Tipping the Disc
t
brushing, bobbling, etc.) the disc before catching it. My conclusions are:
1. If the disc is unintenionally tipped, it has no effect, i.e. the tipping
player or a teammate can catch it with no penalty.
2. If a player deliberately tips the disc, and then it is caught by that
player (with no intermediate player touching it) it is traveling, and the
penalty is that the player returns to the location where s/he first touched
the disc.
3. I found nothing in the rules about tipping the disc to a teammate.
4. I believe it's never bad spirit to tip the disc, deliberately or not.
This leads me to the following conclusions:
A. A "self-greatest" is legal. Player jumps from in bounds, tips the disc,
lands out of bounds, runs back in bounds and catches the disc. It's a
successful catch, though it's traveling and the defense can require the
player to return to where the player originally jumped from.
B. A player in traffic might jump and tip the disc away from defenders, then
follow it and catch it. It's a good catch, but also a travel.
C. Two teammates are chasing a disc. One can lay out, but fears s/he'll drop
it when s/he hits the ground, so instead tips it up for the teammate to
catch. Good catch, no violation.
D. One player, who is not in the end zone, deliberately tips the disc to a
teammate in the end zone for a score. Good catch, no violation.
None of these plays are likely to happen, but this is my reading of the
rules.
Right?
Tim Berla
Gimpeltf
>player or a teammate can catch it with no penalty.
Of course.
>2. If a player deliberately tips the disc, and then it is caught by that
>player (with no intermediate player touching it) it is traveling, and the
>penalty is that the player returns to the location where s/he first touched
>the disc.
Not necessarily. If no yardage was gained it is still legal.
>3. I found nothing in the rules about tipping the disc to a teammate.
There's a good reason for that.
>4. I believe it's never bad spirit to tip the disc, deliberately or not.
As long as you tip at least 15%.
>This leads me to the following conclusions:
>
>A. A "self-greatest" is legal. Player jumps from in bounds, tips the disc,
>lands out of bounds, runs back in bounds and catches the disc. It's a
>successful catch, though it's traveling and the defense can require the
>player to return to where the player originally jumped from.
I want to see the guy that can jump out of bounds, tip the disc up about 40
feet, land, get up, run back in bounds getting at least one step in bounds
before catching.
On second thought- maybe I don't want to see him.
>B. A player in traffic might jump and tip the disc away from defenders, then
>follow it and catch it. It's a good catch, but also a travel.
Assuming no change between 9th and 10th- the rules talk about not allowing this
while 'gaining yardage'. I've never really heard what this means. Is moving in
any direction gaining yardage? I could see it either way here. The original
intent was to prevent the freestylers from marching down the field and scoring.
Running away from or parallel to the goal line wouldn't do this. On the other
hand, maybe if the receiver was trying to get around the defenders (not to
catch but to throw) it wouldn't be right.
>C. Two teammates are chasing a disc. One can lay out, but fears s/he'll drop
>it when s/he hits the ground, so instead tips it up for the teammate to
>catch. Good catch, no violation.
>
Yup.
>D. One player, who is not in the end zone, deliberately tips the disc to a
>teammate in the end zone for a score. Good catch, no violation.
Yup.
Gimp
WHUF
"Gimpeltf" <gimp...@aol.com> wrote...
> >1. If the disc is unintenionally tipped, it has no effect, i.e. the
tipping
> >player or a teammate can catch it with no penalty.
>
> Of course.
>
> >2. If a player deliberately tips the disc, and then it is caught by that
> >player (with no intermediate player touching it) it is traveling, and
the
> >penalty is that the player returns to the location where s/he first
touched
> >the disc.
>
> Not necessarily. If no yardage was gained it is still legal.
Yardage gained, whatever that means, has nothing to do with it. The rules
only bar tipping to oneself in order to advance the disc. If you don't tip
for that purpose, it's not a travel, no matter where the disc ends up.
Intent is a part of this rule.
> >3. I found nothing in the rules about tipping the disc to a teammate.
>
> There's a good reason for that.
Because it's legal.
