NAF World Headquarters
Rules Questions - So, is passing required?
pfooti - Mar 01, 2004 - 09:59 AM
Post subject: So, is passing required?
In the WA discussion, it came out that the LRB is inconsistent in its description of the Pass action. On p8, it says at the end of the Pass action you must throw the ball, and on p13 it says may. I've always played it with may.
Under most conditions (say 90% of the time), I will end a Pass action with a pass. There are times when I decide against it. For example: I blow a reroll on my first GFI roll, and decide that the pass has become too risky. I fail to break my ballcarrier away from the tentacled player marking him. After looking more closely at the board, I realize that there are two passblockers standing right near my intended receiver.
The last example doesn't mean that I will cancel a pass after declaring a target, making an official measurement and allowing my oppo to move his passblockers. At that point, I'm locked in. But I could (maybe) decide against actually throwing the ball at any point before designating a receiver.
So, under most conditions, may-pass and must-pass are the same. But there are good times when the may-pass interpretation adds more strategy to the game, which would be turned into weirdness by the must-pass interpretation (for example, can the passer throw to himself?)
Any FAQ/clarification will have to be supplemented by a change to the LRB, since the current rulebook isn't just unclear, it is self-contradicting.
mikeyc222 - Mar 01, 2004 - 11:47 AM
Post subject:
i would say that you can change your mind and hold on to the ball but the pass action is wasted
Melifaxis - Mar 01, 2004 - 12:25 PM
Post subject:
Galak posted in the other thread that MAY pass the ball is the way he plays it and they'll try to clear it up. We play with MAY. This gives the thrower the opportunity to hold off on the throw after seeing how the defense reacts (pass block).
Zombie - Mar 01, 2004 - 12:33 PM
Post subject:
We've always played with "must".
Regardless of how you play, after the pass blockers have moved, it's too late, you have to throw. I think that's in the description of pass block. I'm sure it's somewhere.
Zombie - Mar 01, 2004 - 12:35 PM
Post subject: Re: So, is passing required?
pfooti wrote:
can the passer throw to himself?
No, it clearly says that it has to be to a teammate. This is the same reason why catching his own accurate pass, though it avoids a turnover, doesn't give him a completion and the SPP.
Melifaxis - Mar 01, 2004 - 12:44 PM
Post subject:
Yup, my bad on pass block. Once they (a defender with pass block) move you must throw.
pfooti - Mar 01, 2004 - 12:54 PM
Post subject:
Yah, I definitely hope Galak's interpretation is the one they end up using. Chet seems to have come down on the other side (in that thread at least).
As far as turnovers go, it seems a little odd that a "bounce pass" doesn't cause a turnover. As far as I read the rules, if the ball hits the ground but bounces into a teammates hands, it doesn't count as a completion, but it is not a turnover. This seems inconsistent with the instant-TO flavor of fumble (what if you fumble into a teammate's hands?)
As a matter of fact, I once (as a desperation move) tried to make a bounce pass. I threw at the empty square in front of my receiver (who was in the endzone), got the right bounce (1 in 8 chance!) and failed the catch. It was in the final of our league tournament and would have pushed the game into OT (instead of if being a loss for me).
mtn_bike - Mar 01, 2004 - 01:23 PM
Post subject:
I certinally hope it goes from may to must. We play may but I think if you declare any action you must go through with it or its a turn over. I've played in games where since the RR was used on a dodge or someother action the player won't make the block in a blitz or throw the pass. We had an ongoing debate over pass/handoff mistake. There has been games where coaches miscount and say "I didn't realize I could make the handoff. It's the same in the book without the pass roll." It's because they used their RR to get out of a TZ. I know if they had that RR to back them up they would make the pass further down field or to the QP player for the SPP's.
pfooti - Mar 01, 2004 - 01:29 PM
Post subject:
Well, there is a difference betweeen the may-pass rule and trying to turn a Pass action into a Handoff. If you declare Pass action, you can't turn it into a Handoff, any more than you could turn a Move into a Blitz or Foul action.
Count squares ahead of time. If you're hedging because you don't know if you'll blow a reroll on a dodge halfway there, you're cheating. Declare the Pass and make a very short pass.
But it makes sense to declare (and possibly waste) a Blitz action and then decide not to throw the block when you waste your RR getting there. Consider throwing a desperation half-die block on a ballcarrier, I've done it, but if I don't have Strip Ball or a Reroll (preferably both) going for me when I get there, I won't make the hit. Remember, I've wasted the Blitz action no matter what (I can't declare another one this game).
Zombie - Mar 01, 2004 - 01:34 PM
Post subject:
mtn_bike wrote:
I certainly hope it goes from may to must.
It wouldn't "go from may to must". For that, it would have to be "may" currently. It's not. Currently, it's both. You play "may", i play "must". Both are just as valid the way the rules are written now.
Darkson - Mar 01, 2004 - 03:34 PM
Post subject:
pfooti wrote:
As far as turnovers go, it seems a little odd that a "bounce pass" doesn't cause a turnover. As far as I read the rules, if the ball hits the ground but bounces into a teammates hands, it doesn't count as a completion, but it is not a turnover.
Not quite.
If the pass was Accurate (ie you made the Pass roll), and the ball ends up in the hands of one of the throwers team-mates, it's a completion.
If the pass was Inaacuare (ie you failed the Pass roll, but didn't fumble), but still ends up in the hands of a team-mate it's not a completion, but it's not an Turnover either.
Indigo - Mar 02, 2004 - 03:14 AM
Post subject: Re: So, is passing required?
Zombie wrote:
This is the same reason why catching his own accurate pass, though it avoids a turnover, doesn't give him a completion and the SPP.
Not sure this is true.
