Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2 Rule Disputes this Past Week
#1
DanK and Casti:

"23.4 It is legal to have just one hand on the rods when playing defense (example: right hand on defensive five-man). It is also legal to use two hands to move one rod (example: defensive five-man). Excessive switching of the hand between the handles may be judged a distraction."

Stavros:

"20.4 It is considered a distraction, after setting up a shot, to remove a hand from the handle and then immediately shoot the ball. The ball may only be shot after both hands (and/or wrist) have been on both handles for one full second.
20.4.1 In singles, rule 20.4 only applies to a set shot on the three-rod."




http://www.table-soccer.org/rules/docume...nglish.pdf
#2
I'm gonna quote something too:
Quote: Excessive switching of the hand between the handles may be judged a distraction

1 switch is all I ever do and stay that way for the remainder of your time on the 5 row, I try to do it at the very start after the ready check (if I forgot to switch before hand or if I simply don't want to show you the D i will give you until the ball is live).

Please explain how 1 switch may be considered excessive.

Looking for feedback from anyone here. Am I in the wrong?
- Casti
#3
I agree with you, but the point is you have to commit to either 2 hands on the 5 or 1, when I ask if your ready you have the opportunity to put both there, if you don't then you lost your chance, its excessive because you already had a legal opportunity to put both hands there and you did not.
#4
So I get no chance to hide my intent on the 5-bar? I have to show you what type of D I will give you before you put the ball into play? Once you announced ready, I should have 1 second after you've striked the ball with the 2nd man to do whatever I deem is necessary since the ball is not yet live, keep in mind what i'm doing is not excessive but switching right as the play begins (or I am trying to).

The "may" part tells me it's not 100% of the time that you can be called, since it's a gray area because switching is allowd, and the "excessive" to me means in most cases more than 1, especially if I am being as discreet as possible about the switch.

It's a tough interpretation, I'll refrain from doing that against you in the meantime, and see if I get called by anyone else.
- Casti
#5
Yeah I agree its grey area because the rules use words like "may" and "excessive" which can mean different things for different people.

It leaves the ball in the court of the player passing though, so I have to make the call, and if your hands change within a second of me passing im going to call it as a distraction because as im going through the motion of passing out of the corner of my eye I am able to see your hand(s) coming off the rods which can be called a distraction.

Lets say for instance I pass on 6 seconds, if you for the first 4-5 seconds defender regularly and then switch just before I pass I would call it excessive, because you had an opportunity during the set up, ready check, and first 4-5 seconds to put both hands on the 5, but instead you chose to wait making it excessive.
#6
Jesse,
My statement was simply this: You said someone called you on that in a tournament. I responded "And you believed him?" In a situation like that, always tell him to get a ref. It's the same when switching the left hand from the 2 and 5 and back again. You can do it quite often as long as it doesn't look like you're milking two udders with the same hand.

As always, it's open to interpretation, and you shouldn't take just any competitors word as law. There are no set guidelines as to how many switches per second you're officially allowed before it is a distraction.


(11-Feb-2013, 09:34 AM)Jester Wrote: Stavros:

"20.4 It is considered a distraction, after setting up a shot, to remove a hand from the handle and then immediately shoot the ball. The ball may only be shot after both hands (and/or wrist) have been on both handles for one full second.
20.4.1 In singles, rule 20.4 only applies to a set shot on the three-rod."

This one is also sketchy. I see a lot of snake shooters shooting on less than 1 second. I have yet to see this get called in tournament play for snake shots for some reason.
#7
So Dan brings up a good point, what about me moving my left hand from 5 to 2 to adjust defence ... that happens all the time for defenders ... and now we're talking about a switch that may be considered "excessive" because it's in the peripheral vision of the person serving the ball.

Let's agree to disagree and I'll honor the interpretation against anyone local who wants to call me on it.
- Casti
#8
(11-Feb-2013, 12:52 PM)SilentSam Wrote: Jesse,
My statement was simply this: You said someone called you on that in a tournament. I responded "And you believed him?" In a situation like that, always tell him to get a ref. It's the same when switching the left hand from the 2 and 5 and back again. You can do it quite often as long as it doesn't look like you're milking two udders with the same hand.

