Fouling for SPPs

[Acerak]

It's currently out of the rules.

-Chet

[Bevan]

If we go back to SPPs for fouling then there must be a physical risk to the Fouler.

A lot of the fouling for SPPs happens in the last couple of turns when being sent of is irrelevant or is even an advantage (it just means your player can't be hurt in this game).

I like Rupert and Panteras' suggestions that the Fouler has some risk of injury e.g. on 2 for the armour the fouled player grabs the kicking players leg and pulls him over.

[wesleytj]

I think this whole "fouler must be in danger" thing is silly and without a real logical backing, but I'd be willing to go along with it in compromise if it brought back spps.

The fouler is in danger of getting caught by the ref and ejected from the game. That should be enough.

But like I said, I'm all about compromise on this one. Some players really need to foul to ever get any skills, which is important for balance. Notice I said players, not coaches. Coaches that need to foul to get skills are just poor coaches. The skeleton can't help that he sucks.

[Acerak]

If we go back to SPPs for fouling then there must be a physical risk to the Fouler.

Would you like your fouler to experience "physical risk"?

1. Show up to play me.
2. Bring a Dirty Player.

I assure you, he'll experience just what you ask

-Chet

[wesleytj]

seriously, chet brings up a powerful point. There is a physical risk that comes with fouling. Retaliation.

My wood elves (yes the ones I ALWAYS go on and on about) always had a rule: they never fouled FIRST.

This was back in vanilla 3rd ed where there was no real good limit to DP and there was no casualty roll to prevent mass carnage. I had one line elf with dirtyplayer/blk/pro and he always sat on the bench unless I was running short on elves on the field (which wasn't uncommon). And he stayed there until somebody fouled me.

Wood elves were a VERY dangerous fouling team back then. High movement, high agility, and plenty of dodge. We could always get PLENTY of assists, and if someone fouled me, they knew that I would start playing that way.

I didn't get fouled much.

[BFB]

How about changing the punishment the referee gives the fouling player if he gets caught.

Sucess of the foul and getting caught table:
fail to penetrate armour = no action from referee

opponent stunned = sent of to reserves dugout to think about what he/she has done

opponent KO'd = sent to KO'd box, ie until the referee thinks the fouling player learned his/her leasson

opponent Badly Hurt = sent of rest of the game

opponent Seriously Injured or Dead = sent of for rest of the game including suspended from next game

A decrease in the danger of being sent of, but an increase if you manage to maim your opponent.

//BFB

[Acerak]

Whether you failed to penetrate shouldn't matter. I'd amend your original suggestion to something like this:

* Failed to beat AV: Reserves
* Stunned: Reserves
* KO: KO
* Hurt: Out
* SI or Dead: Out -and- Miss Next Game

-Chet

PS. I'm not endorsing this idea.

[wesleytj]

PS. I'm not endorsing this idea.

Good because IMO it's a dumb idea. A foul is either illegal or it isn't. You either get caught or you don't. How well it works is (and should remain) irellevant.

[dakkakhan]

You had a chance of failing to foul so horribly that you ended on the ground and making an armour roll.
Other results were:
No effect - self explanatory
Oooph! - if target was face up roll him over and roll armor.
Krunch! - He has been injured.

Your modifiers were whether you were performing a blatant foul +1 or Sneaky foul +0. Mightyblow was added to the roll, but many people don't like that. But we have Dirty player now anyway.

The blatant foul would have a +1 chance of being spotted by the ref, and the Penalty table was:
1-3 Stunned box
4-5 KO'd box
6 Out for the game.

I think something like this, obviously brought up to the current version would be great. The penalty doesn't always fit the crime, but that works both ways. And the chance to completely flub a foul and end up on the ground will keep the faint of heart from fouling.

[Zombie]

Hi Pinky!

In my experience, it's been the total opposite. In 3rd ed, even with IGMEOY, every team had at least one dirty player (usually more) and the player with the most SPPs was almost invariably a dirty player. Doesn't make too much fun if you ask me.

I don't like your approach of making fouls work like blocks and blitzes. It would allow for more than one foul per turn, augmenting the problem instead of subtracting from it. But i too wouldn't like to see fouls give SPPs again.

[Ghost of Pariah]

I think Pinky's suggestion could work. Most of the time I think coaches would decide to block instead of foul. After all, if you have a choice between fouling and blocking and you choose to foul you're going to get blocked on your next turn.
I also think that the foul that uses movement should replace the blitz for the turn.
Yes, in some situations this would open up multiple fouls but that could be fixed easily with a simple,the accumulating +1 to referee roll.

[Pink Horror]

Heh, I almost forgot this thread started with a suggestion I made.

Hello Zombie.



Pink Horror

[Vesticle]

Also, I find as fouling is now, often times I find myself thinking to leave my players on the ground intentionally so they won't get hurt, if they're already out of the play, or wishing my opponent hadn't suffered a turnover, and had stood one of his players up first so I could get another shot to block him.

As a quick idea, maybe you could make a foul more like a block: make it so that you roll block dice against a player who's down, obviously giving the fouling player some sort of advantage (+1 ST, or pushback = POW or something of that nature). That way the fouler would risk knocking himself over, but would have the possibility to gain something from it, and there wouldn't be an advantage to leaving players on the ground.

David

[wesleytj]

Also, I find as fouling is now, often times I find myself thinking to leave my players on the ground intentionally so they won't get hurt, if they're already out of the play, or wishing my opponent hadn't suffered a turnover, and had stood one of his players up first so I could get another shot to block him.

I've run in to that a lot too. To me that's as sure a sign as any that the fouling rules are a little too weak. I know everybody hates the original 3rd ed foulfests, but I think we've gone too far the other way, and the proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

As a quick idea, maybe you could make a foul more like a block: make it so that you roll block dice against a player who's down, obviously giving the fouling player some sort of advantage (+1 ST, or pushback = POW or something of that nature). That way the fouler would risk knocking himself over, but would have the possibility to gain something from it, and there wouldn't be an advantage to leaving players on the ground.David

I'm not sure what is gained by this...except as you said the fouler could roll a skull or something. Seems like a LOT of uneccessary complication.

[Vesticle]

I'm not sure what is gained by this...except as you said the fouler could roll a skull or something. Seems like a LOT of uneccessary complication.

I don't know what's gained either, it was off the top of my head. People seem to want "physical risk" to the fouler for some reason, so I figured that was a way to it. Of course being sent off for a foul is exactly the same thing as being badly hurt, but I guess because it's called "sent off" and not "badly hurt" people think it's too weak...

David