Rules

i think that this topic must have an extra name. MATERIALS AND RULES. Because rules it is very important point in our favourite hobby.

So i want your opinion for a rule.
The attacker flick the ball towards and during the ball is moving he flick immediately again. The defender does a block. The attacking figure doesn't touch the ball but the defensive figure touch the moving ball. Is free kick or not? Because the defender support that the attacking figure fail to touch the ball so his defending fault to touch his block the moving ball is not important.
The attacker did a wrong. Fail to touch the ball. It means "change". Also the defender did a wrong. He touch the moving ball. It means "freekick".
What will decide the referee?

kechris wrote:i think that this topic must have an extra name. MATERIALS AND RULES. Because rules it is very important point in our favourite hobby.

So i want your opinion for a rule.
The attacker flick the ball towards and during the ball is moving he flick immediately again. The defender does a block. The attacking figure doesn't touch the ball but the defensive figure touch the moving ball. Is free kick or not? Because the defender support that the attacking figure fail to touch the ball so his defending fault to touch his block the moving ball is not important.
The attacker did a wrong. Fail to touch the ball. It means "change". Also the defender did a wrong. He touch the moving ball. It means "freekick".
What will decide the referee?

A very good question!

I think I would give a free flick, but I'm not sure if it's correct.

If the ball is moving it could have touched the attacker's figure again, despite the missed flick, so it seems the attacker should have the ball after the situation.

I didn't read the rules to find an answer, but I don't think there is a clear rule for this.

This sort of questions are important to bring up. At some point the new Sports Director and his Commission can discuss about problematic rules, and maybe can come up with a proposal to make them clearer. So, it's good if people bring up the problematic rules.

Ι had the same answer with you. Because when the attacking figure lost the possibility to touch the ball, no problem to continue the game for the defender. But the defender's block did immediately "foul", so the referee must say "freekick".
If the ball was stopped then the referee can say "change" for the ball and "back" for the block.
Do you agree?

kechris wrote:Ι had the same answer with you. Because when the attacking figure lost the possibility to touch the ball, no problem to continue the game for the defender. But the defender's block did immediately "foul", so the referee must say "freekick".
If the ball was stopped then the referee can say "change" for the ball and "back" for the block.
Do you agree?

Yes. I think this is also clearer in the rules.

Do you have more problematic rules, Kechris? Write them here if you have.

When referee say offside where he will put the ball and the offside player for the freeflick? The offside player was on penalty point. Then the ball will put on penalty point but the player will go where? on left, on right behind or front off the ball?
WHY?

I agree it is a free kick.

Mainly because the defender made an illegal block, while the attacker missing the ball is not actually illegal. I do it quite often.

kechris wrote:When referee say offside where he will put the ball and the offside player for the freeflick? The offside player was on penalty point. Then the ball will put on penalty point but the player will go where? on left, on right behind or front off the ball?
WHY?

It's not said in the rules, I think.

The common system is to place the ball next to the figure which was offside, on that side of the figure from where the ball was played offside.

Another one to clarify in the rules.

Martin Hodds wrote: the attacker missing the ball is not actually illegal. I do it quite often.

But, of course, you do that on purpose!

von K. wrote:
The common system is to place the ball next to the figure which was offside, on that side of the figure from where the ball was played offside

The rule called offside a figure because it is closer to goalline than the last defender. So in my mind is more normal and more realistic to put the ball in figure's position and to move the figure 4cm parallel from the goalline to direction in the center of pitch.
I think it is more clear and easy.

I wrote 4cm and i remember a wrong in rules.
In real soccer in every freekick the defender MUST be go away 9.15m from the ball.
In table soccer the rules give the selection to attacker to ask or not distance. This is wrong and no realistic.

