Touch back and Quick Snap!

[Banelord]

Assuming the ball scatters of the pitch and the kick-off result is 9. Can you go with one player in the opponents half with "Quick Snap!" and then give this player the ball because it is a touch back? Or is this again a touch back? (As the rules say, because it isn't in your half after kick off.)

[Darkson]

A touchback occurs after the KO table result has been finalised, and the ball has landed. You then give it to a player -you can't then have another touchback.
So yes, you ca give it to a player in the opposing half.

[Banelord]

THX

[GalakStarscraper]

A touchback occurs after the KO table result has been finalised, and the ball has landed. You then give it to a player -you can't then have another touchback.
So yes, you ca give it to a player in the opposing half.

Hmmmm ... my gut says Simon is wrong ... but that is a rare event on a rules question for him. I need to spend some time reading exact wordings before I agree or disagree on this one.

The intent of the rules were to make sure the ball was on your half the pitch no matter what when the turn started ... I need to see if I agree that this is a loophole to that.

Galak

[DoubleSkulls]

I'd say it was fine - i.e. I agree with Darkson. The rules just say "any player in his team" and you are definitely doing it after the QS has been resolved.

[daloonieshaman]

I have to agree with DS the rule is quite clear.

[slup]

One more for Darkson

[GalakStarscraper]

I'd say it was fine - i.e. I agree with Darkson. The rules just say "any player in his team" and you are definitely doing it after the QS has been resolved.

Good enough ... interesting ... that wasn't the intent of the touchback rules ... but as Ian would remind me during the development process ... not everything has to be forced to be a certain thing. Definitely helps with the one turn score.

Galak

[Darkson]

that wasn't the intent of the touchback rules ...

I never thought it was, but I saw it happen a couple of times at tourneys I played in (and the players involved quite happily gave it to players that had QS into the opposing half, without questioning it). Then it happened once in our league, so I actually bothered to check the wording.

That said, if the ruling doesn't meet the intent, I'd have no problem with it changing, but I guess with CRaP being locked down, that can't happen.

[GalakStarscraper]

That said, if the ruling doesn't meet the intent, I'd have no problem with it changing, but I guess with CRaP being locked down, that can't happen.

CRP is definitely locked down and with the firestorm happening with Cyanide right now over BB LE ... I REALLY don't see JJ getting a green light to even THINK about messing with BB rules right now.

I'm not sure this one would get changed even the BBRC was still active ... yes its not the intent of the rules ... but is a game breaker ... does it NEED to be changed. We really tried during 2008 and 2009 to NOT mess with rules that worked okay but maybe were not optimal. Change was not always a good thing. I have a feeling given the tone of the 2008 and 2009 discussions ... I'm not sure this would have been changed even if it was on the docket.

For example ... one of the suggestions was to allow every team to use Apothecaries and delete the Igor. JJ was big on deleting rules and this would have deleted an entire inducement and simplified the Apothecary rules by not having to list what teams could not use them. LRB 5.0 already has wording that explains how Apothecaries and Regeneration interact so that was a non-issue. This item was voted down in discussion mainly because the current system for the most part works and while this was a pretty decent sized simplification of the rules ... it wasn't something really broken.

So with that tone in mind ... not sure this would have changed even if pointed out 2 year ago.

Galak

[DoubleSkulls]

Funnily enough I think I've always played that way and I'd have considered it the intent to allow it.

[Smeborg]

I'm with Doubleskulls on this one - I never perceived a conflict with the intent of the rules.

Like the Passing rules, the Kick-off sequence has a defined step-by-step order set by the rules, but that sequence is not necesarily chronological.

[VMan]

I've had the EXACT situation in my last game on friday. We played it like you described it and the player was on step in the opposing half. But it was no problem because there were only six elves left and I gave it to Flesh Golem - no danger of a One-Turner!

[Smeborg]

I've had the EXACT situation in my last game on friday. We played it like you described it and the player was on step in the opposing half. But it was no problem because there were only six elves left and I gave it to Flesh Golem - no danger of a One-Turner!

VMan - you might have tried a one-turner yourself (Necros are quite good at it, having MA8 and Frenzy).

[VMan]

I've had the EXACT situation in my last game on friday. We played it like you described it and the player was on step in the opposing half. But it was no problem because there were only six elves left and I gave it to Flesh Golem - no danger of a One-Turner!

VMan - you might have tried a one-turner yourself (Necros are quite good at it, having MA8 and Frenzy).

I know. But I NEEDED the safe three SPP for the Golem for his first skill. He now has Block and there was no danger in the maneuver - not enough elves and he didn't got the ball back.