Play Beyblade Not Loophole Abuse - A Rule Change Proposal

Note: Cliff Notes Version in spoiler at bottom of post for the lazy.

Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means.

I was going to write an opinion piece/rant about people employing unsportsmanlike tactics to win at children's spinning tops, but someone I spoke to while drafting that pointed out that rule changes would have a lot more impact than my moaning, and somehow it was only then I realised that the main problems I'm aware of of - Fake-Outs and Timewasting, can actually be addressed pretty easily with rule changes - and fairly simple ones that have precedents, at that!
Rule changes won't directly address the root of the problem - that's a 'cultural' thing, but they can set a strong precedent about what we consider "right" and "being a jerk", and as I said, they're a lot more effective than my grumbling. So, here we go:

Why This Needs To Happen

The reason deception tactics (in particular, fake-outs) are unfair is because they aim to weaken the opponent rather than strengthen oneself - it undermines the opponents ability, as opposed to things such as getting better parts, learning what your opponent will likely use through observation etc, or learning how to sliding shoot or aggro launch a defense custom, which bolster your own ability without affecting the opponent.

The quote from Wikipedia's Cheating Article at the top of this post is particularly poignant when you consider that we openly call this deception - a synonym for dishonesty. In almost every other mainstream competitive game or sport, weakening your opponent is considered cheating. Football teams don't hire people to break the opposing striker's leg before matches, chess players don't slip their opponents strong laxatives before matches, and so on. Heck, seeing a coach in the Australian Football League play down a victory in the post-match press conference because the opposition were without their three best players due to injury is a thing that happens. Sure, some boxers will play mind games before fights (though they are generally considered bad sports for doing so), but they don't bribe someone to slip their opponents sedatives before the fight - mind games do not present them with an Auto-Win situation even if they work about as well as they can. And then there's us, openly discussing and boasting about how we made sure we didn't have to rely on skill or thorough understanding of opponent or either our or their beyblades so that we could beat them at competitive children's spinning tops. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think this is how it should be.

Furthermore, it reflects badly on the WBO as a sanctioning body (our primary purpose), to parents, new tournament attendees, sponsors, and distributors. I dislike excessively intrusive parents as much as the next guy, but is it really any wonder that they complain when an older teen/young adult/actual adult fools their kid into using the wrong combination rather than playing them at full strength, just to win a game of tops? Especially when you consider the intimidation factor they already have to their advantage.
One of the primary reasons the World Beyblade Organization began was because Hasbro does not allow anyone over the age of 14 to compete in their tournaments, and I ask you, are we really making a good case against that?

Perhaps this opinion that deception tactics are not fair clashes with tradition, but that tradition began when the community was small and nowhere near as varied as it is today. Now, we actually get sponsorship from and communicate with distributors, and it's time to shape up to the standards set by other competitive games/sports. So please, can we all agree to play tops rather than "make other people suck at tops"?

Commonly Exploited Loopholes and How To Close Them

1. Fake-outs.
If you are wondering why I think this is a problem that needs to be fixed, you should probably read my extended rant here, but the core of it comes from Wikipedia's Cheating article:
"Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means."
In context, fooling your opponent into using a combination you can predict/counter undermines their ability, unlike getting better parts, learning what your opponent will likely use through observation etc, or learning how to sliding shoot or aggro launch a defense custom, which bolster your own ability. We're here to see who is best at tops, not who is best at making their opponent suck at tops.

It also tends to really annoy parents when older bladers do it to kids, and upset kids too. That's not good for our image, to bladers, parents, potential sponsors, and almost certainly the distributors themselves.

Solution: This has been proposed before, but I don't think there was an appropriate rebuttal of WHY Fake-outs/deception need to be removed. Now I've done that, here's the suggestion again: Double Blind all the time.

-Both players turn around, facing away from each other, and select and attach their beyblades and launchers, and tell the judge when they are ready. Once BOTH players have signalled they are ready, they then turn around and begin the match.

-Judges should be on the lookout for bladers who purposely fail to conceal things- if it is obvious they are doing it to gain an advantage (primarily if they show one top/launcher and then use something else etc), in the first instance during a tournament a verbal warning should be issued and selection restarted, if a blader does it again, then it should be an automatic loss for that match - after the verbal warning, bladers will be careful to avoid doing it again anyway. And yes, this apparently does occur and thus needs to be addressed.

- To minimise fake-outs before the selection period begins, both bladers should arrive at the stadium for their match with their beyblades and launchers concealed, be it in a suitably opaque bag, container, etc. It would be good if hosts bought a few spare opaque bags for attendees who mightn't notice this rule, but most people seem to bring bags with them anyway. This could be mildly inconvenient, but as this will be the most convenient/obvious fake-out method remaining if/when double-blind-all-the-time is implemented, we need to be proactive about it, and this is the simplest solution I can come up with.

