From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Jun 29 15:03:34 1999 Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00167 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:02:14 +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 PAA00158 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:02:11 +0100 (BST) Received: from mailgw.chelt.ac.uk (mailgw.chelt.ac.uk [194.81.184.203]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24094 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:02:11 +0100 (BST) Received: from exchpk02.chelt.ac.uk (unverified) by mailgw.chelt.ac.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id <B0000613586@mailgw.chelt.ac.uk> for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:57:23 +0100 Received: by exchpk02.chelt.ac.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <NP14JBJJ>; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:01:36 +0100 Message-Id: <8102C4585310D211858D0060B01A41337ED4BC@exchpk02.chelt.ac.uk> From: "HUGHES, Chris" <CHughes@chelt.ac.uk> To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: RE: RULE QUESTION - bored yet? Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:01:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk No - just getting started. The rules last year clarified a couple of gray areas, but I still don't think they cover this. The rules now state that you have to have control of the disc and yourself to claim a catch (so no laying out catching the disc - putting a foot down to claim the score and then dropping the disc when you go splat) - you have to complete the catching action. This also rules out double turnovers when you get the D then drop it on landing. So the question is when have you completed the catch? - presumably when you have gained possession - ie established a pivot foot (thereby scoring if you are in the endzone). If you are not on the pitch and have never been you cannot have possession and therefore can place the disc on the floor (if on D) and have never completed the catch so you do not have to take possession. But then the looming monster that is spirit kicks in - if the 'drop' is a genuine fumble fair enough that is exactly what the rules set out to try and solve. If the 'drop' is deliberately placing the disc on the floor [CN: I placed the disc - CH: please note I didn't see or hear about the incident and am not implying any attempt by Christian to twist the rules] as callous attempt to allow a stronger handler pick up the disc then I would personally say that is pushing the limits too far. What about in-pitch. Well the rules only state a pivot foot is required, and it is only traveling if that pivot foot is moved (I suppose you could crawl up pitch without your feet touching the ground and that's not traveling?) But as before it is down to completing the catching motion, and when exactly you lost the disc. All of this is assuming that there was no contact, so no strip or foul. However as they stand; if the drop is accidental that is exactly what the double-turnover rule was designed to clarify, if the drop was blatantly deliberate you are pushing the spirit aspect of the rules. I think that rules never envisaged the situation that anyone playing ultimate didn't actually want the disc. The moral of the story Wiggsy would have to be, don't push the rules in future unless you can afford to give up the disc - presumably even you can get a five yard pass to Si. Chris (all this coming from the man who had a second go at possession because he got the D and then launched an incomplete pass without getting back to the pitch) > ---------- > From: Simon Hill[SMTP:simon.hill@actix.com] > Sent: 29 June 1999 13:23 > To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk > Subject: RE: RULE QUESTION - bored yet? > > [Simon Hill] > Incidentally - I had an official response about the question of > where the disc is played from if the pull rolls out of the back of the > endzone. Apparently nobody had thought of that! And so they'll be > amending > things once they've worked out what to do! Ooops. > > > 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". > > > [Simon Hill] > Actually Wigs landed OB - ie didn't make an in-bounds reception. > > > 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 ! > > > [Simon Hill] > Exactly my point. But if he doesn't have possession, how can > dropping the disc result in a turnover. It can't. > > What if he has control, hits the ground, and then drops? Double > turnover? No. The rule that allowed the so-called "double-turnover" was > removed (as I understand it). It certainly is a grey-area - and the > D-player would be well-advised to retain possession, get up onto his feet, > and give the disc to his handler who will (by then) be standing 5 yards > behind and to the left of him imploring him to throw a dump! :) > > Si - 22 >