Rules S33 Rules & Tribunal Thread

[TJASTA]

'tis why I am gettin' rid o' the committee when I become admin. The captains/reps are ****in' useless.

 

[ClarkeM]

If you stop pestering me, yes

So it won't be.

 

[Mobbs]

BTGID for all those using this official thread without contributing to the actual topics it's intended for.

NaturalDisaster I will PM you a list.

 

[Metalcrusher]

Hi, I would like to exercise my rights under section 6E and dispute the penalty to the Bombers on the basis that it is too soft.
It makes a mockery of the written law, and invites anarchy, chaos and injustice into this otherwise well-run league.

If that doesn't work I will like to call admin/committee's attention to Section 7 of the so-called rules, specifically this bit which I am copying and pasting and highlighting in italics below:

"If a player's or teams actions are having a profoundly negative effect on the experience and functioning of the league, or against the spirit of the Sweet F.A and attempting to and/or succeeding in undermining the integrity of the competition, then the committee and the admin will convene in the tribunal to decide on a suitable punishment".

Successfully overturning a penalty on the basis that you don't like the agreed upon rules, and further to this, having a re-count of a committee vote because someone apparently changed their mind is absolutely detrimental to the integrity of the competition. What are the point of rules if they do not need to be enforced? Where in the rules does it say you can have multiple votes? It doesn't.

I eagerly await feedback on one or both of my objections and in the meantime, I'll find more things to object about.

Thanks.

 

[The Filth Wizard]

A better result.

Now, one must ask the question as to whether the rules are amended to reflect whether incorrect Ins/Outs in the Squad Submission constitute either High or Medium Impact.

How would you change the wording of the rule? They ask for the changes to be listed in a squad submission to make it a complete one. It's probably reasonable to consider it a high impact because a team has a whole off season to put together a squad submission. Realistically the issue for people here was the team copping a point penalty.

IMO it's not the rules here that need to change or their grading, what we need to probably change is who we deem responsible for the error. Maybe bump up the captain suspension to two for high, one for medium, warning for low and remove points penalties altogether (even if they are super fun).

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

Verdict of RE-Vote

All committee members have voted to either dismiss or uphold the High Impact Charge on the Bombers. If upheld, the HI charge would remain, if dismissed, the charge would be downgraded to a Medium Impact.

The Bombers challenge has been successful with 6 committee members voting to dismiss the High Impact charge. Thus, their charge for incorrect Squad Submission will be downgraded to Medium Impact. Captains BLUEALLTHRU and Metalcrusher will still miss a week, but the Bombers will no longer receive a -2 point penalty.

 

[TedDougChris]

Will it?

 

[Mobbs]

How would you change the wording of the rule? They ask for the changes to be listed in a squad submission to make it a complete one. It's probably reasonable to consider it a high impact because a team has a whole off season to put together a squad submission. Realistically the issue for people here was the team copping a point penalty.

IMO it's not the rules here that need to change or their grading, what we need to probably change is who we deem responsible for the error. Maybe bump up the captain suspension to two for high, one for medium, warning for low and remove points penalties altogether (even if they are super fun).

Check above where again I solved yet another problem. I gave two solutions (split the breach into various breaches for each kind of squad sub ****up) which is overkill imo, or separate breach from penalty where for sure its all a breach but the admin supplies the penalty based on how they deem the impact of the breach. This then gets signed off on by the committee - can include debate and even a vote if required.

Better than a one-size fits all penalty, because squad submission ****ups are not all equal in impact on the league.

 

[ClarkeM]

How would you change the wording of the rule? They ask for the changes to be listed in a squad submission to make it a complete one. It's probably reasonable to consider it a high impact because a team has a whole off season to put together a squad submission. Realistically the issue for people here was the team copping a point penalty.

IMO it's not the rules here that need to change or their grading, what we need to probably change is who we deem responsible for the error. Maybe bump up the captain suspension to two for high, one for medium, warning for low and remove points penalties altogether (even if they are super fun).

I would argue that the squad submission was fine. The Ins and Outs are not a necessity for a Squad Submission to be valid, that's the list itself that achieves that. They're nice to have, sure, but not essential.

In the same way incorrect positional changes on a team sheet cops a Medium Impact penalty - which actually has an impact on a simmer simming the game (arguable...), then incorrect Ins and Outs should be equal to or less than such a penalty.

 

[Wosh]

How would you change the wording of the rule? They ask for the changes to be listed in a squad submission to make it a complete one. It's probably reasonable to consider it a high impact because a team has a whole off season to put together a squad submission. Realistically the issue for people here was the team copping a point penalty.

IMO it's not the rules here that need to change or their grading, what we need to probably change is who we deem responsible for the error. Maybe bump up the captain suspension to two for high, one for medium, warning for low and remove points penalties altogether (even if they are super fun).

