From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Jun 29 13:04:13 1999 Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00886 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:03:26 +0100 (BST) Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daffodil [137.205.192.30]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA00857 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:03:20 +0100 (BST) Received: from gatekeeper.eaglestar.co.uk (gatekeeper.eaglestar.co.uk [192.147.228.29]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA07773 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:03:13 +0100 (BST) Received: by gatekeeper.eaglestar.co.uk id AA14816 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk); Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:55:50 +0100 Received: by gatekeeper.eaglestar.co.uk (Internal Mail Agent-1); Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:55:50 +0100 Message-Id: <001601bec227$690dfcb0$be17010a@w046901> From: "James Hewitson" <james.hewitson@Zurich.co.uk> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Cc: <simon.hill@actix.com> Subject: Re: RULE QUESTION Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:03:33 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk The rules (404.06 Out-Of-Bounds) state that "In the event the momentum of a player carries him out-of-bounds after making an in-bounds reception" (which I presume is the case since Wigsy "slid out of the pitch"),....., "The player shall resume play at the point he or she went out-of-bounds". Therefore my understanding would be that putting down a disc that has been caught would be considered a turnover whether on or off the pitch (other than obvious stuff like after timeout calls etc). And throwing the disc without having a established a legal pivot foot within th field of play is always travelling ! Balti BAF34 -----Original Message----- From: Simon Hill <simon.hill@actix.com> To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Date: 29 June 1999 12:47 Subject: RE: RULE QUESTION > [Simon Hill] > Before I get involed in all this - can I just thank Skunks and >anyone involved in organising the tourney for a well-run and very enjoyable >event. > > And add that the permutations for finishing places at TourV and >their impact on who wins the Tour would make John Motson say "... but lets >leave that to the mathematicians". > Hopefully a stato (like me) will get a chance to go through the >details and put them on BD as I think they will make the games more >interesting to the neutrals in Exeter. > >> >So can >> >some one clarify the issue, and would it make a >> >difference if the same thing happened but I was >> >in-field? >> >> as happened in the final against Chevron. >> >> rob >> > [Simon Hill] > But I think the same point stands. Did Wigsy have possession at the >point of "letting go of the disc"? (For those who didn't notice he was at >the time lying face down on the ground - feet up in the air I would say.) > > Or to put it another way, had he thrown directly off the ground to >one of his teammates, could an oppenent have called travel? What if he had >thrown straight it to me in the endzone for a "score"? Presumably I would >have to walk back to the front of the zone since strictly speaking I was >taking possession from Chev. > > I believe that strictly speaking there was no turnover in either >case. (Of course I believe that, otherwise I would have suggested to Wigs >that he had turned over and should give the disc back at the time.) Having >said all that I think we'll make sure that it doesn't happen again. We do >our best to avoid all forms of controversy... :-) > > Si - 22