Also the rules don't allow the shoot for goal in freekick. But if i shoot the freekick inside of goal area and the ball touch another figure (defending or attacking) then the goal is OK.
YES or NOT? WHY?

kechris wrote:I wrote 4cm and i remember a wrong in rules.
In real soccer in every freekick the defender MUST be go away 9.15m from the ball.
In table soccer the rules give the selection to attacker to ask or not distance. This is wrong and no realistic.

In real soccer you can take a free kick quickly without waiting for the players to move, so this rule is OK I think.

kechris wrote:Also the rules don't allow the shoot for goal in freekick. But if i shoot the freekick inside of goal area and the ball touch another figure (defending or attacking) then the goal is OK.
YES or NOT? WHY?

No because the rules say no. But in my opinion the rule should be a direct free kick and so a goal.

Kehcris, why should the attacker get such a good position for his figure after an offside? The figure would be straight in the way of the ball. Especially with players of lower level it's too big advantage for the player who has made a mistake.

It could be better to start using the position where the ball goes over the offside line.

Martin Hodds wrote:

kechris wrote:I wrote 4cm and i remember a wrong in rules.
In real soccer in every freekick the defender MUST be go away 9.15m from the ball.
In table soccer the rules give the selection to attacker to ask or not distance. This is wrong and no realistic.

In real soccer you can take a free kick quickly without waiting for the players to move, so this rule is OK I think.

I see it the same way as Martin. And also it would be strange to take that option away from the player who was the object of a foul.

Martin Hodds wrote:

kechris wrote:Also the rules don't allow the shoot for goal in freekick. But if i shoot the freekick inside of goal area and the ball touch another figure (defending or attacking) then the goal is OK.
YES or NOT? WHY?

No because the rules say no. But in my opinion the rule should be a direct free kick and so a goal.

The problem is, I think, that defending would be almost impossible against quick top players. You easily make unintentional fouls against such a player, and even worse players would score from many direct free flicks.

But I think the direct free flick should be used if the defender fouls intentionally. We saw the big problems with intentional fouling in World Cup.

There are not rules for good players and rules for weak players. The rules are same for all players and the good players EVERYTIME will find faster solution for a new rule.
1. So i think that the rule for distance 4cm if the attacker ask it must change. Because we must put the ball EXACTLY ON THE POINT WHICH IS THE OFFSIDE PLAYER OR ON THE POINT OF FREEKICK. This is not possible so we move few mm the figures to put the ball. Why we accept to remove few mm but we have problem for 4cm?
2. the ball is moving when the referee must say off-side. How we select the point of ball to remove the offside player? My proposal is simple and clear. You didn't think if the solution is better but if this solution is better for weak players. I don't like this way when i find for solutions in rules.

I hate the rule for the distance. Because many times the referees remove my players in wrong direction. I think that if MUST remove the player 4cm then the referee put the ball (no remove again) remove the defenders and after the blocks. So i as defender know the position of my defender before my block. Many times i have see problems in matches for the distance. And the solution is so simple...

Martin you wrote for quickly freekick. In past i had an idea but nobody interest for this. My idea was that the attacker select the number of blocks. How? it is very easy. If in a corner the attacker do only one or two blocks then the defender must do the same number of blocks. If in a freekick or in a throw in the attacker decide no block then no block for the defender. This way is good to stop the illegal freekicks in last seconds by defenders and the slow blocks in corners. It is more realistic and more fair.

I have many good ideas for the rules but nobody interest because i am not good in diplomacy.

kechris wrote:Martin you wrote for quickly freekick. In past i had an idea but nobody interest for this. My idea was that the attacker select the number of blocks. How? it is very easy. If in a corner the attacker do only one or two blocks then the defender must do the same number of blocks. If in a freekick or in a throw in the attacker decide no block then no block for the defender. This way is good to stop the illegal freekicks in last seconds by defenders and the slow blocks in corners. It is more realistic and more fair.

