EUROPEN : What appened in round 3 ?

[mubo]

Sorry about your experience Bourpif.

I think the reroll thing is a distraction here. The real unfortunate incident is the fact your opponent wouldn't let you finish your turn and claimed victory.

Blood bowl as a game has some unusual characterics in terms of scoring/winning. The ream recieving in each half is much more likely to score, ideally in 8 turns.
As a result, the practice of stopping a game in the middle of a turn unresolved is *really* undesirable, and unfair on the player who has a turn stopped. I'd like to see some NAF guidance on this actually.

I would much prefer a) call time 15 minutes earlier, and allow both players to have one more complete turn, and then to even up turns. Or even b) Stop the game _immediately_ and have an adjudicator rule on the likely outcome of the game rather than taking the score 'as is'.

The current system allows some people to acheive unfair advantage I think.

[Barney the Lurker]

I think the reroll thing is a distraction here. The real unfortunate incident is the fact your opponent wouldn't let you finish your turn and claimed victory.

Agreed on this, and agreed that it was an unfortunate occurrence. However I'm not sure that this is really a NAF issue to start legislating on how TO's are to manage timings. Furthermore, in the case of Eurobowl it was made explicitly clear by Hawca that as soon as time was called all actions were to stop with no further dice rolls or movement to be made.

It's always a difficult issue, and personally I'd probably have let him continue, but the ref team stuck by the rules they had set. There is also an argument that had they let this made an exception in this case they would be asked to make more calls down the line, and they wanted keep their position.

[mubo]

Agreed. I'm not making any criticism of the organisers or the refs at all. This is in general chat, not the feedback thread.

I think in 99.9% of cases the players sort this out for themselves. Personally, I wouldn't dream of not letting my opponent finish those dice rolls, and would make up the 15 seconds by running the results sheet over. I'm sure that goes for an overwhelming majority.

I do think though that in future a better policy than "stop in the middle of your turn" could be designed for time outs. It's just in my nature to suggest solutions

[Barney the Lurker]

Fair enough, I think I am more of a fan of the hard line especially when there are more rolls with/without rerolls. I think the onus is more on us as players to keep an eye on the time and play within the limits, and then not to be afraid of asking to be put on a clock if further management is needed.

I think my viewpoint has been skewed a bit by Guild Ball which is played to a clock and clock management is an inherent part of the tournament experience.

[howlinggriffon]

I've played some Blood Bowl games using the death clock where you have one hour to play all your turns and if you don't complete all your turns within that hour, you lose even if you're 2-0 up. It's harsh but it does help tourney organisers keep to time which is important when there are set limits (like the venue closing at a specific time)

[sann0638]

If this had been at the last World Cup in Lucca, you would have been on your own (no referees there).

I contest this statement. And every round started on time.

[Darkson]

You say he forgot : you should have reminded him, it is your duty as his opponent. If the counter is still in the reserve box, then it is "not used".

Got to disagree there, it's BOTH players duty to remember (and many players will be planning their own turn while watching yours).
If I 'forget' to make a Dodge roll is that my opponent's duty as well?

(P.S. Not taking sides as I don't know either player involved .)

[ssb]

You say he forgot : you should have reminded him, it is your duty as his opponent. If the counter is still in the reserve box, then it is "not used".

Got to disagree there, it's BOTH players duty to remember (and many players will be planning their own turn while watching yours).
If I 'forget' to make a Dodge roll is that my opponent's duty as well?

(P.S. Not taking sides as I don't know either player involved .)

Please, don't twist my words to make them have no meaning.
Don't forget I am not english and so I don't master every nuance of it as you probably do.
It should be your role to understand what I want to say. Not just trying to find a loophole in my words.

My point is that : Bourpif's opponent claim Bourpif had used his rerolls but couldn't remember when he did use them.
Bourpif clearly did remembered he did NOT use his rerolls as well as remembering when his opponent did use his own.

It seems, at that point, that his opponent's claim that he had used his reroll was 1) without any ground (no memory of the rerolls) 2) disproved by the tokens shown on the board.
In my opinion, with such a weak point, you don't have one.
At that point YES, you can only blame yourself for not paying attention to the game as everything concurs to prove you wrong. (hence my criticised sentence)

I was NOT claiming that the responsability lied solely on the opponent in any circumstance. (that would be completely absurd)
OF COURSE both coaches have to pay attention to the game and its mechanics. (as well as acting with fair play)

[Smeborg]

There is an unfortunate asymmetry in BB, which is that a player who is leading (in score) has the advantage in the event that the game is ended early. Often the lead is decided by who receives first. Unsporting players can, and do, take advantage of this in tourneys.

For these reasons, I favour using chess clocks (not 4 minute turns). Clocks can be imposed by referees on any game that appears to be running late. This was done at the Amsterdam World Cup, and worked admirably well.

I cannot conceive of a better system.

[Darkson]

5 minutes later I understand that it is useless, the referee has made his choice and time passes.

The other thing, that seems to have been passed over, is that you, by your own admission, spent another 5 minutes arguing/discussing/talking to a referee when they'd already made a decision, so you can't complain you ran out of time - that 5 minutes would have solved your time issue.

I agree it's never nice when you and an opponent disagree, especially when a referee gets involved and rules against you, but at those time you just have to accept the refs word and get on with it (I lost a game at a Shadespire tournament because my opponent, and more importantly the ref, ruled wrongly on a card - it sucks, but onwards).

(Again, no judgement on who was right, as I wasn't there and I've only seen your side)

[ssb]

I do agree with you Smeborg. The chess clock with global game time is, in my opinion, the best system.
Because the overall time you use is only dependant on you (and is objectively quantified by the clock).

There is only one tiny thing that has to be taken into consideration.

