Feed Me Haxball

Those are the actions that I am sure to be 3def and for some of them I am not sure but I will love to hear other players opinion
Also most importantly I wanna hear admins opinion because this is unbelievable to see in an official game
They didn't break the 3def rule once but more than 8 times
As I said if admins won't take any decision we will also break them from now on

REC: https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... 278c333630
Those are the actions:

5.51
7.40
9.05
9.10
10.13
10.23
12.07
12.39
12.41
14.30
18.18

We took deflose against Fear for 3 man, i hope that the admins are impartial and do the same with us

many are not from 3 def...

the post is abusive... stop always complaining for so little, you post because you didn't win...

of the 11 times you think there is 3def I counted only 1 and still it doesn't even deserve to be counted.

lmaoo

Browning did well to open the protest, in my opinion, because i checked some actions and thats are 3def violation !

tim wrote:many are not from 3 def...

the post is abusive... stop always complaining for so little, you post because you didn't win...

of the 11 times you think there is 3def I counted only 1 and still it doesn't even deserve to be counted.

what changes from these and those that enzo did against fear? explains retarded

You guys are so braindeads unbelievable XD

?

I literally hate both team members, they are all waste of oxygen on earth but I'll just give an objective comment on stated violation minutes, because I want to

5.51 - no violation
7.40 - first touch of verdansk is not wrong but he stayed too much, ends up as a 3def violation
9.05 - obvious 3def violation (moreover, on 9.00 verdansk violates 3def again while blocking Bull, it's inside the area
9.10 - 3def violation (Bull lost the ball control, so verdansk's attitude to intercept is fair but still he is too much inside the attacking zone, ends up as a 3def violation)
10.13 - don't think it's a big deal
10.23 - If verdansk would touch Bull while he was lifting the ball, it was a violation. But like this it's not more than a psychological pressure. Bull just feels uncomfortable and fails to lift the ball because of pressure. Physically verdansk doesn't even touch, and seems in the valid zone. No violation
12.07 - no need explanation, no violation
12.39 - not even close to be a violation
12.41 - no violation
14.30 - at first block it was not violation but RWestbrook blocked for too long, ended up as a 3def violation
18.18 - one of the most obvious 3def violations I'd ever seen

It ended up almost as fifty-fifty but it still has to be enough to get a defwin for italians if you'd ask me

One very misunderstood approach in 3def rule is that players think they can interrupt "literally every ball" that DM lost control. In 18.18 position, I mean okay, Bull lost the control, it can be considered as a free ball but still RWestbrook, man just look where you are. you are not even close to the mid field. https://prnt.sc/fIYfV7tVnO6I

Vranješ wrote:I literally hate both team members, they are all waste of oxygen on earth but I'll just give an objective comment on stated violation minutes, because I want to

5.51 - no violation
7.40 - first touch of verdansk is not wrong but he stayed too much, ends up as a 3def violation
9.05 - obvious 3def violation (moreover, on 9.00 verdansk violates 3def again while blocking Bull, it's inside the area
9.10 - 3def violation (Bull lost the ball control, so verdansk's attitude to intercept is fair but still he is too much inside the attacking zone, ends up as a 3def violation)
10.13 - don't think it's a big deal
10.23 - If verdansk would touch Bull while he was lifting the ball, it was a violation. But like this it's not more than a psychological pressure. Bull just feels uncomfortable and fails to lift the ball because of pressure. Physically verdansk doesn't even touch, and seems in the valid zone. No violation
12.07 - no need explanation, no violation
12.39 - not even close to be a violation
12.41 - no violation
14.30 - at first block it was not violation but RWestbrook blocked for too long, ended up as a 3def violation
18.18 - one of the most obvious 3def violations I'd ever seen

It ended up almost as fifty-fifty but it still has to be enough to get a defwin for italians if you'd ask me

One very misunderstood approach in 3def rule is that players think they can interrupt "literally every ball" that DM lost control. In 18.18 position, I mean okay, Bull lost the control, it can be considered as a free ball but still RWestbrook, man just look where you are. you are not even close to the mid field. https://prnt.sc/fIYfV7tVnO6I

