[KevinG]

I don't hate the game, but I agree it's severely lacking relative to other experiences. My experience was as a student from 99-01 and then a mentor in 2013 and this year, so I wouldn't say I have enough knowledge to declare any particular year the "best" game. That said I feel like this year's system is flawed in a few ways.

There are positives about this game. For starters it's exciting to watch as a spectator. Having a single game piece for either team makes it easier to follow the action and get excited on a score. The presence of strategy is also big; a team that can't necessarily score well but is good on defense with a powerful drive train can still contribute. This opens up the game to weaker teams, which I think is important. The team I mentor is not well funded or equipped so it's nice to have a chance to compete.

That said there are obvious negatives as well. The foul situation is an obvious one. Rules are intended to shape behavior, penalty-based rules especially so, and good rules have three aspects. They're easy to understand, they're easy to enforce, and the consequence of the rule is equivalent to the importance of the action. An example of a good rule (from a behavior standpoint) is the rule that a ball is scored when it passes through a goal. It's easy to understand, it's easy to enforce (ball enters the goal, points are scored), and the consequence (in this case the points) reflects the importance of the action.

Many of the fouls, especially technical fouls, are in my opinion poorly designed from a rules perspective. Several rules are hard to understand, as evidenced by the sheer amount of debate going on here as well as by the judges. Enforcement of those rules is also difficult and is heavily dependent on the interpretation of the referee. And finally the consequences are, in my opinion, way out of line relative to the importance of the action. Scores over 200 points are exceedingly rare, yet a technical foul is worth 50 points. That's a massive penalty.