Regardless of whether or not this is working as intended based on the coding, I don't think that it serves anyone by appearing to defy what we know of reality. Traditionally, when a ball is fumbled around a mass of players on both sides of the ball, it's quite unlikely that anything will be made of the play other than a pile-up and a scrum (pardon the rugby reference) would ensue until the play was blown dead and a player was determined to have possession of the ball. So I guess the question that I have is whether or not this type of play would be better served if the perception was the reality, which means that in this situation, 9 times out of 10 the fumbled ball would be fell on and the play would be over.
If the coding stipulated that a fumble occurring within 1 yard of 12 players (on both teams) that the percentage of getting up and running with it would be dramatically reduced, would that be such a bad thing? As for whether or not this is a bug, I don't think that matters as much as the fact that this doesn't seem to align with the intended game play and outcome expected by reasonable, not so super-human beings.
If the coding stipulated that a fumble occurring within 1 yard of 12 players (on both teams) that the percentage of getting up and running with it would be dramatically reduced, would that be such a bad thing? As for whether or not this is a bug, I don't think that matters as much as the fact that this doesn't seem to align with the intended game play and outcome expected by reasonable, not so super-human beings.
Edited by Androth on Jan 31, 2011 16:46:13
), but this happens a lot IMO. Seems like the vast number of fumbles would be recovered with zero return...... defenders ALWAYS are able to pick it up and run, and then an offensive player needs to make a tackle on said recovering player. Most would be a scrum on the ground, unless there is nobody else around...... even then, they would have to bobble the fumble recovery etc more often than exactly ZERO chance that happens now, right?
