All hits are obvious hits. Good rule or no?

[Freddie Brockdorff]

.... or require the player to show them a body part that isn't easily viewed...

That just sounded wrong in SO many ways!

Aaaaanyway - no matter how we make theese rules, noone will be happy! But I surely don´t understand how you guys can think you either wont miss hits OR causing the players to get hit sometimes, when NOT having the neutral call but on the other hand can touch/move the players when wanting to check them thoroughly for a hit?!

It WILL happen - it HAS happend! Either give the refs the possibility to call a player neutral in those most "critical" situations where you simply cannot check the player without moving him/her into a more "unsafe" position, OR simply just don´t let them touch the player!

 

[Chicago]

Of course it can happen - but that's better than introducing the amount of game-confusion that neutral calls do. Then you're pulling people for moving/advancing just because they didn't know you had called somebody neutral, or forcing a player to stop playing and allowing his opponent to advance (gotta be one or the other). Remember that a neutral call goes both ways - the player can't be shot, but the player can't shoot either.

Neutral calls should nearly never be necessary to inspect COOPERATIVE players, and if a player isn't being cooperative, then the only person they have to blame if they get eliminated while being checked is themselves.

On the RARE cases that a cooperative player can't be checked without putting them in harm's way, wait until you can check them and then penalize as appropriate. Not ideal, but still better than the confusion created by trying to call a player neutral, get everyone else on the field to realize that they are neutral, and pick up the mess when some of the other players invariably don't get the message.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Ok - well - the next time some ref tries to move me to check me properly - I'll just not budge, tell him to piss off - and keep playing

What's he gonna do - really?

Nick

 

[Chicago]

Ok - well - the next time some ref tries to move me to check me properly - I'll just not budge, tell him to piss off - and keep playing

What's he gonna do - really?

If it's me, I have a 'Man, I hate players' moment and pull you.

 

[Wadidiz]

...the next time some ref tries to move me to check me properly - I'll just not budge, tell him to piss off - and keep playing...What's he gonna do - really?...

I would watch the player like a hawk and be on the suspected area--like flies on sushi--as soon as he moved a millimeter. If he's wearing a hit and it's in MS or NPPL seven-player then I would seriously consider doing a 2-4-1 if he had stayed in the game a significant amount of time wearing a hit and not calling for a paintcheck. In X-Ball I would send one of his teammates to the box for a major penalties (still 5-minutes in NXL?). He chose to tuck in and hoped I'd disappear and he'll have to pay the price.

What difference would a neutral call make? Sure, the hit would have been found quicker, by whatever seconds it might take between the guy having to keep a side or head stuck to a prop and when he had to actually play the game (he'd be lucky if some contorted position happened to be exactly where the player could do some good). The second the player pulled away he'd be done.

So someone may stay in the game and--to your point--affect the outcome of the game. But IMO those rare situations that don't get covered by righteous penalties are not worth the great possibility of chaos (been there, done that, got the T-shirt to prove it) Chi talks about when a neutral call is made.

The difference between Chi and me is that I would be much less "touchy". But I'd be on that place where I suspected there might be a hit until I was satisfied that it was either never there or already gone.