| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Taz |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 07:55:44 AM
I like to point out something that seems to be lacking or missing (Page 2 Official APA Team Manual)
"Relax, enjoy yourself and play within the Spirit of the Rules as well as the written rule......Common sense must prevail. Teams that try to gain advantage by creating their own interpretations are subject to sportsmanship violations. Win at the table not from the chair...That's what this League is about." |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Phil |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 10:47:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tfire
I understand the problem. But what is more important here, preventing arguments or doing what is right? It may not seem worth it to you to receive a few more phone calls while members get used to the new rule, but to any player who had to give up BOH because somebody bumped into them, it will be priceless to them. Believe me, I wouldn't have gone this far with this discussion if I didn't think it was a problem. And sure enough others have had similar problems with the existing rule.
The only source of disagreement here, is whether outside interference occurred or not. Unless I’m missing something (?) there would be no more sources for disagreement than what happens now. For example: When a shooter claims he/she didn't make any contact with the cue ball while the opponent swears up and down they did and that they fouled. You get disagreements every league night, so what? I hate to be a parrot (repeating myself) but I just don't see any more possibility for disagreement than already exists every night we play. What am I missing?
Here's what you're missing. Assume for a minute that we can list all the things that can cause disagreement/argument. Assume also, as you state, that the only source of disagreement here is whether outside interference occurred or not. That source doesn't exist with the current rule, it doesn't matter if outside interference occurs. If we change the rule as you propose, it will add one more source of disagreement (all the other sources will still exist). That, by definition, increases the possibility for disagreement. You may argue that the increase is insignificant because the existing list is so long, but it is an increase nonetheless.
Phil
|
| Phil |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 10:36:54 AM
Ok, here's the wording I alluded to in my previos reply. Note that this wording does not fundamentally change the rule, it just specifically calls out the sportsmanlike application.
"Causing any movement of the cue ball, even by accident, is a foul. If the opposing player believes the foul was due to outside interference by a third party, he/she may allow the shooter to continue shooting after all balls are returned to their original positions before the foul occurred."
The problem with Tim's proposed wording is that it requires you to define outside interference before the rule can be applied. That will inevitably lead to arguments (not in every case, but more often than exists with the current rule). This wording imposes no such requirement, but allows the sitting player to use common sense in the application of the rule.
Phil
|
| Matt |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 09:24:19 AM
I've seen it happen just once....
A player from my team was shooting and (apparently) not paying attention and bumped into the captain from the opposing team, causing a foul and moving one or two balls in the process. Contrary to how that sounds, it was very clearly an accident on the part of the other captain. However, that captain declared it to be ball-in-hand, and while their captain and my captain proceeded to argue about it, the opposing shooter quietly replaced all the balls to their original position, thus ending any argument.
I thought it was nice.
Matt
P.S. I also followed this topic with much interest, but it's gotten stale, we should move on. Just my .02 cents. |
| Doug Gill |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 07:29:30 AM
I have followed this topic with much interest. There is no doubt in my mind that the "unintentional" (and, sad to say, the "intentional") interference has occurred. In all honesty, in the 300+ matches that I have played and the 1000+ (rough estimate) that I have watched, I have NEVER seen either occur.
The APA rules, and to some extent our local bylaws, are a result of many years of league play across the country. They ARE the best around and you are never going to be able to address every issue or circumstance that causes a match to become more advantageous to one one player more than another. It is the same with every sport. Rules we may not agree with, but deal with them in order to enjoy our sport. I will.
Good Shooting All! |
| tfire |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 01:12:40 AM
FYI -
Had a conversation with a player (SL 6) about the rule issue we've been discussing here. He told me that a long time ago he beat a player with a SL 7. In that match a significant factor was that the 7 was bumped into fouling the cue ball by someone walking by. The 7 ended up losing that game and then that match. It made a big difference. [can you imagine what it means in a 6-2 race?]
Before you insist the lower skilled player should have never taken that BOH out of good sportsmanship, think about the following.
