Intentional tip for score
mail3...@gorillaswithdirtyarmpits.com
is wide and the disc is over out of bounds territory. While staying
in bounds, the player reaches out of bonds and intentionally tips the
disc to himself. He then catches the disc in the end zone.
The following facts are agreed upon by the 14 players:
A. The player was always in bounds. Neither the player nor the disc
ever touched out of bounds.
B. The tip was intentional and was used to move the disc from out of
bounds to in bounds.
Questions:
1. Is this a violation of XV.A [purposeful bobbling (including
tipping ...) to oneself in order to advance the disc in any direction
from where it initially was contacted is considered traveling]
2. If this is a travel under XV.A, what is the penalty/remedy?
Will
This was an unresolved issue in the 10th. (See discussion below.) And
a cursory glance at the 11th leads me to believe that it's still
unresolved.
Thanks much for the post, as I'd love to hear if any S.R.C. think
otherwise. I too have seen this happen. When I watched it, a player
jumped for the disc, saw that he was going to land out of bounds, so
he purposely swatted it towards the endzone, where he completed the
catch after running back inbounds. Note: this maneuver took a) great
leaping and b) great speed--it was was an incredibly athletic play,
something that I, for one, am definitely not capable of.
Being on the opposing team, I called the travel immediately. But it
was unclear whether this meant "goal" (since his initial jump was from
inside the endzone--and he eventually caught it in the endzone) or
"disc on the goal line" (because he traveled in order to make the
catch in the endzone) or even turnover (cuz he could only make the
catch via what was arguably an intentional violation). Very trick
situation.
Help?
Steve W.
On Jul 3, 2:37 pm, Will <wmad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This was an unresolved issue in the 10th. (See discussion below.) And
> a cursory glance at the 11th leads me to believe that it's still
> unresolved.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.disc/browse_thread/thread/b4...
>
> Thanks much for the post, as I'd love to hear if any S.R.C. think
> otherwise. I too have seen this happen. When I watched it, a player
> jumped for the disc, saw that he was going to land out of bounds, so
> he purposely swatted it towards the endzone, where he completed the
> catch after running back inbounds. Note: this maneuver took a) great
> leaping and b) great speed--it was was an incredibly athletic play,
> something that I, for one, am definitely not capable of.
>
> Being on the opposing team, I called the travel immediately. But it
> was unclear whether this meant "goal" (since his initial jump was from
> inside the endzone--and he eventually caught it in the endzone) or
> "disc on the goal line" (because he traveled in order to make the
> catch in the endzone) or even turnover (cuz he could only make the
> catch via what was arguably an intentional violation). Very trick
> situation.
>
> Help?
>
It's certainly not a turnover. Even if you were to argue that it was
an intentional violation, the rules don't specify a turnover as the
consequence.
It's hard to say what the rules as currently written would dictate, as
perusing the other thread makes clear. I think that the rules
*should* allow for plays such as the one you describe; one could
rewrite XV.A to read "... purposeful bobbling (...) to oneself for any
purpose other than to avoid a turnover (*) is a violation; if there is
purposeful bobbling to oneself then the receiver gains possession at
either the point on the playing field closest to the first contact or
at the spot of the final catch, whichever the defense chooses."
(*: note that this allows the self-macked greatest as well as tips to
prevent a defender from making a D)
This still makes gratuitous self-macking/delaying etc. an intentional
violation, but allows for sweet plays like yours without
disadvantaging the defense in case a self-mack from outside the
endzone turns into a goal. Anyone want to poke holes?
Flo Pfender
disc back inbounds is a travel.
Two little things have changed from the 10th:
1. It is clarified that this also applies to defenders intercepting
discs (can't purposefully mac it from the field into the endzone to
yourself for a Callahan...)
2. the little words "from where it initially was contacted" were added
for clarity.
But the concept has not changed. You are allowed to mac it to yourself
as long as you are not purposefully advancing it in any direction. If
you advance it it is a travel no matter if this intentional
advancement was to gain control or for some other purpose.
The rule again:
A player may bobble the disc in order to gain control of it, but
purposeful bobbling (including tipping, delaying, guiding, brushing or
the like) to oneself in order to advance the disc in any direction
from where it initially was contacted is considered traveling.
Sentence structure: In general, you are allowed A. But if you do B, it
is a travel (no matter if you were doing A or not).
Flo
Josh Drury
"1. Is this a violation of XV.A [purposeful bobbling (including
tipping ...) to oneself in order to advance the disc in any direction
from where it initially was contacted is considered traveling]"
has been answered - yes, it is travelling.
But what is the answer to
"2. If this is a travel under XV.A, what is the penalty/remedy?"
A few separate issues:
Turnover or not?
I would think this is certainly not a turnover as there is no general
or specific rule indicating it is a turnover.
