EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 02:02 |
 
|
| mymLaban wrote: | bah another conceed  and score was 2-3 !!! |
Thankfully the concession happened to a team already loaded up with cash. Otherwise, they could have been incredibly unbalancing. This has got me thinking that I'll likely be adding a new rule to the Official Rules page. I think there's a need to decrease the likelihood of grossly unfair concessions. I've got a couple of options:
1. Ban a coach who concedes from the next FUMBBL Major.
2. Retire the team that concedes.
3. Transfer the team that concedes to [U].
Any thoughts?
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism
Book of FUMBBL Lore (draft) |
_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism |
|
Colin
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 02:17 |
|
You'd have to be very careful how you draft the rule defining an 'unfair concession', Evo.
Presuming that is so, I'd go for 1. If a coach isn't willing to fight to the last moment in the FC, our most prestigious competition (and one I'd dearly love to compete in but for time constraints), he has no business being in it (I'm sure the coaches who did have their reasons, but it's just my opinion). These concessions have really spoiled an otherwise competitive knock-out phase. I'm hopeful of a battle-royal final to make up for them.
I'd leave the slow play debate for another thread, Meetgrinder - it's been done to death. |
_________________
Join The Cult of Tzeentch, mutate randomly! | Hug a newb! Join the Faculty of Academy Instructors! |
|
celas
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 02:50 |
|
Retiring the team won't help because in pmg's example he retired the team anyway, as he did when he conceeded in the XFL Orc finals. I would think that makes transfer to U not much of a deterrent either. I think a ban would be the only thing that would do it. |
_________________
Northern Wastes League |
|
deathgerbil
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 03:17 |
|
I'm not sure that really matters with the way the majors are set up anyways... half the teams that applied to the cup origionally had so much cash that a concession or two wouldn't have changed anything just like with the Blood Falcons.
Thats why i'm prefer the origional fumbbl cup layout, - any concessions wouldn't mean much because there were so many games that you would have to play. You couldn't freeboot too many stars in one game unless you want to cripple yourself for the next few games when your cash reserves run low. And all the teams would have just one chance to get in, rather than having 2, 3, or more chances to apply. Yes, it took a long time to finish, but don't all the tourneys take a long time to finish? look at this fumbbl cup for instance, - if you count the qualifier rounds, its been running for what... 2 and a half months? The first fumbbl cup took only a little over one month. |
|
|
MrMojo
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 08:49 |
|
Banning sounds about right to do fo those conceders. |
_________________
My post count
Jesus loves me this I know, 'cos my Bible tells me so. |
|
DonKosak
Joined: Apr 06, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 09:17 |
|
As far as I know concession is as much a part of the game as for instance fouling or stalling is - the right to concede and the consequences are mentioned in the LRB.
It is not clear to me why some people suddenly find that concession should lead to a punishment. As far as I can see the only argument we have heard until now is, that a concession is "unfair" in a tournament because it gives the winner a load of cash and some extra spp to bring on to the next round and therefore we are to punish the coaches that choose to concede.
The problem is that an argumentation like this can be used on most things that happen in a bloodbowl match and thus has no precise limits...
You could argue that lack of fouling or bad coaching gives the opponent an unfair advantage - but do we punish coaches who play badly or do not foul? Of course not! Why? For the same reasons that we shouldn't punish coaches that choose to concede:
If a coach chooses a bad tactic losing him the game or giving the opponent the chance to score more touchdowns it is his choice - it is a legal and LRB-compliant way to behave in a bloodbowl match.
If a coach chooses not to foul letting the opponent's countless legends, oneturnes, claw/rsc beasts survive it is his choice - it is a legal and LRB-compliant way to behave in a bloodbowl match.
If a coach chooses to concede it is his choice - it is a legal and LRB-compliant way to behave in a bloodbowl match...
I don't see the difference between the advantages coming from your opponent's lack of coaching skills, from your opponent's lack of fouling pleasure or from your opponent's concession.
The only exception is the coach who chooses to play to lose (however you define that). It's still a legal and LRB-compliant way to behave in a bloodbowl match but it is also a punishable violation of the Fumbbl rules.
I understand why the Fumbbl rules forbid playing to lose but I can't see why a concession should be punished.