While we all like to say that good sportsmanship should always prevail, it's not always so simple. Each player is subject to the normal and healthy pressures of being on a team. Teamwork teaches us to put a lot of things second to the goals of the team. I'm not insisting we should do the wrong thing, but the rules call for it! So when a team really needs the win it's just a tad more difficult to insist that a player NOT use the rule as it is written, to take BOH in these circumstances.
In other words competitiveness should not be at odds with sportsmanship by way of a cut and dry rule.
I hope my approach to this, while it may have bothered some people doesn't hamper anyone's ability to look at it with an honest eye. To me it's just fundamentally wrong to give BOH to a player when somebody interferes with the game. That's why I keep posting here. When you believe something is wrong, you should try to fix it, right?
I'll give up, eventually. Just hoping we can really fix this.
Thanks,
Tim
|
| tfire |
Posted - 06/27/2005 : 6:11:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Phil
quote:
Originally posted by tfire
Proposed Rule:
In the unlikely event the shooter is inadvertently contacted (by persons other than his/her own teammates) in such a way that causes contact with the cue ball, or the cue ball is contacted directly by such persons, a foul will not be called. Instead the sitting opponent will replace any balls effected by the interference and the shooter will resume play.
What if the shooter is in mid-stroke when the contact occurs? Does this rule apply to just warm-up strokes? Maybe the back stroke should count but not the forward stroke? What if it's not inadvertent? Say some drunk idiot reaches out and grabs the end of the cue just as the shooter is about to stroke the cue ball? I'm sure you've seen that before. It may seem far-fetched that anyone would be this picky, but I'd be willing to bet we would get at least one phone call on league night concerning this exact situation.
Now that you mention it, it makes no difference whether it's inadvertent or intentional. So we can add “or intentional” to that sentence. Mid-stroke, back-stroke, again what's the difference?
quote:
In the event the sitting player contests whether interference actually occurred the Captains of both teams will attempt to come to a resolution. If no resolution can be made the situation will be ruled a foul, and the sitting player will receive Ball In Hand.
I'm leery of wording in the game rules that says "attempt to come to a resolution." That will definitely result in more arguments. It happens all too often that what should be collaboration turns into animosity. Then you have to consider that the "attempt to come to a resolution" will be different for some captains depending on who the opponent is. I'm not saying it should be this way, only that it will. Again, the result will be more arguments and more hard feelings.
I understand the problem. But what is more important here, preventing arguments or doing what is right? It may not seem worth it to you to receive a few more phone calls while members get used to the new rule, but to any player who had to give up BOH because somebody bumped into them, it will be priceless to them. Believe me, I wouldn't have gone this far with this discussion if I didn't think it was a problem. And sure enough others have had similar problems with the existing rule.
The only source of disagreement here, is whether outside interference occurred or not. Unless I’m missing something (?) there would be no more sources for disagreement than what happens now. For example: When a shooter claims he/she didn't make any contact with the cue ball while the opponent swears up and down they did and that they fouled. You get disagreements every league night, so what? I hate to be a parrot (repeating myself) but I just don't see any more possibility for disagreement than already exists every night we play. What am I missing?
quote:
All players are strongly advised to prevent this circumstance by being aware of their surroundings at all times when shooting. All players are strongly advised not to use this rule to gain any advantage, as returning the game to level contest is the goal in any instance where interference occurs.
This again, I feel, is bad wording for game rules. "All players are strongly advised not to use this rule to gain any advantage..." - does that mean it's ok to use other rules to gain an advantage? Why should this one be singled out? The blanket statement at the beginning of the manual should cover this.
[quote]This seems fairly simple and easy to follow. Can people argue and disagree? Sure, they can no matter what we write. But what is the better rule and better guidance for our players? That's the important question to answer, in my humble opinion.
