Warrior General Games

Wouldn't this be a fumble? I mean he's not going to make spin without the ball right?

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1358169&pbp_id=980421

in the sim, maybe.

irl, wr drop the ball all the time because they try to turn & run before pulling the ball in.

knocked loose dumass

It should be a fumble. Catch+football move+missed tackle= Fumble. Yep, the math works out.

Originally posted by number63
knocked loose dumass

hey dumbass, it wouldn't be knocked loose if there was already a missed tackle. That implies that the receiver had possession of the ball.

Originally posted by number63
knocked loose dumass

STFU you tool, thank you for your cuntribution you fucking burn out. I thought the question didn't need explaining but apparently I was wrong. I believe Sprocket and Jazz have covered it but just to be clear .. the question was shouldn't it have been a fumble? The logic being that he wouldn't have spun out of a tackle if he didn't have the ball.

Yes that should be a fumble.... He caught the ball and made a football moved then dropped it.

Originally posted by Lane1012
STFU you tool, thank you for your cuntribution you @#!*% burn out. I thought the question didn't need explaining but apparently I was wrong. I believe Sprocket and Jazz have covered it but just to be clear .. the question was shouldn't it have been a fumble? The logic being that he wouldn't have spun out of a tackle if he didn't have the ball.

lmfao

I don't see this as a bug.

Remember that the text is the accurate description while the visual is approximate.

Furthermore, there are many scenarios in which this situation plays out exactly like this every weekend on all levels of football. The receiver might have been in the air still, might be bobbling the ball, might only have it for a split second with not enough time to establish possession, etc. etc.

Not likely a bug

Originally posted by VolBrian
I don't see this as a bug.

Remember that the text is the accurate description while the visual is approximate.

Furthermore, there are many scenarios in which this situation plays out exactly like this every weekend on all levels of football. The receiver might have been in the air still, might be bobbling the ball, might only have it for a split second with not enough time to establish possession, etc. etc.

Not likely a bug

We are going off the text and not the visual. If this isn't a bug, then the coding of the the text info is incorrect. By definition, you can't have a missed tackle without the receiver having possession. I can see the argument that the receiver didn't have the possession, then the CB should not have missed the tackle since there was no ball carrier to tackle.

Answered in PM

However, as I said in the PM, if you are going by strict definition, then the words "Caught" and "Knocked Loose" shouldn't even be listed in the same text as they should really all be fumbles no? The text has to read like that though because otherwise it's just a PD.

I agree with Jazz.

There is an error regardless.

The text says "caught"... not to mention a break tackle roll (spin) activated... neither should have happened if possession was not established.

You want to say it was bobbled then have Bort code it so that its say bobbled instead of caught... however that still would not have been enough in this situation as a break tackle roll occurred.

It is obvious that Bort has it coded such that a KL roll will occur x amount of ticks following a "caught" passes (regardless of whether is has been fielded cleanly or bobbled). This is why FF on wrs on never occur. There are too many ticks for a KL roll to activate and the overwhelming majority of tackles on wrs occur during this time frame. This is where Bort needs to make catching/carrying/strength have a more meaningful impact on catching and securing passes. If he did this then the amount of ticks following the point at which a pass reaches a receiver and he secures will dictate the amount of time a defender has to knock it loose... not some fixed predetermined amount of ticks (caught or bobbled).

Originally posted by VolBrian
Answered in PM

However, as I said in the PM, if you are going by strict definition, then the words "Caught" and "Knocked Loose" shouldn't even be listed in the same text as they should really all be fumbles no? The text has to read like that though because otherwise it's just a PD.



As I implied above... why not call it... "bobbled [knocked loose by...]" ?

At least that would let us know that pass was not secured and possession was not established (no football move)... essentially that is a bobbled pass.

Regardless, like I said above... a break tackle roll occurred and therefore possession was established and no KL roll should have activated it should have been break tackle vs tackle/ff.

Lastly, I am not saying that the replay in question would have resulted in a fumble had a KL roll not occurred (it should be more difficult to win a ff roll)... just saying that it should not have happened. That said, there is a bug there.

Originally posted by VolBrian
Answered in PM

However, as I said in the PM, if you are going by strict definition, then the words "Caught" and "Knocked Loose" shouldn't even be listed in the same text as they should really all be fumbles no? The text has to read like that though because otherwise it's just a PD.



No, we are going off the fact that the receiver should not have access to a break tackle move without possession. Its not the "caught" or the knocked loose" that is the issue, its the fact that a receiver used a break tackle move without possession. This implies an improper coding sequence.

Originally posted by Jazzpelli
Originally posted by VolBrian

Answered in PM

However, as I said in the PM, if you are going by strict definition, then the words "Caught" and "Knocked Loose" shouldn't even be listed in the same text as they should really all be fumbles no? The text has to read like that though because otherwise it's just a PD.



No, we are going off the fact that the receiver should not have access to a break tackle move without possession. Its not the "caught" or the knocked loose" that is the issue, its the fact that a receiver used a break tackle move without possession. This implies an improper coding sequence.

I disagree with the bold... its the fact that a defender used a KL roll despite the receiver having possession.

The break tackle roll established possession first... KL roll should not have happened.