Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris Hibner
Joe: what does it matter if they score both or only the bottom one? Either way, the team scoring the nested tetras own the goal for the remainder of the match.
I don't think it would be an issue to score more tetras on the top of the nested tetra. There are two fair ways to handle this situtation: 1) score them both and then allow the other alliance an opportunity to over-cap the goal to take possession, or 2) don't score either tetra and call the goal "dead" (not capable of further scoring). Just scoring the bottom one results in the nesting team possession of the goal for the remainder of the match.
|
I agree with you that 1 is bad too, but it is not AS bad. The main reason is time. The number of teams that could get 4 or 5 of these STJB's (the Stack That Jack Built) is a much smaller number than the number that could put up 2 or 3. If you count only one tetra, then the incentive to make STJB's is considerably less (you've wrangled 6 tetras only to get 3 goals and 9 points -- 18 points is much more attractive).
But you are right, once teams get the idea, a single, well placed STJB can be devastating to your opponents.
I don't like either of your proposals to address this by the way. If you can score on top of them, then it is Katie Bar the Door for all kinds of weird stacking arrangements. If you call the stack dead, that allows a team to safely own a goal by making an STJB on top of a goal you already own.
I argue that they should either
#3 the tetras are not scored, period.
#4 a team that is ruled to intentionally make an STJB is disabled and DQ'ed, the tetras don't count and the stack is owned by the opposing alliance.
#5 30 point penalty for intentionally making an STJB, tetras don't count, the opponents own the goal.
#3 allows either team to remove them without penalty. While this is sort of lousy and may effectively make a goal "dead" it is not officially so. This is no different than a tall stack with a vision tetra on top hanging by its finger tips. In most cases, teams from both alliances leave the goal alone fearing the vision tetra will slinky the entire stack off the goal.
#4 is the "death penalty" but it makes it clear that this is not in the spirit of the competition to intentionally attempt to own goals in this way.
#5 gets to the same point as #4 but is less punitive.
I'd vote for #5 if anybody asked me.
Joe J.