Maybe you should write your own book, titled "Guide to APA Sportsmanship". That would be a good place for your proposed verbiage. The game rules are not a good place for it. My view of the game rules is that they exist to lay the foundation of the game and to answer questions and resolve disputes. Absent questions and disputes, there is no reason to even consult the manual once you understand the basics of the game. As such, the game rules need to be as cut-and-dry as possible, so as to prevent arguments. Debate on a message board is one thing, but an argument in a bar can get ugly. Your proposed change opens doors that are currently closed by the existing verbiage, and would (I guarantee) lead to more arguments than the current rule does.
I THOUGHT I HAVE WRITTEN A BOOK HERE??? LOL! -- seriously, I don't necessarily disagree with you on whether or not this should be in the rule book per se. However, the wording I chose was in response to yours and Taz's assertions in previous posts. I wrote this as a hypothetical to answer those assertions. First you say - but what about this or that? Then I give you a solution and now I'm damned if I do damned if I don't. LOL! Nice trap. Not to worry, this is still all fun and interesting to me, never personal.  But now that I think of it, doesn't the rule book have guidance in it, as well as cut and dry rules?
Now, all that being said, there is a way to word the rule that will achieve what I think you want to achieve. I'm going to hold out though, to see if you (or anyone else) can come up with that wording 
I'm a bit burned out on the heavy lifting on this topic. I've had a lot of other things on my plate lately, non-pool related. Perhaps I'll come back to this a little later if you don’t mind. It would be nice if you would share your choice of wording on this to expedite any potential solution. I'd be interested to see what you have. I have no doubt what you wrote is more appropriate for an actual rule book instead of a guide.
Tim
|
| Phil |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 12:27:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tfire
Proposed Rule:
In the unlikely event the shooter is inadvertently contacted (by persons other than his/her own teammates) in such a way that causes contact with the cue ball, or the cue ball is contacted directly by such persons, a foul will not be called. Instead the sitting opponent will replace any balls effected by the interference and the shooter will resume play.
What if the shooter is in mid-stroke when the contact occurs? Does this rule apply to just warm-up strokes? Maybe the back stroke should count but not the forward stroke? What if it's not inadvertent? Say some drunk idiot reaches out and grabs the end of the cue just as the shooter is about to stroke the cue ball? I'm sure you've seen that before. It may seem far-fetched that anyone would be this picky, but I'd be willing to bet we would get at least one phone call on league night concerning this exact situation.
quote:
In the event the sitting player contests whether interference actually occurred the Captains of both teams will attempt to come to a resolution. If no resolution can be made the situation will be ruled a foul, and the sitting player will receive Ball In Hand.
I'm leery of wording in the game rules that says "attempt to come to a resolution." That will definitely result in more arguments. It happens all too often that what should be collaboration turns into animosity. Then you have to consider that the "attempt to come to a resolution" will be different for some captains depending on who the opponent is. I'm not saying it should be this way, only that it will. Again, the result will be more arguments and more hard feelings.
quote:
All players are strongly advised to prevent this circumstance by being aware of their surroundings at all times when shooting. All players are strongly advised not to use this rule to gain any advantage, as returning the game to level contest is the goal in any instance where interference occurs.
This again, I feel, is bad wording for game rules. "All players are strongly advised not to use this rule to gain any advantage..." - does that mean it's ok to use other rules to gain an advantage? Why should this one be singled out? The blanket statement at the beginning of the manual should cover this.
quote:
This seems fairly simple and easy to follow. Can people argue and disagree? Sure, they can no matter what we write. But what is the better rule and better guidance for our players? That's the important question to answer, in my humble opinion.
Maybe you should write your own book, titled "Guide to APA Sportsmanship". That would be a good place for your proposed verbiage. The game rules are not a good place for it. My view of the game rules is that they exist to lay the foundation of the game and to answer questions and resolve disputes. Absent questions and disputes, there is no reason to even consult the manual once you understand the basics of the game. As such, the game rules need to be as cut-and-dry as possible, so as to prevent arguments. Debate on a message board is one thing, but an argument in a bar can get ugly. Your proposed change opens doors that are currently closed by the existing verbiage, and would (I guarantee) lead to more arguments than the current rule does.