I don't know if my point comes through (my abilities in the English language are limited) but hopefully the admins will take a thorough debate before deciding on more prohibitions and punishments. |
|
|
Malthor
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 10:33 |
|
I agree with Donkosak.
Game A, one coach is losing badly and has no chance. He preserves his players by running away and hiding in the corner.
Game B, once coach is losing badly, and he decides to just maim his opponent as much as possible to make it harder for him to win his next match.
Who is right or wrong?
Has the coach in game A given his opponent an easy ride in the next match, or given the next opponent of his current one a harder time? Has the coach in game B made it harder for his opponent, or given the next opponent of his current one an easy ride?
Why is making things easier or harder for your current opponent, or the next opponent of your current one something that we label as right and wrong and focus so much of our energy on the matter?
If you want to argue about right and wrong, morals and ethics, lets talk about genetic engineering, abortion, capital punishment please, not about how we play with pixels! |
_________________
ex Monkey (original Team Approvers in 2004)
ex Admin
ex Ranked Tournament Manager
still disliked all round! |
|
HollowOne
Joined: Sep 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 11:06 |
|
I'm inclined to agree with Malthor. Conceeding a game is boring and lame, but I don't think it should be penalized as it's not really against any rules. |
_________________
A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to. - Granville Hicks |
|
Arcon
Joined: Mar 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 11:26 |
|
I do understand both sides.
But considering this is THE FUMBBL CUP, the greatest happening here, I think coaches should as well play according to that. Imagine teams in world soccer would just leave the field at half time...
A concession is penalized strongly in BB (with players leaving the team), but that does not stop a coach who wants to retire the team. I only think it is a bit sad if the coaches do not care about their teams, and enter teams to this cup that they plan to retire (and thus are willing to conceed a game). Maybe we should give more credit to the coaches/teams that qualified for the Cup.
Personally, I am very happy to have reached the semi-finals. It is most likely that I will loose the next game, but I am planning to keep my team alive as long as possibly just because they performed so successfully. Playing in the Fumbbl Cup should not be such an unimportant thing that one easily throws away such a renowned team! |
|
|
Malthor
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 11:33 |
|
Evo and I don't agree on a lot of things, but one principle I agree with is this, if you want people to change, lead by example.
If you don't like seeing coaches concede in major tournaments, don't do it yourself and cheer and encourage those who do stick it out. Play your hardest if you come up against those who conceded in future tournaments so they don't make it through if their past behaviour offends your moral code so much. |
_________________
ex Monkey (original Team Approvers in 2004)
ex Admin
ex Ranked Tournament Manager
still disliked all round! |
|
tza
Joined: Aug 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 12:11 |
|
|
Grouchy
Joined: Feb 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 12:28 |
|
|
Mithrilpoint
Joined: Mar 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 14:17 |
|
Great post, DonKosak, it sums up perfectly what you mean to say and i am with you all the way.
Nothing more to add besides reiterating the point that conceding is an acceptable way of behaving. Some might argue that is is dishonorable or not in touch with the game but it is in the rules. A coach can concede any game and go do something else. Period.
M |
_________________
Stop the Whining! |
|
Hoodeddwarf
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 14:55 |
|
A coach can conceed and go do something else, but if they do so, then i think excluding them from the next fumbbl cup is appropriate. These games should represent the best of the coaches on fumbbl and as a high profile game with a pile of spectators, coaches should be encouraged to play them out. |
|
|
Firesky
Joined: Apr 06, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2005 - 14:57 |
|
| Mithrilpoint wrote: | Great post, DonKosak, it sums up perfectly what you mean to say and i am with you all the way.
Nothing more to add besides reiterating the point that conceding is an acceptable way of behaving. Some might argue that is is dishonorable or not in touch with the game but it is in the rules. A coach can concede any game and go do something else. Period.
M |
I totally second this and DonKosajs words.
Additional: would there be a different handling if one team concedes and plays on or the team concedes and doesn´t play on? Every coach has the right to concede every game he plays including the FUMBBL CUP. And every coach has the right to retire his team at any time he wants to. Mixing these two things should be a reason to ban the coach?!? I can´t belive it... |
_________________
[url=http://www.peterklaus.de/survsmall.jpg] [/url] |
|
|
|
| |
NBFL Season 32: The ...
Search
