 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Clan_Skaven |
|
Post subject: missing the point!
 Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 12:38 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Posts: 2604
Location: Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
_________________
"2006 SPIKE Champion!"
"Death-Bowl IV & V, Most Casualties!, Death-Bowl VI Best Team!"
"2008 Dagger Bowl Champion"
Host of the Warpstone Cup, Q'ermitt Bowl & the Hope Bowl
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject: May or must Pass
Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 02:28 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 02:57 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 03:30 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
ZFurelli |
|
|
Post subject: Re: missing the point!
Posted: Mar 04, 2004 - 02:45 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 02, 2004
Scotland
Posts: 17
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 04, 2004 - 01:49 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
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? |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Clan_Skaven |
|
|
Post subject: hmm
Posted: Mar 04, 2004 - 04:34 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Posts: 2604
Location: Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
_________________
"2006 SPIKE Champion!"
"Death-Bowl IV & V, Most Casualties!, Death-Bowl VI Best Team!"
"2008 Dagger Bowl Champion"
Host of the Warpstone Cup, Q'ermitt Bowl & the Hope Bowl
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 04, 2004 - 06:10 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| 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. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Clan_Skaven |
|
|
Post subject: Ok fair enough
Posted: Mar 04, 2004 - 09:01 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Posts: 2604
Location: Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
| Ok fair enough Zombie. What is your official opinion on this subject? |
_________________
"2006 SPIKE Champion!"
"Death-Bowl IV & V, Most Casualties!, Death-Bowl VI Best Team!"
"2008 Dagger Bowl Champion"
Host of the Warpstone Cup, Q'ermitt Bowl & the Hope Bowl
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 04, 2004 - 09:10 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 04, 2004 - 09:47 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Posts: 2604
Location: Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
_________________
"2006 SPIKE Champion!"
"Death-Bowl IV & V, Most Casualties!, Death-Bowl VI Best Team!"
"2008 Dagger Bowl Champion"
Host of the Warpstone Cup, Q'ermitt Bowl & the Hope Bowl
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pfooti |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 05, 2004 - 10:29 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 05, 2004 - 11:16 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 05, 2004 - 11:38 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
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? |
_________________
Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 05, 2004 - 04:46 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
| 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. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