Now, all that being said, there is a way to word the rule that will achieve what I think you want to achieve. I'm going to hold out though, to see if you (or anyone else) can come up with that wording
Phil
|
| tfire |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 01:07:44 AM
Taz,
These are your words. I happen to agree with them. I'm trying to say you're correct and the rule book is wrong. Giving a sportsmanship award in this circumstance would do two things: 1) It would promote the use of common sense and 2) It would promote going against the rule that calls for BOH.
_____________________________________________________________________
"Shawn, you are correct. It is up to each and every individual player to be aware of their surroundings. Ball-in-hand to the opponent. Having said that, "KUDOS" to the team that was gracious enough to allow Torsten's player to move the ball back and continue shooting. Had I been notified at the time, the player in question would have received a "sportsmanship award"."
_____________________________________________________________________
Like I said, I agree with you. I'm sorry if you don't like it or you still feel that I completely miscontrued your words. I don't see it that way. But I don't have a beef with you, I have a beef with the rule.
As to the mass confusion you imply would result in this rule change I can only ask you to read my last reply to Phil and please reconsider.
As to the question of how many rules you and Phil request to be changed(?); that's why I asked. It was a question, not an acusation. It's unfortunate that game rules aren't looked at with as much fluidity as the others, as Phil indicated. I'm sure there are good reasons to keep a lot of the rules in place. But isn't there some room for improvement in the game rules? I'm glad you advocate change and debate. That's great! and Thank you for that.
Tim
quote:
Originally posted by Taz
Tim, you have taken a simple statement and shredded it and completely misconstrued what I said. You say "...Taz even advocates giving a sportsmanship award for players who go against the rule...". NOT SO. I DO NOT, HAVE NOT & NEVER WILL advocate going against any rule. A player who signs up to participate in APA does so with the understanding that they will ABIDE by the rules, not necessarily agree with them. Heck, I don't agree with all of them, but I abide by and enforce them, even the ones I don't like, when asked to do so.
I advocate using COMMON SENSE. In your scenarios, should a bystander bump into me, causing me to bump the cue ball, I fully understand that the rule IS BOH for my opponent. Should my opponent be graceful enough to say "hey Taz, no harm done, put the ball back and shoot again" I consider that using common sense and being a good sport. I would ask my opponent to place the ball where he thought it was and thank him/her. Now, had I actually stroked thru the cue ball, made contact with another ball, caused several balls to move, I would not and SHOULD not expect my opponent to say "put them all back" and re-shoot. Yeah, it sucks I was interfeered with, but that is the "hard luck" rule.
You want to change it? Great. Where do you draw the line? Put it back if contact was only made with the cue ball? If the cue ball and only one other ball were moved? If the cue ball and only balls of your group were moved? How about if the cue ball and every single ball on the table changed places? Would it matter if there were 3 balls on the table or 10? If both players are down to one or two balls it's okay, but if one of the players has the majority of their balls then it's not. No, lets put them all back even if balls dropped into pockets. What happens when one player is down to only the 8-ball and the other has a few? You can't see how it would create more trouble and/or disagreements?
You further say you "... would like to ask Phil and Taz when the last time they suggested a change in the National Rulebook was". Well, how about at every single League Operator's regional meeting, and at every year's League Operator's Convention for the last 9 (might actually be 10)years!!!. In other words, at every one I've attended since becoming involved with the APA. I take my job very seriously. I advocate change and debate issues I consider important in the development of the sport, in areas where it is truly needed. Sorry Tim, but this is not one of them.
|
| tfire |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 12:46:46 AM
Here is what I've come up with. If you feel this is not a good change/addition compared to simply giving BOH (by rule) to a player because somebody accidentally bumped into his/her opponent's cue stick, please explain the reasons why. I've been wrong before. I just haven't read a strong enough argument yet as to why we can't fix this issue with a better rule like this one.
