Match 77y - Nr.24
There was an appeal from Nr24, based on the following video:
Appeal on 4:30 is based on FiC - But there was none. Svensson did not reach the 77y line and did not hit with his sword. BUT the front is still spreadig out, all in melee position and bloodlust, while the rest of the line is still shooting. This could at most be considered as fire out of formation.
Appeal on 7:30 is based on FiC too, but here again Svensson did not hit the lonesome guy who's running away. FiC would be at the moment this single guy is in melee, where we come to a difficult situation in which I will try some could-be-examples to you: Would this single 77y guy, lets call him Guy, be in melee because he was stabbed or he blocked, 77y would be techically in melee - although the actual Line was in formation and ready to shoot. But then again, at the moment where Guy is dead, and 77y is still in this formation or moved further away to position themselves in a line again, the charge would be over, and ranged combat is again allowed. If anyone does not understand why, I can explain this later if needed.
To get back on topic again, 7:30 was not a rule violation.
We decided to look through the whole video (as we always do when there is a complaint/appeal with video) and found some other situations that I would like to take into account too.
At 15:50, FiC by Nr.24. A very close one, but still FiC. Since it was so close, we will not take this actually into account for ceding points.
At 21:25, Officer aim. No need to further explain this.
In the end, we decided to give Nr.24 a round for the issue at 4:30. Then again a round is given to 77y because of the issue at 21:25.
Game result will stay at Nr.24 3:7 77y.
Right, lets have a look at this shall we.
4.30 self explanatory as you saw.
7.30 is quite clearly against the rules. I would argue firing in the charge, because the lone guy gets cut off, and would have been in melee if he would have stayed in formation. So the Nr.24 line clearly engaged the 77y line because the 77y line had to break up in order to deal with the proximity of the Nr.24, which for me would be a counter charge rather than anything else, making it a FiC. Even if you (erroneously to be honest) insist on the fact that it was not FiC it would still amount to line splitting which is also against the rules.
The officer aiming on the other hand is a ridiculous thing to dock points for, and quite ironic that you out of all people do it considering the Nr.24s last match against you.
Referees are an absolutely crucial point to have in a tournament. The fact is, with all due respect, the hosts are incapable of dealing with the post-facto complaints, we have even been told to be polite and not press the issue because the opponents were a worse regiment, and we should hand them the round... (Credit where credit is due, they would have won that particular round officer aiming or not, but then again they were officer aiming throughout the LB (I believe I was shot 5-6 times during the LB dying about half of he time), so I feel that there should be some form of consequence to the aggregate offense)
The rules should be the same for everyone, and enforced the same for everyone. The point is, the current set-up encourages people to cheat with impunity and then lawyer their way out of it after the event because a) they did not win b) some things can apparently be ridiculously hard to prove post-facto even with video or c) it isn't considered as a major influence on the round.
Wow. Such GG. I just told you to show me good proofs. We won't change scores if the proofs aren't good enough. That's all I said. Tell it right or don't do it.
I said it would be polite to give the only round you lost to your enemy, but not that I won't deal with the issue.
Quite. To be fair you only saw these screenshots today, yet still they do demonstrate that I was shot several times in before the round we appealed, so it wasn't just a one round occurrence, and we had been patient with it up until that point.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=237086955
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=237087067
Secondly, this is the video you requested:
The camera turns and I am out of the frame at 2.02 and I am shot at 2.04. As seen before the camera pans away I am very close to their line, so it cannot really be a stray bullet, I am at one of the far ends of the line. Sure, I guess we technically could have formed a moshpit around me in 2 seconds so that I would get shot and appeal the round. But it does not seem quite that plausible. Especially when you consider the track-record of the officer targeting. (It happened in other rounds as well, but I did not screenshot those, and I do not know if we still have video for that).
The round that got docked from us should be docked because of officer aiming should be docked because of the FiC assuming the hardline approach. Meaning that the score would still land at 7-3, which it in all fairness should be.
the 15.50 round should also be docked from us. Based on the FiC.
There's a huge issue here though. Not so much the score it landed at, which I have said is fair. The problem is that you are extremely inconsistent in your arguments and your application of rules. The claim that 15.50 was minor is a bit preposterous as is that 7.30 was something completely fine with the rules.
The fact that a bona fide accidental officer death at relatively long distance, with plenty of time to do the reset before melee or indeed the round was tipping a certain way is a certain loss is also preposterous. It just incentivices trying to get shot as the officer to get free rounds.
The whole hardline approach is as inconsistent as the hardline denial approach you had going and it creates an atmosphere where you do not know what to expect in the terms of rules, and I have a nagging feeling that the outcome of appeals is based less on the actual facts of the case and more on the parties of the case.
When the wrong reasons lead to the right outcome it's as much a problem as if the right reasons lead to the wrong outcome.
