Query re the legality of a move. StreetSoccer

21 replies. Last post: 2014-06-05

Reply to this topic Return to forum

Query re the legality of a move.
  • Black Cat at 2013-01-06

    See game
    http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/game/game.jsp?gid=1495833
    I am red and have thrown a 4.
    It is possible for me to move my player on the third row to the empty square on the 2nd row on the left. This blocks both the ball and the yellow player.
    My questions are:-
    1. Is it legal?
    2. Is it considered “bad sportsmanship”.
    Many thanks

  • Martyn Hamer at 2013-01-06

    I can’t see anything in the rules against it. The closest I can see is the anti kill-joy rule stating that you can’t surround the ball, but that clearly doesn’t apply here. One opposing player is next to the ball and the others can use the squares off the pitch to reach it.

    Maybe there should be a rule in place against situations like this though, as it makes it impossible for your opponent to score and is arguably against the spirit of the game. Maybe the best thing you can do though is to play it and flag it up afterwards.

  • MarleysGhost at 2013-01-06

    In game 1495833 move 43, Red can move from dd to cc to seal off the ball and a Yellow player. If on the next turn Yellow’s player sealed off with the ball steps out of bounds, Red will be required to make a move that restores the legality of the position, either by moving an enclosing player (if Red rolls 2 or more) or kicking the ball out of the enclosure (if Red rolls 1 or more).

  • MarleysGhost at 2013-01-06

    On second look, Red could step out of bounds on a roll of 1 if required to de-enclose the ball. But if that out-of bounds cell (ac) were occupied, Red would have to kick the ball on a roll of 1.

  • MarleysGhost at 2013-01-06

    IMHO, it would not be bad sportsmanship, but someone else may have a different opinion.

  • Dustin at 2013-01-06

    I don’t think the term “sportsmanship” applies to in-game situations: if it is legal and a good move, you should make it. Be pleasant in real life (including virtual real life) but go for the throat on the (simulated) field.

  • Hjallti at 2013-01-07

    #1495833 slaapgraag vs. Black Cat
    Move: 43
    r1 y b
    y r r
    r
    y
    y
    r
    y1

  • Hjallti at 2013-01-07

    ???

    >>as it makes it impossible for your opponent to score

    I thought it was just part of the game to reach situations where the opponent can’t score in the next move with a 6. I follow Dustin: if it is not against rules you might and should play it if it is the best move. (Note that I don’t say if it is possible, since if the server allows an illegal move (e.g. third repetition of the same situation in chess) you should never play it)

  • Marius Halsor at 2013-01-07

    I agree with Dustin and Hjallti. Make the best legal move you can find (without any help from computer analysis or other players, of course). I’m not saying this IS your best move, though – that would be discussing an ongoing game. But I would definitely not call the move in question “unfair”.

  • Martyn Hamer at 2013-01-07

    The point I was trying to make is that there are rules in place to stop a player ‘killing’ the game. These include surrounding the ball and completely blocking the goal -the situation here is similar.

    Maybe there should be a rule in place for a situation like this, but if the move turns out to be legal why not play it.

  • Paavo Pirinen at 2014-03-04

    I just ran into a similar situation:

    #1614282 Paavo Pirinen vs. Orbilin
    Move: 37
    r1
    r
    r
    y
    y
    r y y
    y1 b r

    ...and so ended up doing some research. It’s interesting to note that there is a rules version with a three-borders rule added. With this ruleset even the situation I’m in could be deemed illegal, as “adjacent players” could reasonably be seen including diagonally connected players. Not that we should follow rules that are not mentioned in rules here, let alone implemented, but it’s good to know there has been an attempt to remedy the issue.

  • Orbilin at 2014-03-05

    Yeah, this is a dreadfull lock, but perfectly ok, and Paavo is using it to preserve his 3-0 advantage. I can only kick the ball if I throw 1 or 2. Currently I have 5, so I will move my second man as close as I can get, outside the field and see how long it will take me to free the ball. If my next turn will give me an odd throw I can manoeuver my second man in position. Paavo then can move his fifth man to fill the remaining gap, but will be forced to make an opening the next turn. Then I will break free and finish 3-3 :)

    The rule Paavo mentions says: "A coach’s move may not result in a string of adjacent players of his or her own color enclosing the ball in an area bounded by itself and fewer than three of the field’s borderlines. Also, each team must always have a path, of any length, from at least one of its players to the ball without crossing outside the field’s borderlines."

    Since my man is part of the string, under that rule, the situation is legal. I think the rule should be extended to read: “Each team must always have a path, of any length, from at least one of its players to the ball //without crossing outside the field's borderlines// and if that path is less than 6, have a trajectory available for the ball to go when kicking it, when 6 is cast.”

    In my opinion, the ‘outside’ clause is unnecessary. If the ball were in the corner, and I had no man inside this particulat enclosure, I could still reach it and kick it free by crossing the border.

  • Orbilin at 2014-03-05

    Amendmend:
    ... if that path is 6 or less ...

