Big Guys Using TRR's during other players actions

[slackman]

but my point is you have to interpret the spirit of the ruling as well as what is specifically written. go to any court of law, and you will find this to be true, at least here in the somewhat free US. and that really is where the problem arises. how do you define what someone else's intent was? by looking at the possible ways of interpretation and decide which best fits the game. and when you do that, big guys do not get to use team RRs, no matter when they're doing something. btw, since they're doing something, by my interpretation, that is an action. so they cant RR it.

slackman 42

[rwould]

If you look into american law the spirit is often not followed hence the problems caused by the litigation culture in the states. UK law follows more common sense rulings in general (but I don't intend this to get into an argument about which is the better legal system; both have advantages and disadvantages over the other). Both countries suffer from the problem of too much can be open to an individuals interpretation (often magistrates for the UK). Bit like different umpires......

Now the intent is where it comes down to interpretation.

Have you ever played a rules writer at their own game (especially a published set in tournament)? It is very annoying having them tell you what they intend for their rule to do, when it clearly lays out something different in the rulebook. Fortunately in those occasions the umpire has ruled with me and gone with the rulebook. That is what it is there for, to ensure consistency for all players, not those who have that magical insight into the thinking of the game designer.

The argument you make is also weakened by allowing any re-rolls for big guys as I feel that goes against the spirit of the rules.

So when do you follow the rulebook and when do you follow what you think the spirit of it is? I really do not see this as going against the spirit of the rules. The way fouling used to operate? That is against the spirit of the rules. Wild Animal and the way the opposition can manipulate the WA. I would say that is against the spirit of the rules. Not telling your opponent when he makes an error against the rules? That is certainly against the spirit of the rules. But a lot of players (if it is to their advantage) will keep quiet at that point, especially if the game is close. And I would say all of those are far worse than pointing out what the rulebook clearly says. If it was ambiguous then maybe I could accept what you are saying, but it is not.

Hope that makes sense!

Richard

[slackman]

once again, i must say it doesnt matter what you or i argue here. there will always be more than one interpretation of the rules, as words by their very nature tend to be rather ambigious. and here in the states many times the judge (magistrate, or whatever it was your judges are called) must decide whether the letter of the law or the spirit of the law takes precedence. this is never an easy task, as our discussion has proven quite well. but thats how we do things here. there is always a specific intent behind the enaction of any law, and that intent is used to rule cases. that's why we have paid professionals that do nothing but ensure the wording of our laws is not ambigious. i dont think the boys at fanatic have that kind of payroll to work with. they simply do the best they can, and hope people dont try and be beardy about things. apparently, this seldom works......

im done. we're no longer discussing the topic, the arguements have all been given for both sides, and now its up to you to make your own decision. but as was already stated, the spirit of the law shows they should not be allowed to use team RRs at any point. see the other thread as to why leader and trophy RRs can be used.

slackman 42

[rwould]

But you are wrong, especially on the legal argument. I work in law and my job is to monitor other lawyers work so I have quite a good understanding of how it works.

The rulebook does cover when and when not the re-rolls can be used. By the definition I have posted I am correct. If your interpretation is correct then justify this by referring to what supports you in the rulebook. An interpretation would come in when it is not clear. Please demonstrate how it is not clear. At the end of the day every rules argument should revert back to what the rulebook says. IF the rulebook isn't clear, that is where interpretation comes in. I don't like the way everyone can jump on the WA and take advantage of it. I would say that is against the spirit of the rules. But the rulebook is clear on the rules for WA, and the other player is manipulating the rules in his favour. That is what gameplay is about.

I agree the spirit may be different, and that the BBRC will say it should be used as it currently is. But if I had come up with this in a tournament the rulebook supports me and I would be peeved to have it overturned as the rulebook is clear on it (If I was going to attempt to argue that this is how it should be played). It defines what the action is (not your definition, as you appear to be stating that a catch counts as an action to you, but doesn't use up an action) and defines that the reroll cannot be used.

You seem to have taken both of my posts as personal criticisms. Sorry if that is your thoughts; it certainly hasn't been intended. But rulebooks need to be better written and I have made these points to avoid any confusion. Every rulebook has these flaws in them and this is the process to correct the errors.

Time for bed anyway.....

Richard

[Grumbledook]

ok how about i give you a big spoonful of comman sense, the refs will rule that way big guys can't use trr at any time, to interpret the rules any other way is nitpicking gone overboard

[High & Mighty]

The rulebook does cover when and when not the re-rolls can be used. By the definition I have posted I am correct.

Actually, by your definition, no player could ever use a team reroll for a catch, big guy or not. The LRB (page 15) says that rerolls can be used to reroll any dice roll for an action during your own team turn. By your definition, catching is not an action; it is a reaction and therefore you couldn't reroll it at all, ever.

The only important issue is what constitutes a 'dice roll for an action'?

Strictly speaking, a block is an action so you could reroll that, but a pick-up is not an action so it can't be rerolled.

More liberally, a pick-up is during a move, or more accurately, 'for a move' and therefore can be rerolled. Now if you are going to allow rerolls for pick-ups, then by this liberal definition, a catch is 'for a pass action,' (or if it is after a fumble, for a move, blitz or block action). Nowhere does it say you can only reroll dice rolls by the player taking the action, just that you can only reroll dice rolls that are for an action.

So the repurcussions of your interpretation would not only still leave Big Guys just as they are, without the ability to reroll anything, but would strip the ability to use a reroll for non-actions from regular players.

If the word "action" was removed from the team reroll and big guy sections so it just talked about rerolling dice in your turn, then it would be unambiguous and not add additional problems...I think...but since both the definition of team rerolls and restrictions on Big Guy use of rerolls are worded the same, the effect is that anything you allow a normal player to reroll must thereby be eliminated from the ability of the big guy to reroll.

[Milo]

You guys can continue to beat this dead horse if you'd really like to, but so far all the BBRC members I've spoken to have agreed with me -- we intended the rulebook to restrict any use of team re-rolls from Big Guys, under any circumstances, at any time. Once Jervis and Andy get back from holidays, we'll get their input and likely update the living rulebook to reflect this.

Milo

[rwould]

High & Mighty: Cheers for actually looking in the rulebook for your argument! That was the reason for my initial post as from all I could see the way it was being interpreted did not match the book. I'd probably agree with you on the definition side for it, but do agree that the wording needs changing for consistency purposes.

Richard