My issue is whether this is indeed a high impact issue, and I don’t think players should be suspended when the admin has clearly stated it will be reviewed.

It will be reviewed in future, definitely before the next off season.

You know I’m a lover of Sweet FA rules, especially regarding team sheets or absolutely anything that involves extra work or stress for under appreciated volunteers around this place. I’ll throw rocks when warranted, with glee. But imo to suspend 2 players while this is even a discussion is unfair.

 

[Headless]

You know I’m a lover of Sweet FA rules, especially regarding team sheets or absolutely anything that involves extra work or stress for under appreciated volunteers around this place. But imo to suspend 2 players while this is even a discussion is unfair.

You think it should have been more than two, Wosh?

 

[ClarkeM]

• The team submission post must carry a uniquely team identifying characteristic, (eg team logo) and the correct round number

Brings me to another point, this should be less vague.

e.g.

• The team submission post must include an identifying characteristic unique to the team/club, (eg team logo) and the correct round number

 

[Wosh]

You think it should have been more than two, Wosh?

Only if you’ve always said that, Headless.

 

[Kennedy Parker]

It will be reviewed in future, definitely before the next off season.

Why wait for the next off-season? You have the ability to discuss and amend rules now.

 

[ClarkeM]

Why wait for the next off-season? You have the ability to discuss and amend rules now.

He wants it to be the next admin's job, clearly.

 

[NaturalDisaster]

Why wait for the next off-season? You have the ability to discuss and amend rules now.

Hence why I said before.

 

[Headless]

Hence why I said before.

#KPRUINED

 

[The Filth Wizard]

My issue is whether this is indeed a high impact issue, and I don’t think players should be suspended when the admin has clearly stated it will be reviewed.

My point was more there's probably no need to penalise entire clubs for anything at all but I'd say the squad submission is as simple as a team sheet, just put in a complete one. The punishment (initially) was harsh but the rules are still there in writing, it's not hard to put info in a post, especially when you have ample time to do it. It gets more confusing having lots of sub-rules for one feature IMO. As for suspension, even if you downgraded the severity a level it's still a match off.

And it's not like we're dealing with an epidemic here, that rule has been in place across three admins. Why do we only shine a spotlight on rules we disagree with on the super rare occurrence somebody breaks it? We've gone 5 or 6 seasons without captains half-assing their submissions.

 

[Mobbs]

Why do we only shine a spotlight on rules we disagree with on the super rare occurrence somebody breaks it?

A good question to ask those responsible for reviewing such rules. Has anybody ... I dunno ... perhaps asked them once per season to review them ... I dunno ... maybe a league administrator ... by any chance?

 

[DenieD]

 

[The Filth Wizard]

A good question to ask those responsible for reviewing such rules. Has anybody ... I dunno ... perhaps asked them once per season to review them ... I dunno ... maybe a league administrator ... by any chance?

Every season I was in there (and it's been a few). And every season we see this exact scenario play out.

Like Bob Loblaw said, "why should you go to jail for a crime somebody else... noticed".

 

[DenieD]

The question should never have been "Is this rule too harsh?", the question should've been "Did Bombers break the rule?" which is an obvious yes. Therefore it should be upheld.

The rule was broken when it was classified as high impact, so it should be penalised as such.

Now after the fact we can certainly look to change the rule to medium impact as it should be (most people feel this way), but when the Bombers broke the rule it was a high impact penalty.

DOES LITERALLY NO ONE HERE UNDERSTAND HOW LAW WORKS???

 

[Metalcrusher]

I would argue that the squad submission was fine. The Ins and Outs are not a necessity for a Squad Submission to be valid, that's the list itself that achieves that. They're nice to have, sure, but not essential.

In the same way incorrect positional changes on a team sheet cops a Medium Impact penalty - which actually has an impact on a simmer simming the game (arguable...), then incorrect Ins and Outs should be equal to or less than such a penalty.

**** me the voice of reason!!!!

 

[ClarkeM]

Every season I was in there (and it's been a few). And every season we see this exact scenario play out.

Like Bob Loblaw said, "why should you go to jail for a crime somebody else... noticed".

Have you been reading his law blog?

 

[Kennedy Parker]

The question should never have been "Is this rule too harsh?", the question should've been "Did Bombers break the rule?" which is an obvious yes. Therefore it should be upheld.

The rule was broken when it was classified as high impact, so it should be penalised as such.

Now after the fact we can certainly look to change the rule to medium impact as it should be (most people feel this way), but when the Bombers broke the rule it was a high impact penalty.

DOES LITERALLY NO ONE HERE UNDERSTAND HOW LAW WORKS???

The SFA has never been about law and order, it's about Mabo, the vibe and bashing each other with mallets until only one is left standing and they get to decide what the ruling is.