| Author |
Message |
Agentrock |
|
Post subject: New Off-for-a-Bite Question
 Posted: Apr 03, 2003 - 09:50 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: 182
Status: Offline
|
|
I was looking over the experiment-revised OFAB rules and had a question about turn-overs. I understand that a Vamp with the ball who fails the roll must drop the ball and it is not a turn-over...since the negative skills now do not seem to cause turn-overs on failures.
BUT what if the Vamp feeds on a Thrall with the ball...the Thrall would go down due to an automatic injury and would drop the ball. Normally this would be a turn-over for other players but since it is due to a negative skill, would it a turn-over? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject: Re: New Off-for-a-Bite Question
Posted: Apr 03, 2003 - 10:04 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Agentrock wrote: I was looking over the experiment-revised OFAB rules and had a question about turn-overs. I understand that a Vamp with the ball who fails the roll must drop the ball and it is not a turn-over...since the negative skills now do not seem to cause turn-overs on failures.
Actually its not a turnover because if you look at the rules of what causes a turnover, dropping the ball is not one of them.
[qutoe]
BUT what if the Vamp feeds on a Thrall with the ball...the Thrall would go down due to an automatic injury and would drop the ball. Normally this would be a turn-over for other players but since it is due to a negative skill, would it a turn-over?[/quote]
Again since the rules specifically say that the Thrall being injured is not a turnover, then the ball coming loose is not a turnover.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Agentrock |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 03, 2003 - 10:06 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: 182
Status: Offline
|
|
| Thanks! |
_________________
The end-zone ???line of death??? does not discriminate when one tempts fate by using a ???go for it??? to pass over it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 03, 2003 - 11:40 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 408
|
|
Just because of Thrall getting injured doesn't cause a turnover has nothing to do with him dropping the ball not being a turnover. Your team just lost possession of it. I think it's the same as if a thrown team mate lands and gets hurt. If he's not holding the ball, fine, it's not a turnover. If he's holding the ball. BAM! END OF TURN.
It's definately a turnover just as if he were blocked and went down with the ball. |
Last edited by snew on Apr 06, 2003 - 04:10 PM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 03, 2003 - 01:16 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
snotsngrots wrote: It's definately a turnover just as if he were blocked and went down with the ball.
Actually Snots, no where in the rules does it say that dropping the ball is a turnover. The only reason a failed landing roll causes a turnover is because the LRB says it is.
If dropping the ball was a turnover, then failing a catch roll for a bouncing ball would be a turnover.
I realize that this is fine reading of the LRB, but until someone can seperate bouncing ball drop from dropping the ball, dropping the ball isn't a turnover.
I could say that injuring the ball handler of your team is a turnover to make it consistent with the Throw TeamMate trend .... hmmm okay understood.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Agentrock |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 03, 2003 - 01:21 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: 182
Status: Offline
|
|
GalakStarscraper wrote: I could say that injuring the ball handler of your team is a turnover to make it consistent with the Throw TeamMate trend .... hmmm okay understood.Galak
I was looking through my league rules and we have a house clarification for this: "if the ball carrier is knocked down or drops the ball for any reason then it is a turn-over". |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 03, 2003 - 01:40 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Agentrock wrote: GalakStarscraper wrote: I could say that injuring the ball handler of your team is a turnover to make it consistent with the Throw TeamMate trend .... hmmm okay understood.Galak
I was looking through my league rules and we have a house clarification for this: "if the ball carrier is knocked down or drops the ball for any reason then it is a turn-over".
I suppose the answer here is that a player rolling to catch a bouncing ball is not considered the ball carrier. hhmmmmm ... okay ... I can see that, but its one of those things difficult to explain to folks who may not speak English as their first language.
I guess the easier option is to add to the official turnover list. Dropping the ball other than from a bouncing ball catch roll. Okay now that I could go with. I'm more than willing to allow the Vampires dropping the ball to be a turnover.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Agentrock |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 03, 2003 - 01:56 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: 182
Status: Offline
|
|
GalakStarscraper wrote: I guess the easier option is to add to the official turnover list. Dropping the ball other than from a bouncing ball catch roll. Okay now that I could go with. I'm more than willing to allow the Vampires dropping the ball to be a turnover.Galak
Yeah, I can see it either way...having a Vamp not causing a turn-over due to dropping the ball due to his negative skill is one thing...but the vamp attcking a fellow teammate, which happens to be the ball carrier, is another story. True, the Vamp player should try to find a Thrall that isn't carrying the ball but just in case that "what if" situation occurs it'd be nice to have this clarified. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 04, 2003 - 03:34 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
| I thought that failing to catch a bouncing ball in your turn was a turn over. Hence the ruling that you did not have to try, but could let it bounce again instead. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 04, 2003 - 03:36 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
| I thought that failing to catch a bouncing ball in your turn was a turn over. Hence the ruling that you did not have to try, but could let it bounce again instead. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 04, 2003 - 05:11 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Mordredd wrote: I thought that failing to catch a bouncing ball in your turn was a turn over. Hence the ruling that you did not have to try, but could let it bounce again instead.
Failing to catch a bouncing ball is not a turnover ... AND ... there was never a ruling that you did not have to try. In fact to the contrary, you currently HAVE to try to catch it no matter what.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 04, 2003 - 08:28 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Where did I get that idea from then?  Damn, that's going to bug me for ages. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 04, 2003 - 12:38 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 408
|
|
I never said anything about dropping the ball. As far as I know, COFAB is the only instance of dropping the ball even becoming an option. I suppose anyone can do it, I've just never heard of anyone doing it.
I was talking about the Vampire causing an injury on the Thrall holding the ball. If the Thrall with the ball goes down, I think it should be a turnover. It's a shame your own player took him out but thaen's the breaks, kid. Bummer having a ST4 AG4 player on the pitch huh? |
Last edited by snew on Apr 06, 2003 - 04:11 PM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject: Losing possession of the ball
Posted: Apr 04, 2003 - 04:15 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
There are some anomalies such as players falling over not causing a turnover (e.g. throw team-mate, pilling on etc.) and failing catches not being an automatic turnover. Nevertheless the rules are always consistent that if the moving team has possession of the ball and loses possession (after the bouncing stops) then it is always a turnover. Events in which a non-moving player, not holding the ball, falls over are usually not a turnover.
Just because they didn't think of thralls dropping the ball after a vampire attack and didn't spell that one out in detail doesn't mean it is not a turnover. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 04, 2003 - 05:08 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Having recovered from my earlier embarrassment  I've gone back to the book to try and work this one out for myself.
This hurts my head 
Quote: Turnovers
2. A player on the moving team is knocked down or falls over
3. The ball is passed and not caught
4 A player from the moving team attempts and fails to pick up the ball
These cover all the ways in which a team can normally drop the ball, including the likes of wild animal. 2. does not cause a turn over, as this is stated in the OFAB rules text. 3. and 4. do not apply either. Throw team mate is only a turn over if the player thrown has the ball (stated in the text). This keeps throw team mate consistent with 3. as the player must land on his feet to have 'caught' the ball. I think therefore that there is no turn over.
What I don't get about OFAB is why it has to be a Thrall, and not the nearest member of the opposition?
It could be a little like wild animal. Something like must go first, if roll failed must block/blitz adjacent/nearest player (friend or foe?) without offensive assists. With frenzy? It would make the team very hard to control, especially if the chance was a high one, or the failed dice roll could not be re rolled. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
