Change to the definition of a "path"

[tragedy]

Due to the high number of dangerous incidents that occur when players try to create as long a path as possible when backtracking by sticking their feet out into the path of oncoming opponents, it was suggested last night to change how a path is calculated.

A path is defined as beginning from the point where a players suit is deactivated, following the positioning of that player's feet during all their movement, and ends when the suit reactivates. The width of a players path extends from the centre point of their body, perpendicular to either side, and is terminated either side at a distance of two (2) metres or by a permanent field construction, whichever is closer

New Definition
A path is defined as beginning from the point where a players suit is deactivated, following the positioning of that player's battlesuit perpendicular to the floor during all their movement, and ends when the suit reactivates. The width of a players path extends from the centre point of their body, perpendicular to either side, and is terminated either side at a distance of two (2) metres or by a permanent field construction, whichever is closer

This change also means referees have an easier time seeing the distance a player has moved since they often have player's feet hidden from view.

[Spoonman]

Does this mean that you could technically pirouette and no-one would be able to chase you?

EG: Player A deactivates Player B from a distance of 5 meters in a long corridor. Player B turns in a circle and runs off. Player A chases after, but intersects the 2 meter diameter and is only able to follow 1 meter past where Player B was deactivated.

I like the proposed change regarding feet - it makes sense - but what would happen regarding the pirouette point? Or is it not regarded as a path because you haven't technically traveled anywhere?

[tragedy]

Or is it not regarded as a path because you haven't technically traveled anywhere?

That would be correct

[Nightshade]

So, going along with spoony's idea, if someone was to then take, say, 2 steps, and then do a pirouette, is that deemed to be "travelling somewhere"?

[tragedy]

What Spoony's worried about is the "width" of the path, and does it somehow now count when someone travels along it towards his intended target.
The answer is no, just like before, the "width" of a path is exactly that - the width. If someone does a 360 spin, the path is only goes "wide" perpendicular to the direction they are facing. If you move along that "width" towards someone, you are not chasing, because you are not following.

[The Nite Owl]

So what you're saying is that the "dangerous play" will be more pronounced because players, instead of sticking their feet out (which might be missed by a ref) will be throwing their whole bodies at the on-coming opponent to create a longer path?

[tragedy]

you're not the first person to wonder about this. I've had a bit of a think about it and i'll adjust the wording so that the 'perpendicular' runs from the centre of the suit, down thru the centre of the base to the floor at the last upright position of the suit. That way, a path can only be created if and when a player is upright. Or words to that effect

[zim!]

The width of a players path extends from the centre point of their body, perpendicular to either side, and is terminated either side at a distance of two (2) metres or by a permanent field construction, whichever is closer[/color]

I know it's not a issue any where is brisbane, but if I deactivate a player and run parallel to them 2.1 meters away it isn't a chase? I don't have the paint skills of Scorpion to show you but you get my point

[tragedy]

A path is defined as beginning from the point where a players suit is deactivated, following the positioning of that player's battlesuit perpendicular to the floor during all their movement, and ends when the suit reactivates. The width of a players path extends from the centre point of their body, perpendicular to either side, and is terminated either side at a distance of two (2) metres or by a permanent field construction, whichever is closer. If a player wants to, or is required to by game conditions, change their direction of movement by greater than 90 degrees, the player must be fully upright whilst pivoting, else the path will be considered to have terminated, and will begin again when the player has returned to an upright position.
Trying not to make it overly complicated but people keep finding potential holes.

run parallel to them 2.1 meters away it isn't a chase

That is correct. the 2m width was created specifically with open fields in mind eg Brisbane

[Rusty]

Due to the high number of dangerous incidents that occur when players try to create as long a path as possible when backtracking by sticking their feet out into the path of oncoming opponents, it was suggested last night to change how a path is calculated.

When? It hardly ever happens! I dont even know when the last time it happened with me personally. People just need to be more effective at backtracking lol.

[tragedy]

I remember one. Last season i was coming from the skywalk onto the bridge, you stuck your foot out as I was about to exit and sent me sprawling. Because of the skywalk's railing, the ref didn't see anything except you appeared, I disappeared, then you took off

[xDKx]

So if I am understanding correctly, the errata is designed to prevent a path from being construed so as to extend itself further when a player pivots during a backtrack? Ie, I can't create 3 meters of path by running out one meter, turning 90 degrees, running slightly forward, turning again, and running back to my starting position. Correct?

[tragedy]

Based on your description, DK that would be legal. When players are trying to create a path by backtracking, the most dangerous moments occur in confined spaces during a rush. What you're attempting above to me requires both time and room. I don't see any reason ATM to further edit the change to "fix" that.

The idea is not to stop backtracking, but to prevent the dangerous situations

[xDKx]

In that case, is the fix necessary? Would the dangerous play rule not apply/suffice to that type of situation?

[Rusty]

In that case, is the fix necessary? Would the dangerous play rule not apply/suffice to that type of situation?

My thoughts exactly.

[tragedy]

So if I am understanding correctly, the errata is designed to prevent a path from being construed so as to extend itself further when a player pivots during a backtrack? Ie, I can't create 3 meters of path by running out one meter, turning 90 degrees, running slightly forward, turning again, and running back to my starting position. Correct?

