Ok. Here are the rules I use for deferring in all four cases.
Receiving defers and then kicking defers - Receiving team must move.
Receiving defers and then kicking doesn't - Kicking team must move.
Kicking defers and then receiving defers - Receiving team must move.
Kicking defers and then receiving doesn't - Receiving team must move.
The reasoning behind this is that the receiving team gets to move first on the kickoff and every subsequent new turn, even if they lose control of the ball! It would be unfair if they could force the kicking team to move by deferring because the receiving team could generate double turns for themselves.
In summary, when both teams wish to defer the receiving team must move. Therefore, whenever the kicking team defers the receiving team must move. But, if the receiving team defers, the kicking team has the option to move, or force the receiving team to move by deferring right back.
New House Rule--"Momentum Swings"
Moderator: TFF Mods
-
morningstar
- Rookie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 3:50 pm
- Location: State College, PA
-
morningstar
- Rookie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 3:50 pm
- Location: State College, PA
Confusion
Zombie, I believe that these are the only four possible cases. If you can think of more please post them.
My rationale:
Player "A" is the receiving team
Player "B" is the kicking team
If it is A's turn, he can choose to defer at any time. B can then immediately defer back to A without moving a player (case 1) forcing A to move. Or, B may not defer back and move player(s) (case 2).
If it is B's turn, he can choose to defer at any time. A can then immediately defer back to B without moving a player (case 3) except A will be forced to move anyway because B (the kicking team) wins when both coaches wish to defer. Or, A may not defer back and move player(s) (case 4).
Cases 1 through 4 are not numbered in my previous post, but the top is 1 and the bottom is 4.
I believe that any other cases can be simplified into one of these.
My rationale:
Player "A" is the receiving team
Player "B" is the kicking team
If it is A's turn, he can choose to defer at any time. B can then immediately defer back to A without moving a player (case 1) forcing A to move. Or, B may not defer back and move player(s) (case 2).
If it is B's turn, he can choose to defer at any time. A can then immediately defer back to B without moving a player (case 3) except A will be forced to move anyway because B (the kicking team) wins when both coaches wish to defer. Or, A may not defer back and move player(s) (case 4).
Cases 1 through 4 are not numbered in my previous post, but the top is 1 and the bottom is 4.
I believe that any other cases can be simplified into one of these.
Reason: ''
Morningstar
-
Zombie
- Legend
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 4:07 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
What i asked for is what happens when...
1. the kicking team moves one or more players then defers, and the receiving team immediately defers back
2. the kicking team moves no player at all then defers, and the receiving team immediately defers back
3. the receiving team moves one or more players then defers, and the kicking team immediately defers back
4. the receiving team moves no player at all then defers, and the kicking team immediately defers back
1. the kicking team moves one or more players then defers, and the receiving team immediately defers back
2. the kicking team moves no player at all then defers, and the receiving team immediately defers back
3. the receiving team moves one or more players then defers, and the kicking team immediately defers back
4. the receiving team moves no player at all then defers, and the kicking team immediately defers back
Reason: ''
-
morningstar
- Rookie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 3:50 pm
- Location: State College, PA
Answers
Zombie:
Ok. Now I think I understand your specific question.
For each of the four situations listed in your last post, the receiving team would be forced to move.
Let me back up to the generation of this rule. In the Living RuleBook, the receiving team moves on turn one, then the kicking team moves on turn one. This continues (receiving team followed by kicking team) through the turns until a team scores or the half ends. This is the basic model that I started with.
When you add "momentum swings", you allow particular actions/sequences to mix the two halves of a turn together. It can get a little confusing, but if you sit down and play a game while tracking each player it works out rather nicely.
The important thing with "deferring" is that the receiving team would originally be forced to complete its turn prior to the kicking team in the LRB. Using my rules, if both the receiving team and kicking team defer--the receiving team will be forced to move! Basically, I fall back on the LRB as a basis for this standoff between coaches.
Let me give a quick one turn example:
A = receiving team
B = kicking team
1. "A" moves 3 players and defers. It is now "B"'s turn.
2. "B" moves 1 player and defers. It is now "A"'s turn.
3. "A" doesn't want to move yet and defers. However, this is two defers in a row! The kicking team always wins two defers in a row, so "A" must move a player.
4. "A" blocks with 1 player and falls down. It is now "B"'s turn.
5. "B" likes his positioning and without moving a player he defers. It is now "A"'s turn.
6. "A" moves 6 players and defers. It is now "B"'s turn.
7. "B" moves 7 players and the 7th one falls after a failed dodge. It is now "A"'s turn.
8. "A" doesn't move anyone and defers. It is now "B"'s turn.
9. "B" moves his last 3 players. It is now "A"'s turn.
10. "A" still doesn't want to move his last player, but "B" doesn't have anyone left to move this turn! "A" must perform an action with his last player or forfeit that players action by recording that he stood still, so "A" moves his last player.
(SIDE NOTE: "A" will move first on the next turn. It will be possible for that last player to move again--back to back actions. However, the kicking team could have chosen to not move its last three players and choose to defer to prevent this. But coach "B" chose to press an advantage on turn one. Will it hurt him on turn two?)
I know that looks complicated, but most turns do not have that many deferrals. The only thing to remember is that if both coaches defer right after each other, the kicking team wins the deferring and the receiving team must move.
If you have any more specific examples, I can answer them on a case by case basis. I hope that helps.
Ok. Now I think I understand your specific question.