LRB 2, pg 39 wrote:
Note that the ball must be caught by a player from the moving team or it's not a completion.
So in the event a pass is accurate but not caught and it bounces into the thrower's square who then catches it, it's a completion.
Galak's GenCon 03 quiz had a very similar question to this too and the answer was the same - the completion is awarded.
Darkson - Mar 02, 2004 - 03:37 AM
Post subject:
Indi, check LRB p.39:
Code:
Completions (COMP): A player who makes an
accurate pass that is caught by another player earns 1
Star Player point. An accurate pass is called a
???completion??? or complete pass. Note that the ball must
be caught by a player from the same team, otherwise
it is not complete!
Cleary states it must be caught by another player from the same side.
Indigo - Mar 02, 2004 - 03:57 AM
Post subject:
Hmmm I need Galak to step in here and clear up my confusion. He said it was OK to me 
Darkson - Mar 02, 2004 - 04:02 AM
Post subject:
What, you don't trust me? Believe me it's true 
. My Vamps in the MBBL did exactly that. Vamp 1 threw to vamp 2 in the EZ, and accurately threw the ball. Vamp 2 dropped it (on a 1 
), the ball bounced out of play. Crowd threw it straight back at vamp 1, who caught it. I asked Gala then, and he told me it's not a completion, as it was not caught by another player on your team. So vamp 1 had to do it himself next turn 
.
Doubleskulls - Mar 02, 2004 - 04:29 AM
Post subject:
The last Rules Review specified that to get the SPP only the intended receiver can catch the ball.
Zombie - Mar 02, 2004 - 04:32 AM
Post subject:
Are you sure about that? I haven't seen that anywhere!
Darkson - Mar 02, 2004 - 05:01 AM
Post subject:
Haven't seen that either! 
Doubleskulls - Mar 02, 2004 - 05:23 AM
Post subject:
Maybe I'm mistaken, as I can't seem to find the reference now either. I did raise the issue with SkiJunkie about the JavaBowl client - but he said the BBRC had clarified it.
Tutenkharnage - Mar 02, 2004 - 06:22 AM
Post subject:
It said no such thing. Neither did we, to the best of my knowledge. But to get a completion point, a player has to meet the following requirements:
1. He threw an accurate pass.
2. A team-mate caught the ball.
-Chet
Mordredd - Mar 03, 2004 - 09:38 AM
Post subject:
We have always played must throw, for the simple and elegant reason that it's the only way to interpret the rules in a non-contradictory fashion.
LRB p8
Quote:
Pass: The player may move a number of squares equal to his MA. At the end of the move the player must pass the ball.
LRB p13
Quote:
Once per team turn a player on the moving team is allowed to make a Pass action. The player is allowed to make a normal move, and after he has completed the move he may throw the football.
The problem comes when you reduce the entire passage on p13 to the single word "may". Taken out of context it is easy to see it as stating that throwing the ball is optional. Read as part of the whole passage it can also be read as saying "the player is allowed to throw the ball after making his normal move". It is then not about whether the player is required to throw the ball but about the sequence of the actions he can take, i.e. he can move then throw but not throw then move, or move then throw then move again.
In other words you can either replace the word "may" with "has the option to", or with "is allowed to". Both are valid substitutions, but only the second doesn't contradict the definition of Pass action on p8.
Doubleskulls - Mar 03, 2004 - 09:55 AM
Post subject:
@Mordredd,
I think that is probably the most sensible interpretation of the text.
IIRC pp13 is the same wording as 3rd ed - while pp8 is the LRB 1.0 text so ought to carry greater weight too.
I'd still prefer the rule to be may.
Clan_Skaven - Mar 03, 2004 - 10:17 AM
Post subject:
Mordredd wrote:
We have always played must throw, for the simple and elegant reason that it's the only way to interpret the rules in a non-contradictory fashion.
LRB p8
Quote:
Pass: The player may move a number of squares equal to his MA. At the end of the move the player must pass the ball.
LRB p13
Quote:
Once per team turn a player on the moving team is allowed to make a Pass action. The player is allowed to make a normal move, and after he has completed the move he may throw the football.
The problem comes when you reduce the entire passage on p13 to the single word "may". Taken out of context it is easy to see it as stating that throwing the ball is optional. Read as part of the whole passage it can also be read as saying "the player is
allowed to throw the ball
after making his normal move". It is then not about whether the player is required to throw the ball but about the sequence of the actions he can take, i.e. he can move then throw but not throw then move, or move then throw then move again.
In other words you can either replace the word "may" with "has the option to", or with "is allowed to". Both are valid substitutions, but only the second doesn't contradict the definition of Pass action on p8.
I agree, on page 13 they are saying once per team turn a player may make his normal move, & he may then throw the ball. (that is true in any turn i play, I may do that. Not sure where the argument is.) On page 8 however, After declaring a Pass you must throw the ball. (The must is put there because a Pass action was declared) The may is there just to let you as a player know that you are allowed to make a pass at any time once per team turn, but you must make that pass after you have declared it.
I have in the past misinterpated other rules, but this one in my opinion, is very clear & easy to understand. But then again we can all look at the same rule & get totally different opinions on it.
Rod
pfooti - Mar 03, 2004 - 10:26 AM
Post subject:
Mordredd wrote:
We have always played must throw, for the simple and elegant reason that it's the only way to interpret the rules in a non-contradictory fashion.
...snip...
In other words you can either replace the word "may" with "has the option to", or with "is allowed to". Both are valid substitutions, but only the second doesn't contradict the definition of Pass action on p8.
Not really. When you go to starbucks, you are allowed to purchase a latte. You are not required to. When you travel by air, you must have your bags searched.