I agree that would be a good rule.

kechris wrote:There are not rules for good players and rules for weak players. The rules are same for all players and the good players EVERYTIME will find faster solution for a new rule.
1. So i think that the rule for distance 4cm if the attacker ask it must change. Because we must put the ball EXACTLY ON THE POINT WHICH IS THE OFFSIDE PLAYER OR ON THE POINT OF FREEKICK. This is not possible so we move few mm the figures to put the ball. Why we accept to remove few mm but we have problem for 4cm?
2. the ball is moving when the referee must say off-side. How we select the point of ball to remove the offside player? My proposal is simple and clear. You didn't think if the solution is better but if this solution is better for weak players. I don't like this way when i find for solutions in rules.

I hate the rule for the distance. Because many times the referees remove my players in wrong direction. I think that if MUST remove the player 4cm then the referee put the ball (no remove again) remove the defenders and after the blocks. So i as defender know the position of my defender before my block. Many times i have see problems in matches for the distance. And the solution is so simple...

Martin you wrote for quickly freekick. In past i had an idea but nobody interest for this. My idea was that the attacker select the number of blocks. How? it is very easy. If in a corner the attacker do only one or two blocks then the defender must do the same number of blocks. If in a freekick or in a throw in the attacker decide no block then no block for the defender. This way is good to stop the illegal freekicks in last seconds by defenders and the slow blocks in corners. It is more realistic and more fair.

I have many good ideas for the rules but nobody interest because i am not good in diplomacy.

My friend Kechris, a passionate person with very good ideas who finds it difficult to accept that sometimes other people may have their own different ideas. A real fighter in his personal life, a man who beat cancer, that sometimes gives people the impression he is always ready to fight.

Cool down my friend, people would pay more attention to your ideas if you were less passionate defending them.

Quick freekick (no distance) as Martin likes it, could match perfectly with quick freekick (no flicks) as you propose. The same goes for throw-in. It is a bit different with corner kicks, when usually defenders have the time to reform. Maybe in this case a minimum of two flicks and a maximum of four (attacker's decision) would be a nice idea.

As for the distance moves in off-sides flicks, I think that the figure should be moved parallel to the goal-line and it should be the attacker's decision which direction the defender should go (right or left).

For me, the most stupid rule is the one that says you have no goalkeeper FOREVER if you make the unforgiven mistake to lose possesion while your spare goalkeeper is in. The easiness of forcing throw-ins is also outreageous for me. Also, sending the ball miles away with a throw-in is not realistic. Players in off-side position should not be punished until they get involved, like in football.

Many - many ideas about reforming the rules, making the game more interesting. As I have written again in the past, I had proposed to the previous BoD a Project for modernising the rules, but nothing happened. I think the new BoD should not touch any such matter, because they will ruin everything if they do. So, I will wait for the next BoD, which I hope will start the project.

kechris wrote:There are not rules for good players and rules for weak players. The rules are same for all players and the good players EVERYTIME will find faster solution for a new rule.

The problem with creating perfect rules is exactly that the rules are for everyone.

The direct free kick for every foul in the shooting area would mean for many players that you only need to get inside a shooting area, and you probably score.

You had some good thoughts there. For example that attacker chooses the number of flicks. But it can be too complicated to have too many changing things in the rules. Especially for the new players, who already find the rules very difficult.

About the distance. You could have the distance first in the rules, but then you would have to do it before the attacker's flick also.

The offside position of the ball needs just a clarification in the rules. The place doesn't matter so much in the end.

drastis wrote:
For me, the most stupid rule is the one that says you have no goalkeeper FOREVER if you make the unforgiven mistake to lose possesion while your spare goalkeeper is in. The easiness of forcing throw-ins is also outreageous for me. Also, sending the ball miles away with a throw-in is not realistic.

Just as an example of other possibilities I will mention, that in the Finnish rules the spare goalkeeper stays out everytime it leaves the goalkeeper's small are. But you get it back when you flick it back inside the are. Forcing is also forbidden and in the throw-in the distance of the ball (over one line) and the throwing figur (5cm to the field) is limited.

