NAF World Headquarters

Rules Questions - Conceding the Match

Lackuwaxa - Oct 07, 2005 - 06:21 PM
Post subject: Conceding the Match

Here is a question. I was playing the other day with My 'umans Vs some Skaven, it was my second game of the season and the Skavens first, due to some freaky dice rolling (nuffle loves me) and some good play, the score was 1-1 by the 6th turn of the first half, but my opponent only had 5 guys still on the pitch (2 dead, 2 Serious, 1 Sent off for a foul, and a couple of KO's) now he conceded the game (which personally I hate) now I know I should win, but the score is 1-1, what happens, also what would happen if the score was in his favour? I can sort of see where he would be upset that his team was decimated but in a league it looks like a draw or could even look as a lost just on the result. Looking in PBBL 1.9 there is no rules to cover this, what does every1 do? is a house rule that 2 random TD are awarded to the non-pansy team the only option?

Galak, are you guys looking at something like this in 1.10?

Lack

Khaine - Oct 07, 2005 - 09:00 PM
Post subject: Re: Conceding the Match

Lackuwaxa wrote:

One would hope it would be the same or similar to the LRB 4.0 which gives the "winner" or person who is NOT conceeding a 2-0 victory, with both mvp's going to the winner. You also get the other teams money for the match.

Lackuwaxa - Oct 07, 2005 - 11:17 PM
Post subject:

LRB 4. P45 Conceding
If one coachconcedes the match the the winer gains all of the losers'smoney (from the games gate) and his MVP, and may add +2 to his fan factor roll. In addition, the loser automatically loses one Fan Factor and may not roll for a new one, and any players in the loser's team that have 51SPPs or more will leave the team on a D6 roll of 1-3. Roll Seperately for each player with 51 or more SPPs to see if they leave.

Khaine, this is what LRB 4.0 says, I agree with what you say that it SHOULD give the winner 2 TD's, but it doesn't say that. So what can happen is a team can get 2-1 up, then concede, they lose the gate and the MVP, but they will still effectivly "win" as they have more TD's and although you know they conceded if you look back at the result on a match record later it will appear that they won, as ell as increasing the for/against percentage.

Lack

Paul - Oct 08, 2005 - 01:08 AM
Post subject:

yea it doesn't actually say what the final score is, I guess its up to the commisioner of the leauge.

When I ran my leauge, (before LRB was out) I made it an automatic 5-0 loss for the team giving up (unless the opposing team had scored more than 5 TD's) We used TD Differential as a tie breaker in the standings, and I felt that a 2-0 loss wasn't enough.

So, if you're loosing 3-1, and you're opponent coneeds, you get a 5-0 win (in my system) while you're opponent doesnt get credit for his TDs that he scored.

Also, I put a rule in about a team being unable to field 3 players at a kick-off being allowed to conceed without penalty if they want. I think you gotta stop the bleeding at some point for a player. If he decides to quit before this point, tag him with all the penalties in LRB.

Finally, I don't think the TDs that are awarded are given to anyplayers and don't count for SPPs, they're just put in the standings.

Khaine - Oct 08, 2005 - 09:02 AM
Post subject:

Hmmm could have sworn there was something about a 2-0 victory margin in the LRB but it must have been LRB 3.0... Something should be put back in as a correction if it hasn't already been corrected in the Vault rules.. Allowing someone to conceed into a victory doesn't make any sense... If you give up your not winning your losing... Of course I haven't had a conceed yet, almost had a DE coach who thought I wouldn't be able to manhandle his elves with my lower AV pro elves, until I won every kickoff result with my higher ff <11 vs 5 for some reason people in my league believe in lower fan factors>, and proceeded to stomp every dark elf I could get a TZ on. I usually try to win by putting players on their butt and in TZ so they have to waste movement getting up, and can't catch my fast moving players... This really seems to work <last game against dwarves was 5-1 with 3-1 cas in my favor.> Anyway enough about my games but I do think that conceeding should be an automatic win for the person who is NOT conceeding... as far as point margin goes I'd say just reduce the TD to 0 of the other team and let it go as that. If they conceed so early in a match that you haven't scored then bump the winners score to 1. The only way this would effect anything is in a league where playoff sead is determined by td's and or casualties <but if you make a team conceed then they are hurting pretty badly.>

Lackuwaxa - Oct 08, 2005 - 10:39 PM
Post subject:

I agree with what you are saying, how do you get this put into the LRB for the next edition or submit to the PBBL? I know a lot of people (Twats i like to call them) who will use this in a league, maybe i'm different to most coaches out there but I dont think that 20 House rules is the best way to run a league, I would pefer that they be in Black and White (arguing can get so violent Smile

)

Lack

GalakStarscraper - Oct 09, 2005 - 09:22 AM
Post subject:

The rules for concession already say you win the game ... why in a tabletop league would you need to change the score? The score is meaningless ... as I wouldn't even write it down for the league ... instead of listing 1-1 I'd write Concession by X.

As for the 2-0 victory ... That's on page 41 and is what happens when someone refuses a challenge.

For league play, I don't see why the score matters or why special rules would be needed to change the score. Isn't the victory enough?

Galak

Narkotic - Oct 09, 2005 - 12:09 PM
Post subject:

In leagues play-off participants are usually determined by their points according to their victories and ties (or whatevery you please). With several teams having the same final score you need a tie-brekaer and the TD net-count (or whatever) comes into mind. Then it does make a difference. At least in our league that might be decisive in certain situations.

Darkson - Oct 09, 2005 - 01:54 PM
Post subject:

GalakStarscraper wrote:

The rules for concession already say you win the game ... why in a tabletop league would you need to change the score?

Some leagues (like mine) base the league score on more than just w/d/l.

We used the rule that the score would end up as if you'd beaten the opponent by 2 (so if they were 3-0 up, and conceded [don't ask me hy! Shocked

], you'd win by the score of 5-3. No SPP's were awarded though.

GalakStarscraper - Oct 09, 2005 - 04:06 PM
Post subject:

Okay ... but here is the point from my stance as rulebook editor.

No where is the rules does it recommend using TDs to decide who is on top in your league. So by definition using TDs in this manner is a house rule ... and as such ... you should have a house rule as well to deal with concessions.

I have a rule in the MBBL2 where the winner of a concession gets 1 TD for each 5 full turns left for him to play. If this doesn't give him enough TDs to win, then he gets enough to win by 1 TD. But that is a house rule since TDs matter for my league.

The rulebook should have to say anything about TDs for a concession because the method suggested for deciding you plays in the finals use win ratios and team values.

So do I think you should have a house rule to cover this matter if it is important (yes, my own does as well) ... do I think the rulebook needs to have text on this (no, I don't).

Galak

Lackuwaxa - Oct 10, 2005 - 12:45 AM
Post subject:

Galak? Where is the answer in that?

If it doesn't work make a house rule? surely that then would defeat the purpose of having a rule book.

Ok, I accept your answer that using net-TD to determin playoffs is not in the rule book, it just seems the obvious and most common method of determining a tie, what then is the "official" way to determin a league tie? Obviously all of us are doing it wrong, if you feel that net-TD is a house rule.

I have looked through the Rule book and cant see any way to determine a tie, I am fairly sure that at MOAB (sydney, AU) that in the event of a tie Net-TD was used, what is used in the official tournaments? or are they also required to make house rules?

Lack Evil or Very Mad

GalakStarscraper - Oct 10, 2005 - 08:13 AM
Post subject:

I am not in favor of the rulebook trying to tell you in great minute detail how to run your league playoff.

There are numerous ways to do this. Personally I perfer the World Chess Organization point system for breaking ties and use that in my own league to break ties. I don't plan on putting this in the rulebook but that would be my recommended method.

This element of a league is really the jurisdiction of the commish. The rulebook currently has two recommended methods for determining who plays in the playoffs. One is by Team Value and the other by Winning %. Having text in there on how to break ties seems overboard and getting into the turf of the commish in my opinion. You like Net TDs ... I use WCO points. Whose to say which way is the best for this type of thing?

Its not that I'm dodging the question. I just really feel that the rulebook getting into how to break ties on who plays in the finals is over the top. And where then do we stop. I've seen Net TDs in a league I played in tie for the season ... should the rulebook say what to use in case the tie breaker ties? There just becomes a point where we have to trust the commish ... that point to me is when a tie breaker is needed.

Galak

Lackuwaxa - Oct 10, 2005 - 03:29 PM
Post subject:

Galak,

I don't agree, the PBBL rules go into great detail about Leagues and that seems to be where they are aimed, surely adding an extra 2 or 3 lines wont change much in the rule book.

What is more important to a league than arranging how someone wins? I think if you are going to allow someone to concede a match and you know that a large portion of leagues out there use net-td as a first tie breaker, usually then net-cas if a tie then ... Then something should be developed for it.

I think your attitude that it should just be left up to the commish is a cop out.

IMO

Lack

GalakStarscraper - Oct 10, 2005 - 03:53 PM
Post subject:

Anyone else want to weigh in on this?

Should the official rules include verbage on what happens to the score for a concession? If so how many TDs should the player win by? What if there is only 3 turns left and he's ahead by 1 already. What if it is the 2nd turn of the 1st half and no one has scored yet at all? What if the score is 4-1 and the player that conceeds is the one with 4 TDs?

Just keep in mind any verbage would have to officially answer all of these questions ... all of which before where left to the commish's discretion. I'm open here if this is something the game actually needs.

Galak

Paul - Oct 10, 2005 - 04:40 PM
Post subject:

I agree with Galak that its not necessary to put into the official rules.

Any league is going to have their own house rules involved. And if you decide to use TDs as a tie breaker, then you should include the number of TD's you get for a game where someone conceeds as one of the house rules.

There should be no arguement about it, the Commish of the league should stand up and say, you conceeded the game, you loose, and you loose by x touchdowns as far as the standings go. If he doesn't have the guts to do that, then he probably shouldn't be a Blood Bowl Commishioner

biggy - Oct 10, 2005 - 06:25 PM
Post subject:

I think the point being made was that house rules should not be a 'necessity'. House rules should be variants on existing rules that your league uses. There should still be some sort of 'official' rule for this situation.

