
| |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by myhouse911
Throw with their opposite hand, too. Or just from the opposite hack?
That is not analogous to my proposal.
Asking curlers to throw with opposite hand/from opposite hack/banking shots off the boards are all adding new elements to the sport.
My proposal is just changing something that is already part of the sport. It's not adding anything new. People already understand what it means to run your opposition out of stones, and why it leads to victory. I'm just changing it so that it's now illegal.
Simple as that.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 05:52PM |
|
|
| |
|
Prawnpuller
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Feb 2013
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 97 |
I can’t believe I’m biting either..
Our club ended the season with a 24 team keg bonspiel.The rules of the spiel were as ridiculous as some of curlingclips visions.
You have to actually release the empty beer keg before the farthest hogline and spin it to the rings(much like real curling).The biggest drawback was a lot of the participants insisted on riding the kegs down the sheet and for this oversight the kegs were removed from play. Oh and also if one team was leading by more than 2 points they were penalized and directed to the upstairs lounge until the other team caught up.
Can hardly wait to get Gushue to our club and throw these new rules at him.
Before anyone gets there hair in a knot please forgive me I’m just spoofing the Idiot in our midst that wants to invent a completely different game than the present rules of curling.
On a serious note..
I absolutely hate 8 end games on TV. This changes the strategy and many games are over in the first few ends..likely incorporated to accommodate tv.
Kinda feel for the teams with this quick turnaround. The mental part of this game is hard to sustain( Gushue postgame tv interview is proof) the physical part not so much..at that level they are not suddenly going to become knee sliders 😂.
Two thing can happen…one is bad
Last edited by Prawnpuller on 04-12-23 at 06:16PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 05:53PM |
|
|
| |
|
Love2Curl
Hitting Paint
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Toon Town
Posts: 106 |
quote:
Originally posted by curlingclips
If we substitute "no tick rule" with "Free Guard Zone rule" in that statement, would you still stand by it?
I don't think you would.
So I think you're okay with some rules (such as FGZ) that give chances for a team that is down for whatever reason. The no-tick rule is just an extension of that same principle.
I am okay with the 5 rock FGZ. The reason the no tick rule was brought in was teams were getting good at it. To me just a useless rule.
The constant rule changes are not for the betterment of the game, its to make it more TV friendly that's all. It does not improve the game or fill the clubs.
Sure I remember playing in playdowns where we gave up 2 in the first end to the Myers brothers and they peeled for 9 straight ends. That was brutal, hence the FGZ.
I am just fine with a game where you are getting it handed to you, you can shake hands and go upstairs. Tell me if you are watching a ball game and its 8-1 in the 7th, that you don't change the channel and watch something else.
__________________
Inturn..I thought you wanted an out.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 06:00PM |
|
|
| |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by Love2Curl
Tell me if you are watching a ball game and its 8-1 in the 7th, that you don't change the channel and watch something else.
This isn't about me, but you shared a personal experience, so I'll reciprocate by sharing mine.
Excluding e-sports and mind sports (e.g. chess), I don't follow any other sports other than curling. Occasionally I'd watch a sports clip here and there, but that's not the same as actually following the sport.
By "ball game", I believe you mean baseball. I've never watched a single game of baseball. I've watched various clips if they're interesting or viral, and that's it.
Back to curling, I'm actually interested in watching the whole game even for blowouts. Yes, curling is a sports, but I'm not a sports fan, so I enjoy curling a bit different than most people. I prefer to watch replays, I actually look for spoilers instead of avoiding them, and I watch games all the way until the end even when many hardcore curlers/fans already lost interest.
I don't switch channels on a curling game when most people do. I don't demand TSN to switch to cover a different sheet when most people do.
I actually love watching extra ends even before the no-tick rule. Predictability and foregone conclusions in curling is actually not a problem for me personally.
Last edited by curlingclips on 04-12-23 at 06:15PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 06:11PM |
|
|
| |
|
myhouse911
Hitting Paint
Registered: Mar 2022
Location: Canada
Posts: 154 |
quote:
Originally posted by Prawnpuller
I can’t believe I’m biting either..
Our club ended the season with a 24 team keg bonspiel.The rules of the spiel were as ridiculous as some of curlingclips visions.
You have to actually release the empty beer keg before the hotline and spin it to the far rings(much like real curling).The biggest drawback was a lot of the participants insisted on riding the kegs down the sheet and for this oversight the kegs were removed from play. Oh and also if one team was leading by more than 2 points they were penalized and directed to the upstairs lounge until the other team caught up.
Can hardly wait to get Gushue to our club and throw these new rules at him.
Before anyone gets there hair in a knot please forgive me I’m just spoofing the Idiot in our midst that wants to invent a completely different game than the present rules of curling.
Oh, we get it, don't worry lol.
To play along, but in a more serious way:
What if we tried a 6 end skins-style game. Separated into two rounds of 3 ends each, so Round 1: Ends 1-3, and Round 2: Ends 4-6. Whoever wins the round gets 2 points. If the round is tied, then so is the score, 1-1. A 5-rock rule of not being allowed to remove your opponent’s stone from play regardless of whether it is in the house or FGZ. Teams alternate hammer regardless of scoring with/blanking with/giving up a steal. This gives each team hammer 3x, and thus each team will get the advantage in either round.
This will inevitably have each end have more rocks in play. If we are tied after both rounds are complete, a draw to the button in an extra-end draw-off determines winner – but your opponent gets to pick who throws the draw for your team (they select a 1st to 4th in case of ties, see later). If the draw to the button is a tie, an additional draw will occur until there is a winner. However, if after four draws we are still tied, we start a second set of draws, this time - no sweeping allowed. And repeat previous process until a winner is declared.
ETA: I picked 6 ends because I feel this could be done in a two hour time slot - great for tv audience. 8 ends, with lots of rocks played, I would think would be be over the 2.5 hour mark. We already know that anything over two hours in most sports is too much for the average viewer. That's why tennis is generally best 2 of 3 sets, and in doubles the third set is just a super tiebreak. That's why baseball now has a time clock for pitchers. Now clearly, time slots do not mean that these games can or can't go over/under, but these changes help them stay closer to their desired viewership goals.
Last edited by myhouse911 on 04-12-23 at 06:32PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 06:15PM |
|
|
| |
|
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523 |
quote:
Originally posted by myhouse911
What if we tried a 6 end skins-style game
That is a complicated proposal.
I'll say it again, my proposal is very simple. Right now, running your opposition out of stones leads to victory. I just want to make that illegal instead. That is all there is to it. It's as simple as that.
This does have various repercussions, and you have to think about what those are, but ultimately the proposal is that simple.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-12-23 06:23PM |
|
|
| |
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is . |
 |
|
 |
|
|
| |
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
