safe
I don't know about the 2 safeties, but they want it marked correctly for the handicapping system.
I don't know about the 2 safeties, but they want it marked correctly for the handicapping system.
What do you think?
- Thread starter tigerseye
- Start date
Exactly. In APA, it's the scorekeeper's call (opposing team), but if the opposing team's score sheet looks ridiculous, then you can make a claim (with the LO).
Obviously, if the game has 2 innings, and 6 safeties marked down on 1 player, then just make sure your scoresheet is accurate, because when the LO sees that their sheet is not accurate, then they will lose their scoring bonus.
When I play, and the scorekeeper asks me if it's a safety. I just tell the scorekeeper, if I don't pocket a ball on a shot, then mark it as a safety. It keeps things simple, and 95% of the time, it's absolutely true. I get asked often, because I shoot a lot of 2 way shots, but, if I am definitely shooting a safety, I call it before I shoot.
I think calling a safety before you shoot the shot, makes you commit to executing the safety shot successfully.
Obviously, if the game has 2 innings, and 6 safeties marked down on 1 player, then just make sure your scoresheet is accurate, because when the LO sees that their sheet is not accurate, then they will lose their scoring bonus.
When I play, and the scorekeeper asks me if it's a safety. I just tell the scorekeeper, if I don't pocket a ball on a shot, then mark it as a safety. It keeps things simple, and 95% of the time, it's absolutely true. I get asked often, because I shoot a lot of 2 way shots, but, if I am definitely shooting a safety, I call it before I shoot.
I think calling a safety before you shoot the shot, makes you commit to executing the safety shot successfully.
Last edited:
Actually, I would argue that a two-way shot should NEVER be marked as a safety because their is an intent to make a shot. The other intent is to leave the opponent bad IF the shot is missed.
This is good play and should not be marked a safety IMO.
I will always err to the safety side on a two shot, but that doesn't mean I didn't have the intent to make the object ball. In the APA intent is everything regarding safeties.
Well, I think that is partly the problem with such catagorized score-keeping. In the example I provided, the shooter is obviously making a decision that compromises an immediate win for the sake of having a defensive option.
In the APA manual, the definition reads as follows:
In the example I provided, there is an easier offensive option yet the shooter chose to leave his opponent in a difficult situation in the event of a miss. If the score-keeper chooses to not mark a defensive shot, obviously this is not the worst violation of marking a defensive inning but there is no doubt, at least in my mind, that defense was the primary intent of the shooter.
You can't judge anything by the shooter's intent, and pretty much all rules work in a way where guessing what is in the other guy's head is not required.
Therefore I'm inclined to say anything's a safe if it appeared to have no chance of going into a pocket. That still requires a judgment call (trying to define what had "no chance") but at least it doesn't require mindreading.
The APA LO I had stressed marking uncalled safeties as a key part of preventing sandbagging.
Therefore I'm inclined to say anything's a safe if it appeared to have no chance of going into a pocket. That still requires a judgment call (trying to define what had "no chance") but at least it doesn't require mindreading.
The APA LO I had stressed marking uncalled safeties as a key part of preventing sandbagging.
Say I am shooting and your my coach. I have a choice between playing safe or going for the ball.
Now if you know that EVERY time I play safe I announce it before shooting then you as a coach know what I am going to do. If I announce "safe" and you dont think that its the best shot for me then you call TimeOut. If not you let me play on.
Also more important is knowing that I am going for a ball...since I did not announce it.
Also the rule where a coach can refuse a TO has been abused by a few teams. Players can ask frequently for a TO after lining up on a shot. If its ok then the coach can refuse.
All of these type issues can be fixed by having all honest people playing but we really can't assume that or even dream that it would ahppen.
Last edited:
SpotMonster22
Registered
We have this argument on my team about two way shots a lot...
Jude, I'm curious would you still consider this a defensive shot based on shot selection alone, even if your impression was that the shooter really gave their best effort to nail the bank?
SpotMonster22
Registered
I really don't get why this is such a big deal...With only one time out per game, the only thing you can communicate to your player is, "I don't want to burn a time out over this." Unless you've got some "secret signal" in the way you don't call a time out.
If it means that players are going to call their less obvious defensive shots (those that just miss a pocket), and we have more accurate handicaps, I think that's much more important to creating a fair competitive environment than avoiding the possibility of giving the coach a heads up that a player is going to play defense.
If everyone called all of their defensive shots before making them, there wouldn't be an issue. All coaches would have that advantage, and we'd probably have more accurate scorekeeping.
I agree there is a slight strategic advantage, but I really don't mind. I think it would be refreshing if people saw accurate recording of defensive shots as strategically advantageous, rather than just something to avoid being DQ'd.
I think two scorekeepers are entitled to have a different number of defensive shots. I KNOW this is defense but it doesn't need to be scored that way. There is no doubt in my mind that shots such as the one I showed can run up innings and there is no doubt that knowledge to play such a shot shows a degree of skill. It's not JUST a miss even though there was a genuine effort to pocket the ball.