Rumor or trial balloon?

[MissyQ]

Then they will likely be disappointed, and there may be 'self inflicted' casualties as a result of that, which will ease the problem of having too many teams i the first place. There will be players who should rightfully be in top flight competition whose teams decide not to participate due to the fact they think they should have 2 spots instead of one. These players will join the lower ranked teams because they want to play in the league whether their 'owner' wants to or not, and the overall level of competition will rise. After another 2 years of promotion/relegation the cream will rise to the top anyway, in fact I personally believe this will have been achieved in next year, being that the best of the Semi-pro should go up this year and next year will see the top 18 as it should be. That, for me, is when it starts to get interesting.
If there is a merger (and I personally think there should be) then I expect team sponsorships to rise. Sponsors will be able to give teams more AND save money, so there are benefits all round, we will see the top flight professionalise further, and hopefully some careers can be carved out for players at the top of the game.

 

[dissent]

So, there's gonna be a merger talk again? Or from the way it sounds there is one going on at some level?

 

[MissyQ]

My reservation is that Chuck will have priorities other than simply making the correct call and I suggest that's a problem for two reasons--1. it creates the possibility of politicized calls and sets up a basic conflict that has the appearance of impropriety from the get go. 2. And because I believe that calls have been influenced by expedient political considerations in the past and this does nothing to assure it won't happen again.

Give me a 'for instance'. I'm still not getting the difference. Maybe I'm dim today, but what other priotities would influence his call?

 

[Baca Loco]

Or from the way it sounds there is one going on at some level?

Say the secret word and win a prize. Today's secret word is--bingo.

And in a perverse sort of way everyone can thank ... nope, not gonna go there. It's just too perverse (except for Missy.)

 

[Chicago]

And in a perverse sort of way everyone can thank ...

Oo, oo, pick me, pick me!

 

[Baca Loco]

Give me a 'for instance'. I'm still not getting the difference. Maybe I'm dim today, but what other priotities would influence his call?

Missy, I'm gonna do you a favor and suggest if you really have no idea what I'm talking about you ask around and then bring it up again. Although, one thing did occur to me. Putting Chuck front and center with a bullseye on his chest saying the buck stops with him might just be a clever way of forcing him to make a totally by the book (rulebook, that is) call when the situation demands it.

 

[Dannefaerd]

And in a perverse sort of way everyone can thank ... nope, not gonna go there. It's just too perverse (except for Missy.)

C'mon - we like peverse (why else do we play this game?)

 

[MissyQ]

Missy, I'm gonna do you a favor and suggest if you really have no idea what I'm talking about you ask around and then bring it up again. Although, one thing did occur to me. Putting Chuck front and center with a bullseye on his chest saying the buck stops with him might just be a clever way of forcing him to make a totally by the book (rulebook, that is) call when the situation demands it.

Thats where I was going with it, plus if you write the rules and train the refs, you certainly don't have to expose yourself so clumsily, even if Chuck were inclined to do so, which I don't believe he is. I think you will see the rulebook used in a clearer way, with fewer 'interpretation issues', as he wrote most of them, and was present in the making of all of them.

 

[Chicago]

Being the guy who wrote the NPPL rules isn't exactly an endorsement. The NPPL rules are not very good. Take, for example, the wiping rule, which requires referees to determine the player's intent.

If you have a hit, and then the hit goes away, and you didn't call yourself out in between, that's wiping. Don't leave the door open for cheaters by saying it has to be 'active and deliberate' to be wiping.

Or the out of bounds, unless you're in the "act of pulling or hanging the flag".

Or: "Compressing Bunkers. Players found to be altering a bunker to gain an
advantage for elimination, such as pushing the marker or body between two
bunkers, compressing the shapes, stepping or jumping on, or moving the
bunker off its axis will be eliminated. The initial contact of the hand on the
bunker will be allowed provided it does not compress the shape excessively
or move it off its axis."

Then there's the existence of the freight training rule - left over from when somebody who had input on the rules lost a game because of it in like, 1989.


And just realized that NPPL apparently has a dead man's walking rule:

"Surrender. Player without being hit raises marker above head, or shouts “hit”
or ”out”, is not wearing armband, walks with eliminated player(s) or otherwise
creates the appearance of having been hit."

Ambiguous rules like these don't do anything but create problems.



Edit: Oops, reading down, I see there is actually a dead mean's walking rule labelled as such! And also seems there is no rule that requires players to be listed on a roster.

 

[duffistuta]

C'mon - we like peverse (why else do we play this game?)

C'mon, this one's easy...whose recent actions may have led to talks between certain members of the PSP and the NPPL starting up again?