Fouls

The place for threads about playing tactics/techniques/rules etc.
BlackpoolRock
ISF 2017-18 Subscriber
ISF 2017-18 Subscriber
Posts: 200
Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 15:54
Location: County Durham

Fouls

Postby BlackpoolRock » 02 Mar 2017, 09:28

Please can one of you Rukes' scholars explain this one.

The Elementary Rules have always stated, "It is a foul if a figure hits an opposing figure without first touching the ball".

No problems and clearly explained. I now know that was also the wording in the early Advanced Rules.

By the sixties, the Advanced Rules stated, "It is a foul if a figure hits an opposing figure before touching the ball".

Why was the rule made more lenient for supposedly better and more experienced players? Or, if it was merely intended as a change of wording, which I doubt, why not leave it as it was instead of making it ambiguous?

I can't understand why a novice should get penalised for his figure going beyond the ball and hitting another figure, but a for an expert, "No worries, we'll just replace".

User avatar
Saxony
Professional
Posts: 517
Joined: 05 Mar 2011, 23:59
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Fouls

Postby Saxony » 02 Mar 2017, 11:48

:-? they sound the same to me....?

User avatar
Flash
Semi-Pro
Posts: 442
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 19:36
Location: Warrington
Contact:

Re: Fouls

Postby Flash » 02 Mar 2017, 12:53

And me.

BlackpoolRock
ISF 2017-18 Subscriber
ISF 2017-18 Subscriber
Posts: 200
Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 15:54
Location: County Durham

Re: Fouls

Postby BlackpoolRock » 02 Mar 2017, 17:42

The phrasing in the Advanced Rules is open to the interpretation that a figure hitting an opposing figure without going on to hit the ball is not a foul.

Some versions of the rules that I have seen actually specify that, which, to me, makes no sense whatsoever.

User avatar
Gullseye
Grand Master
Posts: 2731
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 18:41

Re: Fouls

Postby Gullseye » 02 Mar 2017, 19:08

The phrasing in the Advanced Rules is open to the interpretation that a figure hitting an opposing figure without going on to hit the ball is not a foul.

That is exactly how it is used in every tournament I have played. It is not a foul if the player just hits another player without going on to hit the ball. If this happens the defending player can ask for the player to be moved back to where it was flicked from with no free kick awarded.

BlackpoolRock
ISF 2017-18 Subscriber
ISF 2017-18 Subscriber
Posts: 200
Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 15:54
Location: County Durham

Re: Fouls

Postby BlackpoolRock » 02 Mar 2017, 20:01

Thank you.

Can you explain a logical reason why? As I have written, I can't see any reason for the changing of the rule, even though it appears to have been applied in tournaments for over fifty years.

User avatar
Saxony
Professional
Posts: 517
Joined: 05 Mar 2011, 23:59
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Fouls

Postby Saxony » 03 Mar 2017, 12:30

Unprovoked attack on another player, without even going for the ball? I'd send him off.

User avatar
Gullseye
Grand Master
Posts: 2731
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 18:41

Re: Fouls

Postby Gullseye » 03 Mar 2017, 13:09

Thank you.

Can you explain a logical reason why? As I have written, I can't see any reason for the changing of the rule, even though it appears to have been applied in tournaments for over fifty years.
The only possible reason I can think of is that as the position of the ball is not altered its not necessary to stop the game for a free kick. I suppose you could look at it as playing an advantage to the defending player, allowing him to play on and request the moving back of the offending player.

BlackpoolRock
ISF 2017-18 Subscriber
ISF 2017-18 Subscriber
Posts: 200
Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 15:54
Location: County Durham

Re: Fouls

Postby BlackpoolRock » 03 Mar 2017, 14:02

Thank you, once again, for your replies, which are much appreciated.

It may surprise some of our Forum members to know that sendings off were once part of the Advanced Rules, as an automatic punishment for three fouls in a match by the same playing figure.

To return to my original point about the 'foul' rule, bearing in mind that this rule appears to have been introduced in the 1960s, when the game was played in a snooker-like atmosphere, at a slower pace than it is today, and was branded then as "The replica of association football". I would like to make two comparative observations, without, in any way, trying to be flippant.

First, it is not said to the likes of Ronnie O'Sullivan, "You're supposed to hit a red ball, but if you hit another colour it's quite alright unless the white cannons into a red.

Second, it would not have been said to any of the 'hard men' of the day, "It's quite permissible to barge an opponent several feet into the air or along the ground, provided you don't kick the ball immediately afterwards.