But then I'm only a player so just do what I'm told is best for me.

Andrew

Lackuwaxa - Oct 10, 2005 - 08:34 PM
Post subject:

Andrew has it, that is exactly my point, a house rule should be a variation, but a variation, it should not fall on the commish to say X, apart from the fact that this has the possibility of driving away players ( a commish who has 20house rules) A clear and simple rule should exist, I think Galak, you may have taken it a bit far with the there is 2 turns left etc, but nonetheless the rule, i believe, should be something like:

"When a team conceded a match, in addition to the already mentioned sanctions, the team that did not forfeit will have his score reflected as being 2TD greater than the team that conceded. These TD are only used to represent a Win and no SPP will be awarded"

Lack

GalakStarscraper - Oct 10, 2005 - 09:59 PM
Post subject:

Lack ... do me a favor. Start a new thread over at the SG forums and post the verbage above that you'd like added to the concession text and why so I can hear feedback ... unfortunately this forum just doesn't seem to generate real discussion on topics like this.

I'm not opposed to this ... I just wonder if it is putting laws down in areas where the League Commish should be the rulemaker.

Galak

Lackuwaxa - Oct 11, 2005 - 02:44 AM
Post subject:

Done Galak, lets see what that does,

lack

snew - Oct 11, 2005 - 08:11 AM
Post subject:

Lack, If you have that big of a problem with concessions, perhaps there's something else wrong with your league. You can't determine a set number of TD to win my for a concession. Deal with it any way you feel appropriate.

I don't think the rulebook should be so detailed that it doesn't leave any room for playing the game. Then we'd just sit on these boards all day long and talk about playing and adding stuff. Gee. That sounds like fun. Wait! that's what we're doing.

Now I'm going to say this next as nicely as I can. All of you shut up and play. Wink

Sputnik - Oct 11, 2005 - 09:01 AM
Post subject:

maybe the rule book could contain a passage stating that the exact ruling on this should just be up to the league (commish) due to the various different formats used. Then all the rules lawyers and nitpickers who quote this and that page (most of the time the respective paragraphs are slightly contradictory) can't argue on that one on the basis of the rules. Wink

Sputnik

dmchale - Oct 12, 2005 - 09:30 AM
Post subject:

I weighed in on this on the SG forums but I'll say it here too... I agree with Galak 100% that this is house-rule territory. The bottom line is that YOU as commish are creating the rule you feel works for breaking tiebreakers. That isn't how everyone else does it. If you want to make a rule about "2-0 victory", or "win by 2 TD", or "win 200-nil and the loser gets you a beer and a redhead", that's YOUR call. No place for it in the rules.

Mordredd - Oct 13, 2005 - 10:08 AM
Post subject:

Look at the lengths that the section "seasons and tournaments" on p39 of the PBBL rule book goes to to provide a large range of different methods for how to decide which teams get into the tournament. The overwhelming message is that it is the commissioner's choice as to how to organise the league and how to break ties if necessary.

Quote:

At the end of the season the League Commissioner will need to decide which teams will compete in any end-of-season tournament, how ties are to be broken, how the tournament will be run, and what prize the winner of the tournament will receive.

I fail to see how a rules lawyer could argue with that. It states without ambiguity that the commissioner can break ties any way he wants and rank the teams any way he wants. So if a commissioner wants to count conceded games as 2-0 wins for the purposes of ranking there can be no argument that he has the right to do so.

Given that this whole section is about underlining the fact that each league has a choice over how to rank teams it seems absurd to even be considering adding rules to make all teams that concede lose by 2 TDs only for the purpose of tie breaking.

Darkson - Oct 13, 2005 - 03:34 PM
Post subject:

Put me down as another in the "house rule" camp.

El_Tim - Nov 26, 2005 - 05:01 PM
Post subject:

I think this whole discussion is not a completely invalid one. It would be nice to have an official ruling on what to do for conceding, just so that there's something in place for the rare occasion when your opponent quits or does a no-show at a tournament. Also, there are lots of rules lawyers out there who love quoting things at you, and it would save a lot of earache if you could just show them a ruling.

As an aside, in the league that I run for my friends and I, if anyone even thinks about conceding they get instantly shouted down. Conceding is for wimps, take your beating on the chin and get on with it! So what if your team gets crushed, start another one and carry on playing. After all, its about playing games.

longfang - Nov 27, 2005 - 12:06 PM
Post subject:

El_Tim wrote:

I

As an aside, in the league that I run for my friends and I, if anyone even thinks about conceding they get instantly shouted down. Conceding is for wimps, take your beating on the chin and get on with it! So what if your team gets crushed, start another one and carry on playing. After all, its about playing games.

What crap!!

Why if your team is destroyed in the first half should you be forced to spend the next hour turning players over and standing players up so some meat head can get a hard on for a week by bragging how he crushed you. Oh hear come the shouts of team development. Well I know a lot of coaches really spend a lot of time thinking about their precious teams and paths to victory but it's a game and game's should be enjoyed. All to often in a one sided game the enjoment is missing why play it out?