I think the "may" on p13 is unreconcileable with the "must" on p8. You can finesse it, but by doing so what you're really doing is saying: "I believe (a priori) that the rule should be must-pass and here's my justification for it" rather than "Because of these reasons I have come to believe that the rule should be must-pass".
I admit, I had the a priori belief that the rule should be may-pass (largely since because that's the way I've been playing it (possibly incorrectly, I will admit) since 3ed.
This is simply an area where the letter of the rule is impossible to comprehend, and the spirit of the rule is unknown. Let's put it to the BBRC next october and find out.
Finally, despite what I just said, if you agree that the page 8 rules say must and the page 13 rules say may, then the rule is may-pass. There is an established way to handle contradicting rules, the rule that is later in the LRB takes precedence.
Consider an AG6 player throwing a long bomb and getting a 2. The passing rules say this is accurate, the fumble rules say this is a fumble. The fumble rules, being later in the book, take precedence. The same argument can be made for the must-pass and may-pass rules on p8 and p13 respectively.
pfooti - Mar 03, 2004 - 10:34 AM
Post subject:
Clan-Skaven wrote:
LRB p13
Quote:
Once per team turn a player on the moving team is allowed to make a Pass action. The player is allowed to make a normal move, and after he has completed the move he may throw the football.
I agree, on page 13 they are saying once per team turn a player may make his normal move, & he may then throw the ball. (that is true in any turn i play, I may do that. Not sure where the argument is.) On page 8 however, After declaring a Pass you must throw the ball. (The must is put there because a Pass action was declared) The may is there just to let you as a player know that you are allowed to make a pass at any time once per team turn, but you must make that pass after you have declared it.
Look again at the rule on p13. "Once per team turn ... allowed to make a Pass action". Okay, that means you are allowed to declare up to one Pass action per team turn. The next sentence describes the content of a Pass action: "The player is allowed to make a normal move, and after he has completed the move he may throw the football."
Note that it doesn't say: "After he has completed the move, he throws the football" or "he must throw the football". No, it says "After he has completed the move, he may throw the football". In the absence of the rule on p8, I'd say this is perfectly clear as a may-pass rule.
The only thing that confuses the issue is the fact that on page 8, the rules say "The player may move a number of squares equal to his MA. At the end of the move the player must pass the ball."
But look at what I highlighted in the p8 rule. This means (strictly interpreted) that a player passing the ball may either move his MA or not move. It doesn't say "move up to his MA", and it also doesn't say "may make a normal move", which means that according to the p8 rule, a passing player may not GFI. But we all know that to be rubbish. Of course you can GFI when you're passing the ball. The rule was misworded. It is altogether possible that the word "must" was a mistake as well.
Doubleskulls - Mar 03, 2004 - 10:50 AM
Post subject:
Don't spend too much time deconstructing and interpreting GW rules. For down that path lies madness and insantity. They aren't lawyers even if some of you are...
What about Hand offs?
pfooti - Mar 03, 2004 - 10:55 AM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
Don't spend too much time deconstructing and interpreting GW rules. For down that path lies madness and insantity.
What does it say about me that this is my fun-time break? I'm working on my dissertation, so thinking about this stuff is a break from my real work, but keeps me sharp in ways that HALO wouldn't.
Clan_Skaven - Mar 03, 2004 - 11:10 AM
Post subject: sorry
Sorry if I mis-quoted ith LRB. But that does not change the facts.
Once per team turn a player on the moving team is allowed to make a Pass action. The player is allowed to make a normal move, and after he has completed the move he may throw the footbal.
(All this rule on page 13 is saying is, its telling you what you can do by passing the ball. If anything its a step by step instruction to tell you what you as a coach will need to make a pass)
The page 8 quote deals less to do with passing & more to do with Player Actions.
What I think people are mixing up here is, the quote from page 8 is telling what you must do after you declare a Pass Action. The Quote from page 13 is telling you what you may do if you do decide you are going to declare a pass action.
I bet this would not be as much of a confused issue, if the 2 quotes were in reversed order in the LRB.
Page 8. deals with what is done after a Pass Action is declared
Page 13 deals with what can be done if a Pass Action would be declared
I still think the clarity of this rule is as clear as a window. Anyone still disagree?
Rod
pfooti - Mar 03, 2004 - 11:50 AM
Post subject: Re: sorry
Clan-Skaven wrote:
Sorry if I mis-quoted ith LRB. But that does not change the facts.
Page 8. deals with what is done after a Pass Action is declared
Page 13 deals with what can be done if a Pass Action would be declared
I still think the clarity of this rule is as clear as a window. Anyone still disagree?
I do.
I don't think you misquoted the LRB. But I think you're misinterpreting what it means. Both p8 and p13 say something about what what happens before, during, and after a Pass action is declared. Which you believe is up to you.
Mordredd - Mar 03, 2004 - 11:50 AM
Post subject:
Quote:
Not really. When you go to starbucks, you are allowed to purchase a latte.
Yes but if you declare a "purchase latte" action you have to follow through and pay for it. 
Quote:
I think the "may" on p13 is unreconcileable with the "must" on p8.
But you are wrong, as I have already explained. 
Quote:
You can finesse it, but by doing so what you're really doing is saying: "I believe (a priori) that the rule should be must-pass and here's my justification for it" rather than "Because of these reasons I have come to believe that the rule should be must-pass".
Er, no. I used the different definitions of the word "may" to arrive at the two different possible interpretations of the rule as written on p13.
Quote:
This is simply an area where the letter of the rule is impossible to comprehend
Again, wrong. It is comprehensible and I have explained it.
