Talk Fantasy Football

My friends and Ihave a houserule (we're probably not the only one with this rule) that you only fumble on an unmodified role of 1 or after modifications, not including the penalty (or bonus with a quick pass) for range, strong arm and accurate. I think this rule is IMO much more logical than the present one (why would someone with sa let the ball slip less often, or if someone tries to throw long he does'n't let the ball fall any sooner, does he?). But i wanted to ask you guys if there's something wrong with the rule (or if it isn't: use it too youtselves, if you don't already did)?

I never understood why throwing the ball furthor away also raised the fumble risk. I would say that an unmodified 1 should be a fumble. I would also suggest that you get -1 for every enemy tackle zone you are in so you fumble on a 1 or 2 if you are throwing while standing in a TZ (except NOS) - afterall there is preassure on the passer there...

The current fumble rules are a game mechanic that work quite well.

It has two big effects.
1) Trained throwers (i.e. with Accurate/Strong Arm) are less likely to fumble passes that those with high AG.

2) It makes chucking the ball downfield at the end of the half a low risk- high reward play. Only 1/6 chance of fumble? That looks like good odds for me.

My league used to play your house rule and we changed it back to the official rules last year. I don't think anyone has complained.

Ähm Jürgen, you get -1 for every tackle zone you are in. And to the second one. Its essential that you get the -1 or -2 for throwing lon pass or bomb so not every elf can throw long bombs.

From what I remember, the LRB says it is a fumble if it is a roll of 1 before OR AFTER modification. Which would mean a natural 1 always fails. But I may be misunderstanding your question...

Kheldar wrote:Ähm Jürgen, you get -1 for every tackle zone you are in. And to the second one. Its essential that you get the -1 or -2 for throwing lon pass or bomb so not every elf can throw long bombs.

Sorry, I was not precise.

I meant that only tackle zones and not the range should be taken into account when rolling for fumble

Example: original Long Bomb without TZ is a fumble on 1,2,3
my Long Bomb without TZ would only fumble on a 1 (and within 2 TZ it would fumble on a 1,2,3)

thats just for the fumble, not the accuracy of the pass.

as Ian said: it's a game mechanic to prevent throwing the ball down the pitch, just for the sake to get rid of it. The more now, that you are allowed to throw it on empty squares.

Either you want to make a serious long bomb/pass, that means you will use a Thrower/AG4 or 5 player for that and hope that it will be successfull, or you just wanna get the ball out of the emergency area because in front of your EZ you have only one Lineman defending against 6 opposing players. Such emergency passes should suck (=great chance of fumble) IMHO anyway.

You can give your player HMP if you want to do that.

narkotic wrote:as Ian said: it's a game mechanic to prevent throwing the ball down the pitch, just for the sake to get rid of it. The more now, that you are allowed to throw it on empty squares.

Either you want to make a serious long bomb/pass, that means you will use a Thrower/AG4 or 5 player for that and hope that it will be successfull, or you just wanna get the ball out of the emergency area because in front of your EZ you have only one Lineman defending against 6 opposing players. Such emergency passes should suck (=great chance of fumble) IMHO anyway.

You can give your player HMP if you want to do that.

so is gameplay over realisme, I can live with that thanks for the quotes you guys!

i dont like to see a ag 2 player throwing a long bomb on 2+ to clear his end zone.
i like the actual rule even if there are little problems with it. At least those problems are less importante than house rulez i saw for the moment.

So why not simply outlaw throwing the ball to an empty space (Intentional Grounding, as it's known in American football)? Make it akin to Fouling, with similar penalties for targetting an empty square and being caught by the Referee as for committing a foul and getting caught.

There is a purpose to making a long throw harder. Simply put, it IS harder to throw a football longer distances (which might explain the lack of really long bombs in the NFL). So the fumble result should stay the same IMHO.

DesTroy wrote: There is a purpose to making a long throw harder. Simply put, it IS harder to throw a football longer distances (which might explain the lack of really long bombs in the NFL). So the fumble result should stay the same IMHO.

Yes it is harder to throw at long distances, but what happens usually? the pass is inaccurate and not fumbled. Fumbles occur when QB's are hit by the defense while throwing.

I don't have a great problem with the current system, its just unlogical for me (like the interception roll before actually passing)

DesTroy wrote:So why not simply outlaw throwing the ball to an empty space (Intentional Grounding, as it's known in American football)? Make it akin to Fouling, with similar penalties for targetting an empty square and being caught by the Referee as for committing a foul and getting caught.

There is a purpose to making a long throw harder. Simply put, it IS harder to throw a football longer distances (which might explain the lack of really long bombs in the NFL). So the fumble result should stay the same IMHO.

hum, havent you seen that a lot of things in BB are not in the real US Football?

Well, throwing the ball in a empty square is a fair tactick to me as long as the rules are good with it. and they are .

There's already a penalty for intentional grounding, it's a turnover.

TBH i've always thought of it as ref enforced.

Yes we play similier...
but we word it as such.

The Range mod effects AG,
the TZ mods effect the roll.

So that only the TZ's not the range increases the fumble.

range should affect fumble chance but i clicked on yes thinking thats what the question was implying