I would have assumed, back in those days, taking care was important, and if your figures fouled an opponent 'off the ball', you took the punishment, and it was your responsibility to try and prevent it happening again, especially at competition level.

User avatar
Number9
Professional
Posts: 813
Joined: 16 Jun 2012, 13:35
Location: East Lancs
Contact:

Re: Fouls

Postby Number9 » 03 Mar 2017, 15:03

Of course it isn't possible to totally replicate Association Football on the small pitch, but as more recent developments have shown, loopholes in the rules are generally exploited, and then propagated across the playing community (such as as 8-0-2 formations or a player running the full length of the pitch through the entire opposition to score etc etc) The 'foul' rule means that off the ball shenanegins do not result in set pieces at the point of the offence.
Take for example an advanced attack which breaks down in your half, but the opponent has a very good chance of getting possession again (you have a tricky move to touch the ball - if an off the ball foul was allowed, it would be a simple matter of 'fouling' the opponents full back with one of your forwards, and voila, the ball goes back to their half....
Having a simple back rule prevents this kind of cheating tactic!
http://www.pendlefalcon.com

The Traditional Subbuteo Society

We bring our preparation to the table, and opportunity may present itself, and if you are well prepared, you can seize opportunity and then maybe something good happens, and you call that luck.

Michael Mann

BlackpoolRock
ISF 2017-18 Subscriber
ISF 2017-18 Subscriber
Posts: 200
Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 15:54
Location: County Durham

Re: Fouls

Postby BlackpoolRock » 03 Mar 2017, 18:01

Thank you, Number9, I take your point.

I would argue, but not with you, that even in tournament play, a player who is "sinned against" in such a way, could have the right to ask a referee,
"May I play on, please."

It also brings into question the spirit of the game, but let's not go there. Also, I appreciate that the folk who introduced the rule were intelligent people who had the well-being of the game at heart.

Since I reverted to the original rule in solo games, about twelve months ago, I find my matches are much better, and more enjoyable to play, because it became second nature to stop 'overstretching' the traditional figures beyond their straight line limitations. The most likely way to spoil a game, it seems.

Once again, thanks to those who've replied. I now appreciate the reason behind the rule, but still tend to think it shouldn't have been necessary to have had to make the adjustment from the original.

duncthehat
Seasoned Professional
Posts: 1777
Joined: 24 Jan 2009, 21:24
Location: Poker Rooms UK / Las Vegas

Re: Fouls

Postby duncthehat » 08 Mar 2017, 20:07

My solo game includes a ruling that if you knock the opposing player over it is a booking. Third booking equals a red card

BlackpoolRock
ISF 2017-18 Subscriber
ISF 2017-18 Subscriber
Posts: 200
Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 15:54
Location: County Durham

Re: Fouls

Postby BlackpoolRock » 08 Mar 2017, 21:29

As I wrote earlier, such a rule actually existed in the early editions of the Subbuteo Handbook, which I was surprised to discover.

I would expect that there are very few red cards in your solo games, because merely the presence of such a deterrent implies that more care will be taken.

User avatar
lionofludesch
Grand Master
Posts: 7654
Joined: 16 Apr 2005, 21:00
Location: Yorkshire, Denmark

Re: Fouls

Postby lionofludesch » 13 Mar 2017, 18:02

Thank you.

Can you explain a logical reason why? As I have written, I can't see any reason for the changing of the rule, even though it appears to have been applied in tournaments for over fifty years.
It's because there were too many free kicks in the game.

TSPA Rules (best rule set ever) penalised a figure which touched a player but not the ball by replacing him, at the defender's call of "Back" or in Germany, Switzerland and Austria "Zuruck". The defender could leave the player where he was, if it suited him.
FIFA World Cuptipping competition
Winner 2010 and, joint with Takis,2014


® :angry:

User avatar
lionofludesch
Grand Master
Posts: 7654
Joined: 16 Apr 2005, 21:00
Location: Yorkshire, Denmark

Re: Fouls

Postby lionofludesch » 13 Mar 2017, 21:04

Of course it isn't possible to totally replicate Association Football on the small pitch, but as more recent developments have shown, loopholes in the rules are generally exploited, and then propagated across the playing community (such as as 8-0-2 formations or a player running the full length of the pitch through the entire opposition to score etc etc)
8-0-2 formations are, of course, common at corners and free kicks around the box. :roll:
FIFA World Cuptipping competition
Winner 2010 and, joint with Takis,2014


® :angry:


Return to “Playing: Rules/Techniques/Tactics Section”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest