Passing ranges

[Oxynot]

when measuring distances between players for interceptions, what's the correct way? center of square to center of square?

The rulebook does not take a stand in the matter, but seems to me the only fair way is as you said, from center to center. If you would only count the amount of squares, it would not work correctly in my opinion. For example in the following (catcher C, interceptor I and passer P):

Code: Select all

...C...
....I..
.......
.......
...P...

Both C and I are the same amount of squares away, but I don't think anyone will argue, that I isn't eligible for an interception (unless he has no tackle zones, this is just for you nitpickers). So when in disagreement on who can intercept, it is time to whip out the Pythagoras' theorem.

Which in the example case would yeild 4 from P to C and 3.2 from P to I, so I's clearly closer

[halinn]

Code: Select all

...C...
....I..
.......
.......
...P...

I is only 3 squares to C's 4 in that example. I like this better:

Code: Select all

.......
...IC..
.......
.......
...P...

Ol' Pythagoras says I is closer, so there's an interception chance.

[Skarsnikk]

Surely thats taking things too far? If my opponent is goingto nit pick like that, I'll go play tiddly-winks in the bar.

[civilian_number_two]

I don't think that's too far. I is closer than C in that case. Were both I and C 1 square each to the left (or further), then no Interception would be possble.

If they were seven squares each to the right, they'd still be the same number of squares each from the Passer, and I doubt you'd complain that the Interception was nit-picky.

The question is about where you draw the line. I think Haslinn has found and drawn it perfectly.

But, you know, enjoy your tiddley-winks.

[Oxynot]

Code: Select all

...C...
....I..
.......
.......
...P...

I is only 3 squares to C's 4 in that example.

Oh true, I forgot to mention that no diagonal jumps allowed. But your other example is clearer than mine.

skarsnikk:

True, it is nitpicking, but sometimes you need some unrefutable way of determining who is closer,because you both are uncertain or unable to come to an amicable solution

[halinn]

How's this for showing the intercepts? The distances are the same. Left is my initial setup, right is moving the reciever and interceptor a few squares right. Distance remains the same.

[Grumbledook]

I've always played that C would get a chance to intercept in both spots

[plasmoid]

Hi Halinn,
IMO it's kind of a crappy rule, but the distance is supposed to be measured mathematically and not just in squares.
Cheers
Martin

[bbdave522]

Doing the math is a definitive way to prove it, but you could think about it in another way. Place the pass ruler over the squares. Now imagine an imaginary line perpendicular to the red line. If that line touches the intercepting player's square before the receiving player's square, then he is closer and can intercept. This should give the same results as doing the math, but is a lot easier to visualize. Great for the less mathematically inclined among us !

[Wanchor]

Pardon me if I've missed something, but an issue has come up and I don't quite have an answer for it. None of the players in my league have a proper pass ruler, but we have, of course, access to the lose-o-graph and to accounts of the dimensions of the ruler, which is supposed to be 2" x 14" (right?). Taking into account that the squares on the pitch are supposed to be one and one eighth of an inch squared and the different ranges on the ruler marked at 5, 9 and 13 inches to distinguish between range categories, the lose-o-graph and the ruler don't line up.

I can imagine that the error is mine somehow ; would somebody care to point it out?

[sumbloke]

The ranges are not even multiples of an inch, the quick pass, short pass and long pass limits are each 10cm apart.

The lengths (as far as I can tell given my range ruler is not matched up front to back) seem to be: Quick pass - up to 11.3cm, Short pass - up to 21.3cm, Long pass - up to 31.3cm, Long bomb - up to 39.2cm.

[Wanchor]

Thank you.