Quote:
Finally, despite what I just said, if you agree that the page 8 rules say must and the page 13 rules say may, then the rule is may-pass. There is an established way to handle contradicting rules, the rule that is later in the LRB takes precedence.
Again, wrong. There is the basic rules and the advanced. Once you have integrated the advanced rules into the basic then the advanced take precedence in the case of a contradiction. Both p8 and p13 are in the basic rules, so neither can over rule the other. The fumble rules are in the advanced rules section.
Quote:
In the absence of the rule on p8, I'd say this is perfectly clear as a may-pass rule.
Yes, very clever except that the rule on p8 is there. You can't just pretend it isn't to justify your position.
Quote:
But look at what I highlighted in the p8 rule. This means (strictly interpreted) that a player passing the ball may either move his MA or not move.
This is daft. Nowhere in the text does it say he must move his full MA. (Unlike passing where there is). It says may make a move equal to it, which can be read as giving him the option of moving less. In addition, as GFIs are in the advanced section they will not have been taken into account in the wording of the rules in the basic section. There is no evidence to suggest that "must" was a mistake, so unless it is changed "must" remains the rule.
Clan_Skaven - Mar 03, 2004 - 12:38 PM
Post subject: missing the point!
I think many are missing the point! (& an easy one at that)
I'm going to sound like a broken record but the referance to page 8, explains what must be done after a Pass Action is called.
Page 13, is just in general letting you know what any player on your team may do.
I hate to bring a real life situation into a game, but if it will help get my point across I will.
Going into a Store, I may spend money to purchase an item.(its not saying that I'm obligated to buy an item in the store. Just that apon entry into the store I may spend money to purchase an item.)
Once I declare that I'm going to spend money on that item, I must spend money on it.(Now after I have declared I want to buy the item, I now must spend money to purchase that item.)
Going back to the Pass dispute. This argument is like comparing apples to oranges. On one side you have a description telling you what you may do if you are to call a Pass Action. (pretence)
On the other side you have a description telling you what you must do "after" a Pass Action is declared.
Anyone get where I'm going with this, or am I completely alone on this one?
Rod
Bevan - Mar 03, 2004 - 02:28 PM
Post subject: May or must Pass
If you must pass the ball after declaring a pass why does the rule for Pass Block say "The opposing coach is not allowed to change his mind about passing the ball after the player with pass block has made his move".
This rule would not be be necessary unless the opposing coach (making the pass) was permitted to change his mind before any pass blockers moved. Clearly the pass block rule was phrased that way because making the pass is not normally required.
I'm firmly on the side that says that the actual pass is not compulsory, unless pass blockers have moved.
Tutenkharnage - Mar 03, 2004 - 02:57 PM
Post subject:
Pass Block has nothing to do with it. That rule is there to keep the thrower from tossing the ball to a different team-mate. The progression:
1. You measure to several people.
2. You pick one.
3. The Pass Blockers move.
4. You make the throw.
In the absence of any PBers, the sequence is this
1. You measure to one or more team-mates.
2. You pick one.
3. You make the throw.
Three other points:
1. "May" is used in a legal sense to mean "must," not "has the option to." Look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me.
2. The guys who write the rules are not rules lawyers.
3. The more tightly you try to define a rule, the harder the lawyers will look for the loophole.
-Chet
pfooti - Mar 03, 2004 - 03:30 PM
Post subject:
Tutenkharnage wrote:
1. "May" is used in a legal sense to mean "must," not "has the option to." Look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me.
2. The guys who write the rules are not rules lawyers.
3. The more tightly you try to define a rule, the harder the lawyers will look for the loophole.
Point 3 first. Tightly or loosely defined rules are one thing. But clearly defined rules are another. I would say my arguments along these lines (and in the WA foul thread) stem from the rules being unclear, rather than poorly defined. As long as I know what the rules actually are, I'm happy. I don't want to have to find out which version of the word "may" you're using in each setting.
Dictionary.com wrote:
may
To be allowed or permitted to: May I take a swim? Yes, you may.
Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility: It may rain this afternoon.
Used to express a desire or fervent wish: Long may he live!
Used to express contingency, purpose, or result in clauses introduced by that or so that: expressing ideas so that the average person may understand.
To be obliged; must. Used in statutes, deeds, and other legal documents.
Huh, look at that. The word "may" can mean "must" in certain lawyeresque settings. I learned something new today. I guess I will concede the point to Chet, given that he's one of the people behind the rules. I contend (and this is a different point) that the LRB is unecessarily confusing (consider all the different people who said "but that's not the way I play it") and should be cleared up. As this is not a rule change, it could take place immediately (along with clearing up the must-foul ruling in conjunction with the new WA stuff).
But I further contend that a may-pass rule would encourage more interesting play. Ahh, house rules.
ZFurelli - Mar 04, 2004 - 02:45 AM
Post subject: Re: missing the point!
Clan-Skaven wrote:
Going into a Store, I may spend money to purchase an item.(its not saying that I'm obligated to buy an item in the store. Just that apon entry into the store I may spend money to purchase an item.)
Once I declare that I'm going to spend money on that item, I must spend money on it.(Now after I have declared I want to buy the item, I now must spend money to purchase that item.)
Rod
But if i'm at the counter and I discover that I don't have enough money am I still forced to buy the item, maybe doing some washing up for the little old lady who runs the place.
Seriously, I can see both sides of the arguement. Chet makes a good legal-ese point regarding must/may but there is still confusion. Not having to pass added tons of extra tactics with the old Hand-off rules, now its just risk management.
I have to say that it has never come up in any of my games but I was always under the impression that I could choose not to throw the ball away and waste my Pass just like I could choose not to block as part of a Blitz action.
Furelli
Darkson - Mar 04, 2004 - 01:49 PM
Post subject:
If (in the case of passing) 'may'='must' why not just change the word to must?