(Finnish rules are a completely different version of Subbuteo, maybe a bit like the year the 1980, but different in many ways. No polish, hw and lw figures, football is the key in the rules etc.)

drastis wrote:Many - many ideas about reforming the rules, making the game more interesting. As I have written again in the past, I had proposed to the previous BoD a Project for modernising the rules, but nothing happened. I think the new BoD should not touch any such matter, because they will ruin everything if they do. So, I will wait for the next BoD, which I hope will start the project.

I think a wide survey would be needed to see what people really expect or want from the game. Also regarding people who haven't played at all, how would they become interested. Peter Adolph did this before starting to sell his first sets. I know it would be a big job.

For example in Finland some players like the Finnish rules more because they are closer to the real game (same for the Italian Old Subbuteo players, and the British Advanced rules players, I think). Those guys are not very interested in the FISTF rules. I'm not saying that some rules are better than others, but I think there is something very wrong about a football based game, if it doesn't attract more people who like football.

Difficult questions. And I have no answers here and now.

Yes i agree with Drastis that the offside rule is very retro. And very difficult for new players.
I think that must change 100%.
I proposed last year a very simple version.

A figure in offside position cann't play for the ball. If it does, is offside.
If the ball touch a figure in offside position then it calls offside.
It is not realistic to do attack from the left side and a forgotten figure at the other side to called offside without taking part in offensive effort.
But the attacker can do onside blocks.
I think also that the figures which leave the table and fall down from the goalline then they will return back in pitch no in the middle of throw in line but in the closer corner.

VonK SAID THE TRUTH. People needs simple easy and realistic rules. Nobody wants to understand this.

von K. wrote:

drastis wrote:
For me, the most stupid rule is the one that says you have no goalkeeper FOREVER if you make the unforgiven mistake to lose possesion while your spare goalkeeper is in. The easiness of forcing throw-ins is also outreageous for me. Also, sending the ball miles away with a throw-in is not realistic.

Just as an example of other possibilities I will mention, that in the Finnish rules the spare goalkeeper stays out everytime it leaves the goalkeeper's small are. But you get it back when you flick it back inside the are. Forcing is also forbidden and in the throw-in the distance of the ball (over one line) and the throwing figur (5cm to the field) is limited.

Maybe I was a Finnish player in my previous life??

No joking, taking out the spare goalkeeper only after it has got back inside the small box seems very good option. As I had explained in one of my posts in the old-suddenly-disappeared forum, taking flicks trying to get your spare goalkeeper back to the small box is something realistic. Otherwise, if you feel that your defending flicks should concentrate to blocking the attacker, your goal remains empty, just like it happens with the existing rule. In any case, the defender has a disadvantage (not enough flicks to get his keeper back and block the attacker at the same time) and the attacker has to hurry up if he wants to find an empty goal in front of him.

I know the current rule replaced the old one to prevent players from using the spare keeper as a normal 11th field player. But, this has led to a ridiculous rule that allows the attacker to score into an empty goal after he has played the ball for minutes!! So, why not looking for other new rules to prevent the players from using their spare goalkeeper as a normal field figure?

Apart from the finnish-like rule, other ideas could be discussed. For instance, allowing a goal to be scored with the ball inside the defender's half instead of the shooting area, when the spare goalkeeper is on the field. Looks very realistic I think, and adds new thrills to the game.

I have been playing miniature wargames since the early 90s and I love the way wargaming rules always try to simulate reality. Play-testing is a widespread method. Rules change very often for the better, as it happens in almost all games. We must not be afraid of changing the rules, if changes make the game more realistic and interesting.

I hope the new BoD (I don't mean the current lousy BoD, I mean the one that will come out of proper elections) will include the clarification and modernisation of the rules in its top priorities.

drastis wrote:Apart from the finnish-like rule, other ideas could be discussed. For instance, allowing a goal to be scored with the ball inside the defender's half instead of the shooting area, when the spare goalkeeper is on the field. Looks very realistic I think, and adds new thrills to the game.