- Keep in mind that 'punishments' are only to be enforced where a blader displays one combo and then uses something else. If for some reason they want to show their opponent their actual combo, that's their strange, strange choice. They should still be recommended not to, however, as a lot of people will feel uneasy about that kind of advantage. If it happens, for a few months these rules are implemented, I think hosts should strongly discourage this to prevent any second-guessing shenanigans, but there's no real need to make a rule for that unless it becomes a serious problem.

- To be practical, I feel the time limit on selection needs to be reduced as four minutes is a very long time, but more on that in my other recommendation.

2. Wasting time to annoy opponents.
2a: In Stalling Clause/Double Blind Picking:
-We currently allow a whole 4 minutes for Beyblade assembly once stalling clause is caused.
-The most complicated Beyblade parts swap I could think of, swapping the casings between two plastics zombies with SP-equipped bases and dual bearings for extra fiddliness took my shaky hands a whole 1:35 - and 30 seconds of that was one of the sets of casings getting stuck together and my fingernails being too short to pry them apart - which is something the extremely small number of people who would have to do this at a tournament have a responsibility to prepare for, honestly.
-So, 4 minutes is far too long, and people are abusing this to annoy their opponents. This was brought up at AN this year, so I think it needs addressing.

Solution: Reduce the length to 2 minutes.

-Before anyone objects that this is too short, I suggest simulating having to select/assemble a Beyblade for a tournament. Unless you have taken a bag full of hundreds of miscellaneous parts (which is your own fault), you won't take a whole minute to find parts and assemble a Beyblade - and most people tend to have combos pre-assembled.

2b: Wasting time getting to the stadium.
I wish I could say this was just a proactive measure to prevent an alternative to the above, but I've heard of this happening a few times. The rules don't lay out a timeframe for getting to the stadium for a beybattle, and this is exploitable. However, as complications can occur, we need to allow for them.

Solution: 2 minute limit, with reshoot-clause-styled exceptions for emergencies.

- 2 minute is plenty of time to be called for a match and get to the stadium, especially as it is the responsibility of participants to know when their next match is. Judges should ensure bladers are made aware that they are due for a match. I just yell really loud (especially because I'm bad with remembering names/faces). It's generally considered a blader's responsibility to know when they're due for a match (I have another proposal that will make this easier, but it's complicated/requires a bit of work on my part and a lot of discussion, so I'll save it for another day and thread).


-Exceptions can be made in the case of 'emergencies', and that is things that are actually a problem: important phone calls, temporary incapacitation (minor injuries), unexpectedly extended toilet breaks etc, which should be limited to two times per tournament. The odds of emergencies happening when you're due for a match twice in a single tournament are pretty much zero (as in, this could probably be limited to once per tournament and still be fair, but two is a lot more palatable). While this involves the judge's discretion, it limits it just like the reshoot clause. When an extension is granted, the next match should occur instead, and the person granted the extension should be at the stadium when that match is completed. Perhaps a minimum extension limit should be put in place in case the matchup ends up being attack vs stamina with no self-KO's, 5 minutes should be plenty IMO (which would make it "by the end of the next match or 5 minutes, whichever is longer).

-For clarification, matches should be reported in the order they actually occurred, not the order they were supposed to occur.

---

wpardin posted what basically amounts to a Test Case of both of these measures HERE, which shows them to be practical, beneficial and equitable. Definitely something you should read if you have doubts.

That's it, for now anyway - there is at least one more proposal I intend to post, but that both requires a lot more work on my part before it is due for posting, and is mainly something that needs to be discussed with hosts, so that'll go in organizer's circle.

I think I've made a strong case for why this needs to happen, for both the game and the WBO, as well as outlined practical, precedent-based solutions, but I'd love to hear from hosts, attendees, and parents on their thoughts on this, any concerns, issues, or general feedback is greatly appreciated. I will say that I do feel very strongly that rule-abuse strategies are tantamount to cheating, so I'm sorry if I'm somewhat dismissive of counter-arguments that may be raised, but I'll do my best. :)

Also, if you feel there are any other loopholes that are commonly abused under the guise of 'tactics', feel free to post them and any possible solutions you can think of, though I would ask that we remain focussed on the suggestions in this OP (which may be updated if I feel it is necessary/can be bothered).

