FieldCrumpets Talk Forum Index FieldCrumpets Talk
Everything there is to talk about Field Crumpets (And then some)
 
 FAQFAQ   Search   Memberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 

Final Stages of New Rules
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FieldCrumpets Talk Forum Index -> Rule Talk
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sumobob2



Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 207
Location: Lawrence

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:46 pm    Post subject: Final Stages of New Rules Reply with quote

OK. Tau brought a very good point to my attention today. Not everyone who cares about the rules has time to regularly check the message board. As a result, the most recent rules adjustments, while well-discussed by some of us, were a huge surprise to some others. We can't totally avoid the message board as the primary medium, but I can start this thread. This thread is ONLY for rules that are in their very final stages of creation/alteration/voting before being posted. For arguments about rules, discussions about rules, and rough-around-the-edges rules, please post elsewhere, as the idea is to make one easy place where the man or woman with little time can make a quick stop to see if anything major is getting ready to happen with crumpets rules. Also, I'll be coming by to clear out this section a few weeks after each rule is updated in order to keep it tidy.
_________________
Nun sehe ich aber, daß hier die ganze Stadt voller Narren ist.
Back to top
Sumobob2



Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 207
Location: Lawrence

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perfect example. If you want to talk about the kick-serve rule, the tripping rule (in case anyone is really pissed about not being able to trip any more) or the "behind the baseline vs in the goal" for the serve rule, this is the place to do it, as those are all pretty final. Although I've ammended the in-bounds rules, I don't consider them final yet, and I foresee a lot of discussion on those yet to be had. Please keep the in-bounds play discussion elsewhere for now and we'll readjust that rule later.
_________________
Nun sehe ich aber, daß hier die ganze Stadt voller Narren ist.
Back to top
Cletus



Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 35
Location: Austin, TX

Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2004 8:53 am    Post subject: rules Reply with quote

kicking on the serve - like buttah

no tripping - that's a paddling... I suppose I can live with the new rule, although there might be some dispute on what is "intentional" or not

in-bounds play - meh... I'm not one to get right up on the ball as it comes in bounds, I prefer to step back a bit and try to interfere with the pass (as demonstrated in the MOKAN game )

not checking the message board - you better believe that's a paddling... we live in the age of the internet, get with the times
_________________
If I die tomorrow, will this song live on forever?
Back to top
Visit poster's website
Sumobob2



Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 207
Location: Lawrence

Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, the KU group tried the "general stick-length away rule" for inbounds last night. I think it was good. Good enough to be placed in the "Final Stages" discussion. It made it much easier to bring the ball in bounds. It prevented odd tie-ups in the corners (although we might consider backing the defenders off even a little more for a shot that truly is in the corner). I don't think that this rule is necessary for guarding foot calls. If the defender gets as close as they want on the side opposite the goal they are attacking, the person bringing in the ball still has 180 degrees to work with. Personally, I don't think they need more to work with than that, lest it become silly.

So, in a nutshell...

1) I am for the general crumpet stick length away rule for inbounds. This would mean no player could be inside a stick length, and no player's stick could be within a stick length (unless, possibly, an offense player tries to get inside that stick length to take a short pass).

2) I am against the general crumpet stick length away rule for foot calls. The only reason I can think of to change this rule is to make the game more simple to explain, but I'm not sure that's worth it. I think it makes it too easy to bring it into play, but it is nice to be able to say "bring in a foot just like an out of bounds".

So, have at it! Hopefully this will be the last discussion of this topic before it gets finalized in the official NFCL rules.
_________________
Nun sehe ich aber, daß hier die ganze Stadt voller Narren ist.
Back to top
Sparhawk



Joined: 27 May 2004
Posts: 29
Location: JC Missouri

Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's almost exactly how we play, when a foot is called only 1 defender can get as close as they want to the ball. The rest of the defenders must stay 3ish crumpet sticks away.