This has also been used in the finnish game unofficially, but only when the goalkeeper is out of the shooting area (in midfield). I'm not sure how it would effect the FISTF game, but maybe it should be tested as you suggested. Just to know what it would do.

drastis wrote:I have been playing miniature wargames since the early 90s and I love the way wargaming rules always try to simulate reality. Play-testing is a widespread method. Rules change very often for the better, as it happens in almost all games. We must not be afraid of changing the rules, if changes make the game more realistic and interesting.

Creating and developing rules so that the game is at the same time playable, interesting, realistic (if that's what people want) and surprising results are possible (one reason of making football the sport it is), is very difficult and demands play-testing and active development of the rules.

The game has to develop in to the direction the most players want, but development is always needed. In football it's a different thing (not much development), because the game is one of the most simple ball games in the world. Regarding the rules, that is.

Sorry Kostas, but please stop always saying nobody is interested in your ideas only because you are not a good diplomat.
My impression is that you can't work in a team with people who don't share your opinion, it has nothing to do with diplomatic, you are not able to combine your ideas with the ideas of other people. You have your view and that has to be done 100%, you don't accept only 60% and 40% from other people.
Another problem is that you become personal and attack people very fast, so it will be difficult to find people who want to work together with you. You are not a person of integrity, that isn't a thing of diplomacy.
You only post your ideas on forums, you never sent anything to the board with all your ideas. Instead of blaming people on forums 2 or 3 years ago, you should use that time to start on a paper where you write down all your ideas and that you should have sent to the board. That would be much more help than saying everytime the board is not interested in the matter of rules, or telling me I didn't do my job, because I was not active in that chapter. You saw a problem and you had ideas to solve it, but you preferred it to attack people or post some of your ideas on forums, instead of trying to help to solve it directly, like you do and did many times. (now the situation maybe is a bit more complicate, I can understand that)
I couldn't read your mind or wait for 3 years till you post every rule like you would like to see it.

kechris wrote:There are not rules for good players and rules for weak players. The rules are same for all players and the good players EVERYTIME will find faster solution for a new rule.
1. So i think that the rule for distance 4cm if the attacker ask it must change. Because we must put the ball EXACTLY ON THE POINT WHICH IS THE OFFSIDE PLAYER OR ON THE POINT OF FREEKICK. This is not possible so we move few mm the figures to put the ball. Why we accept to remove few mm but we have problem for 4cm?
2. the ball is moving when the referee must say off-side. How we select the point of ball to remove the offside player? My proposal is simple and clear. You didn't think if the solution is better but if this solution is better for weak players. I don't like this way when i find for solutions in rules.

I hate the rule for the distance. Because many times the referees remove my players in wrong direction. I think that if MUST remove the player 4cm then the referee put the ball (no remove again) remove the defenders and after the blocks. So i as defender know the position of my defender before my block. Many times i have see problems in matches for the distance. And the solution is so simple...

Martin you wrote for quickly freekick. In past i had an idea but nobody interest for this. My idea was that the attacker select the number of blocks. How? it is very easy. If in a corner the attacker do only one or two blocks then the defender must do the same number of blocks. If in a freekick or in a throw in the attacker decide no block then no block for the defender. This way is good to stop the illegal freekicks in last seconds by defenders and the slow blocks in corners. It is more realistic and more fair.

I have many good ideas for the rules but nobody interest because i am not good in diplomacy.

drastis, you told me that you would like to make that, that's right.
you also told me to send me your ideas, but you didn't do that.
of course there are some good things in this discussion, but you won't change the rules by posting here on the forum. I think Olivier is the sports director now, he already did a big change of rules in the middle of the 1990's as far as i can remember.
If you didn't want to send me, send it now to Olivier and ask for his opinion.