For each of the four situations listed in your last post, the receiving team would be forced to move.
Let me back up to the generation of this rule. In the Living RuleBook, the receiving team moves on turn one, then the kicking team moves on turn one. This continues (receiving team followed by kicking team) through the turns until a team scores or the half ends. This is the basic model that I started with.
When you add "momentum swings", you allow particular actions/sequences to mix the two halves of a turn together. It can get a little confusing, but if you sit down and play a game while tracking each player it works out rather nicely.
The important thing with "deferring" is that the receiving team would originally be forced to complete its turn prior to the kicking team in the LRB. Using my rules, if both the receiving team and kicking team defer--the receiving team will be forced to move! Basically, I fall back on the LRB as a basis for this standoff between coaches.
Let me give a quick one turn example:
A = receiving team
B = kicking team
1. "A" moves 3 players and defers. It is now "B"'s turn.
2. "B" moves 1 player and defers. It is now "A"'s turn.
3. "A" doesn't want to move yet and defers. However, this is two defers in a row! The kicking team always wins two defers in a row, so "A" must move a player.
4. "A" blocks with 1 player and falls down. It is now "B"'s turn.
5. "B" likes his positioning and without moving a player he defers. It is now "A"'s turn.
6. "A" moves 6 players and defers. It is now "B"'s turn.
7. "B" moves 7 players and the 7th one falls after a failed dodge. It is now "A"'s turn.
8. "A" doesn't move anyone and defers. It is now "B"'s turn.
9. "B" moves his last 3 players. It is now "A"'s turn.
10. "A" still doesn't want to move his last player, but "B" doesn't have anyone left to move this turn! "A" must perform an action with his last player or forfeit that players action by recording that he stood still, so "A" moves his last player.
(SIDE NOTE: "A" will move first on the next turn. It will be possible for that last player to move again--back to back actions. However, the kicking team could have chosen to not move its last three players and choose to defer to prevent this. But coach "B" chose to press an advantage on turn one. Will it hurt him on turn two?)
I know that looks complicated, but most turns do not have that many deferrals. The only thing to remember is that if both coaches defer right after each other, the kicking team wins the deferring and the receiving team must move.
If you have any more specific examples, I can answer them on a case by case basis. I hope that helps.
Reason: ''
Morningstar
-
Bevan
- Veteran
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2002 7:12 am
- Location: Tasmania
Kicking team moving last
Ok, I think I get it, but...
Does that mean that the Kicking team can keep deferring to ensure that ALL of its players move after all the receiving team have finished.
This might be necessary if the kicking team has only a few players on the field, so they don't want to move most of them until they know what the other team is up to.
But does that mean that the kicking team could keep defering until all of the receiving team have finished moving, then start moving players and keep moving them, despite "turnovers".
e.g. A is receiving and B is kicking
A moves players,
B defers
repeat until no more A players to move.
B moves or blocks with players and fails every time, but because A has no players left to move, B can keep moving players despite having failed dodges, fallen over due to failed blocks, failed repeated attempts to pick up the ball etc.
Do I have this right or does something prevent B keeping on moving players?
Does that mean that the Kicking team can keep deferring to ensure that ALL of its players move after all the receiving team have finished.
This might be necessary if the kicking team has only a few players on the field, so they don't want to move most of them until they know what the other team is up to.
But does that mean that the kicking team could keep defering until all of the receiving team have finished moving, then start moving players and keep moving them, despite "turnovers".
e.g. A is receiving and B is kicking
A moves players,
B defers
repeat until no more A players to move.
B moves or blocks with players and fails every time, but because A has no players left to move, B can keep moving players despite having failed dodges, fallen over due to failed blocks, failed repeated attempts to pick up the ball etc.
Do I have this right or does something prevent B keeping on moving players?
Reason: ''
-
morningstar
- Rookie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 3:50 pm
- Location: State College, PA
Bevan:
Yes, you are correct.
The kicking team could always defer and get to move all of its players last and not have to worry about turnovers. This would make the game a "receiving team moves everyone, then kicking team moves everyone" type of game. This is an advantage to the receiving team while they move, and then the advantage shifts to the kicking team while they move. It is a fun tactical decision that the kicking team can choose to make. Most of the time the kicking team will want to exploit a receiving team's mistake, but sometimes they choose to "wait it out".
Nothing prevents the kicking team from forcing the receiving team to move all of its players before the kicking team even moves one of its own. But keep in mind, the kicking team must voluntarily overlook every turnover the receiving team makes in the first half of that turn! So in the end, both teams had the same adavantages in turn structure.
My only suggestion is to play a half of a game this way with a friend (or even stage a game with yourself) and see how it all works out.
Yes, you are correct.
The kicking team could always defer and get to move all of its players last and not have to worry about turnovers. This would make the game a "receiving team moves everyone, then kicking team moves everyone" type of game. This is an advantage to the receiving team while they move, and then the advantage shifts to the kicking team while they move. It is a fun tactical decision that the kicking team can choose to make. Most of the time the kicking team will want to exploit a receiving team's mistake, but sometimes they choose to "wait it out".
Nothing prevents the kicking team from forcing the receiving team to move all of its players before the kicking team even moves one of its own. But keep in mind, the kicking team must voluntarily overlook every turnover the receiving team makes in the first half of that turn! So in the end, both teams had the same adavantages in turn structure.
My only suggestion is to play a half of a game this way with a friend (or even stage a game with yourself) and see how it all works out.
Reason: ''
Morningstar