NPPL..OC....live...and scores

[MissyQ]

And Dan Perez isn't the ultimate, the Ultimate is Zinkham, who by all accounts did a great job. Dan Perez is copping some flak and probably doesn't deserve it all, although I wasn't on the field, so I wouldn't know all the detail

 

[Chicago]

a 3-for-1 is either wiping or shooting after being eliminated (armband removed or player acknowledges elimination). This is the more significant of the three types of playing on penalties (1 for 1, 2 for 1, 3 for 1). In this case the swing rule would apply.

Nope. The call was on the first Joy player, for supposedly getting shot by Fraige and then proceeding to shoot BC, right? Read the rule again:

20.02 Elimination of Last Player. If the last player on a team is found to have been playing on with an obvious hit or wiping then the other team will automatically be awarded the pull and the hang.

The last player on the team was Sebban. The player found to have been playing on was the other guy. The rule says absolutely nothing about the last player being pulled on a penalty committed by ANOTHER plyer. Pull and hang should not have been awarded.

And even if it was Sebban who got the playing on penalty, in order to get a 3-for-1, you must be playing on after you have been eliminated by yourself (or maybe a judge). Either way, 20.02 seems to say you only automatically award the hang if the player is playing on WHEN they are eliminated, not some point later, although I'll admit that thing is one mess of a sentence. So, again, no flag hang should have been awarded, as no player was playing on when they were eliminated.


For example, I'm the last player, I get hit, run down the field, shoot somebody, then the ref calls a playing on penalty on me and eliminates me, automatic hang.

But if I'm the last player, I run down the snake, and both me and the last player on the other team are eliminated, and then walking off the field I turn and shoot him, no automatic flag hang, as even though I *WAS* the last player on the team, when I was eliminated I was NOT found to have been playing on - that happened later. (And looking at it logically, if I was the last player on the field and two of my teammates who just got eliminated aswell are standing next to me, the penalty for shooting the other team at this point should be the same no matter which one of us does it, not a flag hang if I do it and no flag hang if they do.)


Dan Perez apparently references a rule that says if there are not sufficient players to pull to satisfy a penalty, then the flag hang is automatically awarded. That rule doesn't exist.



***EDIT: Actually, reading the rule again, it really doesn't matter who got the penalty.

20.02 says "playing on with an obvious hit". Playing on with an obvious hit is either a 1-4-1 or a 2-4-1. A 3-4-1 is "playing on - player fires marker after acknowledging elimination". That's neither playing on with an obvious hit nor wiping, so again, no flag hang should have been awarded.

 

[Chicago]

And Dan Perez isn't the ultimate, the Ultimate is Zinkham, who by all accounts did a great job. Dan Perez is copping some flak and probably doesn't deserve it all, although I wasn't on the field, so I wouldn't know all the detail

So what was Dan Perez's capacity, and why was he on the field?

 

[shiftizzle]

hmmm i have watchd the section of the vid over and over and it is truthfully hard to call the way the game wa splayed joy deserve the win because of the pure effort they have put i nthis season. but the ref called the 3 for 1 there is only 2 players left on joys team the 2 players are autimatically pulled leaving the dynasty players to hang the flag. unfortunately it is just as Chris lasoya said evry victory has contraversy(not that thats how u spell it but you know what i mean.) id still like to congratulate joy on extremely impressive play and great achievement this season i am sure next year they will come back stronger and impress us even more.

 

[MissyQ]

So what was Dan Perez's capacity, and why was he on the field?

Presumably he was reffing that field, and may even have been the head judge for center court. Honestly though I am not 100% sure - not really my area and I sure as hell have no influence over anything to do with refs. Up until this point though I had thought the reffing was good.

I am a little biased of course, but I still think Joy were robbed. I also think a 1-on-1 would have been won by Joy, due to the nature of thier training regimen, and that a 1-on-1 would have been the fairest decision given the obvious uncertainty surrounding the decisions, so in a way, they were robbed twice.

 

[Chicago]

I ask because I had seen Dan watching the field sitting in front of the VIP area at ground level. Seemed like he went from bystander to official rather quick. He definitely wasn't dressed to be judging (street clothes). But, I can't say he was immediately preceeding or during the game as I was, obviously, watching the game and not Dan.

 

[Tom_222]

It appears to me that Dan is on the field as ref #28. If you look at the NPPL video at the part where they interview Dan about the call you can see that he is wearing #28 at the 13:35 mark.

http://www.nppl.tv/site/articles/179/1/Commander's-cup-event-and-series-review.

You can see that from 8:00 to 8:13 in the above video that #28 is the ref that pulls Alex's armband and is between Scandal and BC.

This photo puts him in the snake during the whole thing.
http://www.nppl.tv/site/articles/179/1/Commander's-cup-event-and-series-review.

This video shows #28 as the ref that is calling both BC and Scandal out at the 6:30 mark.

I think Joy won the game. I also think the head ref and the ultimate should have taken a much longer to come to their decision and made sure they were quoting the correct rules.

 

[H]

The fact of the matter is BC was a dead duck, called out by a ref and armband removed. It's pathetic how they can let an eliminated player hang the flag.

I think it would have been a totally different story if Scandal had made his run 10 seconds later, BC would have been on his way to the deadbox and the refs wouldnt have had the oportunity to loose their heads. Dynasty got lucky and BC's needs to be the one who's behaviour is called into question.

 

[Magued]

look

It was a fix. And some reffs was in to it.

We can discuss all we want but FACTS ARE

1. The official call Dan Perez gave was. A joy player had played on after he got hes armband off. see the video from nppl.tv aprox 14 min in when Dan read the verdict!
2. Therefore a 3-4-1 penalty was given
3. Therefore the win went to Dynasty.

Now its proven without a doubt, with videos and photos that NO joy player keept shooting with hes armband off. Its also proven without any doubt that a Dynasty player keept shooting without a armband.
This goes beyond a mistake.

What else do we need to discuss? The only thing that we should talk about is how NPPL plan to fix this.

Magued

 

[knobbs]

It was a fix. And some reffs was in to it.

Care to prove it? Seems a little harsh to throw that out there without anything to back it up.

Botched call? Maybe.

Here's another situation. The video doesn't make it clear who yelled what. Ref X yells "you're both out" meaning Fraige and Scandal. Ref Y, acting on Ref X's behalf, takes Alex and BC's armbands off, while Ref X actually meant the Joy player. Things get real loud, we can't hear him correct the BC call, and because the snake player both kept playing after Alex shot him AND shot BC after he had already shot him (that much looks pretty clear to me on the video), they called the 3-for-1 on him, at which point Sebban runs in and TOASTS BC (that, too, is obvious...he even turns back around to shoot him after he's gone through 2 strings) which really pisses the refs off and brings down the VERY harsh penalty.

Is that how it went down? I don't know, but the video makes it look like it COULD have happened (looks to me like Alex and Scandal traded out anyway).

Am I biased? I give you my word I'm not, but that's really all you can take. I like both Joy and Dynasty, but I shoot an Angel and wear my Joy Division jersey to the field 75% of the time I play, and I'd like to see the angel get the respect back that it once had. Having said that, I've been a long time Dynasty supporter.

Complaining about the call is one thing. Saying "it's a fix and the refs were in on it" is a pretty bold statement. If you're going to throw it out there, back it up. Otherwise all your arguments lose alot of face and it starts to look like a kid throwing a tantrum.