ANOTHER QUANDARY from poorly proofread rules!

[Dev]

Originally Posted by Chris

And you are REALLY happy with that?
Are you ready to have me referee your next DE bout?
Consensus is, most folks posting on this thread aren't happy with MY judgement (I am not really sure this is sufficient evidence to base an opinion - I tried to make it clear I was looking for an explanation, not just an answer, from a high-level).

SO you're happy with that sort of grab-bag, roll-the-dice, kind of results?

Clearly, I am not, and I won't apologize for it!

Actually, it seems pretty clear that the reason you started the thread was to demonstrate to the forum how wonderfully intelligent and conscientious you are. It's akin to the guy who speaks up in a corporate all-hands meeting with the higher-ups--he doesn't want his question answered, he just wants to be seen asking it. Did you look for errors in your textbooks, too, so you could stand up in the middle of class and call out the professor?

Yes, we see you. Now sit down and shut up.

[tkexi991]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

Actually I did read the posts. In your first post you asked for

And then you made sure to let people know you have a 4. I've read it. What I don't understand is when you got the answer from and FIE ref you decided it wasn't good enough. Honestly, you have a 4, that's really not all that impressive, and to then be a huge dick to someone who has the qualifications you're looking for is just ridiculous.

When the answer is "just ignore it" or trust your own eyes/judgment - it isn't ok to dig deeper? Are we on a strip right now?

[Chris]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

but this isn't an example of somewhere it can easily be done. what's the difference between jostling (yellow), intentional brutality (red), and deliberate brutality (black)? <snip> -m

You see, this is the problem: you are stating (in English) that "intentional brutality" gets a red card, when, in fact in the USFA (Not BFA) English version of the rules, the ONLY place that it puts the words 'intentional' and 'brutality' together, is t.63.3

And, again, I'd be more than happy with your solution, IF EVERYONE WAS DOING IT! But that's not the case. And, while it appears that this verbiage was someone's attempt to address the issue, clearly, it's been an abject failure.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Chris

It wasn't necessary for me to answer it!

Whether I have a rating is really irrelevant to getting an answer that makes sense when I read the rules.

Unlike you, and Gav, I actually read, and RE-read stuff before I go off typing away: That information was already IN the thread before Gav' posted; It was there 3 more times before you posted.

But thank you for your informative contribution to the thread.

I wish you would publish your corporate style guides.

And please locate your missing sense of humour. This shrill shouting from the sidelines is tiresome.

Oh; and I did read what you wrote it's just not worth bothering with.

You see if you are going to accuse everyone here of not understanding or being able to interpret the rules (for whatever reason) then I feel it's only fair for you to indicate what your special knowledge is. As it is... well the answer has been repeated several times already so I think I will listen to the people who happen to have the reputation for knowing what they are talking about - unlike you.

If you think the rules are so badly written then why not provide us with a better set? After all the official language is French so I would appreciate seeing a better English translation. Or just some better rules. Off you go - consider it homework.

Folks; need I remind the board about feeding the guys under the bridge?

[Chris]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

You seem unable to understand that overlapping rules are there to provide the referee with options to better cover the spectrum of possibilities and are not, in fact, the glaring oversights you seem to think they are. That IS an explanation. -m

I am perfectly able to understand that, I just disagree that is the situation here;
In fact, I would think that a rule which can clearly appears have the intention of Black-Card a fairly common offense which doesn't even get a yellow card much of the time would be considered by most to be a glaring oversight, both in the drafting, and in the implementation.

It won't be me, but, you might want to hope some other nut hasn't found this passage, and gotten all excited about using it at a tournament!

Originally Posted by Dev

Actually, it seems pretty clear that the reason you started the thread was to demonstrate to the forum how wonderfully intelligent and conscientious you are.

I'll admit, that I am not necessarily above 'rolling out a stink bomb' in a crowded chat room to stimulate a little discussion, but don't really consider that a good use of anyone's time. Since I did come across this confusing passage in the rules, I thought this forum might be able to generate some meaningful explanation. Can't really say I am too happy with the results.

Originally Posted by Dev

It's akin to the guy who speaks up in a corporate all-hands meeting with the higher-ups--he doesn't want his question answered, he just wants to be seen asking it. Did you look for errors in your textbooks, too, so you could stand up in the middle of class and call out the professor?

No, I didn't. Do you want to make fun of my haircut now!?

Originally Posted by Dev

Yes, we see you. Now sit down and shut up.

NBL!