> >4. I believe it's never bad spirit to tip the disc, deliberately or not.
If your deliberate tipping constitutes a travel it is the worst spirit.
It's deliberate cheating. The preface would call it a gross violation of
spirit of the game. The idea that you could intentionally travel and just
accept the travel and go back violates the most basic concept of spirit.
You need to understand that for when you come across a situation where it
is in your interest to intentionally commit a violation or foul. The thing
is none of the situations you describe as travels are necessarily
violations and most likely are not.
> As long as you tip at least 15%.
>
> >This leads me to the following conclusions:
> >
> >A. A "self-greatest" is legal. Player jumps from in bounds, tips the
disc,
> >lands out of bounds, runs back in bounds and catches the disc. It's a
> >successful catch, though it's traveling and the defense can require the
> >player to return to where the player originally jumped from.
Not a travel as long as the player did it just to make the catch, not in
order to get to a different position on the field.
> I want to see the guy that can jump out of bounds, tip the disc up about
40
> feet, land, get up, run back in bounds getting at least one step in
bounds
> before catching.
> On second thought- maybe I don't want to see him.
>
> >B. A player in traffic might jump and tip the disc away from defenders,
then
> >follow it and catch it. It's a good catch, but also a travel.
No travel as long as the player does the tip for the purpose of making the
catch and not because he could have caught it on the first touch but wanted
to catch it somewhere else.
> Assuming no change between 9th and 10th- the rules talk about not
allowing this
> while 'gaining yardage'. I've never really heard what this means. Is
moving in
> any direction gaining yardage? I could see it either way here. The
original
> intent was to prevent the freestylers from marching down the field and
scoring.
> Running away from or parallel to the goal line wouldn't do this. On the
other
> hand, maybe if the receiver was trying to get around the defenders (not
to
> catch but to throw) it wouldn't be right.
At least in my memory-- the last 5 years, the rules never mentioned
"gaining yardage." They talked about "advancing the disc." If you use the
term "gaining yardage," you think of football where the meaning is
defined-- closer to your goal line is gaining yardage, while going 30 yards
horizontally across field is not. Advancing the disc in ultimate can mean
anything-- a dump, a 25 yard swing, getting off the sideline, around a
mark, away from a defender, out of a puddle. The 10th Edition clarified
this by changing the phrase to "advancing in any direction."
T
>
> A. A "self-greatest" is legal. Player jumps from in bounds, tips the disc,
> lands out of bounds, runs back in bounds and catches the disc. It's a
> successful catch, though it's traveling and the defense can require the
> player to return to where the player originally jumped from.
>
> B. A player in traffic might jump and tip the disc away from defenders,
then
> follow it and catch it. It's a good catch, but also a travel.
>
> C. Two teammates are chasing a disc. One can lay out, but fears s/he'll
drop
> it when s/he hits the ground, so instead tips it up for the teammate to
> catch. Good catch, no violation.
>
> D. One player, who is not in the end zone, deliberately tips the disc to a
> teammate in the end zone for a score. Good catch, no violation.
>
> None of these plays are likely to happen, but this is my reading of the
> rules.
Not that unlikely! I've pulled off B (not a travel either) and D, and would
have pulled off C if my teammate wasn't a bonehead and slowed down for a few
seconds b/c he thought I dropped it for a turnover. That first one though,
that would just be sick.
T
James Y. Yang
> > This leads me to the following conclusions:
> >
> > A. A "self-greatest" is legal. Player jumps from in bounds, tips the disc,
> > lands out of bounds, runs back in bounds and catches the disc. It's a
> > successful catch, though it's traveling and the defense can require the
> > player to return to where the player originally jumped from.
> >
with the right into the wind conditions plus a timely gust, the tip
could add enough height to catch wind and blow it back in bounds.....
for a goal?
that's two points for the stat sheet.
jy
russ
"WHUF" <WH...@email.com> wrote:
> Yardage gained, whatever that means, has nothing to do with it. The rules
> only bar tipping to oneself in order to advance the disc. If you don't
tip
> for that purpose, it's not a travel, no matter where the disc ends up.
