Coaching

[X1-12]

so if, in a crowd of 40 people watching a hugely important match, someone (unidentifiable) shouts something like "no jump", what should the T.O. do?

well likely if they are heard over the crowd the TO will be able to look round and see.. if they can't tell exactly who it is then they can atleast know where its coming from so they can keep an eye out, and YES it may be the one time that makes this difference but the chances of all of those things happening at once is so unlikely, its not a reason not to ban it. Moreover all you are talking about assumes that people will break the rules? why should they?

???

was it really that hard to understand the relevance?

It wasn't relevant, we're not suggesting that crowds should be silent, so what does the fact that they do in tennis have to do with it?

if you can't understand something so simple, maybe this discussion isn't for you

how about you shut your arrogant face? no need to get personal so if you will refrain from doing so in the future, as will I

 

[pockyD]

^Really me too what?

The same thing TO's do when people break other rules.

The other rules apply directly to the players, where it's clear who they are and simple to apply punishment (in theory anyway; I have plenty of reservations about how easy it is to apply "no excessive stalling" or "no wobbling" if they were ever really challenged)

well likely if they are heard over the crowd the TO will be able to look round and see.. if they can't tell exactly who it is then they can atleast know where its coming from so they can keep an eye out, and YES it may be the one time that makes this difference but the chances of all of those things happening at once is so unlikely, its not a reason not to ban it.

it's NOT unlikely at all; this kind of **** happens at every single major tournament in the later rounds

Moreover all you are talking about assumes that people will break the rules? why should they?

There are two possible interpretations here
1) You recognize that such advice makes a difference (you are likely on this side). If so, people will circumvent the rules if there's no solid penalty against them because it makes a difference in the result of a match of a friend
2) You don't think such advice makes a difference. If so, there's no reason to ban it.

It wasn't relevant, we're not suggesting that crowds should be silent, so what does the fact that they do in tennis have to do with it?

Because if there's no well-defined line between coaching and 'cheering', then you are going to have to either be out with both (mandatory silence, like I am referencing) or fine with both

how about you shut your arrogant face? no need to get personal so if you will refrain from doing so in the future, as will I

nobody got personal; you gave a pointless/meaningless statement and i responded with a similar one

 

[Nihonjin]

The other rules apply directly to the players, where it's clear who they are and simple to apply punishment (in theory anyway; I have plenty of reservations about how easy it is to apply "no excessive stalling" or "no wobbling" if they were ever really challenged)

Yet, we have rules against them and they're working fine.

it's NOT unlikely at all; this kind of **** happens at every single major tournament in the later rounds

Because it's allowed.

There are two possible interpretations here
1) You recognize that such advice makes a difference (you are likely on this side). If so, people will circumvent the rules if there's no solid penalty against them because it makes a difference in the result of a match of a friend

Not being able to completely erase unfairness is not a valid reason to allow it to happen freely.

Because if there's no well-defined line between coaching and 'cheering', then you are going to have to either be out with both (mandatory silence, like I am referencing) or fine with both

Coaching is considered to be advice or instruction of any kind, audible or visible, to a player.

What part of this is unclear to you..?

 

[X1-12]

The other rules apply directly to the players, where it's clear who they are and simple to apply punishment (in theory anyway; I have plenty of reservations about how easy it is to apply "no excessive stalling" or "no wobbling" if they were ever really challenged)

"If you coach, you may be DQ'ed and/or ejected" - clear punishment

also I would like to hear how you would punish people using excessive stalling and wobbling when the TO isn't there

it's NOT unlikely at all; this kind of **** happens at every single major tournament in the later rounds

not if they know they risk getting DQ'ed or ejected or banned from future tourney's

1) You recognize that such advice makes a difference (you are likely on this side). If so, people will circumvent the rules if there's no solid penalty against them because it makes a difference in the result of a match of a friend

people disagree with wobbling, do you see people circumvent that rule? also why should there be no solid penalty

Because if there's no well-defined line between coaching and 'cheering', then you are going to have to either be out with both (mandatory silence, like I am referencing) or fine with both

Me and Amsah have both given clear definitions of coaching, which separates it from cheering - which you then dodged..

nobody got personal; you gave a pointless/meaningless statement and i responded with a similar one

I must have missed me calling you stupid? I don't see how you can argue against what you say being personal

 

[Purple]

THen you have to tell what is exactly coaching.

 

[X1-12]

THen you have to tell what is exactly coaching.

please don't ask this again..

either one of these seems fine

Any advice given to either player in the match, including tips on match-ups stage selections or method of play.

or

Coaching is considered to be advice or instruction of any kind, audible or visible, to a player.

 

[john!]

I'm sure a TO could turn a blind eye if they saw someone pull out another players controller too, but do you think they would? Coaching is just as hard to enforce as other rules such as the ban on wobbling, but do you see wobbling happening anyway? no, so why should coaching be so different?

