1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New rule for Season 20 and onward

Discussion in 'Big Crunch 2' started by Ilgoth, Mar 18, 2020.

  1. Ilgoth

    Ilgoth Courier Staff

    Messages:
    2,268
    Location:
    Finland, GMT+2
    Steam Username:
    Ilgoth
    Cyanide Username:
    Ilgoth
    Country Flag:
    arbitre.png *yellow flag has been thrown in the air, crowd sighs loudly*


    After rather extensive discussion within the admin team (and the community) throughout last season, admin team has voted and decided to implement a new rule to Big Crunch 2 - taking effect as of now.

    • 24) The league commissioner and administration team reserve the right to sanction any coach or coaches who do not make a reasonable attempt to either play or complete their match. We recognise that coaches are allowed to play their matches however they see fit, but it is incumbent on both coaches to actually play their match.

    I understand that after first read, this rule might come out as hazy and rather convoluted with its purpose, so I will now try to explain this.

    We all know that in Blood Bowl there is this phenomena called "soft concede", where one of the coaches gives up on the match for better survival of the team, and does not do anything in order to win or draw the game. I want to highlight that Rule 24 is not there to tell you that soft conceding games is terminally forbidden. But we are drawing some lines here, because quite frankly, we have been forced to do so.
    • This is a video game, where we have agreed to share some time of our day with one another, to play a match and hopefully have fun with it. For me, already out of pure respect and sportsmanship, I will be there to play through all of the turns.
    • We draw the line where people try to gain an edge by not playing at all. This is the deadly bottom line we want to convey.
    What is the point of partaking in a season-based competition, and then proceed to play the system by not playing one of the matches? I seriously, seriously beg that all of you take time to think about this. Why agree to be there, but then get through it by - skipping? Are we becoming that competitive about this that we are willing to skip the whole act of playing, just to reach competitive edge later on?

    I want to express real concerns here. If I feel that in order to win a championship I have to decrease the amount of said sport, I can question the meaning of it in the first place? A real life example of this would be Mercedes F1 Team skipping one GP just to conserve the engine, gearbox and so worth - to have increased reliability in the future. Does that sound like partaking? No, it doesn't because it isn't.

    From Season 20 and onward, we will be taking a lot closer look at soft concessions and how coaches use them. Quite frankly "Rule 24" does give us a foundation on things, and hopefully makes it clear, for all of us, that what we admins expect from matches within Big Crunch 2. When I began helping @cjblackburn with league presidency, I declared that sportsmanship is the core value. Lot of us feel that it has been breached as of late. No more, or it will be acted upon.

    Regards,
    the admin team
     
  2. Veggente85

    Veggente85 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,083
    Location:
    Central Europe (GMT+2)
    Steam Username:
    VeggenteBBT
    Cyanide Username:
    Veggente
    Country Flag:
    So now that we have a new rule that is difficult to fully implement, can we have financial fairplay too?
     
    Ernedar, BallztotheWalla and gdaynick like this.
  3. Rocketdeath

    Rocketdeath Active Member

    Messages:
    294
    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    Steam Username:
    Rocketdeath
    Cyanide Username:
    Rocketdeath
    Country Flag:
    @Ilgoth just to clarify skipping entire match bad, if your already beat and a player disadvantage, staying down or getting out of the way rather than repeatedly get beat senseless is ok?
     
  4. cjblackburn

    cjblackburn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,496
    Location:
    Stockport
    Cyanide Username:
    cjblackburn
    Country Flag:
    I’m not intrinsically opposed to FFP but there is a difference in terms of investigation the two. One takes place during the inducements phase and one takes place during the match. We have access to a replay of the match but not to the inducement phase. There are ways round it but FFP would be harder to look at.

    As I remember it we had a number of coaches who were going to demonstrate how the lack of FFP could be abused in our type of league as opposed to a knockout environment (where I agree it is a serious issue). So if someone has produced some evidence please PM here and I would be happy to look at it again and maybe bringing it to the other admins.

    But let’s keep this thread for the new rules please.
     
  5. cjblackburn

    cjblackburn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,496
    Location:
    Stockport
    Cyanide Username:
    cjblackburn
    Country Flag:
    Yes pretty much.

    Everyone has played a match where you just stay down at the end of a drive and we have no intention of going near those matches. But it is unreasonable to say my Snotling has been KOed on turn 1 therefore I’m staying down for the rest of the match.
     
    zectorman and Rocketdeath like this.
  6. Ilgoth

    Ilgoth Courier Staff

    Messages:
    2,268
    Location:
    Finland, GMT+2
    Steam Username:
    Ilgoth
    Cyanide Username:
    Ilgoth
    Country Flag:
    As CJ described above, we have had cases where after turn or two, coach immediately drops out of the match due to hits that happened, and begins to soft concede by running away or worse - which we dont like at all - starts haggling the specifics of the soft concede. Imagine watching NFL and a team walking away from the field, because one player got minor injury and is out of the game. No one is cheering.

    We already have a rule in place against match fixing, but we wanted to solidify the stance for the admins to act against "I dont play with you" mentality. Until this, we haven't had a rule that gives us power to punish that.
     
