Who makes the rules?

[Baca Loco]

Wait a sec, it's not quite as stupid as it sounds. Plainly some of the rules that have come along in tourney ball were the result of new situations that had to be addressed or ways of dealing with problems that arose (the infamous Mil hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil deadbox for example)
But aren't others industry driven? Look at some of the hopper technology--warp feed--and does it really comply with the way the rules used to be written? And what about pads? Elbow pads now go from wrist to mid-bicep.
Where does it end? Seems like the only place anyone has been willing to draw a line is ROF, or more precisely something in the neighborhood of true semi-auto.

 

[rancid]

That's way too intelligent for this board - unless Robbo tells us what to think we aint got a clue.

 

[goose]

Great topic for a Sunday...

The biggest problem I have with the rules is, the fact that they have where originally written years ago (by someone trying to sound like a lawyer) and have been ammended to death. They are beginning to remind me of those old houses you see that have bulit on year after year but the foundation is rotting.

It is time to do a complete overhaul, and write them in a way that my grandmother could understand them, taking in to account that any "gray areas" should be taken care of and that all players will be looking for loop-holes in them.

Unfortunately, this takes the committment of one person who is willing to spend the time thinking about this - but we all know that the MS does things by "committee" and when it comes to re-writing rules this would end up being a nightmare. One person should be given the job - and be given "carte blanche" to come up with the best set of rules - ignoring organizers/industry pressures, others could give input and look for loop-holes (here's a job for Robbo and some of the Old Skool) but the final say would rest on the "Rule Guru".

Just a thought

goose

 

[Joern Windler]

IMHO it would be a good idea if the rulebook would be written in two different versions.

The first is a short one and has therefore probably to sound like a law-book. This is the version to work with.

The second is an accompanying commentary, which makes clear which ideas the author of the first one had in mind while writing the rule. So the way the rule may have to be interpreted is quite clear to everybody..
This one might be a little bigger, but you have to look just once into it to understand the rules correctly.


joern
windler

 

[Manning26]

The rules could use a good run-over of common sense, but how friggin' likely is this? Baca brought up the 'no look' dead-box, which has already been remedied in Europe, correct? Why in the hell does ths NPPL/ PSP/ whatever still use it over here?!? We're so quick to adopt these stupid-@$$ rules, but we can't shake 'em for anything. Why is this? To echo Cow, who makes these rules? Why is this such a difficult fix? What's the hold-up? Who should I be asking? What's Chuck Hendsch's e-mail?

 

[tremis]

chuck@nppl.info

 

[Manning26]

Originally posted by tremis
chuck@nppl.info

Thank you, Tremis. I emplore everyone to drop Chuck some words asking him about the blind dead-box, and how we can remedy this... and whatever else you want to bug 'im about.