|
| Posted by: wiggs
- Donor [4991311] Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 14:49
should a manager or anyone else that appears at ring side have to actually interfer with the match or simply be seen to get points? |
| | | 1 | wiggs
Donor
ID: 4991311
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 14:49
|
I vote that they should have to do something.
|
|
| | | 3 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 15:03
|
Hold on. At issue is not whether during a match a manager or valet or other wrestler must interfere in order to get points. I think we all agree that the rules say that they must interfere. What is at issue is what exactly constitutes an interference. When this was originally discussed following the original inception of our scoring system it was established that even a non-physical distraction qualifies as an interference, so long as it has some effect on the match, such as, "...distracting the opponent so his wrestler could do a shot from behind".
What we should be voting on is whether to change this understanding of interference.
|
|
| | | 4 | Farn
Sustainer
ID: 451044109
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 15:06
|
I still think points should be given for a distraction. Doesn't have to be physical at all.
What is really at debate is whether Christian and Trish sitting in a chair on the ramp and having Y2J notice them before the bell rings is interferance.
|
|
| | | 5 | wiggs
Donor
ID: 4991311
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 15:10
|
i agree a distraction is doing something. Trish and christian did nothing from what i can remember during the match. It was before and after.
|
|
| | | 6 | Tree
ID: 30357517
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 15:16
|
i will just stand here and abstain, and wonder if that will get me points...
|
|
| | | 7 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 15:22
|
They weren't exactly doing nothing. they went out there and flaunted themselves, emphatically going out and getting a chair and sitting out there to rub it in Y2Js face. The camera went to them many times and JR and the King were talking about them (especially trish) more than they were talking about the match, so they were definitly a big part of the sequence. Whether that matters or not, I know that Jericho's attention went to them at least once or twice during them match, if not more often than that. If you're trying to concentrate on doing something and attention is drawn away by something else, then that thing is a 'distraction'. If at any point, that distraction has any effect on the course of a match then that distraction becomes an 'interference'. And like I have said numerous times now, to decide anything else is to change the rules as they have been established.
|
|
| | | 8 | Great One@ Work
ID: 40150137
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 16:30
|
I voted previously they do indeed deserve points for distracting/interfering in that particular situation.
|
|
| | | 9 | Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 16:57
|
If I'm interpreting the discussion correctly, we are in agreement that "interference" in a match is defined two ways:
1 - actual physical interference - i.e. stomp, punch, slap, grab, pull - touching in some way that also includes using a weapon/belt/chair/etc
2 - a distraction that allows another wrestler to gain an advantage - i.e. flashing boobs/butt, distracting the ref, tonsil hockey, or just showing up and bringing attention to one's self to the detriment of one of the wrestlers in a match that allows the opposing wrestler to gain an advantage.
Fair? If that isn't clear enough please post further clarification. Otherwise, I'd like to offer the above as our 'official' definition of interference.
With that clarification offered, I will abstain on the Trish/Christian thing since I have Christian.
PS - By the above definition, showing up at ringside and distracting a wrestler that does not result in an advantage by the other wrestler does not earn interference points. i.e. - Rene Dupree can show up at ringside and cause Cena to stop and look at him for a minute, but if Cena's opponent is still writhing in pain on the mat and never gets up or gets an advantage, Dupree wouldn't get points.
|
|
| | | 10 | Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 17:20
|
Comment: I think our score tallyers do a good job of interpreting the scoring. But like in this case, it is subject to interpretation. I like how most of the guys will put notes at the bottom, like "I gave Gail Kim 5 points for having a great a$$" or whatever....then if us in the league disagree with their interpretation of the rules, we can bring it up as we have here.
I hope wiggs doesn't feel like he was ganged up on. Bluntly the rule has always been in place and this particular incident, which is most definitely subject to interpretation, just magnified the need to reclarify.
|
|
| | | 11 | j o s h
ID: 52311613
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 17:26
|
|
|
| | | 12 | Farn
Sustainer
ID: 451044109
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 18:25
|
I agree with Josh.
|
|
| | | 13 | Mike D
Sustainer
ID: 41831612
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 20:49
|
Well said j o s h ...........
|
|
| | | 14 | Mike D
Sustainer
ID: 41831612
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 20:50
|
Species, I also agree with you. ;)
Can we agree to apply the Species definition?
|
|
| | | 15 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 20:51
|
I think Species' definition expresses it clearly enough.
|
|
| | | 16 | Great One
ID: 20350618
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 20:53
|
how do you even post nothing? I tried it to be a comedian... but it said the message field was empty... (42 posts about posting nothing headed this way!)
|
|
| | | 17 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 20:54
|
I think he hit the spcae bar once.
|
|
| | | 18 | Great One
ID: 20350618
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 20:55
|
|
|
| | | 19 | Great One
ID: 20350618
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 20:55
|
brilliant!
|
|
| | | 20 | j o s h
ID: 52311613
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 21:06
|
:)
|
|
| | | 21 | Mike D
Sustainer
ID: 41831612
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 21:31
|
You can become a lot smarter hanging around these parts, GO.
|
|
| | | 22 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 60151121
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 21:41
|
Can't believe I was really busy at work and missed all the excitement.
What Species said works for me.
The guys scoring the shows do a great job and I really do appreciate it.
Cliff
|
|
| | | 23 | Farn
Sustainer
ID: 451044109
Tue, Apr 06, 2004, 22:03
|
re: #21
I was going to say just the opposite. :)
I am ok with Species definition. Like he said though a lot of it is interpretation. I usually try to list possible points of contention and I almost did with that one but I just felt it wasn't that close to a possible point scenario. But I guess in the future anyone who scores a show should list any possible points of contention so they can be discussed if necessary.
|
|
|
|