The description of the path and where it starts and ends hasn't really changed. You cannot run a metre, turn 90 - run another, turn 90 again and run a third and call it a 3m path because a player coming from the opposite direction will still only follow you for one metre. Your turn, turn turn would be fine as far as the addendum goes because you didn't pivot beyond 90 degrees. As I said, you need time and room to do this, so if you can do it without blocking then more power to you
The change takes creating a path by sticking a foot out beyond the turning point, (which was possible with the old wording as it said "followed the movement of the player's feet,") or, due to my first draft, from "lunging forward" and makes them invalid attempts.

Would the dangerous play rule not apply/suffice to that type of situation?

Trying to simply strengthen the DP rule won't stop players from sticking feet out into the paths of other players. Also because our fields are built with low walls and windows which allow us to see the action, these items also prevent us from seeing the floor in many areas. Therefore if a player sticks foot out, a ref is not guaranteed to be able to see that. I've experienced it myself as a player recently as described above and also during a game on Monday just gone, where a mass of bodies prevented the ref from seeing my feet.
It means a ref only needs to be able to see your suit, and any attempt to elongate the path is rendered useless, thereby minimising and ultimately removing these dangerous parts of the game.
I know I'd much rather get pinged for blocking than be the reason why a fellow player is sprawled on the floor with a bloody nose. Goes the other way too.

[xDKx]

OK, I think I understand what you are saying now. Makes enough sense to me--it's only the area under the vest itself that counts toward creating a path, so pushing your foot out serves no purpose and will hopefully discourage the practice, yes?

[tragedy]

yes

BUT!! it won't count if you "lunge forward" with your body to gain a few centimetres

[Dazzalo]

Lets say I run east to back track, stick my foot out as far as I can to extend the backtrack before running back west. Would it not then be easier to make the track starting at the western most point from when I stopped? Having a track start from whichever point that you have reached 'both feet' or the furthest foot from the alleged tracker or something?

[tragedy]

Or we could just make it start from where the suit is, given that it's already established that player's feet are often hidden from view, and it's safer to remove the temptation to stick a foot out...

[Spoonman]

It makes sense to me - the net result is that it makes it easier to call DP's and makes the game safer. Don't really see a downside to be honest

[xDKx]

It makes sense to me - the net result is that it makes it easier to call DP's and makes the game safer. Don't really see a downside to be honest

Yeah this is what I finally took away from the change. Traj, can you get me an exact wording so I can put the errata on the US Rules? I doubt this will be controversial so as to warrant a site vote.

[tragedy]

A path is defined as beginning from the point where a players suit is deactivated, following the positioning of that player's battlesuit perpendicular to the floor during all their movement, and ends when the suit reactivates. The width of a players path extends from the centre point of their body, perpendicular to either side, and is terminated either side at a distance of two (2) metres or by a permanent field construction, whichever is closer. If a player wants to, or is required to by game conditions, change their direction of movement by greater than 90 degrees, the player must be fully upright whilst pivoting, else the path will be considered to have terminated, and will begin again when the player has returned to an upright position.

How about that?

[Scorpion]

If a player wants to, or is required to by game conditions, change their direction of movement by greater than 90 degrees, the player must be fully upright whilst pivoting, else the path will be considered to have terminated, and will begin again when the player has returned to an upright position.

I think this bit is underspecified and open to a lot of interpretation by the refs. A 180 degree turn could be made up of three 60 degree turns with a step in between each. What if you are crouched over going down the back ramp (at the 'Gabba), and when you get to the bottom you hook a left 180 degree turn? Do you have to stand up to have your path continue? How is "fully upright" defined?

Having a track start from whichever point that you have reached 'both feet'

I think this is easier to define, easier to ref and achieves the original result.

[tragedy]

A 180 degree turn could be made up of three 60 degree turns with a step in between each.

Yes it can, and I would be happy at this stage to keep a "loophole" like this in, like "backtracking" is considered a loophole, as it requires both the room and time to execute. If you have room or the time to make a turn in this fashion, then you are less likely to be placing you or your fellow players in a dangerous situation.

What if you are crouched over going down the back ramp (at the 'Gabba), and when you get to the bottom you hook a left 180 degree turn? Do you have to stand up to have your path continue?

Unless you want to try a wide step-turn-step-turn down there, then yes you will have to stand. You could also ask that same question of moving from the green tower to the skywalk, a turn of about 120 degrees. If you do not stand (ie become upright) or execute a 3-point turn a player on the bridge can legally chase you as far as he wants across the skywalk....


... mmmm thought that might raise a few alarm bells...

How is "fully upright" defined?

If I'd just said "upright" you'd be asking how that is defined. Fully upright is exactly as it says. Not "a little bit upright." Not "my body was upright while my legs were bent." Fully upright - body and at least one leg perpendicular to the floor.

I think this is easier to define, easier to ref and achieves the original result.

Is not and does not. As I have pointed out several times already, referees cannot always see your feet. If they can't then they are guessing as to their position. Take Daz's suggestion and you're going to have people doing silly "dance moves" to get both feet out instead of just one. The suit is the key. It's easier for refs and players alike to see and never allows for tripping manouvres.

If you want to clean it up further, I can add this

If a player wants to, or is required to by game conditions, change their direction of movement by pivoting to an angle greater than 90 degrees