Stays with the receiver or back to thrower?
This is not really clear... normally a travel is only committed by
someone in possession of the disc including a receiver who just caught
the disc, and the disc always stays with them. In the specific case
of an intentional tip, the travel is committed by someone not (at the
time) in possession of the disc, so does it stay with them, or back to
the initial thrower? I read the rule in XV.A and XVI.J.1.c and
specifically the portion "to advance the disc in any direction from
where it initially was contacted" to indicate that the travel starts
from where the disc was initally contacted... and analogous to if the
player had caught the disc at that point and run with the disc to the
farther point (i.e. where they actually caught the disc after tipping
it to themselves). At least, that is how I would apply it if the disc
was tipped from the playing field proper (make them take it where they
first contacted the disc). I am interested in knowing if that is the
correct interpretation.
The last question is, if the disc stays with the receiver, where to
put it into play?
I thought this would be similar to the case where a player making a
greatest is fouled and possession reverts to them at the nearest spot
on the playing field (XVI.F), but I see that is very specific to a
thrower... so does not apply to a receiver. I can't find an
equivalent rule for receivers.
My initial inclination is, disc stays with the receiver and they take
it at the goal line... that seems intuitively correct, but I can't
find any specific basis for that conclusion (or an alternative
outcome). Any expert opinon on this?
Mark -Mortakai- Moran
> it at the goal line... that seems intuitively correct, but I can't
> find any specific basis for that conclusion (or an alternative
> outcome). Any expert opinon on this?
I would suggest the disc goes back to the place the travel occurred...
i.e., the initial intentional tip. XVI.C states that a travel re-sets
to the thrower at the location of the infraction. Sure, it's difficult
to find wording that supports this person being the thrower (no
sustained contact/control)... however, I believe the logic is still
the same.
Will
On Jul 4, 5:21 pm, Mark -Mortakai- Moran <just_morta...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> I would suggest the disc goes back to the place the travel occurred...
> i.e., the initial intentional tip.
Hmmm. The problem with that is that the "place the travel
occurred...i.e., the initial intentional tip" is the "out-of-bounds"
location. Which would make this a situation where the disc gets
tapped "live" while out-of-bounds. OK, so maybe that's not a
problem. But it's certainly weird (I can't think of any other
situation in which that would happen).
I agree with Josh that "goal line" seems more intuitive.
Will
Flo Pfender
continuation rule):
1. If the travel is called before the self mac is completed (say, the
player is repeatedly self macing it down the field), the disc returns
to the original thrower. Call during a throw, resulting in possession
of the infracting team, affected the play.
2. If the travel is called after the self mac is completed (this will
happen most times since you won't realize that it is a self mac until
the player catches it), we already have a new thrower at the time of
the call (the pass is caught and the reception is not negated by the
travel rule---different from a receiving foul). Now XVI.C.4.c tells us
this thrower has to return to the location he maced it. He was
inbounds (and in the air), so the closest we got is as if he caught it
inbounds and ran out. Or XVI.F. The two results are very similar,
check it OB and bring it back to the spot where he left the field or
closest spot on the field. Btw, there is precedence in the rules for
checking it somewhere else than where you put it in play: uncontested
receiving foul in the end zone.
Remains the question if this is exactly how we want it...
The first case above appears a little different from what we expect. I
think we all agree that the traveling player in the middle of the
field should take the disc back to where he started traveling.
Applying this to the jumping OB scenario, we would the closest spot on
the field, similar to the foul on a greatest.
So what happens if both the self mac and the catch are in the end
zone? Is this a goal?
No, since the pass was not completely "legal", part of it was after
the travel. So, no goal, disc back on the goal line.
Flo.
p.s.: all this is in fact an intentional violation of the rules---an
intentional travel. The rules assume that no one will do this. Thus,
it is not too important that the resolution of such a situation may
not exactly "fit the crime".
p.p.s: if you think that it would be better to make this legal (self
mac to get the disc back inbounds), then you should go all the way and
make all self macs legal. Otherwise, you may again create a very hard
to call interpretation issue of "couldn't you just have caught it with
a toe drag?"
Intentional self macs are pretty easy to tell, but this other issue
might be a little harder.
Steve W.
> p.s.: all this is in fact an intentional violation of the rules---an
> intentional travel. The rules assume that no one will do this. Thus,
> it is not too important that the resolution of such a situation may
> not exactly "fit the crime".
Well, yes and no. I imagine that most players, even though they
probably know of the no-self-mac rule, wouldn't know about this strict
interpretation of it as given by the SRC. I know I wouldn't, had I
not been reading this thread - it had seemed intuitive to me that the
spirit of the no-self-mac rule wasn't intended to make the plays we're
discussing here illegal. (Not that I could make a play like that if I
wanted to.)