As always, it's open to interpretation, and you shouldn't take just any competitors word as law. There are no set guidelines as to how many switches per second you're officially allowed before it is a distraction.


(11-Feb-2013, 09:34 AM)Jester Wrote: Stavros:

"20.4 It is considered a distraction, after setting up a shot, to remove a hand from the handle and then immediately shoot the ball. The ball may only be shot after both hands (and/or wrist) have been on both handles for one full second.
20.4.1 In singles, rule 20.4 only applies to a set shot on the three-rod."

This one is also sketchy. I see a lot of snake shooters shooting on less than 1 second. I have yet to see this get called in tournament play for snake shots for some reason.

Rule 20.4 is pretty straight forward, I don't see any sketchyness involved. What tournaments have you been to that you are basing your decision on? You personally might have yet to see it but many have seen it, I have, the first tournament I went to it happened, if you have it on your 3, move your left hand to adjust and shoot before you have rested both hands on the rods for a second you will get called on it.

If you haven't realized by now Dan I don't argue to just argue, like you do in some cases. You will argue towards whatever benefits you, regardless of the rules. I don't share the same cut throat negotiation tactics you persue. I use my brain and come a conclusion, I don't just automatically reject my opponents claims because they are my opponent like you do. This is why I paid little attention to trying to convince you on Saturday, because no matter what I said or how I said it you had already made your mind up, and thats fine, but its not how I roll.
#9
(11-Feb-2013, 02:52 PM)Jester Wrote: If you haven't realized by now Dan I don't argue to just argue, like you do in some cases. You will argue towards whatever benefits you, regardless of the rules. I don't share the same cut throat negotiation tactics you persue. I use my brain and come a conclusion, I don't just automatically reject my opponents claims because they are my opponent like you do. This is why I paid little attention to trying to convince you on Saturday, because no matter what I said or how I said it you had already made your mind up, and thats fine, but its not how I roll.

Wow, cheap shot much? So you don't automatically jump to conclusions, and don't automatically reject your opponents claims, but you paid no attention to my claim? You are one giant hypocrite. I know I'm argumentative but you clearly are just as bad, if not worse, than me. I always will argue based on knowledge, whereas clearly you do not.

If you read the rule, you can clearly see that it is an interpretation. You stating "You have to commit to one rod or the other" was a false claim (which I pointed out that night, and directed you to read the rule). Next time, you should realize that using your brain might involve reading, and maybe you'll understand the situation better.
#10
You both need to calm down.

You're both right:

So Garrett & Tyson were called on this in Detroit in Pro doubles during a 4/4 game ... Garrett sets up his snake, shot it instantly after setting up his hand, and opposing team complained.

3-5 guys who came over, plus a guy who was a designated ref, then Mary who had to step in, concluded that it was a legit shot (after reviewing the play by play and everyone agreed on exactly what happened). It was deemed good goal still (even though they re-played the serve since their opponents were being poor sport about it, and he did the same shot to win). I think I might have part of it on video on the tablet but I may have stopped recording this match because of them arguing for a good 10 minutes.

They basically concluded: "Yeah ... that rule is there but it needs revision (and who's taking care of publishing ammendmnets to rule book). The purpose of this is for distraction not to add a caveat for people shooting snake shots".
- Casti
#11
(11-Feb-2013, 03:21 PM)SilentSam Wrote:
(11-Feb-2013, 02:52 PM)Jester Wrote: If you haven't realized by now Dan I don't argue to just argue, like you do in some cases. You will argue towards whatever benefits you, regardless of the rules. I don't share the same cut throat negotiation tactics you persue. I use my brain and come a conclusion, I don't just automatically reject my opponents claims because they are my opponent like you do. This is why I paid little attention to trying to convince you on Saturday, because no matter what I said or how I said it you had already made your mind up, and thats fine, but its not how I roll.