> Intent is a part of this rule.
Actually there are two definitions of what's ok, one specifically bars
advancing (in any direction). The othre specifies that it's ok when you're
doing it to gain control:
XV.A. Bobbling to gain control of the disc is permitted, but purposeful,
controlled bobbling to oneself (i. e., tipping, delaying, guiding, or
brushing) in order to advance the disc in any direction is considered
traveling and is not allowed.
Why this is important later.
> If your deliberate tipping constitutes a travel it is the worst spirit.
> It's deliberate cheating. The preface would call it a gross violation of
> spirit of the game. The idea that you could intentionally travel and just
> accept the travel and go back violates the most basic concept of spirit.
Thanks for posting this before I did. Intentional violations are no good.
> The thing
> is none of the situations you describe as travels are necessarily
> violations and most likely are not.
I thought you had a good loophole, but re-reading the rule, maybe not.
[self-greatest]
> Not a travel as long as the player did it just to make the catch, not in
> order to get to a different position on the field.
XV.A does not read that it's ok to do it to make the cathc, but rather to
gain control. One might argue that if you had an opportunity to gain control
but don't take it, it's illegal to MAC it. So:
I jump up next to a defender who is taller than I am. I get there about the
same time and am in position to knock the disc, but no way I can get the
extra two inches needed to catch it before the D is there. I knock it in a
direction and go catch it. This is legal because I could not have gained
control otherwise.
I jump from IB to OB, and and am able to catch the disc. If I MAC it IB
instead to go catch it, intentional travel. I could've gained control, but
chose not to.
As a side note, it's probably important to mention this is a MAC'ed
greatest, not a catch.throw greatest. You cannot catch your own (untouched)
throw.
The fact that greatests are legal catches also makes the original loophole
of MAC'ing to make the catch on the field (as opposed to in the air over OB)
a travel...
> The 10th Edition clarified
> this by changing the phrase to "advancing in any direction."
And by changed you obviously mean clarified or improved. Yeah SRC.
russ
Peter Washington
> Yardage gained, whatever that means, has nothing to do with it. The rules
> only bar tipping to oneself in order to advance the disc. If you don't tip
> for that purpose, it's not a travel, no matter where the disc ends up.
> Intent is a part of this rule.
And that's a problem, for a couple of reasons. First, imagine this
argument between player X and player Y (opponents): X: "Travel! You
tipped the disc to yourself to 'advance the disc.'" Y: "Contest. My
purpose was to make the catch easier--I really had to reach for it and
I felt it would be easier to tip it, keep running and then make a
simple pancake catch, so no travel." That's a nightmare to
adjudicate.
Secondly, and more importantly, it's not at all clear to me that what
Y did (assuming we can accept his explanation) is legal under the rule
as written. It's very plausible to argue that he intended to advance
the disc. Imagine a murderer arguing that he didn't "intend" to kill
because his ultimate purpose was to steal money. No dice. While he
wasn't motivated by a desire to see the victim dead, he still
intentionally killed her. (How about a more mundane example: my
faucet is leaking; I unscrew the thing on the end so I can replace the
gasket; my only reason for doing that is so I can fix the leak, but
it's obvious that I intended to remove the thing from the faucet.)
Same here. The receiver quite intentionally advanced the disc by
tipping--just because the tipping-and-advancing was only an
intermediate step in the process, the ultimate goal of which was
simply to obtain possession, doesn't mean there wasn't intent to
advance the disc by tipping. In fact, it PROVES there was intent to
advance the disc by tipping. I don't think the words "in order to"
differentiate between this simple definition of intent and a more
specialized definition that somehow only accounts for end purposes and
not intermediate means to those ends.
I'm still having trouble with an earlier part of the discussion,
though. Say a receiver violates the no-intentional-self-tip rule.