One final note: I would request that if you disagree about deception etc being wrong, that you first check whether you use these tactics at tournaments, and if so, perhaps consider that you might not be entirely objective about this, but either way, at least state that you do in your response.
Me? I've got nothing to gain/lose either way given I don't like competition much anyway, main bias is being excessively idealistic and perhaps not taking competitive beyblade seriously enough, but I think mainstream sports set a strong precedent there for what is considered "being competitive" and what is considered "being a cheat" anyway.

Cliff Notes Version: (Click to View)

Deception and other rule abuse tactics focus on weakening your opponent rather than battling with both of you at maximum strength. This is generally considered "cheating" in other sports/games, and should be in beyblade. It reflects poorly on us to new bladers, parents and potential sponsors. It needs to change.
-The two rule-abuse methods I am most aware of are Fake-Outs and Timewasting.
-The former can be addressed with double blind picking being mandatory (and judges should make sure competitors don't try to work around this rule). Having competitors arrive at the stadium with their beyblades in opaque containers/bags etc to prevent any pre-selection fake-outs would also be a good step, and is not a big hassle for organisers aside from bringing a couple of extra opaque bags for anyone who didn't read the rules and didn't bring a bag of their own anyway.
-The latter can be addressed by reducing the time limit to 2 minutes. For reasoning on this limit and why it is plenty, you'll need to read the full version.
-Furthermore, time taken to get to the stadium also needs to be addressed, and 2 minutes after being called should be plenty, with two exceptions per person per tournament allowed for legitimate cases of unavoidable delays (important phone calls, unexpectedly long toilet breaks, minor injuries), as these things rarely happen at all at the same time as a scheduled match, let alone twice a tournament. This is basically the same policy as used for Reshoot Clause, which sets the precedent IMO.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

I feel as if you may have missed some abusive actions, however I do like how this concern has been raised!
I am glad to say that the solution to problem one has been long implemented in London, as it tends that almost all matches must be with backs turned and judges keeping watchful eyes on both bladers.

In the past I have witnessed blatant lying from the other blader's behalf, in the case where the other blader had agreed to have locked his beyblade onto the launcher, and we turned around with only my blade locked on, and the other blader allowed to counter my chosen bey. In my opinion I believe the judge should have taken better precautions to stop this trickery, so I believe for all loophole abusing to stop, it's down to judges to stop unsportsmanlike behaviour in general.

---

Youtube Channel Here | Read my Story Here | Credit to Omega for the Signature

Member of The Elite Five | Visit my MFB Store (UK only)

You were not really in such a tournament scene though. At BEYBLADE REVOLUTION, most of the Beyblade selection ended up being 'double blind' anyway because, most of the time, Stalling Clause visibly had to be invoked. Also, try telling kids about hiding their Beyblades : most are extremely shy or have serious attention disorders, so their parent will actually take care of listening to the usernames being called and other things. Their parents however cannot be by their side for every match they have, especially in the settings of a crowded tournament. They could therefore not constantly remind them to hide their Beyblade and launcher from their opponent. Plus, honestly, most of these kids come with only one Beyblade anyway, and I saw mostly cases of each Blader not caring for strategical combination choice, or both caring a lot about it and requiring the Stalling Clause anyway.

What really bothers me and that I think is the actual moral issue here is when the Stalling Clause has not been invoked yet, and that, when asked by the judge, a Blader says they are attached, but actually are not and they wait for their opponent to turn around with their Beyblade selection really attached. If you say you are attached or that you nod when asked if attached, that should be it, it should be a magical sentence that you cannot lie about. It did seem to hurt the one or two Bladers I saw this happen to during BEYBLADE REVOLUTION.


About Stalling Clause, you forget that it can take quite a while to actually think of the Beyblade combination that you want to use. When you do not know what the other player will use, you are way more in the dark, whereas it would even take you a while to remember what counters what if you actually knew what they were going to use. You try to think of what you briefly saw them use in their previous battles, you ask your friends for advice, etc. That can definitely take more than two minutes, especially if you do not want to be pressed too much.

At Anime North, yes, Stalling Clause was used a lot, but what overall made a lot more damage to the time spent was all the Stamina battles with all the ties, as well as finals that were Round Robin and usually involved way too many people.

So is there a particular punishment for lying during a tournament when it comes to "cheating" during or before a battle? I'm sure if someone lies about locking a blade onto their launcher, they must re-select their blades, but also there should be a one round auto-loss for this act?

---

Youtube Channel Here | Read my Story Here | Credit to Omega for the Signature

Member of The Elite Five | Visit my MFB Store (UK only)

@ Control_: Woah hey, nice to see your posts again man! I think I cover everything you mentioned in the following response to Kai-V, but yeah. As for judges stopping unsportsmanlike behaviour, while I agree, that's very hard to make into an actual rule and enforce, and make sure it isn't abused. Closing the loopholes as we find them is the next best thing as I see it.