Or can't the LRB handle a single letter added?
Clan_Skaven - Mar 04, 2004 - 04:34 PM
Post subject: hmm
As far as I know (& if I'm wrong please tell me), but Chet, is he not a member of the BBRC?
If so then does his ruling not stand as the truth?
That being said how can there be anymore debate on the topic?
Rod
Zombie - Mar 04, 2004 - 06:10 PM
Post subject:
Chet is only one of seven BBRC members. What he says is his own opinion only. It could very well be that he'd rule one way but the other six BBRC members would vote the other way. It ain't official until the BBRC itself (not just one of its members) publish an official answer.
Clan_Skaven - Mar 04, 2004 - 09:01 PM
Post subject: Ok fair enough
Ok fair enough Zombie. What is your official opinion on this subject?
Zombie - Mar 04, 2004 - 09:10 PM
Post subject:
There are two different contradicting official rules in the book. Until this is cleared up, each league must decide which way to go. Like Chet, i've always played with the must pass version.
Clan_Skaven - Mar 04, 2004 - 09:47 PM
Post subject:
The way I read it, its not a condradiction. The may is telling you just what you can do in general with your team. (like you may move all players one square, you may do nothing with all of your players, you may do any number of possibilities, one of which is to pass the ball)
To me the must comes in only after you declare a Pass Action, like I already have stated one has to do with what things you can do in the game, & the other deals with what you have to do once you declare an action.
For example you may paint your BB team whatever way you please. But you must paint your BB team to play in a Tourney. (Both "may" & "must" are dealing with painting modles, but the 2 examples really have nothing to do with one another. Same as with the 2 Quotes in question, IMO even though they both deal with the Passing part of the game, they are used in 2 different ways, that they really have nothing to do with each other.)
See what I'm getting at? Way I see it the only contradiction is the 2 words "may" & "must" themselves, but how they are used in the 2 different quotes are really 2 different areas of the game. Yes they both deal with Passing. But not directly in the same way.
Does anyone agree with me here?
Thanks Rod
pfooti - Mar 05, 2004 - 10:29 AM
Post subject:
Clan-Skaven wrote:
The way I read it, its not a condradiction. The may is telling you just what you can do in general with your team. (like you may move all players one square, you may do nothing with all of your players, you may do any number of possibilities, one of which is to pass the ball)
Does anyone agree with me here?
Well, I don't. And I've said it before. The p13 phrase says "The player is allowed to make a normal move, and after he has completed the move he may throw the football." It seems like that phrase tries to lay out what the content of a Pass action is. You are allowed to move, after which you may throw.
At this point it seems like Zombie's right. Until and unless the BBRC issues a ruling, we're all going to have to agree to disagree. But there's good news: this situation will almost never come up anyway.
Mordredd - Mar 05, 2004 - 11:16 AM
Post subject:
Quote:
At this point it seems like Zombie's right. Until and unless the BBRC issues a ruling, we're all going to have to agree to disagree.
Except that Zombie is wrong (dead wrong ). As I have pointed out there are two dictionary definitions of "may" that you can use when reading p13. Have a look at the relevant post by pfooti above where he has conveniently quoted a dictionary.
I know there is this whole "GW writes self contradictory rules books" concept going round but I find it unbelievably stupid for people to insist on reading the LRB in such a fashion. Especially so as it has been pointed out that a perfectly reasonable, and conventional, reading of the rules where there is no contradiction is possible: by myself, someone who is still arguing that the rules contradict themselves ( ) AND A MEMBER OF THE BBRC!
I would even go as far as to say that anyone still arguing that the rules say both "must pass" and "has the option to pass" are guilty of being incompetent rules lawyers. (Incompetent because no proficient rules lawyer would get tripped up so easily by a quick reference to a pocket Oxford English dictionary.)
As one final kick in the teeth to the "GW rules must always contradict themselves where possible" camp here's another quotation from the LRB.
Quote:
If the ball scatters or bounces off the field or into the kicking team's half, the receiving coach is awarded a 'touchback' and may give the ball to any player in his team.
Is anyone going to argue that it's optional and that you don't have to? If so, then who gets the ball?
pfooti - Mar 05, 2004 - 11:38 AM
Post subject:
Mordredd wrote:
troll snipped....
Where was I? Oh yeah, extending an olive branch, agreeing to disagree peacefully. Hmm. Well, if Mordredd can do it, so can I. The heck with it, the rules say what I want them to say because I said so.
Up until last week, Galak (a BBRC member) contended that you must block during a Blitz action. He changed his mind (perhaps because of gentlemanly discourse on these boards). One BBRC member does not a ruling make. Neither have you (Mordredd) developed any arguments beyond your first "semantic analysis" post.
So where do we stand? Agreeing to disagree, and agreeing to not call each other "stupid" or "incompetent". For that matter, I find being labelled a "rules lawyer" derogatory (especially since you're using it as such).
But hey, I understand how frustrating it is to keep repeating the same points over and over and have people not believe you. Why, I even muttered an obscenity when I read your last post, Mordredd. But I didn't type it in, because this should remain a forum in which we don't resort to namecalling out of frustration.
Finally, another argument for my side: the rules on page 8 are a summary of all possible actions. The rules on page 13 are a detailed description of what goes on in a pass action (there are similar detailed descriptions of blocking, etc). So which should take precedence?
Darkson - Mar 05, 2004 - 04:46 PM
Post subject:
Tbh, I agree with pfooti. Maybe the intention that the word "may"="must", but as an English speaking Englishman, I never realised there was a legal version od "may", and I doubt many others do to.
