Table Hockey Heaven

[Cowboy]

Hello fellow dwellers of Heaven, Table Hockey Heaven that is.

The upper management of the Vancouver Table Hockey Club
decided for the very first time to implement a Mercy Rule.

A Mercy Rule as defined on Wikipedia is as follows:

[aj5380]

Hi Warren, I think 7 is a good number...

[sklump]

Six or seven are both pretty good. Montreal used 8 when I was there, years ago, on six minutes of regulation time.

Another plus is that it can keep a 7-2 game interesting - can the noob survive regulation?

[DETMURDS]

I'd say no mercy rule, but I do think it would be appropriate and ok for one to concede that they lost. regardless of score (only if losing), and end the game then and there. I think this would be beneficial in tourney play since stamina is important for what makes a long day of play. Then again, if one does that, it is probably not that long of a day either?

[tonscia]

FYI - TABLE TENNIS SKUNK RULE

Definition: In table tennis, the skunk rule is not an official ITTF law. Instead, it is a widespread home, work or pub rule, which states that if one player reaches a score of 7 points, while his opponent has 0 points (in a game up to 11 points) or 11-0 (in a game up to 21 points), then the game has been won by that player reaching 7 or 11 points.
Although probably originally intended to bring a merciful end to a bad game for the player being beaten, instead it seems to bring about much taunting from the winning player, who often takes great joy in telling everybody that he "skunked" the other player.

REF: http://tabletennis.about.com/od/glossary/g/skunk_rule.htm

[Cowboy]

[DETMURDS]

On the other hand, what if one is down by a score of 0-4 and they want to concede? It helps the goals for and against as well, right?

Fact is, to concede it already the rule, since anyone can quit a game if they choose, unless it is written that they cannot,...right?

Just thinking.

[Cowboy]

[sklump]

[Cowboy]

[tonscia]

I thought about DETMURD's strategy and then this thought came up. If I'm up that many goals, then I WILL try new shots to perfect them in competition. My opponent might say " Gee, he has 73 different shots and now he added 59 more! Which one's will he use against me in the next game?"

[DETMURDS]

Just making conversation here, I'm not getting emotional or anything like that about it Warren By the way, good topic, even though it has been continuously discussed in the passed.

Let's say that I am playing against you, you are up 6-0. At this point instead of losing in the name of Embarrassment and Mercy, I'd much rather be allowed to quit, and prepare for the next game. This would give, "Me" the chance to keep a lower GA. Again, is there a rule against quitting before 5 minutes are up?
To concede would do two good things, 1. provide satisfaction to the winner, and also, 2. keep some dignity for a player who wants to get better, be able to keep some face in the stats, and not loose the desire to keep playing the game.

Overall, after all that hot air, .....I say no mercy rule, and no quitting to concede rule. Life itself is not fair. Never should it, and never will it.

[Cowboy]

Yea.... I get your idea Paul, but to preserve the integrity of the
goal scoring race, we couldn't have a player quit some games
at 5-0 then play the next and lose 10-0 because they didn't
concede. That would pad the one guys stats by 5 goals where
as the other guy could only score 5 because the guy conceded.

Believe me we considered giving the player an option of
conceding at once it hit a certain goal difference, but it didn't
make sense if we wanted our stats to be fair as possible.

We decided that it was either that or no mercy rule, in
between didn't make any sense.

Anyhow I didn't think you were emotional about it at all,
I just wasn't understanding your point.

I am sure there are lots of arguments for and against a
mercy rule.... but if you had a mercy rule, what I wanted
to know was how many goals would you make it?

Cheers, Warren

[DETMURDS]

Good point Warren, I understand what you mean.

If I had to, it would be 9 goals for a mercy rule. With such a high threshold, it shouldn't effect many games.

[sklump]

One lesson to learn from LAHTO is not to make an idol of the statistics. If the game serves the numbers instead of the other way around, it will ruin the greatest of leagues.

Rankings, scoring races, per-position stats, goals-against, shutouts, mercies -- none of those matter in the head-to-head moment. Remember that the game is on the table, not on the page.

So if outsized scores are making people less keen on playing, cap them. The best players will still win championships.

[25tigers]

I once played against one of the better players out there is and of course he was beating me pretty good but if someone were to try to stop the game at 9 goal or 10 differential I wouldnt like - nothing wrong with being beaten soundly, then try to improve!

[Superdave3n2]

Seven goals.

That said, in Ontario, we have tried to develop a system where players don't get blown out. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Here's our formula. When deciding a tie-breaker and after the usual tie-breakers are exhausted (head-head, most wins) we go with least amount of goals for. This approach has a two fold affect. First, the new player will be in the game and not feel threatened by the onslaught. It also teaches the better players how to manage the puck better and to make a "Game Of It". Secondly, when two strong players play each other, they are going to try and keep the score close for fear of too many goals for in the end.
An example of this system was played out in Toronto in April, where the top 8 players all had identical records but had not played each other. The "Least Goals For" was the deciding factor for positioning and not least goals against.
Having this system in place also allows the new players/weaker players the opportunity to "play with the Big Boys".
Yes, there are going to be moments where a "Blow-out" will occur. It's going to happen. To the player who receives such punishment, they should learn from it and get better.
SD

[sklump]

I believe Carlo & company came up with this very clever tie-breaker, about seven or eight years ago - but maybe they picked it up from your group.

It works for tournaments, but in a 60-game season or so the tie breakers are less important, because of the point spread.

[DETMURDS]

For me, fairness is just too PC for me, and PC is not correct by any means.