I don't think a big change of rules will be a problem, if the rules become easier and a bit more logical.

drastis wrote:

kechris wrote:There are not rules for good players and rules for weak players. The rules are same for all players and the good players EVERYTIME will find faster solution for a new rule.
1. So i think that the rule for distance 4cm if the attacker ask it must change. Because we must put the ball EXACTLY ON THE POINT WHICH IS THE OFFSIDE PLAYER OR ON THE POINT OF FREEKICK. This is not possible so we move few mm the figures to put the ball. Why we accept to remove few mm but we have problem for 4cm?
2. the ball is moving when the referee must say off-side. How we select the point of ball to remove the offside player? My proposal is simple and clear. You didn't think if the solution is better but if this solution is better for weak players. I don't like this way when i find for solutions in rules.

I hate the rule for the distance. Because many times the referees remove my players in wrong direction. I think that if MUST remove the player 4cm then the referee put the ball (no remove again) remove the defenders and after the blocks. So i as defender know the position of my defender before my block. Many times i have see problems in matches for the distance. And the solution is so simple...

Martin you wrote for quickly freekick. In past i had an idea but nobody interest for this. My idea was that the attacker select the number of blocks. How? it is very easy. If in a corner the attacker do only one or two blocks then the defender must do the same number of blocks. If in a freekick or in a throw in the attacker decide no block then no block for the defender. This way is good to stop the illegal freekicks in last seconds by defenders and the slow blocks in corners. It is more realistic and more fair.

I have many good ideas for the rules but nobody interest because i am not good in diplomacy.

My friend Kechris, a passionate person with very good ideas who finds it difficult to accept that sometimes other people may have their own different ideas. A real fighter in his personal life, a man who beat cancer, that sometimes gives people the impression he is always ready to fight.

Cool down my friend, people would pay more attention to your ideas if you were less passionate defending them.

Quick freekick (no distance) as Martin likes it, could match perfectly with quick freekick (no flicks) as you propose. The same goes for throw-in. It is a bit different with corner kicks, when usually defenders have the time to reform. Maybe in this case a minimum of two flicks and a maximum of four (attacker's decision) would be a nice idea.

As for the distance moves in off-sides flicks, I think that the figure should be moved parallel to the goal-line and it should be the attacker's decision which direction the defender should go (right or left).

For me, the most stupid rule is the one that says you have no goalkeeper FOREVER if you make the unforgiven mistake to lose possesion while your spare goalkeeper is in. The easiness of forcing throw-ins is also outreageous for me. Also, sending the ball miles away with a throw-in is not realistic. Players in off-side position should not be punished until they get involved, like in football.

Many - many ideas about reforming the rules, making the game more interesting. As I have written again in the past, I had proposed to the previous BoD a Project for modernising the rules, but nothing happened. I think the new BoD should not touch any such matter, because they will ruin everything if they do. So, I will wait for the next BoD, which I hope will start the project.

Heinz Eder wrote:drastis, you told me that you would like to make that, that's right.
you also told me to send me your ideas, but you didn't do that.
of course there are some good things in this discussion, but you won't change the rules by posting here on the forum. I think Olivier is the sports director now, he already did a big change of rules in the middle of the 1990's as far as i can remember.
If you didn't want to send me, send it now to Olivier and ask for his opinion.

I don't think a big change of rules will be a problem, if the rules become easier and a bit more logical.

It won't help anyone if we start the discussion again, if I had to send my complete set of ideas first or if you had to give me your OK before I did so. The fact is that I started this effort by sending you an introductory paper but I never got the green light from FISTF to go on with it, so I didn't.

After January I had thought of starting this with the current BoD, I sent a couple of emails to members of the BoD, but as usually I got no replies. Now I wouldn't start anything with this BoD, I respect Olivier very much, but I prefer not to be involved with the current situation in FISTF whatsovever. What I am going to do is to start this effort together with some friends, so that we will be ready with a solid proposal when there is a new BoD.