Wow, cheap shot much? So you don't automatically jump to conclusions, and don't automatically reject your opponents claims, but you paid no attention to my claim? You are one giant hypocrite. I know I'm argumentative but you clearly are just as bad, if not worse, than me. I always will argue based on knowledge, whereas clearly you do not.

If you read the rule, you can clearly see that it is an interpretation. You stating "You have to commit to one rod or the other" was a false claim (which I pointed out that night, and directed you to read the rule). Next time, you should realize that using your brain might involve reading, and maybe you'll understand the situation better.

First off, I don't pay attention to any of your claims, because you have no legitimacy based on the fact that you argue against your opponent regardless of the rules, but this only applies to you because of what I have experienced.

Second off, you calling me a hypocrite means nothing because your the captain of hypocrisy. The actual rule book means nothing to you, you have read it, act like your an expert on the rules, and then during the game try to manipulate them to your favour. For instance a few weeks ago Sam shot a stop ball from the back and you caught it on your 5. Now I know you know that its illegal to do this, but yet you still argued with Frank, Chris and JP for a good 5 minutes, so you argue based on knowledge, laugh.

I said "if you commit to either option (2 hands defending or 1) you will avoid any confusion" because of the grey area associated with the rule and the fact that I don't have the entire ITSF rulebook memorized word for word in my head it seemed like a happy medium.
(11-Feb-2013, 03:21 PM)deliverance Wrote: You both need to calm down.

You're both right:

So Garrett & Tyson were called on this in Detroit in Pro doubles during a 4/4 game ... Garrett sets up his snake, shot it instantly after setting up his hand, and opposing team complained.

3-5 guys who came over, plus a guy who was a designated ref, then Mary who had to step in, concluded that it was a legit shot (after reviewing the play by play and everyone agreed on exactly what happened). It was deemed good goal still (even though they re-played the serve since their opponents were being poor sport about it, and he did the same shot to win). I think I might have part of it on video on the tablet but I may have stopped recording this match because of them arguing for a good 10 minutes.

They basically concluded: "Yeah ... that rule is there but it needs revision (and who's taking care of publishing ammendmnets to rule book). The purpose of this is for distraction not to add a caveat for people shooting snake shots".

Thats in doubles though, Steve's question regarded the subsection for singles.
#12
(11-Feb-2013, 03:39 PM)Jester Wrote: First off, I don't pay attention to any of your claims, because you have no legitimacy based on the fact that you argue against your opponent regardless of the rules, but this only applies to you because of what I have experienced.
Baseless accusations from the wisest of all sages. Perhaps if you spent less time storming off in childlike tantrums you would listen to discussions.

Quote:Second off, you calling me a hypocrite means nothing because your(sic) the captain of hypocrisy. The actual rule book means nothing to you, you have read it, act like your an expert on the rules, and then during the game try to manipulate them to your favour. For instance a few weeks ago Sam shot a stop ball from the back and you caught it on your 5. Now I know you know that its illegal to do this, but yet you still argued with Frank, Chris and JP for a good 5 minutes, so you argue based on knowledge, laugh.
Again, out of context. That, my friend, was a discussion. For one, most of what was talked about was because noone was really paying attention, and for two, because it was called late. We also discussed the controlled advancement portion of the rule. But in the end, everyone in that scenario was listening to each other, and noone was disagreeable or aggravated. We gave them the ball, by the way.

Quote:I said "if you commit to either option (2 hands defending or 1) you avoid any confusion" because of the grey area associated with the rule.

And here you finish it all off by prohibiting someone from doing something perfectly legal. All on a whim. No manipulation to your favour here, so clearly this isn't hypocritical at all...
#13
Guys, stop the flame war please.
#14
Yes my experiences with you for the past 2-3 years provide for baseless accusations, sure, your never yourself, makes sense.

Didn't seem like a discussion from my view point 2 feet away, and I would hope they got the ball, its the rules, rofl there is no other outcome.

Saying "If you commit to one of the options it avoids confusion" is not prohibiting anything, its suggesting an alternative, it was trying to find a happy medium between Casti and I.

Forum provider has spoken, im done.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)