Personnally my first choice would to leave the rule as it is for now.
If the rule was ever to change, the only proposition that i think would not take away too much away of the spectacular aspect of the game and make it a bit safer, is Kenny's proposition.
I like the idea of blocking on opposing side with no poaching.
Joined: 23 Sep 2003 Posts: 288 Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:49 pm Post subject:
Jeremy, please stop holding up your bruised wrist like a martyr. The video replay clearly shows that your partner dug the bag to the far post away from you. I judged the bag to be an overset, so I attempted to make a play. You were running right towards the net, yet somehow were unaware of me? We both made a play on the bag. It was so close to the plane that everybody (including your partner) looked to the net judge for the result. I was slightly over the net, so my team lost the point. End of story. Most people would say that I took the harder fall, but I was prepared with wrist guards. Your lack of preparation, awareness, and body control contributed to your injury on the concrete floor.
I wasn't trying to hurt you, but I will make that play 10 of 10 times in the future, regardless of tweaks to the rules. Injuries happen in every sport, most of them unintentional and unforeseen. if you don't like the risk, don't play, it's that simple. Your "I never fall" argument is ridiculous and arrogant, every athlete has a chance to fall. This idea that because your wrist still hurts you are special is also laughable. Tricia George played worlds with a fully torn ACL. We all have lingering aches and pains. Man up. You'll recover.
Joined: 19 Sep 2003 Posts: 330 Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:07 pm Post subject:
I've played indoors all season long for 3 full years now and have never worn wrist guards inside. I've never needed them because, for the most part, we don't play wrecklessly in Chaosland and we don't take hard falls.
Sorry to sound "arrogant." I'd rather call not falling playing safely and chalk it up to having learned proper technique.
Were you "prepared" with wrist guards because you knew you were going to play dangerously, a.k.a., over the net?
Do I now need to measure the potential dangerousness of the opponents I'm play before I decide whether or not to wear safety equipment?
Can't you can see how silly that is?
Of course I know the foul was accidental. I don't hold a grudge. Yet I still consider it a play that will continue to put players at risk. Most people don't land gracefully after a schtattaft, especially not when contacted at the peak of their jump chasing a set, unaware of the coming contact.
If you say you'd repeat that play 10 times out of 10, that means you'd put 10 other players through the same potential risk I dealt with on that play. That doesn't seem smart, especially since you didn't even win the joust.
Joined: 19 Sep 2003 Posts: 330 Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:13 pm Post subject:
And that angle really sucks to review the contact. Ive watched it 15 or so times, and honestly, you can't even tell where the contact is in relation to the net. What you CAN see is that my foot isn't allowed any sort of a follow through.
Joined: 21 Aug 2007 Posts: 104 Location: Wheaton, IL, USA
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:13 pm Post subject:
Did I tell you guys what happened to ME at Worlds this year??
I've been looking for the video, but it cannot be found. I was standing in PT's kitchen when Grischa attempted to pass Ben a stein full of beer. They fumbled the handoff and the stein landed squarely on my left pinkie toe. My toe swelled up to about twice its normal size, and half of my foot was black-and-blue when I woke up the next morning. It took all of my effort to not scream like a little girl. I was able to finish the tournament, but I was in great pain. To this day my pinkie toe still swells and throbs slighty after every session.
I think we should ban beer-drinking from all footbag tournaments in order to save the rest of the community from the potential accidents that can occur. Or at least we should switch to plastic cups only...
Joined: 21 Aug 2007 Posts: 104 Location: Wheaton, IL, USA
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:30 pm Post subject:
Okay- on a more serious note...
I think what Conan is trying to say is that regardless of the letter of the rule, if a set is questionable and a player thinks he can get to it, he's going to go for it. Unless you have some sort of parabola-calculating computer enmeshed into your brain, it's almost impossible to accurately determine where a set will land immediately after it leaves the foot of the setter. Sometimes you just don't know, and you sure as hell don't want to watch it land 2 cenitmeteres over the net on your side. It might not always be the safest thing to do, but if you want to win, the appropriate thing to do is to go for it.
The camera angle on the play in question doesn't give us a clear idea of where the set was in relationship to the net, but like Conan says- even Jack looked to the judge to see who crossed the plane AFTER the play was over. Even after all the contact, Jack had to look to the judge to verify who the foul was on.
My point is that even if you change the rule to say that no one can ever cross the plane under any circumstances, there are still going to be sets that are impossible to judge. Which means that there are still going to be shots that both teams go for. Which means that there is still going to be a possiblity for contact and injury.
That's why I favor Andy Ronald's idea of using Manu's suggestion as a means by which to determine who to call the foul on if there is contact above the net.
All sports carry with them the inherent chance for injury. Football players wear helmets and shoulder pads. Perhaps it's time you invest in some wrist guards for yourself, Jer.
(And for the record- Grischa and Ben really did drop a stein full of beer on my toe, and it really did hurt like hell. And it really does still slightly bother me after I play net or do plyometrics. But that's okay. Revenge will be mine. Sweet, sweet revenge...)
Also, I noticed that this topic began as a discussion of utilizing the I-formation to defend against aggressive air play. What happened to that conversation??
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 302 Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:56 pm Post subject:
This is why I am AGAINST Manu's rule change...it is an advantage to the offense.
Basically, nothing would change except that the defenders are NEVER allowed to cross the plane.
As you have stated, the actual playing will not change much since defenders are forced to get up there and do SOMETHING when they detect (erroneously or not) an overset. The ref(s) will still have to determine whether or not there was contact, then which side of the net it was on, and then where the set came from. This rule will basically change nothing except the difficulty of the refs call.
Manu still thinks that if the offensive overset travels to the opponents side of the net that it is still "good" defense to joust for it. So what has changed except the possibility of the ref seeing a defenders shoelace travel across the plane and therefor the play is ruled in favor of the offense. That does not seem fair to me.
I am 100% against changing this rule. BUT - if at some distant point in the future I was shown evidence that it NEEDED changing (which it doesn't), I would most likely vote for Kenny and Martins notion of blocking but no poaching.
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 Posts: 41 Location: Englewood, CO, USA
Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 7:27 pm Post subject:
I watched the video of Conans 'contact foul' on Jeremy 2 months ago and could not stop laughing. If it was a contact foul, bad camera angle to truly determine, or if it wasn't, Conan is 100% correct that he should go for that play 10 out of 10 times. The bag was close enough to the net to be played by both opponents. Jeremy went for the set like he had to and Conan did the same. Sure there was contact but I was expecting much worse before I watched the video. Jeremy did not even hit the ground very hard. At first, I thought I had the wrong play. If you're gonna play the way you do Jeremy and you have wrist problems, wear some wrist guards, especially on hard court. Hopefully, when you get old like me, you won't have wrist pain like I do and I wore wrist guards for a few years. Regardless of whatever rules are put in, there is going to be contact and chance for 'injury'. My suggested rule change is if a player hits the bag first they are exempt from having a contact foul called on them, regardless of where the bag is. Fouls would be on players, offense or defense, who are going to poach or block and contact their opponent after the opponent has contacted the bag 1st. This rewards the person who is quicker and can jump higher, the better athlete...kinda of like most every other sport. I know my suggestion will never be put into rule book because of all the nancys out there. It would, however, make for more entertaining matches for spectators, which is what the sport is in dire need of.
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
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