I agree with you on almost everything except the minute


10 : 13 it's not a problem but it's still a violation that irritates you
12 : 39 it's up to william can not do it
10 : 23 can't put pressure same what enzo did and we were penalized
12 : 40 is 3 man penalizes william and limits him in the game

grown guys crying about 3def

in italy call my friend wagwan what

every time you feel depressed facing 3def, watch Phami's performance in here and thank god you are not playing versus him (just a personal advice)

s

Vranješ wrote:I literally hate both team members, they are all waste of oxygen on earth but I'll just give an objective comment on stated violation minutes, because I want to

5.51 - no violation
7.40 - first touch of verdansk is not wrong but he stayed too much, ends up as a 3def violation
9.05 - obvious 3def violation (moreover, on 9.00 verdansk violates 3def again while blocking Bull, it's inside the area
9.10 - 3def violation (Bull lost the ball control, so verdansk's attitude to intercept is fair but still he is too much inside the attacking zone, ends up as a 3def violation)
10.13 - don't think it's a big deal
10.23 - If verdansk would touch Bull while he was lifting the ball, it was a violation. But like this it's not more than a psychological pressure. Bull just feels uncomfortable and fails to lift the ball because of pressure. Physically verdansk doesn't even touch, and seems in the valid zone. No violation
12.07 - no need explanation, no violation
12.39 - not even close to be a violation
12.41 - no violation
14.30 - at first block it was not violation but RWestbrook blocked for too long, ended up as a 3def violation
18.18 - one of the most obvious 3def violations I'd ever seen

It ended up almost as fifty-fifty but it still has to be enough to get a defwin for italians if you'd ask me

One very misunderstood approach in 3def rule is that players think they can interrupt "literally every ball" that DM lost control. In 18.18 position, I mean okay, Bull lost the control, it can be considered as a free ball but still RWestbrook, man just look where you are. you are not even close to the mid field. https://prnt.sc/fIYfV7tVnO6I

no one asked

Vranješ wrote:I literally hate both team members, they are all waste of oxygen on earth but I'll just give an objective comment on stated violation minutes, because I want to

5.51 - no violation
7.40 - first touch of verdansk is not wrong but he stayed too much, ends up as a 3def violation
9.05 - obvious 3def violation (moreover, on 9.00 verdansk violates 3def again while blocking Bull, it's inside the area
9.10 - 3def violation (Bull lost the ball control, so verdansk's attitude to intercept is fair but still he is too much inside the attacking zone, ends up as a 3def violation)
10.13 - don't think it's a big deal
10.23 - If verdansk would touch Bull while he was lifting the ball, it was a violation. But like this it's not more than a psychological pressure. Bull just feels uncomfortable and fails to lift the ball because of pressure. Physically verdansk doesn't even touch, and seems in the valid zone. No violation
12.07 - no need explanation, no violation
12.39 - not even close to be a violation
12.41 - no violation
14.30 - at first block it was not violation but RWestbrook blocked for too long, ended up as a 3def violation
18.18 - one of the most obvious 3def violations I'd ever seen

It ended up almost as fifty-fifty but it still has to be enough to get a defwin for italians if you'd ask me

One very misunderstood approach in 3def rule is that players think they can interrupt "literally every ball" that DM lost control. In 18.18 position, I mean okay, Bull lost the control, it can be considered as a free ball but still RWestbrook, man just look where you are. you are not even close to the mid field. https://prnt.sc/fIYfV7tVnO6I

I think a lot of these misunderstandings happen because a large gap in the 3def rule was supposed to be filled by players using their common sense. The issue here is that many players have filled this gap with a different interpretation of the 3def rule, hence all the arguing about it throughout the years. It's quite funny, since the 3def rule is literally the only rule that players must learn, so you'd think that the rule would be well polished and fleshed out by now, but it's still as vaguely written as it was years ago.