When bringing the ball in, 2 or 3 crumpet stick lengths away. The official rule for us is 3, but 2 is probably just as good. We really enjoy these new rules, makes things much faster!
_________________
OMG HAX0R ROFL STFU KK THX GG
Back to top
Tau



Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 6
Location: Ithaca, NY or KS

Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Inbounds plays: I strongly prefer the general stick-length away rule for simplicity.

Foot calls: I mildly prefer the general stick-length away rule.

I do agree that the "conditional-distance away rule" has defensive merits for the foot call. However, it causes trouble when the foot occurs near the baseline of the team that is awarded the crumpet. The general stick-length away gives both teams a chance.

Also, at a stick-length away, the average defender still has the advantage for maybe 130 degrees, with quicker defenders getting close to 180 degrees. This still tends to force a reverse pass, lateral pass, or at best a diffcult 2 (or 10) o'clock pass into traffic. In the case of a dribble, you get a momentary, fair, one-on-one test of skill.
Back to top
SombraAla
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Aug 2003
Posts: 176

Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2004 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dislike a general stick length rule for foot calls quite a bit. In my minds eye, it's all about foot calls that are near your own goal on your own team. Yes, it does make sense that a foot call in this area should put one at a disadvantage, but a foot call under the 180 degree rule is still a great advantage for the team taking the call if the play is done correctly. It's very very very hard to defend as it is now, but if the defending team had to stay back a stick length, then I couldn't imagine where this wouldn't be a goal every time.

You cite the baseline issue - a foot call near your own baseline on the other team.. in this case, the team bringing it in can just hit it really hard off the other player's stick and out of bounds, or they could do what KU does half the time and try to hit the other players stick into the crumpet with your own stick so that they hit it first. Or they could set a pick. I feel there are still options.
Back to top
Sumobob2



Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 207
Location: Lawrence

Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2004 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greg and Tau both have reasonable points. If we keep the "close as you like" rule for foot calls, we might want to have some variation for within a certain distance of the goal the defender is trying to score on. If we switch to the "stick length away" then we'll definitely want to have something different for within a certain distance of the goal the offense is trying to score on. Come on, people! Talk! I know you're out there! If you want to have input on this, it's much more convenient to do it now than after I've already updated the rule.
_________________
Nun sehe ich aber, daß hier die ganze Stadt voller Narren ist.
Back to top
Nedislacbi



Joined: 14 Aug 2003
Posts: 49

Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2004 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dont really have any problem with the way foots work now. And I agree with Greg's views on the stick-length-away proposal.

The general stick-length-away rule for inbounding is fine with me too. It will be just like the situations we had after the defender had hit the crumpet first in the old rules. And it certainly is simple to explain.
_________________
Your signature is too long.
Back to top
melruth



Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Posts: 111
Location: Lawrence

Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2004 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think it should make a difference for how close a defender can get on foot calls, no matter where it's at. To me, it is just confusing. "you can get as close as you want to the crumpet on a foot call, but if you're so close to the baseline then you have to get a stick lenght away or if you're by the goal..."

Who determines how close is close??? if there are too many rules within a rule, then it gets confusing. I'd say in ten years or so, when Crumpets is a major sport and there are referees, then that would be fine. But we don't have a "chain gang" to measure distances. Or whatever those people are called in football.

That's my opinion on the foot thing.

Bringing the crumpet in...I think the chaos and crumpet going out a hundred times when the offense is bringing it in has dissipated greatly since we've started playing with the "you have to be a crumpet stick length away and on your side of the field." If I remember it correctly. And I'm assuming that playing with the "general crumpet stick length away" for an inbounds play works better.

So......yes on that one.
_________________
The greatest thing you'll ever learn is to love, and be loved in return.
Back to top
jgramarye



Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 37
Location: Lawrence, KS

Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with the inbounds, one-stick length thing, for the same reasons as everyone else, 'nuff said.