You were not really in such a tournament scene though.

This is not relevant. While I realise I had a very, very pleasant tournament scene, I still hear what happens in others, and no one seems to argue that it happens, many openly admit that they do these things... It seems like you're undermining me rather than responding to my argument, but perhaps I'm being overly defensive because of how much I want to see these loopholes closed haha.

At BEYBLADE REVOLUTION, most of the Beyblade selection ended up being 'double blind' anyway because, most of the time, Stalling Clause visibly had to be invoked.

So...? It should be the case for every battle anyway... Whether or not is is already common doesn't matter. Perhaps this was just an aside though.

Also, try telling kids about hiding their Beyblades : most are extremely shy or have serious attention disorders, so their parent will actually take care of listening to the usernames being called and other things. Their parents however cannot be by their side for every match they have, especially in the settings of a crowded tournament. They could therefore not constantly remind them to hide their Beyblade and launcher from their opponent. Plus, honestly, most of these kids come with only one Beyblade anyway, and I saw mostly cases of each Blader not caring for strategical combination choice, or both caring a lot about it and requiring the Stalling Clause anyway.

I had a few young kids at my tournament, and as judge I did my best to help them with things they weren't aware of and so on. They managed to pick it up decently, but then I am pretty good with kids and the kids were pretty well behaved.
If they come with one beyblade, sure it's kinda pointless but they should still go through the process anyway because, well for starters it's a long and annoying to word exception and there's also blade/part borrowing in a lot of places meaning that a person's number of tops will vary throughout the tournament haha. In my experience, if people watching understand the rules, they will also help the kids follow them, which will help with explanations. Either way, I think it's a necessity, deception is so commonplace in a lot of places that we really have to address it, and this is a small price to pay to do so. Also, I don't think this is really any harder than explaining reshoot clause when it happens against a kid.

What really bothers me and that I think is the actual moral issue here is when the Stalling Clause has not been invoked yet, and that, when asked by the judge, a Blader says they are attached, but actually are not and they wait for their opponent to turn around with their Beyblade selection really attached. If you say you are attached or that you nod when asked if attached, that should be it, it should be a magical sentence that you cannot lie about. It did seem to hurt the one or two Bladers I saw this happen to during BEYBLADE REVOLUTION.

Yes that is completely wrong and the way I see it that is already covered by the rules - when stalling clause ends both bladers should have their beyblade selected and attached, and if you indicate your beyblade is attached, your selection is set... I'm surprised this went unpoliced at AN of all places... Seeing as it's apparently not clear enough as things stand, this absolutely needs to be clarified - to put it simply: you do not lie to a judge. I will update the OP whenever I am up to doing so to include this.
In my opinion this should be an auto-loss of the entire match - again, you do not lie to a judge, I honestly can't fathom the thought process that would make someone think about that and then decide "yes this is an okay thing to do". I'll try to word it as officiously as possible when I do write it up (likely tomorrow, I've been typing almost non-stop all day) in case it saves you time adopting it if you choose to do so - to me it seems that you really should rush that through, as it is now public knowledge.

About Stalling Clause, you forget that it can take quite a while to actually think of the Beyblade combination that you want to use. When you do not know what the other player will use, you are way more in the dark, whereas it would even take you a while to remember what counters what if you actually knew what they were going to use. You try to think of what you briefly saw them use in their previous battles, you ask your friends for advice, etc. That can definitely take more than two minutes, especially if you do not want to be pressed too much.

Perhaps if you are supremely indecisive (i.e. more so than me - and I've edited the OP about 15 times since I posted it to correct small things/wordings and formatting), but that's something you need to improve, and the cost is people exploiting the rules to gain an unfair advantage. 4 Minutes is an extremely long time to wait for a battle, and speaking as someone with anxiety issues, if someone made me wait that long it would make me very unhappy. At the tournaments I hosted, selection took about 30 seconds max, maybe a minute if people were nervous. The time could be made Two Minutes for all generations, perhaps, but that's about it, we really can't pander to people who are way too indecisive if it means other bladers are being disadvantaged by people exploiting the rules.
I'm honestly generally a little slow in thinking things over and even I find remembering what counters what very simple, so I do not know where that comes from...
Honestly, I just don't think you've got the time in the right frame of reference, personally. Assembling an HMS or MFB combo only takes a few seconds, remember I was swapping parts between two examples that are as complex as a beyblade can get, and had something go wrong, and still only took about 1:30. Swapping the Running Cores of two HMS beyblades, which I am not used to doing, only takes me a fraction under 25 seconds. I don't have any MFB out but that wouldn't be too much longer, and it's a competitors responsibility to have their parts organised before a match (and I think most people with enough beyblades to have to sift through parts will also have read the rules).

At Anime North, yes, Stalling Clause was used a lot, but what overall made a lot more damage to the time spent was all the Stamina battles with all the ties, as well as finals that were Round Robin and usually involved way too many people.

I am not aiming to reduce the time tournaments take - that's merely a positive side effect. The fact is, some bladers do waste time deliberately to annoy opponents. At least one, who I won't name here, has openly admitted that, and I can't say that it is against the rules at all - but it should be.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

Yeah this things shud be done.. its correct!!!

---

Well, Back on this site for a while. Have missed Beyblade a lot hah.

It is not covered already because, as I mentioned, Stalling Clause was not yet invoked ... If one Blader is supposedly attached, then there is no real need to invoke Stalling Clause because then we are visibly only waiting for the second Blader to make their Beyblade selection.

What could be done (because everything I mentioned about indecisiveness is true from experience both as a judge and as a Blader) is that if either of the two players has decided and attached their Beyblade selection, then the second Blader automatically has only one or two minutes left in the Stalling Clause, if adding that time would not already extend past four minutes in total. If both take four minutes to decide though, nobody is aggravated or whatever.

That's a very good idea actually, I certainly would agree to them having a one minute time frame after one blader makes up their mind, with a four minute maximum overall. Two extra seems excessive to me, but perhaps also make sure that both bladers have a minimum of 1:30 to prepare if they need it? That prevents people attempting to rush their opponent too badly, now I consider what you've said. I'll come up with an appropriate wording sometime tomorrow, if you think this is acceptable.

However, I maintain very, very strongly that double blind should be the standard, and thus stalling clause would no longer be a thing - these would just become regular 'selection rules'. I really do not feel that without making double blind standard, we can remove the ability for people to try to gain an unfair advantage over others through deception. While you said that it is hard to explain to kids, I did include the point that unless someone shows a blade and then selects another, it is not really a problem, but that judges should simply discourage it (as it kinda cheats the opponent out of a legitimate win against you at full strength), and there was what I said about blade borrowing etc etc. You can't rely on people to force stalling clause all the time if they don't want to face deception because at the very least, them seeing their opponent staring at a particular combo will cause them to second guess themselves if nothing else.

RE: Lying to judges - it's still lying to a judge and that should still be auto-match-loss, it undermines the judge's authority for starters. I guess I got confused with what Control_ said and misread what you wrote, but yeah. I just felt this was common sense and I'm honestly pretty shocked and disappointed that it needs to be spelled out for people... I'll definitely include it in the OP ASAP (tomorrow after I have woken up properly) and write up a draft rule for the rulebook to make it as easy to implement as possible, seeing as this needs to be addressed quickly.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

There is something to be said here about the ability of the presiding judge to maintain control of the beybattle and opponents. I have seen instances when stalling clause is invoked and during that time the players just walk around trying to get a peek at what their opponent is going to do or even use a confederate to signal to them.

The presenting of beys seems to work best when the judge calls the players to the bey stadium and then have them turn and require them to remain with their backs to each other until the judge has confirmed both Beyblades are attached.

The current rules seem adequate if the judge is diligent and competent.

I agree with th!nk on his Blind Out part-
I deceived BladingSpirit5, by putting the LR to left, and constantly talking to gameboysuperman, this sentence(Audible enough for BS5 to hear), "I think I should use Meteo, it will be beneficial for me", when I knew BladingSpirit5's 1st choice was Dragooon BD145 RDF. So he plugged it into the launcher, I took no time in switching to R, and using Death Aquario W145 WD.
I defeated him...
I felt bad...

There is something to be said here about the ability of the presiding judge to maintain control of the beybattle and opponents. I have seen instances when stalling clause is invoked and during that time the players just walk around trying to get a peek at what their opponent is going to do or even use a confederate to signal to them.

The presenting of beys seems to work best when the judge calls the players to the bey stadium and then have them turn and require them to remain with their backs to each other until the judge has confirmed both Beyblades are attached.

The current rules seem adequate if the judge is diligent and competent.

That is how it is supposed to be, backs turned and staying that way, haha. The rules should specify this and that the judge has to ensure that involving confederates etc doesn't happen. I will make sure any draft rules I right specify this. Judges are supposed to be competent at that kind of thing as a prerequisite for being judges, too.

zeneo: Yeah, I don't really get why people feel comfortable with deception, haha. It always struck me as 'pretty obviously cheating', personally, like if the show involved people selecting their beyblades like in real life, "deceiving the opponent into choosing something you can easily counter" would be used to signal "these guys are the baddies". It was only today, with the help of a friend, that I really realised that there was a fairly simple way to both explain why it is wrong, and to make the rules prevent it. It's been on my mind for a long time.

Kai-V: Probably also worth mentioning/reminding you that if necessary I have the ability to edit the format the rules are saved/published in, though I forget if the fonts for it are on this laptop or my old one (though I think it's this one). Just in case that can speed things up once it is all approved, seeing as I think the sooner any improvements are made to the rules the better, and I know you are all extremely busy with the beypoints system upgrade haha.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

So, back to the judge asking if you're attached, some of them don't do it. But why about looking at their launcher before battling? I strongly feel that if it were double blind, that left spin *COUGH* Dragooon *COUGH* would be picked almost all the time. Personally I don't like Dragooon because I think it's a cheap win, but it is how it is
Because I know a lot of bladers that look at launcher choices before a match.

---

Veteran, just getting back into the sway of things

Ah well, I was one of the people who confessed to using "deception".
In a recent tournament, I used a technique that quite resembles the "Fake-Out" as described here. Due to various issues of Beyblade robbery in India, I had carried just two-three beyblades. I heavily overused a combo, and had hence kept it in my hand throughout. People however, failed to notice how I held my other two combos along with my launcher (in the other hand, of course).
Expecting me to use my overused combo, most members used its several counters- but that was when I changed my choice.

Stalling Clause was only once invoked by my opponent (Maximum Dranzer), and that too, against his wishes. Few of his friends forced him to invoke the Stalling Clause. Meanwhile, my opponent started a discussion with his friends- making it pretty obvious what he would use. So I changed the combo I held, and well... That's that.

The Rule-Change proposal seems quite justified to me.
The Indian-Metagame (more correctly the Mumbai Metagame) is quite full of deception-tactics. Most of us (including me) considered it a necessity because of how a handful of players overpowered everyone else with the latest top-tier parts- which were almost broke in our Meta.

However, if the Stalling Clause is used the way it was meant to be; and if one is actually good enough at predicting stuff, we can eliminate the use of deception quite easily.

---

Team IB Revolutions

Thanks to N0body for the avatar and Synth for the signature!

Expecting me to use my overused combo, most members used its several counters- but that was when I changed my choice.

And that also shows your opponent trying to use information of previous battles to his advantage, something I doubt the rules could ever cover.

I think everybody here should agree that, no matter how beneficial and easy it is for you, using the "loopholes" of abusing the given time-frame and fooling you opponent is an unfair tactic that puts the odds in your favor, therefore, something should be done about it. I agree with the Double-Blind choosing, with verification of the choice verbally and visibly to the judge, including a penalty for lying to the judges. I don't really know if it should be a single loss, or an entire match loss, but some penalty needs to be enforced for lying to a judge. That should never go unanswered or unenforced.

4 minutes as a time-frame for the entire match sounds like a good idea to me, that is, if it includes traveling to the stadium as well. I'm also a fan of the idea of shortening the time when one blader is ready with his choice and launcher while the other is not.

---

Yeh, i do think some rule changes are needed due to deception etc.

In reply to the Double blind suggestion, i really do think that it should become an official rule. A lot of people in the UK/London scene turn around so they are back to back anyways. However as it isn't a necessity when i am turned around with my back facing my opponent, if my opponent isn't turned around then i get the feeling that my opponent is taking a quick glimpse over my shoulder to see what i am selecting, that also prolongs my decision as well as giving my opponent an upper hand if they can actually see what i am doing. So if it is an Official Rule i also believe the selection period would be a lot shorter as it should be the only thing you're concentrating on instead of being worried about whether or not your opponent can see what your picking. I know i would be more relaxed when selecting beys that way as i'm sure other people will be as well. In addition you wouldn't be able to roll a random bey behind you (on purpose) to try and trick your opponent into thinking you are using that bey as your opponent would be faced away from you.

However i do not entirely agree with the idea of shortening time to 1 minute. As some bladers may only have one of each part, so therefore if all of there combos revolved around a B : D, then every time they wished to change combo they would have to disassemble and reassemble a different bey. Then you've got to allow time to try and think about what your opponent may be using, then think of a counter, then you have doubts, then you try and think of a bey that counters mainly everything your opponent uses etc. Well thats what goes through your head if you're me... XD If anything, shorten it to 3 mins minimum, as to me, this isn't a big problem.

Maybe, if both bladers have signalled to the judge that they are locked on then the judge could do a 5 second count down for the bladers to be turned facing eachother with both beys locked on, if not then it would be an automatic disqualification.

Just thought i would share my input..

---

Currently #15 in the World! :E

So just to recap the points mentioned,

- Double Blind written in the rulebook.
- Penalty for lying to the judge.
- Elaborate the 4 minute time allowed.

Am I missing anything?

Expecting me to use my overused combo, most members used its several counters- but that was when I changed my choice.

I'm also a fan of the idea of shortening the time when one blader is ready with his choice and launcher while the other is not.

Well, that idea seems awesome. However, as all bladers would have a short (yet more-than enough) time-frame of 1 minute, shortening this time-frame is somewhat illogical and pressurizing.
I also expect people to misuse this.

While there are people who disturb their opponents by stalling for 4 minutes, there will be people harassing opponents by making a quick choice and leaving very little time for the latter.
You may suggest that introducing such time-reducing rules inspire people to be ready with their combos from the very start- and once such a short-notice-selection must be made, they would be required to choose from the combos which they've already prepared (which shouldn't even take 10 seconds, so yeah).
However, it is illogical to shorten the time limit to an extent where a blader is unable to assemble a certain combo.

No doubt, there might be ways to make this suggestion successful, but IMO, it is not a necessity at the moment. It would only quite work as a gimmick and soon turn into a tool for deception- if it is not implemented correctly.

---

Team IB Revolutions

Thanks to N0body for the avatar and Synth for the signature!

Hm, and there I was expecting a lot of resistance to deception being cheating/people trying to depict it as a tops-related skill. Counterbalances the "people actually lie to judges" thing a little, haha.

@BHK: 3 minutes minimum is a very, very long time in the context of waiting for a beybattle or even rushing to assemble a combination for it, try to put yourself in that situation right now if you can. Swapping B onto another beyblade takes about 10 seconds, honestly. I don't have my MFB around to time this like I did for Plastics and HMS but I think that's an accurate estimation - it's much simpler than both, and the tools for MFB are more useful. Even if it takes 30 seconds, you still have a good minute of thought - which is a legitimately long time in context. For plastics, the only system where assembly is actually a difficult/annoying thing, the type of people who need to do it are generally able to prepare for it. Perhaps the minimum could be extended slightly for plastics (it's not exactly a complicated exception, and it is entirely a measurable, physical difference in the series versus it's successors). Still, do imagine someone is deliberately keeping you waiting on a cold winter day. It happens. It shouldn't happen.

Also, and I think this is very important to this particular line of discussion, do remember that selection time is not the only time a blader has to decide what combo they will use. Me, I usually work it out as I observe what people are using/what their tendencies are throughout a tournament - and I managed to do this while hosting and judging my first tournament on 2 hours sleep and dealing with kids etc etc, and I know a lot of good bladers do a lot of the working out before the tournament begins and then make adjustments as they go. So, perhaps early rounds aside, you generally have a lot more time to decide than just the selection time.
If people don't do this already, is a ruleset that encourages it a bad a thing? Though, I really do think 1:30 minimum is enough, especially as your opponent will have chosen their beyblade in under 30 seconds, you have double that left for consideration.

Personally, I think one minute after the first blader declares he is ready (and is telling the truth ) with a minimum of 1:30 total if needed, and a maximum of 4:00 is very equitable to everyone. The only issue is that it's a little annoying to explain concisely off the top of my head, but I'm tired of writing for the day, so I'll almost certainly come up with something 'nicer' tomorrow.

Oh, by the way, as for your issues with stalling clause/being worried about other bladers peeking, if this doesn't get implemented and/or in the mean time, I would suggest forcing stalling clause by exaggeratedly 'trying to see your opponents beyblade', so even the most oblivious judge can't miss it. Literally bring binoculars if you have to haha. The rules that state it has to be called in that situation are cut and dry, and it only serves to remove a possible non-tops-related advantage (or related interference) from BOTH bladers, so there's no moral issue with it.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

Well, that idea seems awesome. However, as all bladers would have a short (yet more-than enough) time-frame of 1 minute, shortening this time-frame is somewhat illogical and pressurizing.
I also expect people to misuse this.

The suggestion I was talking about was in the sense of the 4 minute time-frame, if we're talking about the 1 minute time-frame then shortening this is illogical, as you said.

While there are people who disturb their opponents by stalling for 4 minutes, there will be people harassing opponents by making a quick choice and leaving very little time for the latter.
You may suggest that introducing such time-reducing rules inspire people to be ready with their combos from the very start- and once such a short-notice-selection must be made, they would be required to choose from the combos which they've already prepared (which shouldn't even take 10 seconds, so yeah).
However, it is illogical to shorten the time limit to an extent where a blader is unable to assemble a certain combo.

