73 coaches online • Server time: 20:02
* * * Did you know? The most touchdowns in a single match is 23.
Recent Forum Topics  Are you E.L.F. enoug... | 12 days of Christmas... | Gnomes are trash |
2012-04-02 09:39:59
27 votes, rating 4.9
27 votes, rating 4.9
Late game fouling
Always a controversial topic, because the term "foul" and "dirty play[er]" have very negative associations, late game fouls are either encouraged or the cause of consternation. Many object strongly to having their players fouled late on - especially if they are losing the game. I've been called names of all sorts for doing it. I used to call others names for doing it. It seems to be something both loved and hated in equal measure, and a divisive issue where there's not really a fence to sit on.
In an otherwise enjoyable recent match, as I indulged in my usual late game fouling, Madvig started to question it. "Is that really necessary?"
So I leave it. I stop with the boot as I swarm over his remaining players to supposedly seal a 3-1 win. Forming the cage clumsily, as play often becomes when it is lopsided, a few go for its are required - and promptly failed.
His mighty blow frog - surely my next boot target had I not taken pity - hops up and kills the ball carrier. \o/
Then I fail to score. \o/
The ensuing discussion about where the line should be drawn brings the justification, "It's about spps." The implication being there's no spps in fouls, so don't do it.
Well, yes, it is about spps. I just lost a bunch, as well as failing to score. So the fouls, whilst not directly responsible for spps, are indirectly responsible for ensuring spps.
Late game fouls are not just about being vicious. They are pixel protection. Unless you are just going to leave your players prone and stop trying to maim my players, expect to be fouled.
That a coach wants to do damage to his opponent via blocks, but wants his players to be left alone with fouls, that's the epitome of hypocrisy.
As if killing a player of mine hadn't proved my point, I got branded an "idiot" for condoning the fouls and indicating I should have continued. I was an idiot for listening to his whinging and giving him the opportunity to throw a block when my players should have been in no danger whatsoever - with the help of a boot!
In an otherwise enjoyable recent match, as I indulged in my usual late game fouling, Madvig started to question it. "Is that really necessary?"
So I leave it. I stop with the boot as I swarm over his remaining players to supposedly seal a 3-1 win. Forming the cage clumsily, as play often becomes when it is lopsided, a few go for its are required - and promptly failed.
His mighty blow frog - surely my next boot target had I not taken pity - hops up and kills the ball carrier. \o/
Then I fail to score. \o/
The ensuing discussion about where the line should be drawn brings the justification, "It's about spps." The implication being there's no spps in fouls, so don't do it.
Well, yes, it is about spps. I just lost a bunch, as well as failing to score. So the fouls, whilst not directly responsible for spps, are indirectly responsible for ensuring spps.
Late game fouls are not just about being vicious. They are pixel protection. Unless you are just going to leave your players prone and stop trying to maim my players, expect to be fouled.
That a coach wants to do damage to his opponent via blocks, but wants his players to be left alone with fouls, that's the epitome of hypocrisy.
As if killing a player of mine hadn't proved my point, I got branded an "idiot" for condoning the fouls and indicating I should have continued. I was an idiot for listening to his whinging and giving him the opportunity to throw a block when my players should have been in no danger whatsoever - with the help of a boot!
Comments
Posted by Bob_Bifford on 2012-04-02 09:58:33
Rated 6, next time just foul every single turn.
P.S might want to take the coaches name out of the blog post :)
P.S might want to take the coaches name out of the blog post :)
Posted by Chainsaw on 2012-04-02 10:01:55
Not really, I mean, I'm not saying anything bad about Madvig. Just that he has a different side of the issue to me.
I s'pose I'm calling him a hypocrite, but I'm calling all anti-foulers hypocrites. They want to kill your pixels but only accept you killing theirs if you do it via a block, as if that's more honourable.
I s'pose I'm calling him a hypocrite, but I'm calling all anti-foulers hypocrites. They want to kill your pixels but only accept you killing theirs if you do it via a block, as if that's more honourable.
Posted by RC on 2012-04-02 10:17:27
He is playing slann... he doesn't want to kill your pixels.
Posted by mayhemzz22 on 2012-04-02 10:39:34
as a new player i am still trying to get my head around fouling and i would oftern complain, after reading this post and seeing the match report i completely agree with you,it has helped me understand why people do it so thank you :)
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2012-04-02 10:42:08
Kill all mens
Posted by Araznaroth on 2012-04-02 12:17:45
Journeymen live for that final T16 boot, oblige them. :)
Posted by SkavenLordVinshqueek on 2012-04-02 12:38:56
I'm not one to foul for the sake of fouling, but do see the sense in tactical fouling. In this case, your ball-carrier got hit by the player you (eventually) did not foul, so yeah, I would've done so in the end.
Posted by Malmir on 2012-04-02 13:14:00
There's a clear difference between booting someone who is still a threat and booting someone who is surrounded by six players and miles from doing anything remotely useful.