I'm also in favor of the stick length on the foot calls. I recognize that I'm the minority on this one, but I think it's obnoxious, and an abuse of the rules when people throw their sticks and then charge in and kick the ball just to stop the play (the stick-throwing isn't a necessary part of the sequence, but it seems to be the most common prelude). It seems like the point of the game is (or at least should be) manipulating the ball with the stick, not manipulating the plays by selectively ignoring the rules, when it suits your purposes. Giving the offense more of an advantage in such situations would reduce the amount of intentional rule-breaking.

The counterargument to this is, of course, the times when it's really an accident, but relatively few of those get called in any case.

Justin
_________________
The thing about evolution is that if it hasn't turned your brain inside out, you haven't understood it. -D. N. Adams
Back to top
Sumobob2



Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 207
Location: Lawrence

Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not to fight what Justin is saying, because I think the stick-length on foot calls will be fine if we go with it and fine if we don't. But I just wanted to get it out there that I generally think of intentional foot calls as similar to intentional fouling in basketball. Generally, it's not in your favor to kick the ball in crumpets, as it's not generally in your favor to foul in basketball. However, in certain situations it's appropriate to foul in basketball and, as long as it isn't a nasty foul (like killing them) then it's excused. I like to think that intentional foots are that way, and that's why we allow them to be called by the team who kicked it if they so desire. If lots of people believe that intentional foot calls should have less effect on the play near the goal, then we should go ahead and make the stick-length away on foot calls. If people believe, like me, that foot calls are okay as a last-ditch effort and want to encourage this sort of play, we should allow foot calls defenders to be as close as they want.

I've stated my opinion, but I don't believe strongly one way or the other, and I'm fine with going along with the majority on this issue.
_________________
Nun sehe ich aber, daß hier die ganze Stadt voller Narren ist.
Back to top
melruth



Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Posts: 111
Location: Lawrence

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with Robbie on the intentional foot thing (Sorry Justin!). And I'm happy that R used the sport of basketball to make the analogy. I do understand how you feel when someone intentionally kicks the crumpet to get a foot call because, say, a bunch of their team member lost their sticks. But there has been at least one instance that I remember someone intentionally kicking it and NOBODY called it. That had to make the intentional footer a bit upset.

So, when is there going to be a def. decision on these things?
_________________
The greatest thing you'll ever learn is to love, and be loved in return.
Back to top
jgramarye



Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 37
Location: Lawrence, KS

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not upset or offended with anyone disagreeing, and I said before that I know I'm in the minority, I just wanted to say my piece. I recognize the analogy with basketball, and I think the same philosophy holds there too. It just strikes me as wrong when people intentionally break the rules just to stop the play. That implies to me that the penalty for breaking the rules needs to be stronger, in order to better encourage people to play by the rules. I say again that I don't think that selectively ignoring the rules when it suits your purposes should be a legitimate option.

We can end the thread, now, I didn't intend to spark a big fight here.

Justin
_________________
The thing about evolution is that if it hasn't turned your brain inside out, you haven't understood it. -D. N. Adams
Back to top
Sumobob2



Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 207
Location: Lawrence

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK...here we go. We shall attempt, for the first real time, to get everyone involved in a vote on this issue. I'll put up the rules as it seems that the posters wish them to be written. Then, I'll take a vote at a KU meeting, and I'll ask the other clubs to take votes at their meetings and contact me or post here with a tally of yay's and nay's. If the yay's have it, then we'll go with the change.

So here's how it looks to me (again, going 100% on the number and nature of posts posted). All out of bounds calls will be subject to a 1-crumpet stick length rule for the defense of the in-bounds play. This means that no player on the defense and no defensive player's stick may be within a stick-length of the ball for the inbounds play. In the case of a foot call, the defender may get as close to the ball as they wish as long as they remain on the same side of the field as the goal they are defending.

We may come back to this rule in the future if 1-stick length is not enough for corner shots.

Let's get it voted on and finished up.
_________________
Nun sehe ich aber, daß hier die ganze Stadt voller Narren ist.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FieldCrumpets Talk Forum Index -> Rule Talk All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.6 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group