Proposed Rule:
In the unlikely event the shooter is inadvertently contacted (by persons other than his/her own teammates) in such a way that causes contact with the cue ball, or the cue ball is contacted directly by such persons, a foul will not be called. Instead the sitting opponent will replace any balls effected by the interference and the shooter will resume play. In the event the sitting player contests whether interference actually occurred the Captains of both teams will attempt to come to a resolution. If no resolution can be made the situation will be ruled a foul, and the sitting player will receive Ball In Hand. All players are strongly advised to prevent this circumstance by being aware of their surroundings at all times when shooting. All players are strongly advised not to use this rule to gain any advantage, as returning the game to level contest is the goal in any instance where interference occurs.
This seems fairly simple and easy to follow. Can people argue and disagree? Sure, they can no matter what we write. But what is the better rule and better guidance for our players? That's the important question to answer, in my humble opinion.
Thanks for giving this some more attention,
Tim
quote:
Originally posted by Phil
Some rules exist simply to avoid/prevent arguments. Mark the pocket on the 8, slop counts, etc. This rule, as currently written, serves that purpose. It is also consistent with the other rules concerning cue ball fouls - that is, the cue ball is always alive. Interfere with a moving cue ball, foul. Bump another ball while placing the cue ball, foul. Cause even the slightest movement of the cue ball, even by accident, foul. No arguments.
Your proposed change, at first glance, would also seem very clear. Upon further examination, however, there exists a question that must be answered before the rule can even be applied. Namely, what constitutes outside interference? You can't really list everything, as you are sure to leave something out. If you try to define outside interference in terms of what it is not, you will inevitably arrive at one place - what was the shooter's intention? Then you must answer the question of what is obvious and what is not (if you want to go with Tom's suggestion). Again, what is obvious to one person may not be obvious to the next person. Better yet, maybe "obvious" depends on who you're playing and what the stakes are. So, before you even apply the rule you have areas where debate and argument can arise.
Now consider, in each case, what would happen were teams to deviate from literal interpretation of the rule. With the current rule, there is no form of deviation that would meet resistance from the shooter. Again, no arguments. With your proposed change, well, what would it mean to deviate from literal interpretation? I haven't seen any proposed wording. Anybody want to take a crack at that?
Phil
|
| Phil |
Posted - 06/20/2005 : 4:37:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tfire
I would like to ask Phil and Taz when the last time they suggested a change in the National Rulebook was. It would be interesting to see when and exactly what changes they proposed. Rule books are not meant to be static, they should change, maybe not very frequently, but they should change to reflect the conditions of the game. Without our willingness to offer suggestions up to the national level, we contribute nothing towards progress in this regard.
We propose rule changes all the time. Most recently we've been trying to remove gender bias from the Manual - eliminate the difference in starting skill levels of male vs female players, allow male 2's in higher level tournaments, and change the Ladies Only format to a "19-Cap" format. There have been others though. The recent changes concerning original players in HLT's was our suggestion.
Game rules are a little different and a bit harder to change, mostly because they've been around for such a long time that the frequency of improvement has all but disappeared. You also have to consider other factors when discussing changes to the rules of play, such as how the change would affect handicaps, length of matches, etc. Some changes, which may seem logical to someone only interested in the game, end up being rejected because of the effect they would have on handicaps or on the amount of time it takes to play five matches.
Phil
|
| Taz |
Posted - 06/20/2005 : 4:25:13 PM
Tim, you have taken a simple statement and shredded it and completely misconstrued what I said. You say "...Taz even advocates giving a sportsmanship award for players who go against the rule...". NOT SO. I DO NOT, HAVE NOT & NEVER WILL advocate going against any rule. A player who signs up to participate in APA does so with the understanding that they will ABIDE by the rules, not necessarily agree with them. Heck, I don't agree with all of them, but I abide by and enforce them, even the ones I don't like, when asked to do so.
