Sportsmanship and the double clutch call: maybe stop that?

Going for clutch when your opponent suggests it may be a big part of the "sportsmanship" element to axe throwing--but it can also force the hand of players. Is it time we adjust how fifth throws are discussed?

It was a key moment in my first year of throwing at Meduseld Meadery.: Bob, who is hands-down one of our very best throwers, was trouncing me as all expected he would. In the third round of play we were, somehow, tied. He went for the clutch and missed it. I decided to go up, too, and missed mine. A tale as old as time, if you're me. Which you aren't. Stop trying to be me.

But my little act of following Bob up to the clutch made him very thankful my being a good sport. He expressed, perhaps off-handedly but it struck me, that many people would go for the easy win, but not the honorable one.

And that mindset flavored the way I handled clutches for pretty much the rest of my axe throwing career up to this point. If your opponent goes for clutch, you go for clutch. And you maybe discuss it quickly with your fellow thrower before both inevitably deciding to go for it.

But with all of the wisdom that (nearly) two years of throwing can bring (and in large part of a street-corner conversation I had with a few other throwers), I'm beginning to wonder: can being a "good sport" really mean shooting yourself in the foot? Is it right to even discuss what your opponent plans to do before they do it?

Put away your pitchforks for a second. I've got ding-dang caveats.

I'm not talking about situations where a thrower has a score that's out of reach for the other thrower, or cases where it's tied up across the board or anything like that. Hell, I'm not even talking about typical, both-throwers-are-about-as-good-as-eachother situations.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if there is something to be said for the risk of going for clutch. More than the regular risk of missing, I mean.

If you're up in points and turn to your opponent to ask if you should both go for clutches, you're kinda trying to side-step the high risk-reward of a clutch call. The point is, perhaps, that you could miss and your fellow thrower could take the round with a bull. OR you could go for the bull and force your opponent to go for a clutch.

But by asking what they plan to do, you're padding yourself against the possibility. Because, realistically, when you ask, you're making the decision for them.

A player who is confident in their bull game but not their clutch game might want to stay down for the 5th throw (maybe they are up by two, or maybe they are dead even with you in points). By asking, you're able to preemptively remove their chance to play their game. It's like the observer affect. Except has nothing to do with quantum physics. And not by viewing and more by speaking.

Maybe it's not like the observer affect at all. Whatever. I'm not a doctor scientist. But it does seem like this eventuality should have been addressed at some point.

Then I remembered rules exist.

I then realized as I wrote this post that rules exist in IATF, even though it may seem otherwise at times.

So, by the letter of the law, A player can confer (and are encouraged to do so), or one player can decide not to make the call and simply wait for their opponent.

BUT!

"If both players cannot agree on a course of action, cannot decide their throw order within a round or both refuse to declare their intention, this will be considered a 'stalemate' and will be resolved by:

1. The point leader of that round being required to make the call and throw first, or,

2. If there is no point leader in that round, the round leader in the match must throw first, or,

3. If it's a true tie, both players must throw bullseyes and clutches are considered dead."

Just throw your throw.

So does this resolve the issue of a player pressuring another player? Does it resolve browbeating another player b/c they want to stay down?

I mean, prolly not.

But I was surprised by that "true tie" rule. I also liked the reinforcement of the point leader/match leader making the call first, and the second thrower not necessarily needing to agree to anything.

Because frankly, there is something infuriating to me about a fellow thrower being up by 2 and trying to get me to follow them up to clutch. I mean, I do it almost every time, but I'd rather have something stronger to fall back on than "I'm not quite as good as you and want to go to big axe."

And to counter my own argument here: the last time I threw against Bob this past Wednesday, I decided to not call that I was going up for clutch with him. After he looked at me and I didn't signal my willingness to make a joint call, he decided to stay down. Which forced me to go up. And the cycle continues.