Apedog - Mar 05, 2004 - 05:05 PM
Post subject:
We've always played 'may' and thats how I read the rules, but I do see the point of it being must, otherwise I could declare a Pass (or Handoff) action everytime I move the player with the ball. If he doesn't throw it no one else will that turn.
OTOH what does it matter, I could pre-count the squares before I declare the action and know what the range would be and whether I want to throw.
Just to add to the confusion how about a hypothetical situation. I declare a pass then move my thrower only to realise that theres no players on my team in range of a throw (unlikely but maybe it's a gobbo). For those who play 'must', do I have to throw to an empty square?
Bevan - Mar 05, 2004 - 07:05 PM
Post subject: Must pass?
For those that rule that a pass action must end in a pass, what happens when an Ogre declares a pass action but fails the bonehead roll. Is the pass optional or complusory?
Another situation that could arise is where the ball is on the ground and a player declares a pass action. While moving towards the ball he requires a reroll to pass a dodge and decides not to continue with the go-for-it and pickup to get the ball. Can the player be forced to make these extra rolls to get the ball and then pass it? Most of our previous scenarios assume the player already holds the ball so no extra roll is needed other than the pass.
Zombie - Mar 05, 2004 - 08:51 PM
Post subject:
Must means that you have to do it unless prevented by uncontrollable circumstances. Failing a bonehead roll is one of those things that you just can't control.
As for your second example, yes, we have always forced the coach to go ahead in this kind of circumstances. It's happened to me a few times in the past. I don't mind, since that's the rule (or at least that's what i thought the rule was, we know now that we don't know).
Clan_Skaven - Mar 06, 2004 - 01:55 AM
Post subject: Bonehead
But if you declare a Blitz with an Ogre & you fail your Bone Head roll, you lose your Team's Blitz action that turn. So would that also not be the same if you were to declare a Pass with the Ogre who failed his Bone Head roll? Since a Blitz & a Pass are actions you can only do one of per turn. If Bone Head can waste your Blitz, it would seem it would also waste your Pass.
Apedog - Mar 06, 2004 - 12:06 PM
Post subject:
For the GFI example, I would have thought that if you can't be made to go for it to make a second frenzied block, the you shouldn't be made to, to pick up the ball on a pass action either.
Clan_Skaven - Mar 06, 2004 - 12:27 PM
Post subject: but
But on the Pass or pick up the ball & then Pass, you would (should) have already known the GF risks involved before you were to Declare an action. I think once any Action has been declared it "Must" be carried out. I'm not saying this on just personal liking or opinion, but because thats how I think the game was meant to be played!
Clan_Skaven - Mar 06, 2004 - 12:34 PM
Post subject: but
Apedog wrote:
For the GFI example, I would have thought that if you can't be made to go for it to make a second frenzied block, the you shouldn't be made to, to pick up the ball on a pass action either.
It says under the frenzy traight that you have to follow up on a push back & hit one more time. So yes you do have to hit again, provided you do have more movement left, & only then do you have the option to not use the traight on a GFI. That is because of a traight description, not a basic game rule description.
You can't compare Traight use to basic game rules.
pfooti - Mar 06, 2004 - 01:27 PM
Post subject:
I'm fairly sure you can't be forced into going for it in any circumstances anymore (now that the frenzy thing has been cleared up). Forcing a GFI seems Just Bad.
I'd say under the must-pass rules, if you ended up out of range of any legal receivers, you'd still have to pass the ball to an empty square (maybe the one right in front of you, maybe you'll end up with it anyway.
I've tossed the ball to empty squares in the past (kind of a last-minute punt to keep the other team from scoring.)
Mordredd - Mar 06, 2004 - 01:59 PM
Post subject:
Quote:
Another situation that could arise is where the ball is on the ground and a player declares a pass action. While moving towards the ball he requires a reroll to pass a dodge and decides not to continue with the go-for-it and pickup to get the ball.
To be honest I'd never considered that situation. Mostly because whenever it has happened the player has always gone on to try anyway, without pause for second thought. With no exceptions, all the way back to the release of third Ed.
Just like Zombie, I would make the player go through with it.
Mordredd - Mar 06, 2004 - 02:52 PM
Post subject:
Quote:
The heck with it, the rules say what I want them to say because I said so.
Well it does seem to be the main tenet of your argument.
You have certainly provided no evidence that what you've been arguing is more reasonable or logical that what I have been.
Quote:
One BBRC member does not a ruling make.
True, but I have been arguing that a ruling is not needed. I mentioned this as much because you didn't take anything I said as being even remotely possible until Chet confirmed it. It's like you're saying to me that only a BBRC member can be trusted to read the LRB or look up words in a dictionary. In fact you strongly implied that I'm not qualified to read a book and then tell someone what it says in the WA thread, and then you complain about me insulting you!
Quote:
Why, I even muttered an obscenity when I read your last post, Mordredd. But I didn't type it in, because this should remain a forum in which we don't resort to namecalling out of frustration.
I too have muttered many obscenities over this debate, none of which have made it to this forum.
It is important for you to realise that me finding the line of reasoning stupid is quite different from accusing individuals of being stupid.
As for the rules lawyer jibe, you looked up the word in a dictionary but you're still insisting that there can only be one possible interpretation. What's that about? It's a bit like those drivers who insist that using a mobile phone has no effect on their chance of having an accident, even after it has been experimentally proven that it does.
Quote:
Finally, another argument for my side: the rules on page 8 are a summary of all possible actions. The rules on page 13 are a detailed description of what goes on in a pass action (there are similar detailed descriptions of blocking, etc). So which should take precedence?
My argument is that neither take precedence, and that they can be easily read in a fashion were they do not contradict. I've even quoted another part of the LRB (on kicking off) where exactly the same use of the word "may" occurs.
