Opinions 141 rules?

[Lex]

I´ve taken 2 posts from the paris-review thread that, in my opinion, are worth to be discussed. Don´t know if it fits better in any "rule area":

Originally Posted by Beaker

One thing, why are you complaining about getting a 1-4-1 for a pack hit? they are they rules!

If you have a hit on you and are still playing, it's a 1-4-1, no ifs and buts. As long as you are in the game, you are affecting the game whether you know about it or not.

The less grey area there is the better the reffing becomes. If you're hit, and you play, it's a 1-4-1. That's not bad reffing.

Originally Posted Mark Toye-Nexus

Its just a bad rule!!

Its for no brain robotic refs. If they can only get half-wits to ref then fair enough, but I'd hope they could get some guys with a little nous couldnt they?
[Seperate topic already covered - but you started it Beaks!!]

I think everybody understands, that when you have a hit and you are playing on, you are giving your team an advantage and this needs to be neutralized in a 141 (if you feel/hear it or not).

Personally I see in both posts right intensions.

I´ve been talkin to Ulrich months ago (@Marseille) about that "new" rule and I´ve seen just a little problem with that rule.

A pack hit sometimes can not be heard/felt and if your not Mr. Gadget you even cannot see em in 80%. So it COULD be, that you play on and you don´t know it. The penalty is a 141. I´m fine with that.

But sometimes players are playing on KNOWING that they do (maybe with hits on obvious parts of your body) and these guys get the same penalty. A 141.

This looks pretty unfair to me.

I think it would be easy to split the rule into OBVIOUS playin on into a 241 instead of a 141 and normal 141 for pack hits.

Would this help? Or does this make the work for refs easier?

Would be nice to read any opinions from the refs and how they see the situation.

Cheers,
Lex

 

[Syd (NSPL)]

I think you need to check the rules... there are heavier penalties already in place for obvious playing on. However, the refs tend to only dish these out if they are very very sure that is what the player is up to.

Do you want them to enforce harsher penalties on all incidents where players COULD be playing on with obvious hits? Be careful what you ask for.

 

[james adkin]

I agree that the 141 rules are correct and suitable for the X-Ball lite formats that the CPL and SPL play - i would simply ask the Millennium to amend them slightly to not include pack hits?

Every other area of a player when hit, can be felt but a pack hit is just too tough in my opinion. Too many points are being decided by 141's and too many players who are playing the game farely are being punished.

This is only my opinion but 141's on packs should be removed from the rules

 

[Chicago]

This looks pretty unfair to me.

What's unfair about it? The effect of the foul is the same, the penalty should be the same.

I think it would be easy to split the rule into OBVIOUS playin on into a 241 instead of a 141 and normal 141 for pack hits.

It would be easy to change the rule in the rulebook, but it would be a mistake. How is the official going to tell whether you MEANT to play on or not? He can't. All you're going to do is end up assessing 2-4-1's to people who are bad at cheating and 1-4-1's to people who are good at cheating (the ones who know they are hit but are good at making the ref think they don't.)

Would this help?

It would help people cheat.

Or does this make the work for refs easier?

Nope.



The only suggestion I might have is that if a player gets an unobvious hit, and the ref SEES the player get that hit, then the ref just goes in and pulls the player right then, no penalty. But if the ref finds an unobvious hit later, or has to dash across the field to pull the player, or the player takes off down the field, or the player shoots another player in the interim, it should be penalized the same as having an obvious hit would be.

But, for all I know, this may already be the case in Millenium.

 

[Beaker]

I disagree. The principle is sound, if you have a hit on you, you shouldn't be in the game, it doesn't matter if you felt it or not, you are out and by continuing playing, you are influencing the game at some level, therefore a penalty redresses that balance.

As Syd says, there should actually be a lot of 2-4-1's being pulled that never are, that's where intent comes in. 1-4-1 is for unobvious hits.

The only concern for me is the speed at which 1-4-1s are sometimes pulled, we had one where a guy snapped out, and by finishing his snap and coming back in, he was deemed to play on. Now, had he come out a second time, or looked the other side, that's cool, but to expect players to not finish a snap / run to a bunker, that's the only time I think it's harsh.

However, then you get onto the subject of consistency, because I don't care what I get, as long as I know the guys at the other end are getting the same.

