Hand Off vs. Quick Pass

[Vesticle]

I'd have to encourage the allowing of a pass action to a square, or player adjacent to the ball carrier because of the two considerations:

A) It doesn't stop any abuse of rules or use of 'cheesy' tactics to disallow it. If a coach wants to make a quick pass for 1 SPP and no tactical reasons, he can just move or stop 1 square away instead and then make the pass. (Personally, I really don't care if someone does this anyway, I'll even remind my opponents to try at the end of a match if they have the ball and can't score before time runs out)

B) Because a hand-off and a pass are two different actions that are both limited to once per turn, disallowing a pass to an adjacent player will prevent coaches from attempting valid strategies. A coach may often want to use both a pass and a handoff in the same turn to move the ball, and the situation may be that passing from 1 square away, when he/she could pass from an adjacent square, would cause additional chance for something to go wrong.

As for the realism argument, it's also completely unrealistic to believe that players move in sequence, and not simultaneously and constantly - it's simply a way to make the game playable. By that token, one can assume that while a player may end or start his/her turn adjacent to where another player ends or starts, that it doesn't mean that the two players were adjacent that whole turn. Thus, a player making a pass to an adjacent player, may really have made the pass while the two players were seperated by a distance.

David

[Cervidal]

Here's why I wouldn't like that ruling:

I often pass when a player is only one square away. In addition to getting me the SPP, it keeps my handoff open. On top of this, the 0-square throw a much safer pass. If I fumble the ball, there's a chance it will go to the player I am passing to. If I fail to catch the ball, it could bounce back to my passer. At the very least, I'm a lot more likely to have tacklezones on the ball if it doesn't end up in one of my players' hands.

[Snew]

That may be so but neither of those reasons awould be enough to make me rule otherwise. A fumble is still a turnover, even if a player from your team recovers it and I've seen players behind the thrower recover the inaccurate pass on a few occasions.

[Cervidal]

All debate aside, there's no reason for the commish to <i>have</i> to rule on this issue. It's perfectly legal in the book.

[BlanchPrez]

All debate aside, there's no reason for the commish to <i>have</i> to rule on this issue. It's perfectly legal in the book.

The reason I felt that I HAD to rule on this is because I had two players with two different idea's on what should happen on this. Never having come across this situation before, I looked it up in the rules. Now, there is nothing in the rules one way or another, and my first instenct was to rule against an adjacent square pass, because that's what a hand-off is defined as.

Now, that said, it has been pointed out to me that the rules do not specify a minimum range for throws (which means a player could concivibly throw the ball to himself, if you want to take it that far). Also, the hand-off is not a pass of any kind, as I at first thought, but a pass-like action all it's own. With these two rules now firmly in my understanding, I am willing to reverse my initial decision.

Chris

[Grumbledook]

you could pass it to yourself but its kinda pointless as you only get a completion if another player on your team catches it

[Skummy]

Throw the ball to yourself! That's a great idea!

Of course, I once had a 5 AG gutter runner dodge around a single wight 13 times in one turn. The game was hopeless, and I wanted to put, "Ran circles around him." in my game report.

[BlanchPrez]

you could pass it to yourself but its kinda pointless as you only get a completion if another player on your team catches it

Yes, I realize that it would be pointless, I was being sarcastic.