Disc touches the ground but is in receiver's possession
americancaveman
occurred in a recent tournament:
I was on offense, cutting for a pass. It was thrown low and I had to
dive for it. I had definitive possession (disc firmly in my hands,
stopped roatation). After I caught it, because I had laid out, the
disc touched the ground. I had possession before the disc touched the
ground and at no point lost it.
Hecklers on the opposing team called the disc down because it touched
the ground. I called it up because I maintained possession the whole
time. Was I right to do so? Can anyone point me to a rule that
clarifies this either way? Many thanks.
Kevin
Grey Till, NYC Mixed
Craig Temple
exist. You'd have to tell the person to show you the rule which
forbids your action. This rule though makes it pretty clear:
II.O.3) A disc in a player’s possession is considered part of that
player.
So, the disc in your possession touching the ground, is no different
from your foot touching the ground. Definitely not a TO.
-- Interesting Tangent --
I noticed something else. What happens if the disc touches the ground
before possession is gained? Well, the obvious answer is that it's a
Turn Over. However, I seem to have found a bit of a hole in the 11th
Edition. I can't find a rule that says catching a pass after it has
touched the ground is a turn over.
The definition of Completed Pass doesn't quite cover it (there's no
mention of catching a pass that has bounced or even hit a long bit of
grass). Nor does the definition of Throw cover the situation. XII.A
states that an incomplete pass is a turnover, but an Incomplete Pass
is defined as when the disc is not caught by the team that had
possession (no mention of ground/tall-grass contact whatsoever).
Probably a good idea to clear that one up, before we start seeing
bounce passes through the cup. I don't see that as too big a threat,
but the scenario where the disc just barely grazes a tall bit of grass
before being caught has no rule to suggest it's a TO. I was as
surprised as anybody. :)
Craig
Flo Pfender
>
> I noticed something else. What happens if the disc touches the ground
> before possession is gained? Well, the obvious answer is that it's a
> Turn Over. However, I seem to have found a bit of a hole in the 11th
> Edition. I can't find a rule that says catching a pass after it has
> touched the ground is a turn over.
>
> The definition of Completed Pass doesn't quite cover it (there's no
> mention of catching a pass that has bounced or even hit a long bit of
> grass). Nor does the definition of Throw cover the situation. XII.A
> states that an incomplete pass is a turnover, but an Incomplete Pass
> is defined as when the disc is not caught by the team that had
> possession (no mention of ground/tall-grass contact whatsoever).
II.T Throw: A disc in flight following any throwing motion (including
a fake) that results in the thrower losing contact with the disc.
Yes, I can still see you arguing your case, but one could argue that
the throw ends the moment the disc touches something other than the
air.
Well... let me reconsider. By this logic, a throw is considered
incomplete once a player tips it. We don't want that.
So yes, I say "good catch" here, we should put this on the list of
things to fix for 11.1.. Until then XV.E says that there is a
difference between the disc touching the ground or not.
Flo.
colinmcintyre
flight after it hits the ground, thus ending the pass/throw. Similar
to footballs and baseballs not being "in flight" after hitting the
ground, but still be in flight if they bounce off of people. No
baseball or football rules handy to back that up. And I'm also for
some clarification.
and a good point on XV.E.
Craig Temple
when the disc hits the ground, the pass is incomplete. The problem
with the 11th is that we've now defined what Completed Pass and
Incomplete Pass means (removing the implied english definitions), and
thus technically removing the room for interpretation of Complete/
Incomplete.
Though the issue really sticks with tall grass. If somebody asks you
to point to a rule that says it's a TO when the disc hits a tall blade
of grass while still in flight, you're left with simply spreading your
hands and saying 'just because that's what it's meant to be' (which,
while the right thing to do, is never ideal). You can't really say
it's no longer in flight (hell I'd argue that a disc is in flight even
after a bounce, if it's still travelling through the air.).
I'd agree that XV.E implies that the disc touching the ground or grass
matters, but that's not good enough to determine a Turn Over.
I suggest the change be to II.T Throw **added words**:
II.T) Throw: A disc in flight **which has not contacted any part of
the ground** following any throwing motion (including a fake) that
results in the thrower losing contact with the disc.
