In this case the slow down from friction was far outweighed by the benefit of the wall keeping the car on the track, he didn’t have to slow down for the turn he could just floor it and trust the wall to take him around the corner. The move has since been made illegal.
I stil don’t understand that, but at least I understand that the explanation I found was not relevant to the original point so that’s something.
Ah - pulling a “Chick Hicks”. I get it. Thank you.
Agreed. It’s more silly and slightly jerkish than disruptive or dangerous.
That’s a specific case of what I was going to say- glitching.
Sure, you may be able to do something that wasn’t intended by the developers in the game without cheating/hacking/whatever, and by that mechanism give yourself some tremendous advantage.
But it’s also a colossal dick move to do so when it’s so obviously outside the intended game play, or so unbalanced that it’s unfair.
Jesus, if ever there was a lawsuit waiting to happen, that would be it.
There’s a boardgame called Ponzi Scheme. The game involves borrowing money, which you can spend to buy companies, which are worth points at the end of the game. The issue is the loans can never be repaid; you have to keep them throughout the game and pay interest on them at regular intervals. Which means you have to borrow more money in order to pay the interest on the loans you made earlier. At some point, somebody will have gone so far into debt they can’t borrow enough to pay off their interest and they default. This ends the game. The person who defaulted automatically loses and the other players figure out who won based on who has the most valuable collection of companies.
But it’s possible for multiple players to default at the same time. It’s even possible for everyone to default in which case everyone loses. Which is where I return to the topic of the thread. There’s no rule which requires you to borrow money. Once you do borrow money, you’ll be forced by the interest payments to borrow more. But it’s legal within the rules to decide at the beginning of the game that you won’t borrow any money at all. You just pass on every turn you have and do nothing. You’ll have no money and can’t buy any companies, so your final score will be a guaranteed zero. But if you get lucky and all of the other players default and lose, you will win the game.
Sure, but there aren’t any plays dependent on the baserunner maintaining constant contact with the base while standing up after a slide.
I saw a video of a kid who hit a double, and while standing on the base was excited and hopped a half inch off the base while pumping his fist… “Yer Out!” Is the game of Baseball improved by that call?
Certainly there can be a rule that suggests incidental loss of contact unrelated to the acts of leaving the base for another base or taking a lead shall not be grounds to call a baserunner out. This allows a baserunner to shift his feet momentarily without getting called out, and allows all the gameplay we actually want.
The baserunner is either on the bag or he isn’t. As noted above, if he wants to shift, stand up, adjust his cup, whatever it is very easy to call “Time” and do so after the ump gives the ok. “Incidental loss of contact” then becomes a judgement call by the umps, which most of Baseball is trying to minimize.
It’s been over 70 years with no lawsuit so I think we’re safe. Why shouldn’t a mutually agreed upon third party have the rights to review?
I meant that if someone were to be recruited to be a MLB player, and the league determined that they’re “too short”, that would seem like a discrimination suit right there. What makes a short player unfit to play baseball? Why should they be barred? How short is too short, and why?
All that would probably get hashed out in the courts, and there just hasn’t been a suit in 70 years because it hasn’t come up, not because it’s some kind of settled thing.
Sorry, that was a terrible example for me to use. While it was how he described his meta-strategy, it’s not a game I’ve ever actually played, with him or anyone else. This was a meta-strategy he used in games like Civilization and Settlers of Catan and the like.
I can get into competitive games, and I definitely enjoy games in which there are creative deals to be made, but I really hate the experience of people breaking their deals. I figured since he had a meta-strategy (break one deal per game), I would have my own, that discouraged his meta-strategy.
Neither of us liked the other’s meta-strategy.
It wasn’t exactly that he was too short. It was that he had no experience as a baseball player and the whole thing was a stunt. A four foot tall person who was a competent player would get a contract. Someone of any height who didn’t even play in high school and was being brought in as a joke wouldn’t be allowed.
It depends on your definition of play. Tagging out inattentive baserunner is a play and one that I think should remain in the game. Either a ball is live or it isn’t. Either a runner is on the bag or his isn’t. What happens after that is up to the players.
Bluffing is a part of poker, and expected, but angle-shooting and slow-rolling are quick and easy ways to make yourself unpopular at card tables. Angle-shooting is using legal but deceptive methods to trick your opponents. For instance, advancing chips as though you were going to make a bet, but not pushing them past the legal bet line, or verbally declaring the bet, to see how other players react. Hiding large denomination chips behind smaller ones, to make it harder for others to see the size of your stack, is another example, as is trying to make your opponent fold by announcing at showdown that you have a higher hand than you actually do, before showing your cards.
Slow rolling is deliberately hesitating or delaying your play, when you know full well what you intend to do. Not immediately calling a bet, especially an all-in, when you have a strong or unbeatable hand; or delaying revealing your hand at showdown, are considered slow-rolling. It doesn’t give any advantage, so serious players consider it a form of taunting; especially if the pot involved is a large one.
Pro poker players can destroy their reputations, and thus livelihoods, doing either of these things.
But if you have a very strong hand, you don’t want others to know that. If I have a strong hand, but hem and haw a bit before calling, wouldn’t that make other players think I had a so-so hand, and hence be more likely to bet more? Which would clearly be to my advantage.
This occurs after all of the betting is complete. People need to quickly show their hand or fold accordingly. Making a production (slow rolling) before showing is being a dick.
If that gains you a tactical advantage, yes. But if there’s no value to waiting, it becomes slow-rolling.
Here’s a famous example, from a 2015 tournament in Ireland. A player named Donncha O’Dea opens up the betting with the ace and six of clubs. He’s called by a German named Andreas Gann, holding the King and Queen of diamonds. O’Dea raises to €100,000 and Gann calls him.
The flop comes 6, ace, 8 of diamonds, giving O’Dea two pair but Gann an almost unbeatable flush. Gann was the short stack, and O’Dea put him all-in. With a nut flush, poker etiquette says Gann should have immediately called. But he hemmed and hawed and waffled for over a minute before calling and showing his cards, much to the iimmediate disgust and anger of the other players.
Part of the reason this particular instance is so famous is that O’Dea only had three outs - cards that could beat Gann’s flush - and one of them, the six of hearts, came on the river, to the delight of the crowd.
The point is that Gann was all-in - there was no other play he could make to get O’Dea to commit more chips to the pot, thus no reason to feign a weaker hand. Once O’Dea put him all-in, his only choices were to fold or to call.
I think there are other changes in baseball that would keep it from happening. The $720,000 minimum salary. Guaranteed contracts. But most importantly it would mean taking someone off of the 40 man roster that is protecting them from waivers and risking losing someone of current or future value just for a one game stunt.
Eddy Gaedel was a one-game stunt. But there’s no reason it had to be. If allowed, a player who’d always get walks would be a huge asset to a baseball team, well worth the minimum salary and a spot on the roster.
The real proper response isn’t to ban short people, or to require them to have a full-season roster spot. The real proper response would be to standardize the strike zone. Set a bottom and top of the box in inches, not by the batter’s body. Which would also, incidentally, make it easier to automate the calling. Yes, yes, “Tradition!”, but game outcomes should be determined by verifiable objective fact, not by the whim of a human official.
It’s only once a game. He’d be worthless on the basepaths and would come out for a pinch-runner.