funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
 Posted:
Dec 10, 2008 - 15:52 |
 
|
No need to concede to DP. Just don't foul back and watch them pick themselves off. If you Get The Ref, you still may not want to foul. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 10, 2008 - 16:30 |
|
| Fallen00 wrote: | You can always concede when you play DP intensive khemri teams. Thats what a lot of poeple do. Especially if you have to kick first half.
|
I hope not. That's against the rules. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
PorkusMaximus
Joined: May 19, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 17:02 |
|
| Quote: | | the team taking excessive casualties is one acceptable reason to concede. Other reasons include having a very distinct lack of players left to play with, |
Both of these factors are relevant to a DP heavy Khemri team. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 17:07 |
|
| PorkusMaximus wrote: | | Quote: | | the team taking excessive casualties is one acceptable reason to concede. Other reasons include having a very distinct lack of players left to play with, |
Both of these factors are relevant to a DP heavy Khemri team. |
I assume that it means that you play the game and suffer some casualties before conceding rather than conceding on turn 1. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
PorkusMaximus
Joined: May 19, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 17:34 |
|
I would still consider pre-emptive concessions (more like a forfeit I suppose) as perfectly legal as long as the reason is established. As far as I'm aware the administration is in place to prevent suspicious pre-arranged concessions, "Hey want a game? I'll just concede at the start so you get all my money" is a very different situation to "Oh my god I've just been matched against the killer team from Hell, there's no way this game can go any way but BADLY for me!". Ducking out of a game via concession isn't without its in game consequences and if you are serious about keeping the team active then it cannot be done on a regular basis. If it's highly likely a game is going to turn out badly then I don't think you should be forced to sit and wait until AFTER it has gone south before you concede. |
|
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 18:04 |
|
The site rules don't agree with you:
--------------------------------------------------
# Concessions are to be made only when there is merit for them.
# In this context, merit means that the conceding team needs a reasonable in-game reason for conceding. The team taking excessive casualties is one acceptable reason to concede. Other reasons include having a very distinct lack of players left to play with, or being clearly outplayed in terms of touchdowns.
# Conceding when none of the above circumstances are fulfilled will require admin approval.
--------------------------------------------------
It's pretty obvious from the examples that you're not allowed to concede just because you foresee trouble. |
_________________
”It's very sad
To see the ancient and distinguished game that used to be
A model of decorum and tranquillity
Become like any other sport, a battleground...”
—Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus, Chess |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 18:07 |
|
| PorkusMaximus wrote: | | I would still consider pre-emptive concessions (more like a forfeit I suppose) as perfectly legal as long as the reason is established. As far as I'm aware the administration is in place to prevent suspicious pre-arranged concessions, "Hey want a game? I'll just concede at the start so you get all my money" is a very different situation to "Oh my god I've just been matched against the killer team from Hell, there's no way this game can go any way but BADLY for me!". Ducking out of a game via concession isn't without its in game consequences and if you are serious about keeping the team active then it cannot be done on a regular basis. If it's highly likely a game is going to turn out badly then I don't think you should be forced to sit and wait until AFTER it has gone south before you concede. |
No way.
Preemptive concessions are clearly against the rules. Please see below (emphasis mine).
Concessions
Concessions are to be made only when there is merit for them.
In this context, merit means that the conceding team needs a reasonable in-game reason for conceding. The team taking excessive casualties is one acceptable reason to concede. Other reasons include having a very distinct lack of players left to play with, or being clearly outplayed in terms of touchdowns.
Conceding when none of the above circumstances are fulfilled will require admin approval.
If you are unsure if your particular game qualifies for a concession, please consult the FUMBBL administration for a ruling.
A match where the administration rules that a concession is acceptable, even though it does not fulfil the policy stated here will have its match report page marked to reflect this. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 18:09 |
|
Scooped!! |
_________________
”It's very sad
To see the ancient and distinguished game that used to be
A model of decorum and tranquillity
Become like any other sport, a battleground...”
—Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus, Chess |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 18:11 |
|
Scooped again, dagnabit! I hate the Internet.  |
_________________
\x/es |
|
maznaz
Joined: Jan 26, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 18:23 |
|
I would say about 10% of concessions on this site meet those criteria. That should tell you something about the stupidity of a rule that relies on a completely subjective appraisal of the situation. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 18:32 |
|
| maznaz wrote: | | I would say about 10% of concessions on this site meet those criteria. That should tell you something about the stupidity of a rule that relies on a completely subjective appraisal of the situation. |
But it's still the rule. I don't think that argument will go very far with the admins after a lame concession gets reported. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 18:34 |
|
Rules are stupid.
Edit: Some rules are stupid... All rules that are hardly ever enforced are stupid. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 18:41 |
|
Notice that the rule cunningly leaves open the possibility that they havent listed all the in-game reasons to concede. The important part of the rule is that there is a reasonable in-game reason for the concession... which leaves the way open for pre-emptive concessions, especially in [B]. While I dont think you should run at the first sign of a DP if you are playing against a stronger team which gets GTR and you lose your apoth on turn one... a pre-emptive concession suddenly looks pretty wise. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 18:44 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | Notice that the rule cunningly leaves open the possibility that they havent listed all the in-game reasons to concede. The important part of the rule is that there is a reasonable in-game reason for the concession... which leaves the way open for pre-emptive concessions, especially in . While I dont think you should run at the first sign of a DP if you are playing against a stronger team which gets GTR and you lose your apoth on turn one... a pre-emptive concession suddenly looks pretty sad and cowardly. |
Fixed it for you Silly |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
PorkusMaximus
Joined: May 19, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 18:56 |
|
Yes way.
| Quote: | | It's pretty obvious from the examples that you're not allowed to concede just because you foresee trouble. |
It's pretty obvious from the examples that I've given that you are allowed to concede if, after due deliberation, the administration considers it legitimate. It is fairly subjective and you could very well get a different ruling based purely on which administrator reviews your game.
| Quote: | | Notice that the rule cunningly leaves open the possibility that they havent listed all the in-game reasons to concede. The important part of the rule is that there is a reasonable in-game reason for the concession... which leaves the way open for pre-emptive concessions, especially in [B]. While I dont think you should run at the first sign of a DP if you are playing against a stronger team which gets GTR and you lose your apoth on turn one... a pre-emptive concession suddenly looks pretty wise. |
This. Also, thik of a pre-emptive concession as effectively a forfeit, something you would be able to do in TT. However the client doesn't support this feature with arranged matches, the closest you can get to a forfeit is a turn 1 concession. |
|
|
|
|
Secret League Americ...
Search