If the whole game is supposed to be played in, let's say, 2h30 (organisation wise).
Then the clock should give a total time of 2h15 (or 2h10 maybe).
In my opinion, you have to give 15 minutes for pauses in the game, either for a cigarette at half time, or a WC trip, or any other things that could interrupt the game (as the referee call for example, which should not be deduced from one of the player's clock).
The 15 (or 20) minutes are "given away" so that the tournament stays on time.

I say that because it was something I went through in an Italian tournament. Chess clock global time. During the game, we had to make a pretty long pause (maybe 5 minutes) + others (dice lost and half time cigarette for my oponent). In the end, I still had 30 minutes to play while my oponent had used all his time. But it was 15 minutes from the end of the general timer.
At this moment, my oponent tried to "argue the call" to a refereree to get more time to play. Nearly managed to do so. But I pointed out all these facts. (still 30 minutes on my timer, only 15 minutes left to play, if you give my time to my oponent it would truely be unfair). Then the referee agreed he just had spent all his time and then I could play the 6 turns I had left in the remaining 15 minutes.

[Smeborg]

Thanks ssb. The beauty of the Amsterdam system was that clocks were only imposed if the game had gone past the half way point and were obviously going slow. So toilet/drinks breaks etc. and other courtesies were not an issue.

A great advantage of the chess clock system is that pretty much everything is on a player's time: setting up at kick-off for example. If a player wants to spend 75 seconds deciding where to sidestep to (this has happened to me, albeit not in a tourney), he can do it on his time. If he wants to spend 15 minutes on a single critical turn, he can do that too.

At Amsterdam (9 games), my games were clocked twice. Once was a non-event (IIRC we had had 2 or 3 Blitzes!, a Pitch Invasion and other stuff, we were both playing fast). But we recognised that the ref was quite right to clock us. On the other occasion, my opponent was very slow (also prone to taking extra squares of movement, I had to correct him several times, taking yet more time). No amount of begging induced him to play faster. Without a clock, I would have lost this game, as my opponent was leading until turn 16. I would guess that he was taking 2-3 times as much time as me before the clock arrived. But thanks to the clock (imposed with 20 minutes each to go IIRC), I managed a famous turn 16 draw. Amazingly, my opponent tried to play his turn 16 in full (one-turn-score attempt), although he ran out of time early into it. It failed anyway, but the referee was there telling him he had timed out (he was ignoring the referee).

Note that this healthy situation required the combination of: chess clock (imposed), referee, clear time rules. If even one of these is missing, things can get unpleasant (control can be lost). Playing against a very slow player who is leading is about as frustrating as it gets in tourneys for me (barring blatant cheating). But you could say that is a form of cheating in itself.

If you observe a game going slowly, it is a mistake to assume that both players are slow. You only know that it is likely that at least one of the players is slow. Just clock them, you will find out soon enough.

Hope that helps.

[Smeborg]

If this had been at the last World Cup in Lucca, you would have been on your own (no referees there).

I contest this statement. And every round started on time.

sann0638 - I am not knocking the system at Lucca at all. I admire, and am in awe of, the fact that every round started on time. Our team had a wrongly loaded score (data entry error) - it was dealt with as quickly and as reasonably as could be expected.

But in my direct experience, the referees at Lucca were few and far between, and difficult to get hold of (compared to Amsterdam). They provided no help when appealed to for slow play (this was left wholly up to the players). I am merely saying that the refereeing system, and time rules, were better in Amsterdam, which IMHO is a model in these regards.

Hope that helps.

[Itchen Masack]

I'm enjoying the talk of chess clocks as these were in use at the weekend. Was one in use during the match in question? Sounds like it should have been.

My only problem with chess clocks, one coach can use far more of the allocated time on their drive before the clock is introduced, then the opponent only gets half the remaining Clocked time to rush through their drive.

[20phoenix]

Thanks ssb. The beauty of the Amsterdam system was that clocks were only imposed if the game had gone past the half way point and were obviously going slow. So toilet/drinks breaks etc. and other courtesies were not an issue.

A great advantage of the chess clock system is that pretty much everything is on a player's time: setting up at kick-off for example. If a player wants to spend 75 seconds deciding where to sidestep to (this has happened to me, albeit not in a tourney), he can do it on his time. If he wants to spend 15 minutes on a single critical turn, he can do that too.

At Amsterdam (9 games), my games were clocked twice. Once was a non-event (IIRC we had had 2 or 3 Blitzes!, a Pitch Invasion and other stuff, we were both playing fast). But we recognised that the ref was quite right to clock us. On the other occasion, my opponent was very slow (also prone to taking extra squares of movement, I had to correct him several times, taking yet more time). No amount of begging induced him to play faster. Without a clock, I would have lost this game, as my opponent was leading until turn 16. I would guess that he was taking 2-3 times as much time as me before the clock arrived. But thanks to the clock (imposed with 20 minutes each to go IIRC), I managed a famous turn 16 draw. Amazingly, my opponent tried to play his turn 16 in full (one-turn-score attempt), although he ran out of time early into it. It failed anyway, but the referee was there telling him he had timed out (he was ignoring the referee).

Note that this healthy situation required the combination of: chess clock (imposed), referee, clear time rules. If even one of these is missing, things can get unpleasant (control can be lost). Playing against a very slow player who is leading is about as frustrating as it gets in tourneys for me (barring blatant cheating). But you could say that is a form of cheating in itself.

If you observe a game going slowly, it is a mistake to assume that both players are slow. You only know that it is likely that at least one of the players is slow. Just clock them, you will find out soon enough.

Hope that helps.

This helps a lot since all this was at the event. Clock displayed on screen, referee announcements, music to signify time is almost out, referees circulating and offering game clocks to anyone lagging behind. Seems like the event nailed it.