Back To The Future

How many solo players reset the play during games, better known to many I would imagine as a back.

I’ve heard many misconceptions and misinterpretations from players, ranging from backs are only used in Competition and Tournaments, to that they never appeared in the Subbuteo rules until the 80’s.

Surprisingly

You may already know or you may be surprised to learn that the “back” has been part of the game since the 40’s, it was used as a way to stop deliberate fouls by the defence when using whatever blocking rule was in use at any particular time. Whether it was intentionally included to curb deliberate fouls I have no idea. But if not it certainly goes some way to addressing that possibility.

During the late 40’s and early 50’s when only two blocks were allowed, any defensive misdemeanor had the ball replaced to the attackers advantage. Later as we enter into the 60’s when blocking flicks were allowed in blocks of 3, saw the inclusion of resetting the play at the attackers request, they could in fact play on if desired or demand a back.

After a back the defence lost any remaining blocks, and only regained them again in the usual way stipulated in the various rule-sets.

Move on to the mid 70’s, continuous blocking was now the norm except now defensive misdemeanors still evoked a back but only lost their next defensive flick in penalty.

In essence to actually commit a foul that resulted in a free kick one had to be in possession, blocking flick fouls only ever resulted in a back or play on.

Are They Needed In Solo?

Now that can only be answered by you as individuals. As I mentioned that could be seen as a deterrent to deliberate fouls, but how many solo players commit them to begin with. Most if not all defensive fouls could be classed as a mistake, I can’t really imagine any of us taking out a player deliberately when blocking, (Mind you we all have off days).

I have a confession to make, I use them but in a slightly different way to the “Traditional” rules. I treat all contact with an opponent before contact if any with the ball, as a foul in open play. The result of which is a free kick, but the side who is or gains possession has the choice, take the free kick or play an advantage.

My Version Of Advantage

My advantage rule is simple, and not a million miles away from the 60’s. If a side wishes to decline the free kick and play an advantage it has two choices. Simply play on from the current situation, or reset the play before the foul, and it's all based what is best in any given situation, that gives the best advantage. Usually if it's a direct free kick I usually take it, for no other reason than it adds to the excitement.

If a defensive block touches the ball, I also treat this as a foul for hand ball. So, no kicking the ball away for a defender having a temper tantrum, or a rush of blood to the head.

Obviously, an attacker will never commit a hand ball in this way, but it’s hardly here or there, or ever going to influence the price of potatoes.

Not only could this work in solo, it could also work in a two-player game, but I can’t see FISTF or any other Official rule set adding it as written anytime soon. But that’s hardly the point here, well at least not one I’m trying to portray or champion. It’s just a way that I find makes the solo game more to my liking. Treat every misdemeanor as a foul, and adjudicate accordingly. The number of backs that occur this way in my games is pretty limited on the whole. A defender if fouled will usually take the free kick, and a defender fouling during a block is negligible, but it happens, and the option’s there should I deem it necessary.

I Could Blame TFM But Why Bother

Now that’s a bold statement. I would imagine many of you have at some point seen Keith Littler’s excellent Table Football Monthly channel on YouTube, you may even be a member of his Patreon. But why he waves around the 1968 version of the rules like they are some kind of Gospel according to Peter Adolph makes little sense to me. I’m not too sure why the ’68 rules, you could quite easily quote the ’67, ’69, or even the ’72 versions they are so similar in context, but I digress. He’s produced a brilliant video on “His Version” of the 68 rules. I say his version because there are omissions, and alterations from the original rules, but it doesn’t really matter.

I’m not calling Keith out here by the way, I’m just making it clear to anyone that they are simply his take on the rules, as my take on things are mine, and I’m sure he would be the first to agree with that. I’d gladly if asked, play a game to his rules. There are things in his version I like, things I don’t, but I and probably others can say that about many of the versions out there official or not

Keith’s channel is very entertaining, and kudos to him he has probably brought many players back into the hobby, and probably encouraged first timers to try it out. He has amassed a loyal fan base and rightly so. Much of that is down to the hard work he has put into making the channel unique in the Subbuteo World.

I’m simply using his rule version as an example here, purely because they illustrate the differences in our mindset about backs. He clearly states that backs are not part of his rules, because they don’t happen in football so it has no place in his games. I kind of agree with Keith here, and if you’re playing against like-minded opponents, or even solo there’s a darn good case that backs are not required.

But, when you’ve played some of the “Oiks”, I have in competition, who would not think twice about kicking the ball into row Z, with a block to get a couple of positioning flicks, you can probably see that a back and loss of the block is more than fair punishment. It’s almost a necessity, irrespective if such things ever occur in football.

So, with all due respect to Keith, just because something doesn’t happen in football doesn’t necessarily mean it has no place in Subbuteo, it depends largely on the circumstances, the conditions one is playing under, or an individuals mindset.

So What’s The Point

Over the last few years, I’ve tried to hit home something I feel quite strongly about, that the solo player can do whatever he or she wants. What I do shouldn’t have any bearing on you, and vice versa. We do what we do to get the job done to our ultimate satisfaction. We can only take the opinions of others, and assess their value if any to ourselves.

If you want to play a back who’s stopping you, if you don’t who really cares. I use them mainly because old habits die hard, I’ve spent years playing where backs were the norm, and as such incorporated a watered-down version into my rules. It’s one of those tools that is inside the toolbox and gets an airing if and when it serves a purpose. For some it could gather dust for ever more, for others it may be dusted down and used more often.

Unlike some, I tend not to dismiss things I’m not a fan of, I just keep them in a safe place knowing they’re there if needed. Is everyone else wrong of course they’re not, and I for one see no reason to argue the point, it will never prove anything, or improve the games we all play and enjoy, we all handle things differently.

Finally

Love ‘em or hate ‘em backs exist and have done so for a very long time. They became a product of necessity for competitive games in my honest opinion, not so much in games with mates, or solo.

If I may be bold here and say that if you do use a back in your solo games, use it sparingly or design your rules, so they become a kind of last resort, and disrupt the flow of the game as little as possible. If you don’t or have any intention of using a back in your games fair play to you. I do and the frequency in which they are used would suggest they play very little part anyway. Like I mentioned old habits are usually the ones that last the longest.

Do you play backs or see them as something that has no place in your games? I’d be interested to find out.

Keep On Flicking

Ian