Possible BB2k1 Fouling changes

[GalakStarscraper]

Didn't try to steal your idea, PH ... just restated it ... but anyway, I think both your and Chet's suggestions have individual merit. I'll post them both to the Hot Topics board later.

Galak

[Pink Horror]

Oh, I never thought you tried to steal it. You just "improved" (i.e. compromised to make more likeable) the idea. I thought SixFootDwarf's supporting your version of the rule, in the same post that he disagrees with the original, was a little odd.

I hope, when the fouling review comes up, it's not Chet versus Pink. I have a bad feeling about how that would turn out. So, I hope someone from the BBRC champions my version. I really hope Chet is the only person with power who wants fouling to be even easier than it is now. I think, ideally, the chance for the fouler to be sent off should be about double the chance for a KO or casualty. Breaking the rules should be a bad idea statistically.



Pink Horror

[SixFootDwarf]

Yes, Chet...you do have a point there.

No sweat, Pink. I'm ALL for fouling, just in moderation. I have total confidence in a good fouler to know when to say when.

[christer]

As for myself, I tend to stay away from fouling most of the time.. I only use it as a way to keep very annoying players out of the pitch, and wouldn't mind if fouling were made alot harder to get away with...

But hey.. that's just me

And that's the reason we at our local league have added the house rule that a player's position on the pitch is forfeit if you get caught fouling.. Works fine, and the games definetly don't degrade to fouling-contests... To be honest though, I really haven't tried the new fouling rules all that much.. This house rule is mostly something that lives on from 3rd ed, where some teams just became insane to play against..

-- Christer

[sean newboy]

Actually 6' the idea wasnt that the ref missed it but wasnt sure it was a foul or not, the +1 was to cover him watching more intently because he is sure something is up but not sure what.

[Acerak]

I really hope Chet is the only person with power who wants fouling to be even easier than it is now.

If you thought my suggestions made fouling easier, I don't know what to say. Yes, when making unskilled fouls with the Eye on you, they get easier. But when making a skilled foul without the Eye on you, they get harder.

Here's my original suggestion, boiled down to the differences you'll notice in a game:

* Non-DP fouls under the Eye: 5+ instead of 4+
* DP fouls when the ref isn't looking: 5+ instead of 6+

Again - I like where fouling is now, except that the Eye is too blunt a tool to allow for strategic non-DP fouls when you need a guy stunned for one more turn. and that means DP is essentially the automatic choice, because if you're going to get caught half the time, you may as well take the other guy with you. This suggestions moderates both extremes, bringing them back to the middle. I don't see how this makes fouling "easier" with no other qualifications. Clearly it's not easier if you're a DP trying to kick a guy when the ref isn't looking.

-Chet

[Ghost of Pariah]

Fouling is a matter of taste. There's always going to be some aspect of the game that certain coaches are going to point fingers at and cry, "Beardy!"
I don't think it's a big enough aspect of the game to need alot of attention at this time. It's also something that is easily tweaked in house rules without causing too much disruption in the balance.
My suggestion for a fix would be a set of experimental rules that are similar to the "patch" JJ made for appearance fees. 3 or 4 sets in varying degrees of brutality.
(Just don't talk down to coaches who want the bloodiest set by calling it "Monty Hall" or something.)

[Smeborg]

I'd like to see the Eye go.

I have never liked the Eye because it is more complicated than it should be.

It also doesn't seem to me to be how BB referees would behave. I don't think they would care about previous fouls in the game.

So I would support any elegant changes that eliminate the Eye (such as Galak's suggested change).

However, I support the underlying intention of IGMEOY, which was to tone down fouling from 3rd Edition, and to prevent it being a dominant game strategy.

Cheers

[Pink Horror]

Yes, *cough* Galak's *cough* suggestion would be a decent change, if fouling needed changing. It would allow more weak fouls and punish the stronger ones.



Pink Horror

[GalakStarscraper]

I tried PH I tried .. if the masses cannot read an entire thread to give credit where its due I'm not sure what else I do ...

Galak

[Thadrin]

I just had an idea:
Base the likelihood of the player getting sent off on the result of the foul.

Penalty roll:
Failure to break armour: 1
Stunned: 1,2
KO: 1,2,3
Cas: 1,2,3,4

The eye gives -1 to the roll.

[Mestari]

I just had an idea:
Base the likelihood of the player getting sent off on the result of the foul.

Penalty roll:
Failure to break armour: 1
Stunned: 1,2
KO: 1,2,3
Cas: 1,2,3,4

The eye gives -1 to the roll.

As an idea this is not the most original one, but this one seems simple and effective. Maybe transform it into:
2+ = not caught
Mods:
Victim stunned -1
Victim KO'd -2
CAS -3
The eye -1

Or maybe merge the stunned and KO'd categories into -1 category, so a casualty would be just -2.

I'm not sure which fouling rule I support in the end - I'll have to review them before our next season, but this definitely seems like a one rule that I'll consider at that point.

PS. oh... you could add a "goblin/halfling +1" to represent that the little buggers get away with it a bit easier than others. A natural '1' would still get them thrown out if the foul fails and there is no eye.