Another way of looking at it is that p8 is a summary of a pass action. P13 is a description of how it works. Look at it from a writer's perspective. This section is meant to tell the reader what they need to do to go through with a pass action in detail, so everything he writes will assume that the player will throw the ball. The idea that the coach might change his mind may never have occurred to him. Similarly, wouldn't he be treating us as idiots if he assumed that he had to reinforce everything he had written earlier at every opportunity?
pfooti - Mar 06, 2004 - 04:46 PM
Post subject:
Mordredd wrote:
My argument is that neither take precedence, and that they can be easily read in a fashion were they do not contradict. I've even quoted another part of the LRB (on kicking off) where exactly the same use of the word "may" occurs.
Well, maybe I'm dense then. This will probably be my last post on the matter, since we're really not convincing each other (and I still disagree with both you and Clan Skaven that the different phrases can be read in a sane, non-contradictory manner). I can find many many situations in the LRB where the word "may" is used to denote an option the coach has, rather than a requirement of the coach.
Most importantly, I can understand the reason for why you and others are arguing for the interpretation that you are. I simply do not agree with your read on the situation.
Finally, I never meant to imply that you are unsuited to make interpretations, merely that you are unqualified to make a global ruling in the case where the rules are unclear. The rules must be unclear because reasonable people have disagreed on their meaning. It seems like we need BBRC intervention if we want a global (rather than local, league rules based) clarification on the matter.
Now, back to my regularly scheduled work...
Sputnik - Mar 08, 2004 - 01:21 AM
Post subject:
o.k.,
I have now understood that some play with one option, others with the alternative option.
I am sure we will stick to whatever "houserule" (in case it is one ) we currently use in our own small league.
However, what I would like to know for the next tournament matches is the official ruling. May or must? Under current rules set we have now of course.....
Shall we add it to tournament clarifications? Should I ask my opponent before each game? 
Sputnik
Deathwing - Mar 08, 2004 - 04:38 AM
Post subject:
Sputnik wrote:
Shall we add it to tournament clarifications? Should I ask my opponent before each game?
Sputnik
Judging by this thread, that's probably the worse option! Just get on with having some fun and roll a D6 for it if it comes up. 
Sputnik - Mar 08, 2004 - 05:37 AM
Post subject:
Quote:
Judging by this thread, that's probably the worse option! Just get on with having some fun and roll a D6 for it if it comes up.
I personally play either way, whatever my oponent prefers. From my experience this will not be an issue in most tournament games anyway. I just like to know in advance, and if there could be any "official" ruling somehow for future tournaments....
And my personal point of view is that NO RULE EVER should be decided by a roll of a dice. In case of doubt I prefer to let the tournament organisator decide in advance, or the ref. Anything else might lead to dice rolls for other 'unclear' rules as well. See Dungeonbowl.
Lesson learned.
Sputnik
P.S.: the refs should otherwise have an official "ref dice". One without numbers or symbols, so that noone can blame the dice for the wrong decision afterwards!
Zombie - Mar 08, 2004 - 05:44 AM
Post subject:
Sputnik wrote:
However, what I would like to know for the next tournament matches is the official ruling. May or must? Under current rules set we have now of course.....
Unfortunately, there is none.
Mordredd - Mar 08, 2004 - 07:24 AM
Post subject:
I agree with Sputnik on rolling dice for decisions. It is much better to get a refs ruling.
Deathwing - Mar 08, 2004 - 08:13 AM
Post subject:
Disagree in this case, it's simply too open to intrepretation. AndyH might well call it differently to Brian for example. A simple D6 roll simply facilitates moving on with the game rather than setting a precedent. What's more if I was refereeing a dispute on this subject I'd impose a coin toss/dice roll anyway rather than apply *my* intrepretation of a rule that clearly requires official clarification and tell the players to get on with it.
Sputnik - Mar 08, 2004 - 08:59 AM
Post subject:
Quote:
Disagree in this case, it's simply too open to intrepretation. AndyH might well call it differently to Brian for example. A simple D6 roll simply facilitates moving on with the game rather than setting a precedent.
I see your point here. However, the problematic situation I have in mind is table A rolling the dice to come up with option X, while table B in the same situation comes up with option Y. Now imagine one coach of each table playing against each other....roll the dice again?
Yeah, the same may happen with refs making different calls, but at least the could in theory discuss difficult calls during the matches or afterwards among themselfs to be consistent for future situations. And yes, I know about refs and their calls at tournaments...
Has a touch of the weather roll at the start of the match. 'Let's roll for the rules today, shall we?'
Sputnik
Zombie - Mar 08, 2004 - 09:01 AM
Post subject:
I've never liked the D6 approach either. No matter what the rule is and how unclear it is, the tournament organizer should have a ruling one way or the other.
Clan_Skaven - Mar 08, 2004 - 10:40 AM
Post subject:
I agree, just as long as those who are competing in the Torney agree with the Ref's final ruling (even if its not the way way they play at home)
A roll of a die to determin a rule has never sat well with me in any game.
GalakStarscraper - Mar 08, 2004 - 02:19 PM
Post subject:
My own opinion ... The Pass and Handoff actions should be MAY type events.
Personally ... for all actions I think the following makes some sense:
Blitz, Foul, Hand-off, and Pass actions once declared must be completed (ie throw the block, try to foul, toss the ball) unless a failed dice roll occurs after the declared action. Failed dice rolls that are made successful by team or skill reroll still count as a failed dice roll for this.
Thus if you need two tough Dodges to pull off an action and end up needing to use your Dodge or BT skill or that team reroll for the first, you can decide to not follow through with the action. Otherwise, all actions are a MUST carry through event.