Incidentally, this gives a disadvantage to players who have read this
thread. Players ignorant of the ruling will (if they are able) do a
self-mac to prevent a turnover, thinking it a legal play, and even if
the violation is called they maintain possession, whereas you and I
are bound not to attempt such a thing.
>
> p.p.s: if you think that it would be better to make this legal (self
> mac to get the disc back inbounds), then you should go all the way and
> make all self macs legal. Otherwise, you may again create a very hard
> to call interpretation issue of "couldn't you just have caught it with
> a toe drag?"
> Intentional self macs are pretty easy to tell, but this other issue
> might be a little harder.
I don't think it would be that hard of a distinction to make. For one
thing, given that the play in question is much more difficult to pull
off than "merely" catching with a toe drag, I doubt that there will be
receivers attempting to perform this maneuver when a toe drag is
conceivable. Secondly, if you specify a remedy for all intentional
self-macs, presumably that the offense takes possession at the less
advantageous of the initial or final contact, then the defense won't
have much to complain about in any situation.
mail3...@gorillaswithdirtyarmpits.com
Jon Bauman
Seriously, am I the only one who sees this as a really ridiculous consequence of the continuation rule? I have been a proponent of ditching the self-MAC rule since I first read it. It's one of the few remaining rules that requires interpreting players' intent; the outcomes are confusing, and it's exceedingly rare at any decent level. What do people think about eliminating this rule? I don't think it would change things very much. At best, it increases the penalty for leaving someone with good freestyle skills wide open.
Also, Flo, I don't think we really apply the "time of the call" continuation clause to other rules that way. Imagine an offensive receiving foul where the contact clearly occurred before the receiver caught the disc, but the defender doesn't get the call off until after the receiver establishes possession. This occurs often, but we don't treat this like a foul call against a thrower. In these self-MAC scenarios, the infraction could only have occurred BEFORE the receiver became the thrower. It makes no sense to apply continuation as though they were the thrower already. It should always go back to the thrower, unless it was deemed to have not affected the play.
P.S. Let's get rid of this rule.
Flo Pfender
On Jul 5, 6:59 pm, "Jon Bauman" <baum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The moral of the story? Make sure to call those potential self-MAC travels
> right away and it goes back to the thrower.
yupp. and this is actually not so bad a result for someone
intentionally breaking a rule.
>
> Seriously, am I the only one who sees this as a really ridiculous
> consequence of the continuation rule?
No. You are not. Ridiculous consequence of continuation rule. But I am
willing to live with it for these very rare scenarios.
> I have been a proponent of ditching
> the self-MAC rule since I first read it. It's one of the few remaining rules
> that requires interpreting players' intent; the outcomes are confusing, and
> it's exceedingly rare at any decent level.
The only place I could see this used effectively and with significant
frequency is the huck to the unguarded receiver. If you are skilled at
tipping/delaying you can easily gain some extra yardage without much
risk, and possibly get it all the way into the end zone.
So this is the scenario we have to think about. Maybe it would be
enough to change the scoring rules into also requiring first ground
contact after first contact with the disc must be in the end zone.
Then, at least the delays into the end zone would not be scores.
> What do people think about
> eliminating this rule? I don't think it would change things very much. At
> best, it increases the penalty for leaving someone with good freestyle
> skills wide open.
>
> Also, Flo, I don't think we really apply the "time of the call" continuation
> clause to other rules that way. Imagine an offensive receiving foul where
> the contact clearly occurred before the receiver caught the disc, but the
> defender doesn't get the call off until after the receiver establishes
> possession.
Jon,
wrong example. In the receiving foul section, this catch is negated.
But you are right, my literal reading creates some problems with other
violations (e.g., a pick in the vicinity of the disc right before the
catch).
Nevertheless I believe my reading is correct, yet not necessarily
intended.
colinm...@gmail.com
me. It's a lot harder to gain extra yards tipping than it is
delaying. At least we'd be rewarding the truly talented, rather than
any schmo that happens to be wearing his fake fingernails that day.
So the cost would be a little extra wording to make the distinction,
but it could make for some entertaining plays. We want fan-friendly,
right?
How would you write the rule to allow the self-mac, but disallow
controlled hot-potato-style bobbling? I suppose legalizing tipping
and bobbling for control, but prohibiting delaying or controlled
bobbling would do it. But then there's some intent to be analyzed in
the bobbling. Even bobbling might be pretty tricky, though, without
having caught it first, come to think of it.
Parinella
I'm still parsing this sentence differently than you are. In the
example here, the player was bobbling the disc in order to gain
control of it in bounds. If you are going to parse it this way, then
any self-mac will advance the disc in some direction (other than one
that stops the disc exactly where it is). Even if you knock it up in
the air, you are advancing the disc knowingly.
Jim