Spiked Ball + Failed Catch + More

[stashman]

This happened in a game. The ball is Spiked (from card).

Thrower passes to a player. Player fails catch and is "Stab" by the ball and get knocked out, BUT the ball doesn't comes to rest becuse it drops/bounces to a player in the square beside the knocked out player and he makes a succesfull catch.

Is this a turnover?

[Digger Goreman]

Pg 13 of the Rulebook

TURNOVERS
If a ball thrown by a player isn’t caught by a player from the
moving team, this causes a turnover and the moving team’s turn
ends. The turnover does not take place until the ball finally
comes to rest. This means that if the ball misses the target but is
still caught by a player from the moving team, then a turnover
does not take place. The ball could even scatter or bounce out of
bounds, be thrown back into an empty square, and as long as it
was caught by a player from the moving team then the turnover
would be avoided!

[Meradanis]

While Vomit's quote is totally true, he seems to have forgotten about turnover rule #1 !

TURNOVER
1. A player on the moving team is Knocked Down (being injured
by the crowd or being Placed Prone is not a turnover unless it is
a player from the active team holding the ball … e.g. skills like
Diving Tackle, Piling On and Wrestle count as being Placed
Prone)

Sticking to your game situation, it's a turnover because the Catcher has been knocked out (and therefore knocked down). Please notice that it wouldn't have been a turnover if the armour roll (due to the spiked ball) had been less or equal the armour value of the Catcher, because a failed Stab roll means no one is knocked down.

[Zhadow]

This happened in a game. The ball is Spiked (from card).

Thrower passes to a player. Player fails catch and is "Stab" by the ball and get knocked out, BUT the ball doesn't comes to rest becuse it drops/bounces to a player in the square beside the knocked out player and he makes a succesfull catch.

Is this a turnover?

The Jack of Clubs inducement for Spiked Ball. I thought the card read as follows...

"...any failed pick up or catch roll..."

It does not read as, any failed pickup or failed catch roll. So does this not mean that when you successfully catch the ball you are subjected to stab? Or does it imply failed catch roll on the above?

[tenwit]

Good point. The vagaries of the English language are manifold and entertaining. Technically, "any failed pick up or catch roll" can mean either "any failed pick up roll and any failed catch roll", and it can also mean "any failed pick up roll and any catch roll", depending on inflection. And there is no way to determine the correct meaning from the sentence as written: both interpretations are equally correct.

For me, the deciding point is the parenthesized part: "but not interception roll". A successful interception (which is a kind of catch) does not cause a stab. To be consistent with that, I'd rule that a successful catch also does not cause a stab.

However, I don't want to annoy the Bloodthirster, so if it ever comes up in a game I play, I'm arguing for the opposite

[Zhadow]

For me, the deciding point is the parenthesized part: "but not interception roll". A successful interception (which is a kind of catch) does not cause a stab. To be consistent with that, I'd rule that a successful catch also does not cause a stab.

However, I don't want to annoy the Bloodthirster, so if it ever comes up in a game I play, I'm arguing for the opposite

Would that also mean a FAILED interception does cause a stab roll? Gotta love the english langauge.

[tenwit]

Would that also mean a FAILED interception does cause a stab roll? Gotta love the english langauge.

No, the rules are unconditional and unambiguous there: interception attempts (rolls) never, ever cause stabs.

Yes, you do gotta love the English language.

[Meradanis]

It's not a problem of the english language, it's a problem of all human languages I'm aware of. Mose statements are rather ambiguous, and the meaning has to be detemined from the context of a statement.

Some people call this "the spirit of the rule". Ask yourself: What were the designers intentions when writing the text of the card ?
It any Catch roll caused a Stab attack from the ball, this card would cripple most Passing/Running teams. For 50k, it would be a ridiculous cheap boost for all those slow cagers with high AV.

So it's save to assume the card should read:

Until the drive ends any failed pick up or failed catch roll (but not interception
roll) is treated as the player being attacked with the Stab skill by an
opponent.

[tenwit]

It's not a problem of the english language, it's a problem of all human languages I'm aware of.

Now that's just plain oxymoronic. If it's a problem of all human languages, then of course it's a problem of the English language.

Noone suggested that other languages don't have the same problem. Handy tip when considering contradicting someone: "Yes, but ..." is much better than "No, and ...".

[Jural]

It's not a problem of the english language, it's a problem of all human languages I'm aware of.

Now that's just plain oxymoronic. If it's a problem of all human languages, then of course it's a problem of the English language.

Noone suggested that other languages don't have the same problem. Handy tip when considering contradicting someone: "Yes, but ..." is much better than "No, and ...".

Yet another point where inflection can carry a different meaning in the sentence. If one were to say "that's not a problem of the English langauge, it's a problem of all human languages"

It generally means "that's not a problem of (just the) English language,..."

I find the best way to read most posts is not to assume the other person is a moron, it's to assume they are making a valid point, and to read into their statement to find it. Sometimes the typing is too poor, or the person is way off, or really is an idiot, so this doesn't work. However, most of the time it has acceptable results.

By the way, to those who think that is too forgiving, if you take a university level philiosophy class, I find that the instructors are often asking one to be charitable with the works of famous philosophers (and triply so if the work is a translation!)

[tenwit]

Fair enough. Apologies to Meradanis, I shouldn't be snippy. And apologies to Snew, for being snippy without permission.