Posted by Corvidius on 2011-12-29 22:03:49

"A kick-off must land in the opponent's half of the pitch. Assuming
the ball lands in the receiving team’s half of the pitch, then it will
either land in an empty square or a square occupied by a player.
If the ball lands in an empty square it will bounce one more
square (see Bouncing Balls on page 13). If the ball lands on a
square occupied by a player, the player must try to catch the ball
(see Catching the Ball on page 13). If the ball scatters or
bounces off the pitch or into the kicking team’s half, the receiving
coach is awarded a ‘touchback’ and must give the ball to any
player in his team. Once the kick-off has been taken you are
ready to proceed to the first turn of the game."

Nope, first line says your wrong. :D

Posted by KhorneliusPraxx on 2011-12-29 22:14:34

The ball is landing on their side. It neither bounced or scattered.

The vagueness of

"A kick-off must land in the opponent's half of the pitch."

is countered by the more specific

"If the ball scatters or
bounces off the pitch or into the kicking team’s half, the receiving
coach is awarded a ‘touchback’ and must give the ball to any
player in his team."

Posted by JackRose on 2011-12-29 22:34:46

Have you tested this? If it works, I might just dust off my Slaan...

Posted by Corvidius on 2011-12-29 23:06:35

"A kick-off must land in the opponent's half of the pitch."

That's not vague in any way, shape or form. That's a very direct statement. You're trying to make it unclear because the later part is not specific but that opening statement is very clear.

Posted by dode74 on 2011-12-29 23:13:12

From Diving Catch:
"In addition, the player can attempt to catch any pass, kick off or crowd throw-in, but not bouncing ball, that would land in an empty square in one of his tackle zones *as if it had landed in his own square* without leaving his current square."

DC allows you to attempt to catch the ball "as if it landed in his own square", which would mean it lands in the kicking teams half, breaking the first part of the kick-off rules.

From http://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?p=564449#p564449

Posted by PainState on 2011-12-30 00:11:54

Well my rules lawyer liscence was revocked after a nasty game of monolopy a few months ago.

BUT in the land of reality. So the totality of the plan is to allways kick short. Hope it lands in the 3 squares and you can catch the ball. Thats it? the entire plan?

So lets say this glorious plan manages to work and in the above example one of the catchers gets the ball.

Its not a blitz so your catcher is standing there with the ball in one hand and his jock strap in the other just waiting for the oncoming blitz, fumbbl the ball and hang out with the coach in the BH box.

Yeah that is a good plan...go for it.

Posted by KhorneliusPraxx on 2011-12-30 00:35:09

I didn't say it was a good plan. :-)

I just thought it was interesting.

Posted by DonTomaso on 2011-12-30 01:08:41

I wanna see this in a game!
If it works it is really cool. :)

Posted by Emeric on 2011-12-30 01:33:20

Slann coaches... It's a TARP !! Don't put your catchers on the LOS, you know it's wrong :)

Seriously though, i guess dode74 is right, diving catch states "as if it landed in his own square", so this should not work. That would still be interesting to know how it is implemented...

Posted by KhorneliusPraxx on 2011-12-30 05:43:16

it says you get to ROLL AS IF IT LANDED IN YOUR SQUARE....NOT THAT IT IS LANDING IN YOUR SQUARE. I really don't mean to be difficult. I guess if it has already come up and that GW has made a ruling on it then good. If not, like I said before, it isn't a touchback unless it bounces or scatters back into your side of the pitch.

Posted by dode74 on 2011-12-30 08:54:10

No it does not say "ROLL AS IF IT LANDED IN YOUR SQUARE". It says "the player can attempt to catch...as if it had landed in his own square". An attempt to catch a kickoff in your own square would be a touchback.

Furthermore the link I gave had clarification from a BBRC member.

Posted by Rabe on 2011-12-30 09:38:47

Interesting... try it out in test game mode!

Posted by blader4411 on 2011-12-30 14:34:23

A clarification from a BBRC member shouldn't be taken seriously, for the record. I got the impression half of them didn't know what they were talking about.

Posted by dode74 on 2011-12-30 15:15:30

A clarification of the rules from one of the people who wrote them shouldn't be taken seriously? Perhaps you're mixing up any disdain you have for the current ruleset with their ability to clarify it when there are questions.

Posted by WhatBall on 2011-12-30 16:18:59

I think this 'theory' is lacking one vital element, the opposing coaches team. He'd have 2 guys out there in the wide-zone marking you, ready to pound you into the ground. Interesting rule interpretation, but certainly not viable.

Posted by uuni on 2011-12-30 21:15:22

I agree with dode. That is a quite clear ruling on the matter in the link.

Posted by uuni on 2011-12-30 22:43:58

Related, solved, bug report is here: [url]http://www.fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=bugs&op=view&id=675[/url]