Rules conundrum??

[Joern Windler]

Originally posted by Flash-Bugout
Following the rules to the letter of the law, it would be a 1-4-1 which removes the last player, so the other team automatically gets the max.

Well I see that it might be a good idea to write a comment for which reason every rule was made (in a different book).

It may help the judges to understand the background of the rules. This would lead to a better possibility to interpretate the rules, which may improve the marshaling.

A "playing on" - which (normaly) ends up in a 1 4 1 - is for punishing the "playing on team" cause they tried to get into a better "position" as they are allowed to get in...

If a dead player shoots his own teammate hes not even trying to do like the player above. Therefore it would be against the spirit of the "playing on" rule if he gets a 1 4 1, too.

...


joern

 

[Stefu]

Originally posted by windler


A "playing on" - which (normaly) ends up in a 1 4 1 - is for punishing the "playing on team" cause they tried to get into a better "position" as they are allowed to get in...

If a dead player shoots his own teammate hes not even trying to do like the player above. Therefore it would be against the spirit of the "playing on" rule if he gets a 1 4 1, too.

...


joern

If you deliberately keep on playing after being hit it's 1-4-1. Any other ruling means unnecessary speculation and arguing. Rules should be kept as simple as possible

Stefan