A forum for the hungry members of the Haxball community.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests