They can overthrow or underthrow by 3 squares. A square is a little over 4 yards (100 yards divided by 24 squares, not counting end zones).

The player's square is not just the little spot he takes up on the field. It's a section of the field about 4 squares wide. If the throw was really 2 squares too long, then it's over his head, there's no way around it. If it's 2 squares short, it hit the floor before reaching him. This is all pretty spot on to me.

Your argument is faulty here. A "square" has no size. I don't recall seeing anything anywhere that says a Blood Bowl pitch is the same size as an American Football Field.

Consider that your calculation means that the endzone is only 4 yards deep.

can attempt to grab it only if they are on the opposing team?

Remember the 3rd ed fluff. Blood Bowl was invented when a dwarf found the rules to an ancient game inside a stadium for the said game. The field had strange lines drawn on it. It's the size of an american football field all right. Besides, i seem to recall hearing a BBRC member (don't remember which) saying about the same thing about field size about a year or two ago.

In 2nd ed, the end zone used to be 2 squares deep. It was only changed for balance reason (being able to push anyone into the crowd who stands in the wide zone).

Like i said before in this thread, if a real life football player tries to intercept the pass thrown by his own quarterback, his coach probably won't let him play for the remaining of the season after that.

But what about a Blood Bowl player? If you drop a pass in Football, you get a Do-Over (minus a down). If you drop a pass in BB, you probably have given the ball to the opposing team. That's more like in Ultimate Frisbee, where we have the maxim: "any catchable disc", meaning if you can get it, do so. Blood Bowl is also a lot more ad-hoc. You don't have a play and receiving patterns the way you do in football. Really, every Blood Bowl pass is a hail mary.

Or what about a receiver who sees the ball coming to him and knows it is going over his head? If the intended receiver can't get it even though it is due to land one square past him, nobody in the middle of the pass should be able to make a grab for it either.

Deciding to add a skill after the roll is usually just as silly

So again, you can argue for a point, like switching the order of accurate and intercept. But your argument is strengthened not by crying "realism", but by crying "playability". Does your rule change significantly improve the playability of the game? Or is it a minor tweak which isn't worth making because the cost of changing it is not worth the benefits?

The benefits are rules that are easier to teach and remember

We should aim to be as realistic as possible as long as it doesn't make the rules anymore complicated. If it does, then the cost of the complication should be weighted against the benefit of added realism. That's how a game is designed in the first place, and i'm sure that these were the kinds of choices that Jervis had to make when he invented this game.

Deciding to add a skill after the roll is usually just as silly

The dwarf doesn't have to stop them both simultaneously. He can stop one elf, slightly stepping into his "square", then turn his attention to the other elf.

I don't find it silly at all. I find it to be a good abstraction of a real learning process.

The benefits are certainly higher than the cost, since there is no cost at all! The only argument ever made against changing it are that it has always been this way, which in itself is not a good reason, and that it would decrease the frequency of interceptions by somewhere around or below 20%, which i don't think would have any influence on the game at all!

Added realism should always be favored when two basic rules are met : (1) there is no added complexity and (2) the delicate balance of the game isn't affected. I believe both to be the case.

But if a dwarf can dance around in his square, why does he have to stay there? Why can't he just go and knock down one of the elves? And how does he know which one is going to dodge away first?

What I meant was deciding to add the Mighty Blow (or Piling on, or Dodge) skill to a roll after you know whether or not you need it. Or the idea that you can only use a skill once per turn. Oops, I dodged there, but I seem to have forgotton how to do it over here.

There is a very real cost associated with any rule change. It needs to be debated by the BBRC, making the review take longer, or bumping something else off of the hotlist. The new rules need to be disseminated. Every player has to understand the new passing sequence. And no matter what, any rule change in a game as complicated as Blood Bowl will raise new corner cases and create strange new FAQs that need to be addressed and hashed out (like the timing of Passblock). Piling On only became really abusive recently? Why? The change in order (before/after the roll for all skills). Little changes here and there can affect other things far away.

If you're like them and you believe in playtesting everything instead of examining the game theoretically the way i like to do, then let me tell you that there are countless leagues around the world who have been playing my way for as long as 10 years now. The data is there. The change is minimal.