    Rocketdeath likes this.
  7. Geryon

    Geryon Active Member

    Messages:
    120
    Steam Username:
    Geryon
    Country Flag:
    So does this rule cover, 'reasonable efforts' to win the game? I read some description of it but not specifically in the rule 24 clause.
     
  8. Orielensis

    Orielensis Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,014
    Steam Username:
    Orielensis
    Cyanide Username:
    Orielensis
    Country Flag:
    I'm not sure exactly what the question means. Efforts to "win" we wouldn't have because it might be someone can clinch the title with a draw perhaps.

    This is more about playing games to completion than anything more fiddly about exactly how they are played. There is a lot of admin discretion in the rule because there has to be if the rule is not going to be 10 pages long.
     
    Ilgoth likes this.
  9. Ilgoth

    Ilgoth Courier Staff

    Messages:
    2,268
    Location:
    Finland, GMT+2
    Steam Username:
    Ilgoth
    Cyanide Username:
    Ilgoth
    Country Flag:
    Tryhard like you convinces me by showing up.

    Jokes aside, most people have nothing to worry about with how they treat soft conceding and conserving their team. This rule is there to strike punches against extreme end of it. We want to see reasonable efforts towards playing, wheather it is to win/lose/kill/maim. Soft concedes shouldn't be a tool to avoid playing the match altogether.
     
  10. Geryon

    Geryon Active Member

    Messages:
    120
    Steam Username:
    Geryon
    Country Flag:
    Yeah I'm referring to the extreme end of soft concede. Obviously it's a case base case basis for these but it looks like you guys have this covered. Thanks.
     
    Orielensis likes this.
  11. BallztotheWalla

    BallztotheWalla Active Member

    Messages:
    259
    Country Flag:
    gonna feel real shitty to have your team destroyed by the monster team that's built by the shithead abusing this, but i guess that's none of my business. have fun altdwarf :(
     
  12. tys123

    tys123 Courier Staff

    Messages:
    2,964
    Country Flag:
    Is there anything saying what the Sanctions could be.
    I assume it is more than a loss.
    Kicked out of the league, 51 SPP rule applied, or something else?
     
  13. Orielensis

    Orielensis Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,014
    Steam Username:
    Orielensis
    Cyanide Username:
    Orielensis
    Country Flag:
    You are far too good a coach to say this.

    If the game is genuinely gone and the best competitive option is to think about next games and protect your players you should not face any sanctions under this.
     
  14. Orielensis

    Orielensis Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,014
    Steam Username:
    Orielensis
    Cyanide Username:
    Orielensis
    Country Flag:
    Ok I think I see what you mean. But there is counter action available now. We can’t make it retrospective.
     
  15. BallztotheWalla

    BallztotheWalla Active Member

    Messages:
    259
    Country Flag:
    But in this case Guinness quit after using his apo on turn 1 and the they fixed the match on top of that.
    if you do something as shitty as that 100% you have done it numerous times.
    I don’t know how to show any form of sportsmanship to a person like that.
     
  16. Larkstar

    Larkstar Active Member

    Messages:
    459
    Country Flag:
    I honestly don't see how Rule 24 protects you guys or offers anything not already given in Rules 22 and 23. In my minds eye, I can imagine the conversations around Rule 24 and how people may have felt that a specific description was needed. I have disagree. Anyone who watched the match in question who truly believes what happened was NOT an "Abuse of fair play" (taken right from Rule 22), then I'm not sure any worded new rule is going to help them with their understanding of what fair play actually means. The fact that the actions of 1 or 2 coaches have put this league in a position like this is very disappointing. I'm sorry you guys have had to deal with this, and I'm mostly sorry that it appears the source of all this negativity will get away with it.
     
    Trunkhead and BallztotheWalla like this.
  17. Orielensis

    Orielensis Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,014
    Steam Username:
    Orielensis
    Cyanide Username:
    Orielensis
    Country Flag:
    Guys do not reopen last season.

    We have said elsewhere this was considered in detail by the admins and there were relevant facts that are not in the public domain.
     
    Ilgoth likes this.
  18. Larkstar

    Larkstar Active Member

    Messages:
    459
    Country Flag:
    Then why the new rule? A new rule which doesn't contain any language about mitigating factors or outside events, etc? Again, I don't see how this new rule adds, removes, or changes anything about what was already covered in rules. The look is that this rule was required due to specific circumstances. So if those circumstances are permitted within the previous rules, why write this one?
     
    BallztotheWalla likes this.
  19. Orielensis

    Orielensis Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,014
    Steam Username:
    Orielensis
    Cyanide Username:
    Orielensis
    Country Flag:
    Ilgoth's OP explains what the new rule adds and why it has been introduced.

    Admin discretion covers the rest @Larkstar . We will always take into account mitigating factors if they are present.
     
  20. Trunkhead

    Trunkhead Active Member

    Messages:
    444
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Steam Username:
    Skepticalz
    Cyanide Username:
    Trunkhead
    Country Flag:
    having been on the wrong end of the admins once or twice. i tend to agree with @Larkstar . I feel like the rules in place were already sufficient to deal with any perceived transgressions. This new one does seem redundant