I advocate using COMMON SENSE. In your scenarios, should a bystander bump into me, causing me to bump the cue ball, I fully understand that the rule IS BOH for my opponent. Should my opponent be graceful enough to say "hey Taz, no harm done, put the ball back and shoot again" I consider that using common sense and being a good sport. I would ask my opponent to place the ball where he thought it was and thank him/her. Now, had I actually stroked thru the cue ball, made contact with another ball, caused several balls to move, I would not and SHOULD not expect my opponent to say "put them all back" and re-shoot. Yeah, it sucks I was interfeered with, but that is the "hard luck" rule.
You want to change it? Great. Where do you draw the line? Put it back if contact was only made with the cue ball? If the cue ball and only one other ball were moved? If the cue ball and only balls of your group were moved? How about if the cue ball and every single ball on the table changed places? Would it matter if there were 3 balls on the table or 10? If both players are down to one or two balls it's okay, but if one of the players has the majority of their balls then it's not. No, lets put them all back even if balls dropped into pockets. What happens when one player is down to only the 8-ball and the other has a few? You can't see how it would create more trouble and/or disagreements?
You further say you "... would like to ask Phil and Taz when the last time they suggested a change in the National Rulebook was". Well, how about at every single League Operator's regional meeting, and at every year's League Operator's Convention for the last 9 (might actually be 10)years!!!. In other words, at every one I've attended since becoming involved with the APA. I take my job very seriously. I advocate change and debate issues I consider important in the development of the sport, in areas where it is truly needed. Sorry Tim, but this is not one of them. |
| Phil |
Posted - 06/20/2005 : 3:51:42 PM
Some rules exist simply to avoid/prevent arguments. Mark the pocket on the 8, slop counts, etc. This rule, as currently written, serves that purpose. It is also consistent with the other rules concerning cue ball fouls - that is, the cue ball is always alive. Interfere with a moving cue ball, foul. Bump another ball while placing the cue ball, foul. Cause even the slightest movement of the cue ball, even by accident, foul. No arguments.
Your proposed change, at first glance, would also seem very clear. Upon further examination, however, there exists a question that must be answered before the rule can even be applied. Namely, what constitutes outside interference? You can't really list everything, as you are sure to leave something out. If you try to define outside interference in terms of what it is not, you will inevitably arrive at one place - what was the shooter's intention? Then you must answer the question of what is obvious and what is not (if you want to go with Tom's suggestion). Again, what is obvious to one person may not be obvious to the next person. Better yet, maybe "obvious" depends on who you're playing and what the stakes are. So, before you even apply the rule you have areas where debate and argument can arise.
Now consider, in each case, what would happen were teams to deviate from literal interpretation of the rule. With the current rule, there is no form of deviation that would meet resistance from the shooter. Again, no arguments. With your proposed change, well, what would it mean to deviate from literal interpretation? I haven't seen any proposed wording. Anybody want to take a crack at that?
Phil
|
| tfire |
Posted - 06/20/2005 : 2:16:52 PM
Torsten,
Great post, all excellent points. However, I've been discussing the rule itself, not conduct. Of course you have people with black and white views and all different shades of gray when it comes to the rules. But that's not the problem. The problem is the rule. Please let me explain again.
The rule calls for a BOH to be given to a sitting player if the shooting player is bumped from behind by by a bystander. How is it appropriate to give any player BOH when outside interference occurs to cause the cue ball to be bumped? So far everyone here knows it's wrong or they wouldn't suggest being "prudent", using "common sense" or however they want to word it, to circumvent the rule.
What I'm advocating is that the rule be changed to reflect a consistency with the rest of the rule book, ie. "don't win from the chair" and [paraphrasing] replacing the object balls accidentally touched by the shooter, by the sitting opponent. The rule that gives a BOH to the sitting player for this situation is not only unjust it's not consistent with these points.
I agree with everything you wrote. However, look at what the rule book calls for, and what you're advocating (doing the prudent thing) and ask yourself why the rule itself shouldn't also be prudent? So far no one has been able to articulate precisely how the proposed rule change would make anything more complicated than it already is on league night.
