Talk Fantasy Football

Hi All,

Looking for a little help with a 'grey' area...

An accurate pass is thrown to Receiver A, he fails to catch it, the ball scatters to an adjacent player who also fails to catch the ball, the ball scatters back to Receiver A who now catches the ball.

Is this is a completion for an SPP? It ticks all the SPP Completions rules clauses from the CRP; an accurate pass, caught by team mate in the passes target square , before the ball comes to rest. However it would seem to go against the spirt of the rule i.e. that the catcher catches the ball straight from the accurate pass, rather than a bouncing ball.

I had a look but can't see it answered anywhere.

Cheers,
Dave

As the rule states "a player who makes an accurate pass that is caught by a receiver" gets the completion SPP. The events as you described are not an accurate pass that is caught by a receiver. It's a bounce that is caught. Because of this, I would say no SPP for completion.

I would second that, defining 'receiver' as your intended target.

If it wasn't for the 'before the ball comes to rest' clause I would totally agree; it is that part that seems to cause the confusion

Krulfang wrote:It's a bounce that is caught

Hasn't hit the floor yet, though. [/pedantic]

By definition is sounds like it could well be ruled a completion, but that is probably against the spirit of it all.

nazgob wrote:I would second that, defining 'receiver' as your intended target.

+1

Loki wrote:An accurate pass is thrown to Receiver A, he fails to catch it, the ball scatters to an adjacent player who also fails to catch the ball, the ball scatters back to Receiver A who now catches the ball.

Its good for the SPPs as long as the original intended receiver has possession of the ball when it comes to rest and the pass was accurate.

So from your description .. yes it would earn SPPs.

Tom

Wow... didn't see that coming. Well, thanks for the clarification, Galak! I have to go with what you said.

Cheers Tom!

Always great to have the authors view.

This isn't in the spirit of the game.

Thrower to throw accurate to intended targer. A series of dice rolls without fault including any use of rerolls.

As soon as the ball is not caught, it becomes a bouncing ball, if by fluke it bounces back into the intended target square and the player catches it, it is not a completion, the ball was not thrown it scattered to him. Just like HMP, never accurate and therefore never earn SPP from it.

The ball arrived there from bouncing and not by the throw. The luck is, despite the failure, you can continue to move.

Smurf wrote:This isn't in the spirit of the game.

I would STRONGLY disagree with you on this one.

Smurf wrote:Thrower to throw accurate to intended targer. A series of dice rolls without fault including any use of rerolls.

"A player who makes an accurate pass that is caught by a receiver from his own team in the targeted square of the pass when the ball comes to rest"

Then why did I put in the text "when the ball comes to rest" ... what would be the point of that text if your statement above was correct?

Damn - if I'd had my way, it would have stayed as an Accurate pass caught by a member of your team (other than the passer of the ball).

As it is, I agree 100% with Galak.

GalakStarscraper wrote:

Smurf wrote:Thrower to throw accurate to intended targer. A series of dice rolls without fault including any use of rerolls.

"A player who makes an accurate pass that is caught by a receiver from his own team in the targeted square of the pass when the ball comes to rest"

Then why did I put in the text "when the ball comes to rest" ... what would be the point of that text if your statement above was correct?

Surely the qualifying statement is catching an accurate pass and not a bouncing ball. A bouncing ball is not an accurate pass. Possibly Diving Catch allows the target square one final attempt to grab the ball before losing it.

I hate to say it but alot of GW products has these statements within them, we note that BB is usually more concise about its rules.

The net result could be: your league your rules.

Umm... That was my arguement at first as well. However, GalakSS helped WRITE that rule! You kinda have to go with the guy who wrote it's word. I'd say that makes in not up to interpretation!

A lot of GW products certainy do have parts in the rules that are unclear. It's probably a good thing the BBRC wrote the rules then, eh?