NPPL Super Seven Series

[Wadidiz]

I am not arguing the last case any more but I thought I would post the relevant rules. Only God or someone who video-taped the situation knows whether or not I was too quick or not.
______________________________
Under NPPL's section 10. Obvious hits:

10.02. Players who are hit in an obvious location are expected to immediately signal their elimination by announcing “HIT” or “OUT” at the time of such elimination.
_____________________________

Then:
_____________________________

12.0 PLAYING ON
12.01. Playing on entails continuing to act as a player in the game after being eliminated.
_____________________________

Now, let me address a couple of things Baca said:

Baca said:

It's the refs' job to check anyone he thinks may be marked--not watch said player and wait to see what he does or doesn't do.

Agreed. I see a situation where a player may have received a hit. I run to check that player. If the player had been marked by an obvious hit and during the time the few seconds it took for me to run up to check him, he had continued to stay in the game without first checking himself, I judge that player to be playing on and act accordingly.

I don't bait any players to wait and see if they commit a foul. I try to keep things flowing and I'm not trying to be mean. I just obey the rules and perform my responsibilities. Perhaps all players need to be reminded at every tournament to not hesitate to call themselves out and leave the field when they know they've been marked. At the tournament in question here, Magued specifically said that during the captains' meeting.

Beaker wrote:

I would have waited a fraction longer before making that call.

Either I call you out the split-second after you're hit, before you have a chance to play-on or wipe, or, if it takes a few seconds for me to get to you to check you, I judge by your behavior and body language whether or not you're acting like you're still in the game. That's the way I've always done it and it feels automatic to me.

Again, I make mistakes like anyone else and it could be Beaker didn't have a chance to check himself. I know I'll be more conscious of that possibility in the future.

Baca wrote:

Under those circumstances you don't get into the position of making judgements only enforcing rules.

Respectfully disagree. I call myself a judge so I make judgments. I judge from the place a ball struck a player, the presence of spray on goggles behind a hit hopper, body language, certain movements, and so forth to judge a situation and make a call.

I know from other discussions that not everyone agrees with this. They're just wrong.

Honestly, I am open to being corrected or the rules being changed to guide me a different way.

Steve

PS. It does look like I'm re-arguing this after all.

SM

 

[Beaker]

Steve,

I have no problem with the call, I want to make that clear.

It's like in any sport. In Soccer you get one ref who lets suspicious challenges go as long as they aren't dangerous in order to keep the flow of the game. You get others who call every foul they can. Some will give out 1 of 2 yellow cards as soon as in a game in order to try and send a message to the players, others use cards as a last resort. They are both "right", but have different styles of doing their job.

So you get a style of reffing in any event, there are rules, which once they are broken produce an automatic penalty, but the intepretation of when that line is crossed is different, I don't feel it's as cut and dry.

As for "an" instance (forget my particular call) of a players making a run and getting hit then getting into the bunker. I personally would give that player a enough time to reasonably check himself. If he is obviously not checking himself or hiding the hit it's a 1-4-1 or 3-4-1, but my "style" would be to give the player enough rope to hang themselves with rather than making the call early. You'll get the penalty, but the timing would be different

but like I said - tough refs are better than sloppy refs.

 

[Wadidiz]

Thanks Beaker,

I really wasn't trying to keep "our" case going. Just wanted to show the rules and the thinking behind "my style" of marshalling.

Cheers bro,

Steve