I think what's really happening here is a fear of change on some people's parts.
I would like to ask Phil and Taz when the last time they suggested a change in the National Rulebook was. It would be interesting to see when and exactly what changes they proposed. Rule books are not meant to be static, they should change, maybe not very frequently, but they should change to reflect the conditions of the game. Without our willingness to offer suggestions up to the national level, we contribute nothing towards progress in this regard.
We've already had several people point out that this has been an ongoing problem. Taz even advocates giving a sportsmanship award for players who go against the rule by not taking BOH. And while Phil claims Matt offered a "whole slew" of reasons we should keep the existing rule (I guess) I haven't been able to find a single one.
Simply put, there's nothing wrong with making a rule more "prudent" just as we ask our players and captains to be, as long as the change works, and this one seems like it will work fine. So far anyway...
Thanks Torsten,
Tim
quote:
Originally posted by Torsten
To my understanding, the captains are not forced to enforce the rule. I like to think that the majority of us (captains) would do the prudent thing in the case of outside interference affecting a foul. While I agree the rule is imperfect, the captains still have discretion. (unless I am mistaken) Look at it this way, if someone wants to throw the rulebook at you, fine. Chances are they take liberties with some rules themselves. Last season, an opposing captain (who will not be mentioned but I'm sure you can use your imagination and figure it out) wanted to charge my team a time-out because i used the words "Bring it home, baby!" before my player broke for a hill-hill match. Their argument was that it was coaching because it could affect my player's decision making process as far as playing safeties taking into account both player's skill levels. (both were 3s by the way) This same captain had anywhere between two and four people from his team approach the table during his team's timeouts. Anyone see where I'm going with this? To make a long story even longer, there are always going to be people who are rule-nazis. The majority, however, (I hope) are not. I think we all have fun in this league. I know I certainly would not spend as much time as I do being involved in the league if it wasn't a major source of enjoyment for me during my otherwise rather blase week.
|
| tfire |
Posted - 06/20/2005 : 1:57:28 PM
LOL! Okay, you got a good laugh out of me, I concede.
Nonetheless, players and people can dispute things all the time. So what? As far as I can see the chances of that happening aren't any greater under the proposed rule change. I am slow sometimes though. So would please explain further?
Thanks,
Tim
quote:
Originally posted by Phil
quote:
Originally posted by tfire
Phil,
With all due respect, you still did not answer the question. Maybe you're busy with all the championships & top shooter stuff.
Nothing in these posts so far (mine included) has shown how there would be MORE chance for disagreement with the proposed rule in effect than currently exists.
So, when you've had a better chance to look at it, please tell why this proposed rule is bad.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, I think it's time you invest in a color monitor. They make some good ones these days...
|
| Torsten |
Posted - 06/20/2005 : 11:59:07 AM
To my understanding, the captains are not forced to enforce the rule. I like to think that the majority of us (captains) would do the prudent thing in the case of outside interference affecting a foul. While I agree the rule is imperfect, the captains still have discretion. (unless I am mistaken) Look at it this way, if someone wants to throw the rulebook at you, fine. Chances are they take liberties with some rules themselves. Last season, an opposing captain (who will not be mentioned but I'm sure you can use your imagination and figure it out) wanted to charge my team a time-out because i used the words "Bring it home, baby!" before my player broke for a hill-hill match. Their argument was that it was coaching because it could affect my player's decision making process as far as playing safeties taking into account both player's skill levels. (both were 3s by the way) This same captain had anywhere between two and four people from his team approach the table during his team's timeouts. Anyone see where I'm going with this? To make a long story even longer, there are always going to be people who are rule-nazis. The majority, however, (I hope) are not. I think we all have fun in this league. I know I certainly would not spend as much time as I do being involved in the league if it wasn't a major source of enjoyment for me during my otherwise rather blase week. |
|
|