Posted by maysrill on 2012-04-02 13:39:00
My rule of thumb is that I let up when my opponent does. If my opponent demonstrates that his 3 remaining players are content to remain on the ground until the final whistle blows, then fine. If not, I continue to protect my players from them as I see fit.
That said, I almost never give up myself, and fully expect my opponents to view my players as threats to the end.
The spiteful (but in no way illegal) ones are the final turn of the game, and the foul-before-score, where it is clear that you value destruction over player development. Usually not a surprise move though, unless it's someone you don't play much.
That said, I almost never give up myself, and fully expect my opponents to view my players as threats to the end.
The spiteful (but in no way illegal) ones are the final turn of the game, and the foul-before-score, where it is clear that you value destruction over player development. Usually not a surprise move though, unless it's someone you don't play much.
Posted by Strider84 on 2012-04-02 14:10:33
If it increases your chance to win/score. Always ok
If it prevents your players from getting hurt. still reasonable
If a clawpomber or oneturner or wardancer happens to lay there. A must!
If it's the last player on the pitch. Everyone likes a clear pitch smily face!
If it prevents your players from getting hurt. still reasonable
If a clawpomber or oneturner or wardancer happens to lay there. A must!
If it's the last player on the pitch. Everyone likes a clear pitch smily face!
Posted by Eusebio on 2012-04-02 14:35:12
Still being pretty new to BB, I always had concerns about fouling, mostly due to the fact that in RL a foul is something that you dont want to see... so your statement of "fouling" having negative associations is really the big problem...
After playing a League-Match against Jimmyfantastic I changed my mind. Not fouling his beastmen, who subsequently dodged 5+,3+ and 2 gfi to blitz my ballcarrier, probably cost me the victory.
I was also trying elves the last couple of games and suffered heavy losses, which could probably be limitied with some surgical fouling...
It will definitely find its way into my playbook in the future.
After playing a League-Match against Jimmyfantastic I changed my mind. Not fouling his beastmen, who subsequently dodged 5+,3+ and 2 gfi to blitz my ballcarrier, probably cost me the victory.
I was also trying elves the last couple of games and suffered heavy losses, which could probably be limitied with some surgical fouling...
It will definitely find its way into my playbook in the future.
Posted by shadow46x2 on 2012-04-02 15:00:13
was going to say "it's blackbox, suck it up and deal with it"...
but then i realized your match was in ranked....
at that point, if the match is a lock already, what's the point? he didn't foul you and kill your player, he blocked you...so calling him a hypocrite isn't really true, now is it?...
but then i realized your match was in ranked....
at that point, if the match is a lock already, what's the point? he didn't foul you and kill your player, he blocked you...so calling him a hypocrite isn't really true, now is it?...
Posted by GronxWild on 2012-04-02 15:06:43
strider84 has it,
sounds like koan (zen poem)
sounds like koan (zen poem)
Posted by Chainsaw on 2012-04-02 15:11:24
Damn right it's true shadow. He says the foul isn't necessary. Then his player jumps up and kills one of mine. So, really, 1) the foul is necessary and 2) he's lamenting his pixels being rolled against but then happy to attack mine. He's just drawing a distinction between blocks and fouls, when there isn't one.
Fouling is a critical part of Blood Bowl where a player can die at any moment under a few lucky dice. It isn't football or rugby where a foul endangers a player far more than in normal play. His players were still a danger, and proved to be so. It is hypocritical to complain about your players being fouled when you fully intend to use said players to try to block/hurt players in an active play!
Fouling is a critical part of Blood Bowl where a player can die at any moment under a few lucky dice. It isn't football or rugby where a foul endangers a player far more than in normal play. His players were still a danger, and proved to be so. It is hypocritical to complain about your players being fouled when you fully intend to use said players to try to block/hurt players in an active play!
Posted by PainState on 2012-04-02 15:33:15
As with all things related to late fouls and such what this is really about is that chainsaw did not like the result of the block that KILLED his player.
IF that would not have happened we would not be reading this lovely blog, because it would have not been written.
One thing I find amusing about the late game foul is this.
In LRB4 the DP foul late in the match made coaches really mad. The reason was simple. DP In LRB4 had the best odds besides (CL/RSC/PO) to cause a CAS. So it was understandable looking back on it.
Now under CRP the DP foul is no diffrent than any MB block when you look at the odds of a injury. IN fact some coaches have been warned, banned for laying on the pitch and some threads on the virtues of laying down on the pitch have poped up. In fact you could make a really good argument that the best way to survive the last 4 turns of a blow out match is to just lay down on the ground. IF your goal is to survive the match with no more CAS then stat wise your best option is to keep all your pixels on the ground.
But of course the common theme here is this: The result of the action is what matters. You lay out 16 fouls for 16 stuns then no one seems to have a problem with that. But if all 16 go for a KILL and you litterally clear the pitch. Well some one is coming unglued and blogs on a broken RNG are coming out of the wood work.
It is all about the result of the foul or block not the action itself.
IF that would not have happened we would not be reading this lovely blog, because it would have not been written.
One thing I find amusing about the late game foul is this.