Not sure if this is better or not ... just my thoughts really.
Galak
Bevan - Mar 08, 2004 - 02:41 PM
Post subject:
GalakStarscraper wrote:
My own opinion ... The Pass and Handoff actions should be MAY type events.
Personally ... for all actions I think the following makes some sense:
Blitz, Foul, Hand-off, and Pass actions once declared must be completed (ie throw the block, try to foul, toss the ball) unless a failed dice roll occurs after the declared action. Failed dice rolls that are made successful by team or skill reroll still count as a failed dice roll for this.
Thus if you need two tough Dodges to pull off an action and end up needing to use your Dodge or BT skill or that team reroll for the first, you can decide to not follow through with the action. Otherwise, all actions are a MUST carry through event.
Not sure if this is better or not ... just my thoughts really.
Galak
I would prefer if they just stayed as "may" events regardless of dice rolls.
Your suggested ruling is rather complex and needs to be slightly modified since Break tackle could be used without actually "failing" a roll (in the sense of needing a reroll) but could still influence success later. Other situations could arise where a player needs to detour (e.g. to avoid a tackle player) and finds that he can't then reach where he'd planned.
I must admit I was once in the embarrassing position of declaring a Blitz and finding that even with 2 go-for-its I was one square short of the player so all I could do was get a tackle zone on the ball carrier. 
If any of these actions is a "must" do, then we need to clarify whether a team suffers a turnover if they fail to carry out the action. This was the rule in 4th Edition, but not at present. Or whether you simply "must" do it in the way that you must roll a dice when you dodge. This causes problems when the player declares an action that cannot actually be carried out, as in my case above.
Zombie - Mar 08, 2004 - 02:47 PM
Post subject:
And i would prefer if they were "must" regardless of failure. But i would rather they were always "may" than it being dependant on other conditions. I agree, too complicated.
Mordredd - Mar 09, 2004 - 03:59 AM
Post subject:
I too prefer "must" regardless of failure.
In the "embarrassing" case cited by Bevan I see no reason for any penalties. The fact that you've thrown away your blitz is enough.
As for avoiding the tackle player, I think that one is just a poor excuse and that the player, having declared the action, should just take the risk. I would have thought that in most friendly games the player would have been made aware that the tackle player was there whilst he was planning his move. (And I don't mean friendly in the "non-competition sense".)
Mordredd - Mar 09, 2004 - 04:38 AM
Post subject:
Quote:
Well, maybe I'm dense then.
I don't believe that, and I never meant to imply, or overtly state that at any time. I'm sorry if I made you think that I did.
Quote:
This will probably be my last post on the matter, since we're really not convincing each other (and I still disagree with both you and Clan Skaven that the different phrases can be read in a sane, non-contradictory manner).
This will be my last attempt to persuade you that it can be read in a sane , non-contradictory fashion. (Has your mother ever told you "you may do the washing" or "you may do the drying up"? I don't think there is any implied option in either of those statements. ) This is, of course, a different argument from whether the throw should be optional or compulsory.
My original argument went like this. You can look at "may" as giving you the option (your choice) or giving you the permission (my choice).
So, using my choice p13 says "you are only allowed to throw the ball after a players move action has been completed during a Pass Action".
Add p8 to this and you have the following. "You are only allowed to throw the ball during a pass action, but if you declare a pass action then you must throw it". (The "must" statement from p8 cancels out any implied option in the "permission" statement on p13.)
Quote:
I can find many many situations in the LRB where the word "may" is used to denote an option the coach has, rather than a requirement of the coach.
All that does is what I achieved with my quotation, establish a precedent. In other words you showed that the author has used the word in the fashion that you contend elsewhere in the text.
Apedog - Mar 12, 2004 - 06:03 AM
Post subject:
Regardless of how the rule is interpreted, which is obviously unclear from all this discussion, I think all of the actions should remain 'may'.
You've used the action for the turn in any case and most of the time it makes no difference. Basically it amounts to Galaks conditional rule above but without the possibility of complex rules lawyering that a wordy rule like this presents.
Clan_Skaven - Mar 12, 2004 - 07:33 AM
Post subject:
There really is no point debating this topic anymore, I see it as no condradiction. So untill officially stated otherwise I'll play it as a Must. Others will still play it as a May. I don't see the value of constant repeating of the same points on either side will prove any use.
Just one Man's Opinion.
Rod
Zombie - Mar 12, 2004 - 08:04 AM
Post subject:
Apedog wrote:
Regardless of how the rule is interpreted, which is obviously unclear from all this discussion, I think all of the actions should remain 'may'.
How can they all "remain" may if they aren't currently may? Foul is definitely must right now, and pass is both. Don't twist the facts. You want them all to "become" may, not "remain" may.
Apedog - Mar 15, 2004 - 05:41 AM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
Apedog wrote:
Regardless of how the rule is interpreted, which is obviously unclear from all this discussion, I think all of the actions should remain 'may'.
How can they all "remain" may if they aren't currently may? Foul is definitely must right now, and pass is both. Don't twist the facts. You want them all to "become" may, not "remain" may.
You're picking a fight where there isn't one. I wrote remain because from my point of view thats how it is. Obviously if you don't agree then it should read become.
I think clan-skaven summed it up when he said the two sides of this argument are not going to agree, there's no point keep restating the case.
I'll agree to disagree on what the rules say now and what I think they should say (regardless of interpretation).
Zombie - Mar 15, 2004 - 07:11 PM
Post subject:
As much as everyone disagrees now, one thing that (almost) everyone agrees on is that pass is both must and may as things currently stand. So whichever way it goes in the future, it will be a become and not a remain, even if it goes my way (must). That's all i meant by that.