Heinz why you interest for my post? Maybe because you were my target for your wrong decisions in Greek matters in sport matters. Look what you left back? The same rules the same handbook a greek problem and many others. Now you critisize the new COMMUNICATION DIRECTOR the new secretary and all the new BoD.
But until 10 days before you supported the new BoD but when Catania ask Pere's help you change tactic. Maybe you wanted to continue as sport director.
Maybe i attack people very fast but you change side faster.In JANUARY elections you were with Vincent after elections you were with Catania and now you are against Catania's team. I cann't accept to send my ideas to persons who play table soccer only three or four years. Who can check my proposals? catania capponi tagliaferri koutroum all together is only one weekend of my career. I respect Pierro and Stefano as persons but they haven't my experience.
Look yourself. You were not so good player as me you are not so good in rules like me (last year i remember everybody had different opinion with you in forums) you didn't propose any new idea for tournaments like me but you were sport director for many years. Of course you have right. You are good diplomatic but me NO. I know and i accept it. But you could ask my opinion in past and you didn't. Everybody who had different opinion by you, you said him that he was wrong.
I asked to you before 2-3 months to stop critisize myself. I am not Public person. I am not sport director , i am not greek president i am a simple player. You can critisize me only as representer of OLYMPIA. I told you that outside of table soccer you are good guy and you did the best for me when i visited Wienna so i don't want to fight with you.
Good afternoon Heinz.

maybe you should read my post in the other topic.
what is so difficult to understand for you? tell me the part of the sentence.
I don't want to be in a FISTF Board anymore. Do you know it better than me, or do you think I lie, when I say I don't want to work for FISTF anymore? Do you need to know that I also refused to be on the list of Vincent for the elections in Rain? Is it easier then for you to believe the sentence?
If I'm your target then keep shooting, Kostas. Maybe you hit one day.

I only want to remember you that there were not all people agreeing on your proposals too and you didn't change even one word and come back with the same ideas again, because you are not interested in input of other people, you only want to hear that your ideas are great.
That's what you mean by saying you are not a good diplomat. People have to agree or they are not interesting for you, because as you wrote, you are such a good player and you are so old, that most people can't tell you anything better.
I even wouldn't be interested in trying to teach you something, but you started with your silly quiz question, so maybe in the first chapter are some things for you, which you didn't know before. So maybe you know something new now, even if it is from me and for sure wrong, because I lie, and my only intention is to be on FISTF Board

You must have a lot of time to create such theories.

have a nice evening.

kechris wrote:Heinz why you interest for my post? Maybe because you were my target for your wrong decisions in Greek matters in sport matters. Look what you left back? The same rules the same handbook a greek problem and many others. Now you critisize the new COMMUNICATION DIRECTOR the new secretary and all the new BoD.
But until 10 days before you supported the new BoD but when Catania ask Pere's help you change tactic. Maybe you wanted to continue as sport director.
Maybe i attack people very fast but you change side faster.In JANUARY elections you were with Vincent after elections you were with Catania and now you are against Catania's team. I cann't accept to send my ideas to persons who play table soccer only three or four years. Who can check my proposals? catania capponi tagliaferri koutroum all together is only one weekend of my career. I respect Pierro and Stefano as persons but they haven't my experience.
Look yourself. You were not so good player as me you are not so good in rules like me (last year i remember everybody had different opinion with you in forums) you didn't propose any new idea for tournaments like me but you were sport director for many years. Of course you have right. You are good diplomatic but me NO. I know and i accept it. But you could ask my opinion in past and you didn't. Everybody who had different opinion by you, you said him that he was wrong.
I asked to you before 2-3 months to stop critisize myself. I am not Public person. I am not sport director , i am not greek president i am a simple player. You can critisize me only as representer of OLYMPIA. I told you that outside of table soccer you are good guy and you did the best for me when i visited Wienna so i don't want to fight with you.
Good afternoon Heinz.

kechris wrote:I respect Pierro and Stefano as persons but they haven't my experience.

Many people agree with that, you know...