Craig
colinmcintyre
include the "grass = ground" part somewhere more prominent. The
definitions of Completed Pass and Incomplete Pass both implicitly rely
on some definition of "Pass." I don't think their existence precludes
us from making an interpretation of "pass," but I agree we could
codify the common sense reading.
As for claiming a skipped/bouncing disc is "in flight," it's really
contrary to equivalent sports usages I can think of - but is also
defined there, so could/should be here. I agree with simply
identifying an ending point to the flight of a throw.
From the rules of baseball:
A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his
hand or glove of
a ball in flight and firmly holding it
IN FLIGHT describes a batted, thrown, or pitched ball which has not
yet touched
the ground or some object other than a fielder.
From the rules digest of football:
Any forward pass becomes incomplete and ball is dead if:
(a) Pass hits the ground or goes out of bounds.
Craig Temple
can make a change. However "pass" is defined as "throw", which we've
defined in the rules (thus preventing interpretation to the definition
of "throw" or "pass"). So, it seems the logical place to set bounds on
what a throw or pass is.
As for flight, your baseball examples specifically re-defines flight
to exclude whatever happens after the ball touches the ground, because
the english word "flight" can certainly be applied to the actions of a
baseball after it has bounced. What is 'traveling through the air' if
not flight?
Football avoids the issue by stating that a pass becomes incomplete
when it touches the ground (we could do that too, but the way we've
defined Completed Pass essentially states (when you follow the
definition of "catch" and "throw") that a completion is when 'the
offense establishes possession of a throw and retains that
possession' (incomplete being when that doesn't occur). That's pretty
general, but works well.
Anyway, entertaining semantics aside, I think everybody agrees that a
clarification will eventually be made. I just can't wait to play a
game against Mark M. so I can call a bounce pass good and watch him
squirm. Maybe I'll walk the disc 10m downfield after a TO on the PFP
before putting it into play as well and get him to try and chase me
off the field. :)
Craig
colinmcintyre
defined it to accomplish what we want. However, I think basketball
might consider an airborne ball in-flight after it has bounced for the
purposes of scoring after the buzzer. I tried really hard to find
some official rules for stone-skipping that included the words "in
flight," but that's a joke of a sport played mostly by old dudes
throwing spinning discs and therefore doesn't have much in the way of
rules. They do, however, have officials and instant replay. ;)
Steve W.
Craig Temple
ground during rolling maneuver of ground contact, disc is dislodged
during rolling maneuver but not as it was touching the ground [... if
it had, it would be touching the ground while not being in possession,
therefore turnover right there], receiver bobbles and regains
possession in end zone. "
Interesting. While, I think accidental bobbling of the disc into the end zone is clearly a point, the sticky wicket is how to interpret the loss of the possession due to ground contact negating the possession up to that point (II.O.2). Does it mean that the disc contacted the ground while (now) not in possession, and therefore is down?
I'd think that II.O.2 exists solely to cover a situation where the loss of possession results in the disc being dropped to the ground (meaning: contacting the ground while not in possession), and is not intended to apply to situations where the disc is retained by the player. If you change the wording to reflect that, all of the ambiguity from the above situation disappears. That situation becomes one of a handler dropping the disc after a throw is caught, but re-catching it before it hits the ground.
Something like the following appears to work (**added words**): II.O.2) Loss of possession due to ground contact related to a catch, **where possession is not regained before the disc contacts the ground,** negates that player’s possession up to that point.
It's a bit wordy, but gets the point across. Perhaps changing it to an if-then style of working might be more aesthetically pleasing.
Craig
Mark -Mortakai- Moran
On Apr 8, 10:00 am, Craig Temple <tem...@hyperdrive.ca> wrote:
> I just can't wait to play a
> game against Mark M. so I can call a bounce pass good and watch him
> squirm. Maybe I'll walk the disc 10m downfield after a TO on the PFP
> before putting it into play as well and get him to try and chase me
> off the field. :)
mean disc, even in deep, uncut grass.
But don't expect me to chase you... you know that I'm old and
slow ;p .
M