The situation you're stating is somewhat unrealistic simply because MFB combos are extremely easy to assemble, it should not take more than 1 minute or 1:30 to choose a combo and assemble a well-thought combination. Unless you come to the tournament completely unprepared, you should have at least some idea of what you're going to use already.

---

Yeh okay i get the point that it might not take a lot of time if your an experienced blader. However if you're a lot younger you might not be as organised, and therefore it could take them a bit longer to just find the part, especially if it is your first tournament. Also parents may not like the fact that their child is being rushed into making a selection and therefore make a mistake in choosing.

I do remember in one match against Blitz when i was rushing my selection i accidentally locked on a Gravity Perseus BD145 CS instead of RDF, i lost that match, now if i did lock on the RDF i would of won the match. However my head was in a slightly different place as i was fairly upset about my Phantom B flying into the river that day.

Do you really believe that the 4 minute time to lock on is that big of a problem? Yes, it can be slightly annoying if you are waiting, however i doubt you could really call it cheating, since it doesn't give them an upper hand other there opponent, it just gives them more time to select and be relaxed which effects them not there opponents choice or performance. I would be completely fine with 3 minutes to choose a bey however. I guess in 2 minutes i would still be able to assemble a combo etc easily however i would be a lot less relaxed in my choosing.

---

Currently #15 in the World! :E

The intent of timewasting is to annoy the opponent, to mess up their launching and so on. While not as bad as fake-outs, it's still bad sportsmanship and it's getting abused, and it does actually really annoy people. Again, I don't think you realise how long even one minute is in context. The 4 Minute thing was questioned at AN this year somewhat, too, but this only gets worse in outdoor tourneys in winter. For my own personal background, even when I was busy, had next to no sleep, and was hosting and competing in my first tournament at the same time and with my anxiety issues, selection never took me more than a minute, even when I had to make a quick tip swap. 4 minutes is pretty horrendously long, haha. Most of the time people will get at least two minutes to decide, but yeah. If there are any more objections that 1:30 is too short, a minimum of 2:00 if needed could be discussed but that would be it, really, anything longer is too exploitable for annoyance (even 2:00 is really pushing it in my books but on the upside, it's easier to remember and most people have a vague idea of what two minutes is). Do remember that as I said, there's more than selection time for actually choosing your combo, and an MFB takes all of 20 seconds to assemble.

If only a simple "don't waste time to be a jerk" rule could be implemented and enforced fairly, hahahaha

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

Yeh i totally understand the fact that it is annoying etc. However it is just bad sportsmanship, not cheating. Its like in Football (Soccer), if you don't shake your opponents hand before the game (In the instance of Luis Suarez and Patrice Evra), it is not cheating however it may affect your opponents game if your opponent lets it get into their head etc, it's just bad sportsmanship. However purposely aiming for the opponents legs in a tackle to injure them is just out right cheating AND bad sportsmanship therefore they could recieve a yellow/red card.

If you are purposely time wasting, it is just poor sportsmanship. However if they choose to play like that you can't stop them because by reducing time limit you affect others that are not intentionly wasting time. So the bladers that are innocent in this, get punished as well by there time being reduced.

---

Currently #15 in the World! :E

The thing is I feel - and other than you, I get the feeling (though perhaps I'm being dismissive/selective, IDK) that other people seem to also agree - that four minutes is just not necessary, as in changing that doesn't really disadvantage anyone, but decreases the ability of people to gain an advantage through poor sportsmanship - or more accurately, decreases their ability to undermine their opponents ability through poor sportsmanship, because that is what it aims to do - make them mess up their launch. Not so significant outside of attack users/you using stamina them needing to aggro launch a defender, but every bit counts. It's not as important as preventing deception but it should still be addressed and I don't think this we're actually cutting out time, I sincerely doubt that most people would even notice a reduced limit if it were changed silently - most places don't exactly employ stopwatches for this, after all, but we do need to write rules so they can't be abused by the sorts of people who want to win at any cost short of actually breaking the rules, so we need to be specific and cut away the unnecessary, exploitable parts of rules.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

Yeh, i also think 4 minutes is a bit too long. However my ideal time would be 3 minutes. Like i said, i guess 2 minutes would be fine but i would be slightly panicky and i wouldn't be as relaxed as i would like to be. So a lot of younger bladers will be a lot more pressured and therefore could make mistakes in there choosing.

---

Currently #15 in the World! :E

Just because a stalling clause is invoked does not mean that the contestants have to use the entire 4 minutes. I don't see how the amount of time used for the stalling clause gives either contestant an unfair advantage as they both have the same time to utilize. It would be an unfair advantage to allow one player to utilize more time than their opponent but that is not happening.