| Author |
Message |
biggy |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Oct 10, 2005 - 06:25 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 57
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
_________________
"Crush your enemies. See them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women!"
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Lackuwaxa |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 10, 2005 - 08:34 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 06, 2005
Townsville
Posts: 12
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 10, 2005 - 09:59 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 11, 2005 - 02:44 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 06, 2005
Townsville
Posts: 12
Status: Offline
|
|
Done Galak, lets see what that does,
lack |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 11, 2005 - 08:11 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 408
|
|
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.  |
_________________
Snew
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sputnik |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 11, 2005 - 09:01 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 512
Status: Offline
|
|
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.
Sputnik |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
dmchale |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 12, 2005 - 09:30 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 22, 2005
Posts: 20
Status: Offline
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 13, 2005 - 10:08 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 13, 2005 - 03:34 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
| Put me down as another in the "house rule" camp. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
El_Tim |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 26, 2005 - 05:01 PM
|
|
Joined: May 11, 2005
England
Posts: 3
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 27, 2005 - 12:06 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 189
Status: Offline
|
|
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? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
