Page 1 of 2
1 square passing and interceptions.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:34 pm
by The Strange Dude
Firstly can you make a 1 square pass (as in catcher is in an adjacent square)?
Secondly can the person (o) intercept a pass from passer (p) to catcher (c)
oc
-p
Don't know if thats very clear?
Re: 1 square passing and interceptions.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:51 pm
by burgun824
Definitely yes to the first one. I believe yes to the second one too. Someone may want to check me on that though.
Re: 1 square passing and interceptions.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:41 pm
by dode74
CRP page 22 wrote:To be able to make an interception, the player must:
• have the plastic Range Ruler pass over at least part of the square the intercepting play is standing in, and …
• have a tackle zone, and …
• be closer to the thrower than the thrower is to the target player/square of the pass, and …
• be closer to the target player/square of the pass than the thrower is to the target player/square of the pass
In a one square throw situation, the only time the 3rd and 4th conditions can be met is if the pass is diagonal and the
interceptor is on the square adjacent to both the passer and the thrower. For example:
I =
Interceptor, P = Passer, C = Catcher.
In the example from the OP, I don't think 3 is satisfied since the catcher is closer to the thrower than the
interceptor is.
And yes, they are both one square away, but measuring is done using the range ruler, so that's rather irrelevant.
Re: 1 square passing and interceptions.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 3:34 pm
by burgun824
Geometrically speaking I agree 100%, but for the purposes of arguing this point I would remind you that geometry doesn't play a part in moving diagonally so why should it play a part in determining an interception of this type.
I would agree though that neither condition 3 or 4 are technically met just because it is impossible to be closer than 1 square. So I think I would change my mind and say "NO" to item number two now based on this.
Re: 1 square passing and interceptions.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:08 pm
by daloonieshaman
I can easily see a dude reaching his are across and snagging the ball
Re: 1 square passing and interceptions.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:40 pm
by dode74
burgun824 wrote:Geometrically speaking I agree 100%, but for the purposes of arguing this point I would remind you that geometry doesn't play a part in moving diagonally so why should it play a part in determining an interception of this type.
Because movement is not passing - movement is not geometric, but passing is. Movement is carried out using squares, whereas passing is carried out using the range ruler - it even states this quite specifically on page 22 of CRP - "See page 5 for rules on how to measure distance with the Range Ruler to determine who is closer." Unfortunately, page 5 is missing in most PDF versions now, but it reads
When you are instructed to
measure the range, place the ‘0’ at one end over the centre of
the square of the player throwing the ball and the red line that
runs up the middle of the ruler over the centre of the square of
the player the ball is being thrown to.
So the answer to your "why should it?" is "because that's the way the rules say to do it".
Re: 1 square passing and interceptions.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:32 pm
by GalakStarscraper
Geometry is used for this. You can only intercept a one square pass if it is diagonal and you are in the square next to both as Dode showed. Otherwise you are not closer to the catcher than the thrower is. (it is center of square to center of square distance).
This is defined at the beginning of the rulebook under the Plastic Range Ruler where it tells you how to measure "distance". That is why the interception rules use the word "distance" as well so you can reference the Plastic Range Ruler to know how to measure it.
Tom
Re: 1 square passing and interceptions.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:39 pm
by burgun824
Well when put so clearly it's OBVIOUS that I'm the idiot here.
Re: 1 square passing and interceptions.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:01 pm
by daloonieshaman
I know you wanted a spp, but why not hand off as the RR clearly touches the opponet's square on a diagonal
Re: 1 square passing and interceptions.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:07 pm
by neilnickson
he could of already made his hand off in the turn I suppose.
Re: 1 square passing and interceptions.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:11 pm
by burgun824
daloonieshaman wrote:I know you wanted a spp, but why not hand off as the RR clearly touches the opponet's square on a diagonal
Good question. Better question; why are we attempting ANY of this in a tackle zone to begin with. Blitz that guy away first and save yourself the misery of inevitible failure (barring double skulls on the blitz of course).
Re: 1 square passing and interceptions.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:42 pm
by dsavillian
burgun824 wrote:daloonieshaman wrote:I know you wanted a spp, but why not hand off as the RR clearly touches the opponet's square on a diagonal
Good question. Better question; why are we attempting ANY of this in a tackle zone to begin with. Blitz that guy away first and save yourself the misery of inevitible failure (barring double skulls on the blitz of course).
There's a pro elf team in my TT league that runs dump-off catchers (that have NOS).
He will often sit them side by side to avoid the
interception chance on the dump-off.
It's annoyingly effective.
Re: 1 square passing and interceptions.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:32 pm
by GalakStarscraper
burgun824 wrote:Well when put so clearly it's OBVIOUS that I'm the idiot here.
No ... I'm guessing a lot of folks have no idea they are supposed to use geometry to play BB.
Re: 1 square passing and interceptions.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 1:36 am
by MattDakka
For the movement, though, geometry doesn't apply to BB: actually, moving diagonally costs the same as moving in a straight line.
That's a huge, huge flaw that nobody bothered to fix after all these years.
Re: 1 square passing and interceptions.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 1:58 am
by burgun824
I don't know if I'd call it a flaw but it definitely is the argument I saw fit to side with on this topic.