You'll notice that my primary concern with banning coaching is that will still happen at the highest level when lots of money is on the line. Things like pulling out someone's controller, wobbling, etc. are easily detected in the grand finals of a tourney when a huge crowd is watching. Coaching isn't.

Also, by your definition of coaching, me shouting "knee the **** out of 'em darkrain!" would get me banned from the venue.

 

[pockyD]

Yet, we have rules against them and they're working fine.

there's a big distinction between a rule against a player and a rule against a spectator, especially in terms of what they have to lose

Because it's allowed.

maybe you're just more optimistic about human nature than i am

Not being able to completely erase unfairness is not a valid reason to allow it to happen freely.

That's true, but you also have to consider whether the tournament scene that you create by attempting to half-heartedly address it may potentially come out MORE unfair than the liberal scene we currently have

What part of this is unclear to you..?

i simply don't believe that's something that everyone will be able to accurately and consistently judge across TOs and spectators

"If you coach, you may be DQ'ed and/or ejected" - clear punishment

not if the 'coach' is shrouded in a cloud of spectators

also I would like to hear how you would punish people using excessive stalling and wobbling when the TO isn't there

I wouldn't (hence why I brought this up)... but this isn't about what I would do

...but the difference in people blindly following these rules is a simple risk/reward scenario

not if they know they risk getting DQ'ed or ejected or banned from future tourney's

maybe i just have a different take on human nature than you guys do

people disagree with wobbling, do you see people circumvent that rule?

spectator vs player

and if i thought wobbling made a significant difference (it doesn't; although that's a whole 'nother debate), i'd be all for people abusing the hell out of the rule

also why should there be no solid penalty

vague definition and inability to consistently identify the culprit

Me and Amsah have both given clear definitions of coaching, which separates it from cheering - which you then dodged..

i simply feel that line crosses way into what we currently define as 'cheering' (even something like 'he's scared' can be interpreted as 'keep up the aggression, he's having trouble dealing with it)

I must have missed me calling you stupid? I don't see how you can argue against what you say being personal

i too missed you calling me stupid (did it happen?)

point is that you made a non-reply ("cool story bro" is the pinnacle of saying nothing), and i made a non-reply back at it

 

[X1-12]

You'll notice that my primary concern with banning coaching is that will still happen at the highest level when lots of money is on the line. Things like pulling out someone's controller, wobbling, etc. are easily detected in the grand finals of a tourney when a huge crowd is watching. Coaching isn't.

What will the coach gain? you think top players will actually offer to split the pot with with their coach? knowing its against the rules? these are some quite serious allegations you are throwing around. and if its grand finals there will almost certainly be massive screaming, and some sort of coach will not be able to scream over without a megaphone or something.... or they could sit right near the players and be really easy to notice that they're coaching

 

[john!]

What will the coach gain? you think top players will actually offer to split the pot with with their coach? knowing its against the rules? these are some quite serious allegations you are throwing around. and if its grand finals there will almost certainly be massive screaming, and some sort of coach will not be able to scream over without a megaphone or something.... or they could sit right near the players and be really easy to notice that they're coaching

I'd rather not hypothesize ways in which people could get around a coaching ban. Suffice it to say that you'd have to cut off all forms of communication with the outside world (like the ACT in America or whatever standardized tests you have in the UK) in order to enforce a ban like this. I don't want Smash to turn into a game of "who can find the sneakiest way to get past the rules".

 

[X1-12]

there's a big distinction between a rule against a player and a rule against a spectator, especially in terms of what they have to lose

maybe you're just more optimistic about human nature than i am

I'm not optimistic about human nature, I know people do things for themselves. so from breaking the rules and coaching they:

Risk: Possible disqualification, ejection, being banned from future events,
Gain: their friend performing better in a match

now ask me I don't think they'd do that

That's true, but you also have to consider whether the tournament scene that you create by attempting to half-heartedly address it may potentially come out MORE unfair than the liberal scene we currently have

why would this make such a big negative impact? perhaps there would be upsets as people get DQ'ed for coaching, but people would learn the rule and then won't coach

i simply don't believe that's something that everyone will be able to accurately and consistently judge across TOs and spectators

It doesn't have to be proven in a court of law, the TO sees coaching, they punish them, perhaps one or two slip through the net but thats better than massive unfairness

not if the 'coach' is shrouded in a cloud of spectators

read what I say to john

and if its grand finals there will almost certainly be massive screaming, and some sort of coach will not be able to scream over without a megaphone or something.... or they could sit right near the players and be really easy to notice that they're coaching

or if there's no crowd of spectators then the culprit is easily identified

spectator vs player

spectators can be ejected and banned from future events too

and if i thought wobbling made a significant difference (it doesn't; although that's a whole 'nother debate), i'd be all for people abusing the hell out of the rule

I can't answer this without starting a debate about wobbling so forgive me for not responding to it

i too missed you calling me stupid (did it happen?)

point is that you made a non-reply ("cool story bro" is the pinnacle of saying nothing), and i made a non-reply back at it

saying I can't understand something that is so simple is personal, and its offensive..



