Why is Piling On not considered a foul?

[Christy]

So I get it from a mechanical point of view but from a fluff point of view you are just hopping on a player already on the ground (barely admittedly) but that should still be a foul for hitting a player on the ground right? I mean a player is knocked to the ground in front of a player and they hit them its a foul but if they are the ones who hit them and they fall on them its ok?

This isn't meant to be a concept suggestion, I am sure someone could turn it into one but that is not what I am after here. Admittedly it was some of the threads talking about some possibilities for the skill that got me thinking about how the skill works.

[JPB]

Shit. Good one.

It's a single movement, and considered part of the block?

Both players grapple and fall to the ground (see Wrestle) contact made during that fall does not constitute as attacking a downed or prone player, but is a continuation of the block?

The opponent does not yet constitute as downed or prone and is still eligible for attack and blocks?

Perhaps it's the „incapacitated“ part that makes it a foul? So the player has to be clearly removed from the action, and only once that is established, can attacks constitute as fouls.

In Storico Calcio is a rule that forbids to attack unconscious players. I guess that's the best route; a foul is an attack on a dazed and/or unconscious player who is clearly incapable of self-defence. The Piling On action is part of a fight between two capable opponents, and only after the complete disengage (player rolls back), can a player enter a state that could be defined as incapacitated, which would declare any further attacks as illegal, until the player comes around again.

Pheew, that was close, I thought the universe was about to unravel for a second.

[Christy]

Shit. Good one.

It's a single movement, and considered part of the block?

Both players grapple and fall to the ground (see Wrestle) contact made during that fall does not constitute as attacking a downed or prone player, but is a continuation of the block?

The opponent does not yet constitute as downed or prone and is still eligible for attack and blocks?

Perhaps it's the „incapacitated“ part that makes it a foul? So the player has to be clearly removed from the action, and only once that is established, can attacks constitute as fouls.

In Storico Calcio is a rule that forbids to attack unconscious players. I guess that's the best route; a foul is an attack on a dazed and/or unconscious player who is clearly incapable of self-defence. The Piling On action is part of a fight between two capable opponents, and only after the complete disengage (player rolls back), can a player enter a state that could be defined as incapacitated, which would declare any further attacks as illegal, until the player comes around again.

Pheew, that was close, I thought the universe was about to unravel for a second.

Nice one.

There is probably a release rule in there that gets plenty of discussion on the various wizard networks. Did the Troll lose contact with his opponent before landing on the Wardancer there? Maybe that is why it takes skill (or a specific skill) to be able to land on someone in this game. If you do it untrained you will just end up losing contact at some point during the block and committing a foul that the ref might spot!

[Moraiwe]

Yeah, don't look at it as an afterthought - 'I've knocked a player down and now he's down I'll jump on him'. It should be thought of more as a a single action - 'I'm going all in on taking this player out'. Mechanically it's a two-step process, fluff-wise it's a single event.

[dode74]

Yeah, don't look at it as an afterthought - 'I've knocked a player down and now he's down I'll jump on him'. It should be thought of more as a a single action - 'I'm going all in on taking this player out'. Mechanically it's a two-step process, fluff-wise it's a single event.

Might have been a nice, and fluffy, nerf to the skill if you had to chose to Pile On before rolling the block dice.

[JPB]

It may also be considered that the player is "running" towards the opponent blocks/tackles/knocks into him. Takes him down and then lands on him, possibly bringing a knee up or landing another hit under the exposed chin after/while they are both crashing down.
I mean just because the immobile miniatures stand in front of each other it doesn't have to be envisioned as equally static.


For example, (and if you want to get into it), figuring out the pitch size is interesting in that respect.
The background gives it as 100 x 60 paces (from end zone to end zone, I assume), while each end zone is either 5 (4th HB p.57) or 10 (2nd HB p.7) paces. Lines are drawn every 5 paces.
The board is 26 (with end-zone) or 24 (without) x 15 squares. Therefore each square is 3.846 or 4.167 x 4 paces.
If you assume that “one pace is one step is one metre”, then one square is roughly 4x4 metres. And a Tackle-Zone (3x3 squares) should cover an area of about 39x39 feet* aka 12x12 metres.
Or you might say a player “reaches” 6 metres (19 to 20 feet) in each direction. 6 metres! That's a player's reaction range in each direction!
So the players are actually very active each turn, running constantly back and forth, tackling, applying -1 modifiers (obstructing) and assisting. The small and cramped board where players are seemingly in one spot and constantly toe to toe to each other is actually kind of deceptive.

*1 meter equals 3,28 feet.

P.S. If you want to build a real size board I would say each square has to be (more or less) 6 x 6 cm, I reckon. This is based on assuming a 28mm miniature represents a 1,80 metre person. So a person of roughly 2 metres fits twice in one square (4x4 metre), and a miniature of 3 cm would result in 6 cm squares (roughly).

Looks like this:

[keith]

It may also be considered that the player is "running" towards the opponent blocks/tackles/knocks into him. Takes him down and then lands on him, possibly bringing a knee up or landing another hit under the exposed chin after/while they are both crashing down.
I mean just because the immobile miniatures stand in front of each other it doesn't have to be envisioned as equally static.


