Change to the definition of a "path"

[Aztec]

This is exactly what I am stating. I found it difficult to believe that laser force does not have a rule to cover it. You and DK stated that there is a rule covering it. Thus if there is a rule covering this situation, and it is still occurring often enough to warrant this proposed increase in complexity than the issue is with enforcement. Exactly as you and I have stated.

Start penalizing players who stick their legs out for dangerous play (if the actions of such have been causing trips to sufficient degree to create this thread then there can be no argument about where or not it is in breach of this hazardous rule, since it IS creating a hazard). Keep upping the penalty until the risk outweighs the reward, and the problem will cease.

However altering the path rule to an even more complex level to attack the motivation is in contrast to the KISS method and speaking from experience a woeful error for any tournament tag community.

[troyoda]

I believe the main reason for then change is what Trag stated "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."

Sure sometimes people get tripped up because of the way it is now, yes there are rules to cover that. The problem is the ref's not being able to see the feet. If they cannot see the feet how can they call a dangerous play? They cannot be 100% sure it was because the person tripped them, it could be they just lost balance.

With the rule change you would not "need" to put out a foot to make the extra distance to the backtrack, and hopefully taking this out of the backtrack would solve a lot of the issues.

[tragedy]

One of the problems associated with dealing with the tripping hazard is that the leg extend is virtually ingrained into the psyche of the experienced LF player, and the frequency of actual trips is exceptionally small. Simply dealing with it more harshly IF it happens isn't going to work while the way a path is calculated stays the way it is.

To expand a bit more, I don't know how much experience you have with the LF system or it's competition rules, but LF has the ability to reset the downtime clock. For that reason we have the Chasing rule. The backtracking associated with this rule is where the potential dramas lie.

As I said earlier, because the way mazes are set out, refs cannot always see what player's feet are doing, and as such the ability to accurately and fairly penalise someone for tripping is skewed.

So as far as reducing the potential for tripping there are two options:
1) as you've stated - harsher penalties. greater enforcing of the rules Dangerous Play and Physical Abuse
2) reduce the player's need or desire to extend their path by stretching their leg.

By changing the way the path is calculated, players will learn the gain nothing from extending the leg and hence the risk of tripping is greatly reduced. My intention was not to make the definition of a path more complex, and as things stand we've just about settled on a formula that will do the job nicely that is far less complex and detrimental to the game.

[Aztec]

Okay, the idea that calls are going missed because a ref can not see most player's feet makes sense. Especially if this is a multi-rule issue as it stands (pathway and tripping). So this makes a bit more sense. It just seems that the rule was getting a tad complex with the situation of people leaning their torso naturally while fleeing.