EDIT: @John.

read our posts before replying, your side of the arguments are the only ones who are talking about everyone being silent

 

[Purple]

I hate to make a small post, but stop ignoring the fact that hype matches are hyped, and loud. Period. You're just not going to have a TO seeing everything, especially when they have to hold on to prize money, take care of brackets, etc. etc.

 

[Smasher89]

Think of it from a host perspective is needed.Hosts wants people to come at their tournaments.



Theres a very unclear (or clear, that if ONE player gives advice, he has to leave the venue)

Then two people will say the same advice, without any trouble at all, or if that would be the case, make it 15 or maybe even more people shouting hte same advice at the same time.

How can that be punished, and even, should the host punish it?, getting 15 less attenders next tournaments, or more since it´ll likely start a debate which will either change the rule or people wont go to the next tournament. It´s getting destructive right there.

Not good for the host neither the scene where it´s implemented.

 

[X1-12]

I hate to make a small post, but stop ignoring the fact that hype matches are hyped, and loud. Period. You're just not going to have a TO seeing everything, especially when they have to hold on to prize money, take care of brackets, etc. etc.

1.) Hype matches occur later on in the bracket, when a TO has most time on their hands - Also note I've addressed this issue before, See my reply to john a few posts ago


2.) I'm sure I already posted this recently but I'll reiterate it in more detail: If a match has lots of hype, then in order to coach over a hyped crowd you will have to be sitting probably right next to the player, where you are easy to find and easy to see whether you are coaching or not, if you do actually have a voice loud enough to shout over a crowd which if you do: firstly the TO will be able to hear which area of the crowd the culprit is coming from (if not instantly recognise him as people who's voices carry over hype crowds are probably easily recognisable), so he knows where to look in case it happens again and also there will be signs as secondly everyone around the coach will want him to shut up, both because he is breaking the rules but more importantly because they wanna be screaming their chant, not listening to some guy trying to give tips.

15 or maybe even more people shouting hte same advice at the same time.

Eject one of them, see how the other feel about breaking the rules after that..

Also, by your definition of coaching, me shouting "knee the **** out of 'em darkrain!" would get me banned from the venue.

I think its fair in cases like this that the TO will be trusted to make the right decision, if there is a small grey area its down to the TO as it would be with things like infinite stalls

 

[Purple]

Hype matches happen when a good player plays someone. In tourneys like say.. Pound 4. All of top 32 were hyped.

This is assuming the TO watches one match, and catches one coach, which is fine and well. However there is more than one match going on at a time.

 

[KAOSTAR]

I definitely think that the crowd will silence to give players the best environment to compete in. They dont do it on their own because its all about hype.

First-I dont think there is any argument that can counter the fact that coaching is cheating unless there are rules set in place to direct the actions of coaching. Not talking about crowd, but ppl who standout, and are readily offering advice to a player. Outside influences should not effect the match at all. The crowd-doing crowd things are considered cheerleaders. Cheerleaders are always welcome, especially if they are cute girls. All you have to do is ban giving advice to a player actively engaged in a set.

2nd-The current argument at hand is whether or not its practically ban-able at a large scale tournament.

It comes down to a matter of opinion in whether or not ppl WILL actually refrain from giving advice from the depths of the crowd.

All of that is irrelevant. The point is that coaching should be banned, Its pretty clear that it isnt fair, players should not receive advice from any players once the set starts until its conclusion.

How do you enforce: the same way you would enforce any other rule. Police dont catch all the drug dealers, does that mean selling drugs should be legal? NO! You would remove any advice giver from watching that set, on a second infraction make them leave the building.

When ppl know you are serious they will abide by the rules. If somebody is coaching just report it to the TO. If somebody in a crowd does it and they arent caught, Well dammit they got away with it, but the more they do it the greater the chance they are caught, and will suffer the consequences.

I think ppl will abide by rules just based on the fact that loud crowds have been silenced to give players a better environment to concentrate, but I have only seen this when its been asked.

Having it as a rule can only help, even if its not completely enforced, IT CAN BE. Its not like it cost tax payers money or anything, just the TO's would ask somebody to leave.

 

[Purple]

Will a crowd silence for a player they don't like? Coaches know just as much as spectators when tense moments occur, and they shut up.

 

[X1-12]

Will a crowd silence for a player they don't like? Coaches know just as much as spectators when tense moments occur, and they shut up.

I don't think the crowd will have trouble restraining themselves to solely cheering, thats what most of them will enjoy most anyway