Furthermore, while I agree with your point that strikers intercept the ball too often when the DM appears to lose control over the ball, I'd say that in my interpretation of the 3def rule RWestbrook's interception on 18.18 is a perfect example where a striker would and should be allowed to intercept the ball. I don't think that RWestbrook not being near the invisible mid-line is relevant in this scenario, since I think the attacking play was over the moment the ball flew past Bull.

xSha wrote:

Vranješ wrote:I literally hate both team members, they are all waste of oxygen on earth but I'll just give an objective comment on stated violation minutes, because I want to

5.51 - no violation
7.40 - first touch of verdansk is not wrong but he stayed too much, ends up as a 3def violation
9.05 - obvious 3def violation (moreover, on 9.00 verdansk violates 3def again while blocking Bull, it's inside the area
9.10 - 3def violation (Bull lost the ball control, so verdansk's attitude to intercept is fair but still he is too much inside the attacking zone, ends up as a 3def violation)
10.13 - don't think it's a big deal
10.23 - If verdansk would touch Bull while he was lifting the ball, it was a violation. But like this it's not more than a psychological pressure. Bull just feels uncomfortable and fails to lift the ball because of pressure. Physically verdansk doesn't even touch, and seems in the valid zone. No violation
12.07 - no need explanation, no violation
12.39 - not even close to be a violation
12.41 - no violation
14.30 - at first block it was not violation but RWestbrook blocked for too long, ended up as a 3def violation
18.18 - one of the most obvious 3def violations I'd ever seen

It ended up almost as fifty-fifty but it still has to be enough to get a defwin for italians if you'd ask me

One very misunderstood approach in 3def rule is that players think they can interrupt "literally every ball" that DM lost control. In 18.18 position, I mean okay, Bull lost the control, it can be considered as a free ball but still RWestbrook, man just look where you are. you are not even close to the mid field. https://prnt.sc/fIYfV7tVnO6I

I think a lot of these misunderstandings happen because a large gap in the 3def rule was supposed to be filled by players using their common sense. The issue here is that many players have filled this gap with a different interpretation of the 3def rule, hence all the arguing about it throughout the years. It's quite funny, since the 3def rule is literally the only rule that players must learn, so you'd think that the rule would be well polished and fleshed out by now, but it's still as vaguely written as it was years ago.

Furthermore, while I agree with your point that strikers intercept the ball too often when the DM appears to lose control over the ball, I'd say that in my interpretation of the 3def rule RWestbrook's interception on 18.18 is a perfect example where a striker would and should be allowed to intercept the ball. I don't think that RWestbrook not being near the invisible mid-line is relevant in this scenario, since I think the attacking play was over the moment the ball flew past Bull.

was only that .. but there's more to see and then there's always the square or am I wrong?

I opened the protest because we took a ddeflose for the same reason
and I honestly see no difference

xSha wrote:I'd say that in my interpretation of the 3def rule RWestbrook's interception on 18.18 is a perfect example where a striker would and should be allowed to intercept the ball. I don't think that RWestbrook not being near the invisible mid-line is relevant in this scenario, since I think the attacking play was over the moment the ball flew past Bull.

With respect to your interpretation, why do we have an invisible line in the rule then? What is the role of this line in application of the rule if we don't care about it?

Your approach is of course logical but then the rule has to be updated as "strikers can intercept the ball once attacking side clearly loses the ball possession and the ball is free, regardless of the striker being around middle area"

Would I support this update? Well, I guess I would. It makes gameplay harder though. People will start having less fun.

Vranješ wrote:

xSha wrote:I'd say that in my interpretation of the 3def rule RWestbrook's interception on 18.18 is a perfect example where a striker would and should be allowed to intercept the ball. I don't think that RWestbrook not being near the invisible mid-line is relevant in this scenario, since I think the attacking play was over the moment the ball flew past Bull.

With respect to your interpretation, why do we have an invisible line in the rule then? What is the role of this line in application of the rule if we don't care about it?

Your approach is of course logical but then the rule has to be updated as "strikers can intercept the ball once attacking side clearly loses the ball possession and the ball is free, regardless of the striker being around middle area"

Would I support this update? Well, I guess I would. It makes gameplay harder though. People will start having less fun.

If my interpretation is correct, when the DM and ball go past this invisible line, the striker is allowed to help defend in 100% of the situations, even if the DM has control over the ball. If we don't have this invisible line and we would consider the actual halfwayline as "mid", the playing area of the DM would be obviously way too large. This doesn't mean that the striker has to hide behind this line everytime the opposition is attacking. In other words, the border of the attacking zone is constantly moving due to the DM moving around and the invisible line is necessary to limit the maximum size of said attacking zone.

oh my gash

i think its gg wp