  • Paavo Pirinen at 2014-03-05

    Mainly to Marley’s Ghost:
    Cwali’s page (http://cwali.nl/streetsoccer/streetsoccer.htm) is the most definite site for rules that I can find fast, and while not giving the full rules, it says of this rule "Both coaches must always have a player figure which can reach the ball (not necessarily within 6 steps) without using the spaces outside the lines." Since Littlegolem’s own rules are a bit lacking (would allow almost anything) and it tries to link to Cwali’s site (the site has moved, so the link is broken, but still props for trying), I think this is what we have to go on.

    By that version, it would not help Orbilin to step outside, simply because the rules would make the move illegal. Neither player may cause the situation where there is no inside line route to the ball for one team or another. Alternatively you might deem that “not using spaces outside the lines” does not include the tile from which the player starts its move. Then Orbilin could step outside as long as the player kept withing the enclosure, but that would not help.

    Of course if the AI actually reacts to these situations nowadays, the outside step might well work. I’m just saying, it should not, according to the rules.

    ----

    Also, note to Orbilin: you can spend steps walking back and forth, so AFAIK throwing 5 did not stop you from kicking the ball on the other hand, throwing an even number, 2,4 or 6 would have stopped you, because then you’d have at least 2 moves for the ball and it must always move a full distance. Though with 6 you could have, I think, run behing the goal with your other player and kicked the ball. I’m not even sure if AI accepts that, but IMO it should be legal.

  • Orbilin at 2014-03-06

    @Paavo:
    It’s true that one could waste pips by shutling, but that is missing my point (apparently my suggestion needs better phrasing). We’re talking about a kill-joy-rule (“spelbederf” in Dutch), the purpose of which is to prevent locking the ball. The existing rule (above in bold) does not fullfil that purpose. It says there must be a route from players of both teams to the ball, but it fails to assure there must be a route for the ball to both goals.

    One can differ on how feasible these two types of route must be. It’s more feasible if the player must have a route without crossing the lines than if he needs to go outside. It’s more feasible if the ball must be able to travel a full 6 fields than if it must be able to move 1 field at a time an unlimited number of times/turns to reach the goal.

    For the first type of route the existing rule expresses the more feasible option. I plead that for the second type of route also the more feasible option is chosen, keeping the game more open.

    examples

  • Marius Halsor at 2014-03-06

    I find the implemented solution, where you can move outside the lines to force the opponent to open up his “prison”, to be sufficient. I don’t see this as any “Kill-joy”, and thus no need for further “kill-joy” rules. The point is that one should be aware of these possible situations, and take measures to prevent them from happening. Don’t let your opponent lock the ball away. And if he does, don’t move a player close to the ball unless you can kick it away on the same turn, or you risk having your player trapped in there with the ball.

  • Paavo Pirinen at 2014-03-07

    @Orbilin:
    Ya. The comment on whether or not you could kick the ball with two or five was a sidenote not really relevant to the conversation.

    I don’t think it would be sensible to make a difference between the bottom left and bottom right situations. As said before, our rules presumably allow all the bottom row situations, YourTurnMyTurn’s rules probably are meant to allow none of them.

    @Marius:
    So the “step out” solution is implemented? Is there anywhere a version of the rules that support this or is it just how the LG AI works in practice?
    I seem to now vaguely remember a discussion about some troll moving all their players out of the field and locking the game, so I guess I should have known it’s how the LG really handles the situation, not just some theoretical rules interpretation stuff.

    It’s indeed a matter of taste how detremental to the “joy” these situations are. And indeed in a game between two coaches who know the rules the one who walks into a lock trap can only blame themselves. The situation on the top right on Orbilin’s diagrams cannot be necessarily prevented by the opposing coach and is all too easy to set up, so it pretty much must be prevented with a rule.

  • Paavo Pirinen at 2014-03-09

    Oh, and while we’re talking about legality of moves, and since I kinda already bought it up... How do the four squares behind the goal work? I’m under an assumption that they are legal tiles for players to walk through, though you can’t stop at any of them. I think there is precious little said in the written rules about these four squares. I’m not even sure if stopping at them has been ruled out in any rules I’ve read.

  • MarleysGhost at 2014-03-10

    > they are legal tiles for players to walk through, though you can’t stop at any of them.

    That’s it.

  • (Ñ)(e)(s)(o) at 2014-06-04

    Another question about rules and illegal positions. I would like to know if yellow position is legal (movement 45 and nexts). Thanks

    #1638450 Dark Star vs. (Ñ)(e)(s)(o)
    Move: 45
    r1
    y
    r
    r
    y y y r
    b r y1
     

  • Marius Halsor at 2014-06-05

    It’s legal. However, if red moves the guy next to the ball outside the field, yellow has to open up his “fortress”.

Return to forum

Reply to this topic




Include game board: [game;id:123456] or [game;id:123456;move:20] or [game;id:123456;move:20;title:some text]