|
Post by Bill Collins on Apr 2, 2013 17:04:11 GMT -5
Leonard said these are WAF rules. Am I missing something? If you are not at Unified Nationals or WAF Worlds then you are using other rules. An event organizer is free to use, or make up, any rules as he/she sees fit. A supermatch could have any set of rules the two pullers agree to. OMG, someone get's it...thanks John
|
|
|
Post by Bill Collins on Apr 2, 2013 17:22:33 GMT -5
1. Good, I think kids are safe what comes to using "The King's Move" as a tactical maneuver. 2. I find the wording a bit confusing with neutral being "2/3 of the way to the losing side". Surely it is neutral also 2/3 to the winning side. That's why there has to be a definition what is meant with neutral in this rule. Couldn't the rule simply say?: A) Competing arm shoulder may drop under the level of the elbow pad only when match is on competitor's side of the table. OR B) Competitors cannot drop the competing shoulder below the level of the elbow pad when not on their side of the table. OR C) Competitors cannot drop the competing shoulder below the level of the elbow pad when in their neutral or losing position. This will be considered a dangerous position. The neutral position defined as the starting position down to 2/3 of the way to the losing side of the table. I understand the need to define the losing position but IMO it doesn't have to be used separating the neutral in this rule and that is why I like the C option the least. 3. So basically one can hold the opponent one inch from the pad when shoulder is above elbow pad and make a short "surge" (shoulder under the pad) to try and get the match to their side of the table? #2 We are defining what is considered a neutral position and that is from the straight up top to 2/3 down. Anything below that is considered a losing position. It is good to define exactly what is a neutral position for many reasons but the rule is clear. Remember this is a dangerous position so that they must be given an opportunity to correct it before giving a foul. LH Tero Has a point, as he pointed out anything less then center is a losing position so why say 2/3... the 2/3 is a marker for slips...also one can argue, just because i"m on the losing side of the table don't mean I'm in a losing position....
|
|
|
Post by David Owens on Apr 2, 2013 17:35:46 GMT -5
2/3 is also a marker for ANY foul in the losing position This is obviously a dead end conversation if people can just implement any rule they want, so now when we discuss who is the best at this weight or that class, we must also clerify which rule set
|
|
|
Post by Leonard Harkless on Apr 2, 2013 21:24:32 GMT -5
#2 We are defining what is considered a neutral position and that is from the straight up top to 2/3 down. Anything below that is considered a losing position. It is good to define exactly what is a neutral position for many reasons but the rule is clear. Remember this is a dangerous position so that they must be given an opportunity to correct it before giving a foul. LH Tero Has a point, as he pointed out anything less then center is a losing position so why say 2/3... the 2/3 is a marker for slips...also one can argue, just because i"m on the losing side of the table don't mean I'm in a losing position.... That is exactly why we defined exactly what is a neutral position......the neutral position is from the top to 2/3 down. Below that is what is defined as the losing position and that is a definable term in the rules. So yes just because you are on the losing side of the table you are not in a losing position, that is 2/3 down, you are still in the neutral position until you drop below 2/3.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Collins on Apr 2, 2013 22:06:05 GMT -5
Long story short, in since anything from the center to the losing side of the table is considered a hurt arm...reguardless of the 2/3...
|
|
|
Post by Leonard Harkless on Apr 2, 2013 22:12:27 GMT -5
Long story short, in since anything from the center to the losing side of the table is considered a hurt arm...reguardless of the 2/3... Yep ;D
|
|
|
Post by John Parton on Apr 2, 2013 23:32:14 GMT -5
If I am remembering correctly the 2/3 or below results in the loss of the match with the foul as with any other foul, which is what I believe David was saying.
|
|
|
Post by Tero Lampikari on Apr 3, 2013 6:34:14 GMT -5
Yes Mr Parton, the whole "2/3 thing" would make sense if decision would be different in a losing position.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Collins on Apr 3, 2013 8:15:32 GMT -5
Yes Mr Parton, the whole "2/3 thing" would make sense if decision would be different in a losing position. Tero I get you!!! There are two rules wrapped into one and probably can be independent... 1) Anything from the center to the losing side of the table is considered a hurt arm. 2) Any foul 2/3 or lower is a lost
|
|
|
Post by Tero Lampikari on Apr 3, 2013 10:14:11 GMT -5
Yes Mr Parton, the whole "2/3 thing" would make sense if decision would be different in a losing position. Tero I get you!!! There are two rules wrapped into one and probably can be independent... 1) Anything from the center to the losing side of the table is considered a hurt arm. 2) Any foul 2/3 or lower is a lost Exactly Bill! They ARE independent as of now. So why the complicated talk about 2/3 and all the definitions in the dangerous position rule if these sectors have no effect inside the rule?
|
|
|
Post by Robin the manhandler Chandler on Apr 3, 2013 11:24:46 GMT -5
Tero bottom line some people don't like the way mike pulls and they want someone to say he's cheating . I like mike and his style is beatable
|
|
|
Post by wendellmcnally on Apr 3, 2013 11:41:17 GMT -5
Robin, I could not agree with you more. I believe that every man is beatable. I also believe that Mr. Todd has found a Technique that has allowed him to dominate anyone in his path. There is obviously alot of envy that is directed at Mr. Todd and that is very normal. When i was growing up i watched Kevin Mitchell catch a fly ball with his bare hand! Was that in the rule book? Probably not. But no one blinked an eye. Because Kevin Mitchell was a pro athlete. Sorry for rambling but this is an intresting topic.
|
|
|
Post by TK on Apr 3, 2013 14:05:10 GMT -5
Robin, I could not agree with you more. I believe that every man is beatable. I also believe that Mr. Todd has found a Technique that has allowed him to dominate anyone in his path. There is obviously alot of envy that is directed at Mr. Todd and that is very normal. When i was growing up i watched Kevin Mitchell catch a fly ball with his bare hand! Was that in the rule book? Probably not. But no one blinked an eye. Because Kevin Mitchell was a pro athlete. Sorry for rambling but this is an intresting topic. I COULD IMAGINE A 300 PD MAN SQAUTTING BELOW THE TABLE WITH HIS ARM COMPLETELY STRAIGHT WOULD BE VERY NEAR UNBEATABLE..... JUST SAYIN'
|
|
|
Post by wendellmcnally on Apr 3, 2013 16:44:42 GMT -5
^^^^^^^^ is that manuever called a bone lock? Is that good or bad for your ligaments and bones? I just feel it cant be good after time. Seems very scary to know that he could be walking into a tournament with stress fractures and not even know it.
|
|
|
Post by TK on Apr 3, 2013 17:03:38 GMT -5
^^^^^^^^ is that manuever called a bone lock? Is that good or bad for your ligaments and bones? I just feel it cant be good after time. Seems very scary to know that he could be walking into a tournament with stress fractures and not even know it. Bone lock... That's funny.... It's not a lock when it's straight TK
|
|