Hacker News Reader

Comment by tsumnia | Hacker News Reader

Looking over the rules, it looks like there's an assumed "causal"-ness to the game (not good, not bad, just noting there's an assumption that everyone will play by the rules at all times). Based on the rules [1], there doesn't seem to be any consequence to fouling if you do not have the ball. What stops a non-carrying team player from stepping in the center or tackling a player?

Given the current ruleset, nothing. Three fouls give you a demerit, three demerits give you a reprimand, 3 reprimands ... to infinity. Secondly, is there a difference in severity to stepping in the center vs. tackling?

I get that you could say that 2 fouls is a timeout, and certain rules carry higher penalties (1 for center stepping, 2 for tackling), but it is not written.

[1] https://playspeedgate.org/8/

View on HN

Right. And kicking a rugby ball at full strength from a short distance towards an unprotected goalie might hurt. In the video they're only lightly passing and kicking the ball.

This is exactly what I thought.

Being hit in the face (or genitalia) by a spherical football hurts a lot if the shooter knows how to shoot and you're relatively close. I don't want to imagine what it feels like to be hit by an ovoid ball.

How else would you score? In practice you don't kick the ball at players in football (soccer) or kick/throw it at them in rugby because you might give away possession; but it's a tactic in hardball games like baseball and cricket AIUI.

I've only trained as a referee in one sport and it had a "be a sportsman" element to the rules giving the ref leeway to determine that play is unbecoming of the sport and so give away a foul. But in that sport smashing the ball _at_ players is normal.

Sure, if you're playing with pals, or for a promotional video then you're going to be less combatative.

FWIW the rules don't say you can't knee, pull, or poke (eg in the eye!).

Also, the penalty rule sounds impossible - you have to score "from the centre gate", but being in the centre gate is a foul and gives possession to the opposing team ... ah, no, wait: "Moving through the center gate will result in a foul." ... so it's fine, you just aren't allowed to leave the centre gate [does the foul activate from the time of entry or the time of exit?].

>In practice you don't kick the ball at players in football (soccer)

Yes you do, just not intentionally. It is common for a player to shoot near the goal line in two ways: excellent placement with just the required strength, or a powerful shot.

"kick at" implicitly includes intent IMO. You kick the ball and it hits players, but rarely do you intend that as it is often counter productive (not hitting the goal, not making a pass; giving up possession).

A classical example is the direct free kick

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_free_kick#/media/File:V...

The penalty kick is probably considered an exception.

> I've only trained as a referee in one sport and it had a "be a sportsman" element to the rules giving the ref leeway to determine that play is unbecoming of the sport and so give away a foul.

Curiously, the NFL--which has the single most pointlessly longwinded and legalistic rule book in probably all of sports--has a similar rule allowing referees to do literally anything at their individual discretion in response to any "palpably unfair" action or situation.

I think these are more like the basic rules of the game, rather than an official league rulebook. Like any other sport, additional rules would be needed for organized play, and those could vary from league to league.

For example, no one will eject me from the court if I commit too many fouls during a pickup game of basketball at the park, but the NBA, NCAA, FIBA, etc. each have their own rules regarding fouls and their associated penalties. League rules also evolve over time, sometimes in response to rule abuse.

So I wouldn't hold it against the game if the first iteration of the rules don't account for every aspect of competitive play. What's more important is whether the game is actually fun or not, and then leagues can evolve from there.

> For example, no one will eject me from the court if I commit too many fouls during a pickup game of basketball at the park

No, but you might get a visit from the local extralegal enforcement agency (AKA getting beaten up.)

When people first look at ways to cheat in a team sport, I would argue that using them for target practice (in a ball sport that is) is a suitable lesson.

For less evil geniuses, I bet we can rely on social moderation to find appropriate punishments that make fouling just undesirable enough while they keep the spirit of the sport (in this case probably an electronic sheep) alive.

> When people first look at ways to cheat in a team sport, I would argue that using them for target practice (in a ball sport that is) is a suitable lesson.

While that will happen, as I said, as the rules exist now, house rules and social moderation are needed. If this were to graduate to "league play", then those types of penalties would need to be made as I'd argue its more difficult to enforce "target practice" against competition (or that you're only fueling the "there aren't enough rules" problem).

I am just trying to say that "exploiting" team sports usually has much more direct consequences than the equivalent in purely intellectual sports like IT. Thus, what's a loophole for a hacker who reads the rules, is just a raised eyebrow for a competitor or a fan in team sports. Smugness does not have a place in something based on fairness.

Baseball and to a lesser extent hockey are notorious for "unwritten rules" and nominally-disallowed enforcement of those rules by targeted acts of player-on-player violence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com