For example, (and if you want to get into it), figuring out the pitch size is interesting in that respect.
The background gives it as 100 x 60 paces (from end zone to end zone, I assume), while each end zone is either 5 (4th HB p.57) or 10 (2nd HB p.7) paces. Lines are drawn every 5 paces.
The board is 26 (with end-zone) or 24 (without) x 15 squares. Therefore each square is 3.846 or 4.167 x 4 paces.
If you assume that “one pace is one step is one metre”, then one square is roughly 4x4 metres. And a Tackle-Zone (3x3 squares) should cover an area of about 39x39 feet* aka 12x12 metres.
Or you might say a player “reaches” 6 metres (19 to 20 feet) in each direction. 6 metres! That's a player's reaction range in each direction!
So the players are actually very active each turn, running constantly back and forth, tackling, applying -1 modifiers (obstructing) and assisting. The small and cramped board where players are seemingly in one spot and constantly toe to toe to each other is actually kind of deceptive.

*1 meter equals 3,28 feet.

P.S. If you want to build a real size board I would say each square has to be (more or less) 6 x 6 cm, I reckon. This is based on assuming a 28mm miniature represents a 1,80 metre person. So a person of roughly 2 metres fits twice in one square (4x4 metre), and a miniature of 3 cm would result in 6 cm squares (roughly).

Looks like this:

So chain-pushing someone 4 squares towards the oponent's endzone = 24 meters

[Stig]

Great question regarding piling on - there is an equivalent in a rugby tackle I think might answer the quesiton. It is possible to tackle someone legally, but as you're both falling to the floor to sneak in another hit, or whilst you're both on the floor get an elbow/knee/shoulder in, or get in a little dig as you're standing up; all of which is like having an extra hit from one rugby tackle which doesn't require one player to be standing and the other prone. Conceptually the second free hit has nothing to do with putting the opponent on the floor, making them face the right way or loosening the ball; it's just to cause damage and inflict a bit of pain. Tackling someone can be such a blur of arms and legs it's not difficult to get that second hit in.

An extreme example but I think it makes the point. He could have stopped after one punch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frqdj2x8--A

[JPB]

So chain-pushing someone 4 squares towards the oponent's endzone = 24 meters

cough, cough 16 cough, cough (6 was either centimetres or “reach of 1 and a half square”)
But, yeah, I'm afraid chain-pushing breaks the matrix somewhat. That's a game exploit. Unless, it is considered as players adjusting inadvertently/instinctively to developments around them (shuffling feet), e.g. a player could be trying to keep/hold formation without engaging (and end up out of position as a consequence). (sounds plausible, doesn't it? God, I love logic )

An extreme example but I think it makes the point. He could have stopped after one punch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frqdj2x8--A

Could have stopped after one punch? How? He was feeling for the ball. Like players who can't always tell the difference between a head and the ball when they stick their boot into the ruck (Sneaky Git?).
But I guess that clip shows a Piling On attempt that carries on for a bit too long (Dirty Player?). Like a player that can't stop jumping up and down on his opponent. May even have been a flat out foul (wasn't that completely off ball? I mean, wasn't the tackle itself already illegal? Not a big Rugby expert myself, but that seemed off (?). I think that may even have been a brawl that broke out, and, after some reading up on it, apparently in retaliation to some previous dirty hits.)
However, under the video was a funny description (I underlined some parts).

In 2001, during the match between the New South Wales Waratahs and the British and Irish Lions, McRae was sent off for punching Irish fly-half Ronan O'Gara 11 times while O'Gara was on the ground, resulting in 8 stitches to O'Gara's eye. McRae received a seven week suspension, the disciplinary panel stating "There was no dispute that McRae struck O'Gara repeatedly and caused an injury that required medical attention. The Committee concluded that this was a very serious incident, a repeated striking of a player on the ground who was in no real position to defend himself." However, as it was the Australian off-season, the seven week ban amounted to a zero game ban.

Welcome to sports. You just can't make up this kind of stuff...

The follow up hit I had in mind was inspired by the Orcland Raiders https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DdlfPlcRfc (best video I could find, there are some examples at 1.00 onwards showing players “falling on opponents”. However, the scene I had in mind isn't in it, which was a flying tackle against an opponent and once both went down the tackler's fist was coming up aiming for the chin of the snapping back head. It's in a NFL documentary about the Raiders, can't remember the name though, nor find it any more.

Another possibility to interpreted Piling On is a “bear-hug” into a pile on. A player grabs another, then jumps up and comes down, breaking the opponent between himself and the ground. Would also be a fluid block motion.

[Christy42]

I think the McRae incident is a could even by blood bowl standards.

The most likely option is smashing them to the ground and going down with them (and on top of them).

[Stig]

The most likely option is smashing them to the ground and going down with them (and on top of them).

That's exactly what I was trying to say

[Christy42]

The most likely option is smashing them to the ground and going down with them (and on top of them).

That's exactly what I was trying to say

Yeah sorry. Was agreeing with you (and some other posters) as opposed to suggesting anything new.