Fight Club: new MS Rule

[WKD]

So basically this new rule is that everytime i move to another bunker im gonna have to call over a ref JUST incase i got hit on the pack or in a place not easy to check or feel a hit just to be sure i aint gonna get another team mate pulled and thus slowing the flow of the game and then hampering the job of the ref's.

I can also see this ruling being used to the advantage of teams couple of players on the same side call over ref's to give em a check as per the rules whilst another memeber of the team either goes on a run through or gets rid of a hit they may have recieved.

Not the best of rules to keep the game flowing and will also restrict the movement in the game for fear of taking a hit you cant feel or know about. Yeyou make a move that has put you into a position that the other team doesnt know about but then you call a ref over to check you before you shoot the crap out of the other team only then losing the advantage you had gained.

A better rule would be any player with a hit on there front or side and is playing on 1-4-1 them anything on the back of the player or pack player is just pulled out.

But hey what do i know im just a baller who's gonna have to play under these very strange rules.

 

[Smally85]

In English law we have a thing called "Strict Liability" which basically means that just because you didn't intend to break the law or didn't know you were breaking the law you still get punished for it. Its implemented for things like traffic offences and the like.
The new MS rule is pretty much the same, even if you didn't intend to play on and you are you still get punished, there is miles upon miles of pages of debate on strict liability offences that could be brought to this debate... its always going to come down to a matter of opinion and a fair implementation.
If the rule is used everytime the situation arises I have no problem with it, as the other team will be getting it as bad as my team, but if the refs can't manage to implement it properly its goig to cause injustive to everyone. This is why strict liability offences work, if you are guilty you are guilty, and everyone who breaks the law (and gets caught) gets punished.

 

[Iron Lions - Ed]

I think the key thing is that it is applied to both teams in a consistent way. If this is the case you don't have too much to worry about. The difficulty of the old way, that allowed for judgement calls, was that decisions became inconsistent and thus aggravated players who felt they were being treated unfairly. As it's very clear to marshalls what they now have to do we should see a certain predictability coming into the marshalling which should cool tempers.

The sole valid argument that Ralph uses, that if a player has not noticed a hit why should he be punished has some validity. However it has to be weighed against the potential disadvantage given to the team that scored a valid hit. I believe we have to come down on the side of the team that made a valid hit not on the player who didn't feel it.

I played with this rule in effect at last weeks PA event and we did not see it being applied unevenly. In fact one of my players pushed me out of my bunker and told me to get off the field as he noticed i had just taken a hit to the pack and he didn't want me to have 1-4-1. All in all it's a step towards clearly defined rules which can only be to the "sport's" benefit.

 

[Chicago]

That's a good analogy - try telling the officer that you shouldn't get a ticket for running the red light because you didn't notice it wasn't green.

 

[Dark Warrior]

Originally posted by Chicago
That's a good analogy - try telling the officer that you shouldn't get a ticket for running the red light because you didn't notice it wasn't green.

Actually the analogy should be
I shouldn't get a ticket because the speed camera was obsured from view.
Therefore NOT GUILTY

 

[Manning26]

It looks like the Millennium players are taking this thing in stride for the most part- I wonder what kind of riot this rule would cause over here.

 

[KitsuneAndy]

Originally posted by Ralph

If the player DOES NOT KNOW that they have been hit. What in the hell is the player supposed to do ??????!!!!!!!!!.

Your right, if the player gets hit and honestly does not feel/see it they can't do anything about it.

But you can't look at the rule as a way of penalising the individual or team, it's not aimed at penalising anyone at all. It's about redressing the advantage the team has as the player didn't walk when he was supposed to.

As long as it's applied consistantly then I don't see the problem with it, it's designed to ensure that no team gains an advantage from playing on (whether it's intentional or not)

 

[Buddha 3]

I've had plenty of unobvious hits.
Only once did I really not notice though...

Good rule in my opinion. I can see Ralph's point of view, but the problem with common sense rulings is that players will lie through their teeth, and everybody's common sense ain't the same.

 

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Smally85
In English law we have a thing called "Strict Liability" which basically means that just because you didn't intend to break the law or didn't know you were breaking the law you still get punished for it. Its implemented for things like traffic offences and the like.
The new MS rule is pretty much the same, even if you didn't intend to play on and you are you still get punished, there is miles upon miles of pages of debate on strict liability offences that could be brought to this debate... its always going to come down to a matter of opinion and a fair implementation.
If the rule is used everytime the situation arises I have no problem with it, as the other team will be getting it as bad as my team, but if the refs can't manage to implement it properly its goig to cause injustive to everyone. This is why strict liability offences work, if you are guilty you are guilty, and everyone who breaks the law (and gets caught) gets punished.

I did promise myself that i would not come back this subject
but the use of traffic offences anallogy was one that i was going to use in so much as the carte blanche use by the police in the siting of speed cameras. Most cameras are not for there saftey reasons as the police claim but to raise money for their Xmas bash. I'm not against the cameras as such if they are sited properly,like i'm not against 1-4-1 ing those that play on but i want it to aleast be seen to be fair.
It's all getting a bit silly in the UK. A man is given junk mail to him by the postman as he leaves his house. He opens it ,sees it's junk and puts it in the litter bin outside his house,attached to the lampost. He's then fined £50 for putting 'household' refuse in the litter bin.
He broke the rules!!!!!!..... i mean i ask you

 

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Buddha 3
I've had plenty of unobvious hits.
Only once did I really not notice though...

Good rule in my opinion. I can see Ralph's point of view, but the problem with common sense rulings is that players will lie through their teeth, and everybody's common sense ain't the same.

Ahh here's the good bit : player hit : Ref pulls him out and decides he going to 1-4-1 them: player protests that he did not know : Ref 2-4-1 's him

Why : because he can.... not because he has to