In LRB4 the DP foul late in the match made coaches really mad. The reason was simple. DP In LRB4 had the best odds besides (CL/RSC/PO) to cause a CAS. So it was understandable looking back on it.
Now under CRP the DP foul is no diffrent than any MB block when you look at the odds of a injury. IN fact some coaches have been warned, banned for laying on the pitch and some threads on the virtues of laying down on the pitch have poped up. In fact you could make a really good argument that the best way to survive the last 4 turns of a blow out match is to just lay down on the ground. IF your goal is to survive the match with no more CAS then stat wise your best option is to keep all your pixels on the ground.
But of course the common theme here is this: The result of the action is what matters. You lay out 16 fouls for 16 stuns then no one seems to have a problem with that. But if all 16 go for a KILL and you litterally clear the pitch. Well some one is coming unglued and blogs on a broken RNG are coming out of the wood work.
It is all about the result of the foul or block not the action itself.
Posted by PainState on 2012-04-02 15:46:38
My last thought on this.
If you opponeet is laying on the ground. Moaning and complaing. Crying for mercy from the foul. AND he stands up a plyer to get in a late match blitz fishing for the CAS. You proceed to stomp on his players and turn them into dust.
Dont go crying and moaning and then look to hit someone in the back and expect mercy in return.
If you opponeet is laying on the ground. Moaning and complaing. Crying for mercy from the foul. AND he stands up a plyer to get in a late match blitz fishing for the CAS. You proceed to stomp on his players and turn them into dust.
Dont go crying and moaning and then look to hit someone in the back and expect mercy in return.
Posted by Jeffro on 2012-04-02 16:25:15
I won't always make an attempt to speak for paulhicks, but in this case I would believe it goes like this:
"Is that much fouling necessary, Paul?!?"
"No. But it's fun! :) "
And if you could merely surround a Slann blitzer and contain it, a sissy could make the case that it's enough... alas, you must stomp on the frog legs. Stomp stomp stomp.
"Is that much fouling necessary, Paul?!?"
"No. But it's fun! :) "
And if you could merely surround a Slann blitzer and contain it, a sissy could make the case that it's enough... alas, you must stomp on the frog legs. Stomp stomp stomp.
Posted by Corvidius on 2012-04-02 16:37:47
"Is that really necessary?" Yes, because as long as you have the chance of winning you'll take it and I'll only have myself (and Nuffle) to blame when you do.
Posted by Ruiner on 2012-04-02 19:10:22
If it's possible to do ingame, then it is allowed.
Posted by Chainsaw on 2012-04-03 08:21:49
Corvidius: that is the most concise and simplest answer yet.
Posted by Sp00keh on 2012-04-03 10:54:49
In this case, fouling the slann would have prevented a block.
I think there's a couple of propaganda efforts going on here using this case as an example though
1) "late fouling is just the same as late blocking" - well, you're ignoring that fouling gives no SPP
2) "late fouling is justified because of what happened in this game" - I hope you're not going to use this game as an example to justify ALL late fouls, even the ones when the prone player will be no threat
I think most people would agree that late fouling for no tactical advantage is fairly unjustifiable.
if you found a magic button on the website that reset everyone's teams back to 1000TV, would you?
I think there's a couple of propaganda efforts going on here using this case as an example though
1) "late fouling is just the same as late blocking" - well, you're ignoring that fouling gives no SPP
2) "late fouling is justified because of what happened in this game" - I hope you're not going to use this game as an example to justify ALL late fouls, even the ones when the prone player will be no threat
I think most people would agree that late fouling for no tactical advantage is fairly unjustifiable.
if you found a magic button on the website that reset everyone's teams back to 1000TV, would you?
Posted by Sp00keh on 2012-04-03 11:07:27
I played a game once where I bashed the opponent a a bit, not that much but he totally gave up and retreated into a corner and said 'screw this game' or similar.
So i thought fair enough I'll leave him alone, and just get the 2-0 win and get some SPP from passing.
So i sent all my guys down to the other corner and tried passing with ag1 saurus. the ball fumbled over the side-line, and did a huge bounce out to the middle of the pitch. he was closer, grabbed the ball and scored on me.
Moral of the story, even if your opponent cries for mercy, if he sees an opportunity he will jump back into the game and its your fault for giving the chance.
So I approve of the slann foul in the OP, but I still disapprove of late fouls for no tactical reason
So i thought fair enough I'll leave him alone, and just get the 2-0 win and get some SPP from passing.
So i sent all my guys down to the other corner and tried passing with ag1 saurus. the ball fumbled over the side-line, and did a huge bounce out to the middle of the pitch. he was closer, grabbed the ball and scored on me.
Moral of the story, even if your opponent cries for mercy, if he sees an opportunity he will jump back into the game and its your fault for giving the chance.
So I approve of the slann foul in the OP, but I still disapprove of late fouls for no tactical reason
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-04-03 13:02:56
'IN fact some coaches have been warned, banned for laying on the pitch and some threads on the virtues of laying down on the pitch have poped up.'
Really? Are these CRP related? If so could you point me in the direction of when and whom?
Really? Are these CRP related? If so could you point me in the direction of when and whom?