 

[Chicago]

Every other area of a player when hit, can be felt

First, that's not true. But even if it was, if it can be felt, it's an obvious hit. You can't amened the rules to have lighter penalties for unobvious hits that can't be felt because ALL unobvious hits can't be felt.

An unobvious hit in the pack is no different than an unobvious hit anywhere else, and treating pack hits differently than other unobvious hits is just silly.

 

[Beaker]

The only suggestion I might have is that if a player gets an unobvious hit, and the ref SEES the player get that hit, then the ref just goes in and pulls the player right then, no penalty. But if the ref finds an unobvious hit later, it should be penalized the same as having an obvious hit would be.

But, for all I know, this may already be the case in Millenium.

It depends on what the player does, not the ref.

 

[Kevin]

I agree that the 141 rules are correct and suitable for the X-Ball lite formats that the CPL and SPL play - i would simply ask the Millennium to amend them slightly to not include pack hits?

Every other area of a player when hit, can be felt but a pack hit is just too tough in my opinion. Too many points are being decided by 141's and too many players who are playing the game farely are being punished.

This is only my opinion but 141's on packs should be removed from the rules

i think most of the time you know you have been hit in the pack,
before this rule i went years being 'unaware' of pack hits,
if you know you arent going to get a penalty why call yourself out ?

I like the rule, its simple.
if you do this, you get this penalty.

the issue i have is marshalls that dont know what a hit is,
you can get pulled for bunker rub which is bad enough but they then take another player as well.

 

[Chicago]

It depends on what the player does, not the ref.

What depends on what the player does?

My point here is that if you get an unobvious hit, and the ref sees you get that hit, and the ref can pull you immediately, then the ref should just pull you and not assess the penalty. Getting 1-3 extra seconds of "live" time is not anywhere near losing up to 420 seconds of play time due to your other player being pulled.


Basically, you have two options when a ref sees a player get an unobvious hit:

- Yank the player immediately and assess no penalty. Unfairness: Player gets to play for 1-3 more seconds.
- Yank the player and assess the penalty. Unfairness: One hit causes two players to be eliminated.

The first option means that the result of the game better reflects the performance of the two teams in it. The second introduces a huge variable of extra bodies being eliminated based on whether a player who has no way of knowing he's hit or not and thus has no control over the outcome shoots his gun again before a ref can pull him.


And, players getting an extra 1-3 seconds of live time on unobvious hits is also not that bad when you consider both teams get the advantage. Both teams randomly getting a tiny advantage is much better than both teams randomly getting a large advantage.

 

[Lex]

Hugh, what a feedback !

First, thanks 4 all your opinions.

I felt it could be interisting to discuss a little about this situation.

But I now want to make some things just a little clearer.

Syd(NSPL)

I think you need to check the rules... there are heavier penalties already in place for obvious playing on. However, the refs tend to only dish these out if they are very very sure that is what the player is up to.

I know, but my personal prob with 241´s is, that they are never givin!
I played the MS for 6 years now and I have never get one by myself, against my team or against any opposite player. And I´ve never seen one.
But this is just a personal experience, maybe I´m playing only the fair guys
Overall your absolutely right. We all know these taperunners with multiple hits on em trying to pull the complete other team out. After all, I still haven´t seen a 241 given...^^

Chicago

What's unfair about it? The effect of the foul is the same, the penalty should be the same.

The effect is the same yes, but the intension when you start playing on is a different one. With obvious hits you cheat bad, whith unobvious you can be cheating or simply don´t know about it. Obvious hits implement you know about it. This is why I think the penalty shouldn´t be the same. But as said, it´s just my opinion.

Chicago

How is the official going to tell whether you MEANT to play on or not? He can't. All you're going to do is end up assessing 2-4-1's to people who are bad at cheating and 1-4-1's to people who are good at cheating (the ones who know they are hit but are good at making the ref think they don't.)

Maybe I wrote a little unclear. A player meant to play on, when he´s hit on an obvious area (mask, body, gun - cause you can either see or feel it). A pack is not obvious I think (can´t see, can´t feel). This would be easy for every ref to understand and leaves no grey area.

Beaker

As Syd says, there should actually be a lot of 2-4-1's being pulled that never are, that's where intent comes in. 1-4-1 is for unobvious hits.

That´s what I was thinkin about when I started this thread. Aggreeing 100%.

So after all, there seems to be no mistake in the rules (leaving maybe obvious and unobvious hits out) only that 241´s are given to less? Just a question.

Think you all know now, what I meant.

Cheers, Lex