KABOOM Whoops

Jonny Deth · Post by **Jonny Deth** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:23 am

Last night in a league the goblin player threw a bomb that scattered and knocked over one of his players...

Is this a turn over for the goblin?

I said yes but the league commis said no...I had to bow down to the league commis as I did not want to argue...

Who was right..?

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:57 am

You were.

If one of your own players is knocked down on your turn, then that is a turnover. The bomb skill description includes no exceptions to this general rule AFAIK.

Cheers
Martin

Jonny Deth · Post by **Jonny Deth** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:12 pm

Thanks

I thought that I was right...but didn't want to argue with the commis in front of the rest of the coaches. We have accepted that his ruling is GOD in the case of disputes!

However I will point him towards this posting and not laugh!

brynolf · Post by **brynolf** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:06 am

The wording is a bit strange, actually... "Fumbled or intercepted bombs don't count as turnovers"... well, if the bombarider fumbles the throw, the bomb explodes in his own square, effectively knocking him over, which would be a turnover. Sure, the fumble in itself doesn't cause the turnover, but the effect is still the same...

Edit: Not that this was directly associated with the original question...

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:36 pm

brynolf wrote:The wording is a bit strange, actually... "Fumbled or intercepted bombs don't count as turnovers"... well, if the bombarider fumbles the throw, the bomb explodes in his own square, effectively knocking him over, which would be a turnover. Sure, the fumble in itself doesn't cause the turnover, but the effect is still the same...

Its poor wording and the fumbled part needs to be removed.

Galak

Post by **Old Man Draco** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:41 pm

Note that the only time it is not a turnover when a player of your team goes down is when you fumble a throw team mate or fail the landing roll and he was NOT holding the ball.

Geoff Watson · Post by **Geoff Watson** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:49 pm

The bit about "fumbling the bomb not causing a turnover" is for when a player on the opposing team catches the bomb and then fumbles it.

Without that rule that situation would technically be a turnover, even though the acting team didn't do anything wrong. Dump-off has a similar exception to the turnover rules.

Geoff.

brynolf · Post by **brynolf** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:55 pm

Geoff Watson wrote:The bit about "fumbling the bomb not causing a turnover" is for when a player on the opposing team catches the bomb and then fumbles it.

Without that rule that situation would technically be a turnover, even though the acting team didn't do anything wrong. Dump-off has a similar exception to the turnover rules.

Geoff.

It has to be clear on that point, sure. But I think it should be done differently from the way it is now to minimize the confusion. The "fumbling is not a turnover" should then be attached to the part about catching and throwing the bomb back, instead.

Snew · Post by **Snew** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 2:05 pm

Geoff Watson wrote:The bit about "fumbling the bomb not causing a turnover" is for when a player on the opposing team catches the bomb and then fumbles it.

Without that rule that situation would technically be a turnover, even though the acting team didn't do anything wrong. Dump-off has a similar exception to the turnover rules.

Geoff.

How can the opposing team failing something be a turnover? Makes no sense. Nice try though.

I'd say that the fumble wording is in there for a reason. It's just a bit awkward. It looks like the original intention was for the fumble part, as in a pass action type fumble, doesn't cause the turnover. If the fumbled bomb knocks over the thrower or one of his teammates that's a turnover. A player from the moving team being knocked down is always a turnover whether he's the "active" player or not.

Digger Goreman · Post by **Digger Goreman** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:55 pm

Snew has it "on the nosey!"

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:14 pm

Snew wrote:I'd say that the fumble wording is in there for a reason. It's just a bit awkward. It looks like the original intention was for the fumble part, as in a pass action type fumble, doesn't cause the turnover. If the fumbled bomb knocks over the thrower or one of his teammates that's a turnover. A player from the moving team being knocked down is always a turnover whether he's the "active" player or not.

Yeah Snew has the right. Technically the wording is correct as it is currently written ... but its just really difficult to understand for most players that while the fumble didn't cause the turnover ... the explosing knocking down the player did. I agree that the bomb wording can be done better.

Galak