The original poster indicated that the remedy is to give him the disc
at the spot where he originally tipped it. This seems wrong to
me--how can we be sure he could have caught it there? Maybe the only
way he makes the catch is to violate the rule! There are two ways to
handle this: either send it back to the thrower, or punish his
intentional violation by calling it a turnover. Both seem more fair
to me than giving it to him. Anyone have better insight than me on
what the actual result is, under the rules? (Has anyone ever CALLED
this violation?)
Pete
Dave
Gimpeltf
A freestyle maneuver where you allow the disc to spin on your fingernail.
Gimp
WHUF
"russ" <rl...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message...
> "WHUF" <WH...@email.com> wrote:
>
> [self-greatest]
> > Not a travel as long as the player did it just to make the catch, not
in
> > order to get to a different position on the field.
>
> XV.A does not read that it's ok to do it to make the cathc, but rather to
> gain control. One might argue that if you had an opportunity to gain
control
> but don't take it, it's illegal to MAC it. So:
Thanks for the correction, I think you're definitely right here. The rule
does say "gain control," not "make the catch" but I don't think there is a
real difference there. The problem is that I had treated "make the catch"
the same as "make the catch in bounds" and those are clearly two different
things. You can gain control and possession without a point of ground
contact.
In the self-mac greatest, you tip the disc to yourself not for the purpose
of gaining control, which you could do mid-air o.b., but for the purpose of
advancing the disc to an inbounds area where you can then make a legal
catch. So it is illegal. Kinda too bad because I'd love to see someone
pull this off.
>
> I jump up next to a defender who is taller than I am. I get there about
the
> same time and am in position to knock the disc, but no way I can get the
> extra two inches needed to catch it before the D is there. I knock it in
a
> direction and go catch it. This is legal because I could not have gained
> control otherwise.
>
> I jump from IB to OB, and and am able to catch the disc. If I MAC it IB
> instead to go catch it, intentional travel. I could've gained control,
but
> chose not to.
So knowing this is illegal, you'd never attempt it, but what if a player
did not know it was illegal and completed the play? The rules make it a
travel at the moment of the tip to advance the disc. But a travel is not a
turnover, so what happens? Would possession revert to the receiver who had
never gained possession? And would he get the disc o.b., where he touched
it, so he'd check it in and immediately turn it over? The rules only talk
about possession reverting to an o.b. thrower, and our self-mac greatest
attempter is not a thrower at the time he makes the tip. What if a player
with better sideline perspective claimed that though he thought he was
o.b., he was really in bounds when he tipped the disc?
t
possible to catch it is a violation. Again, the rule says:
XV.A. Bobbling to gain control of the disc is permitted, but purposeful,
controlled bobbling to oneself (i. e., tipping, delaying, guiding, or
brushing) in order to advance the disc in any direction is considered
traveling and is not allowed.
If a player tips the disc when they've jumped from IB to OB and could catch
it (but land OB, turnover) they are NOT (imho) trying to advance the disc in
any direction. (If the rule were interpreted as you suggest, it would also
mean that you could legally tip the disc (since a teammate might catch it)
but if you then caught the tip that would make the tip, a few seconds
earlier, illegal. Or you might argue "I tried to tip it to a teammate, but
they were to busy staring at me, so I caught it instead, but had no intent
...") The reason I believe this is that I think the phrase "advance the disc
in any direction" refers to taking an action in order to catch the disc in a
particular location, but does not refer to any attempt to successfully catch
the disc and avoid a turnover.
So the way I read the ambiguity is that any attempt to avoid a turnover
(other than a foul or other violation like throwing one's clothing at the
disc) is legal. To me, this captures the spirit of this rule better.
A way to solve this in the next edition of the rules, if there is one, might
be to take intent out of the equation altogether.
Proposed Alternate Rule: Bobbling, tipping, delaying, guiding or brushing to
gain control of the disc is permitted. If a player touches the disc at one
or more locations then gains control at another location without another
player touching it in between, (and the player is IB at all of these
locations) it is a successful catch. However, when a player executes such a
multiple contact catch, the location of the catch is the least favorable of
the locations where the touches took place.
This would mean if you boobled the disc while running out of the end zone or
while running into the end zone you would be not in.
This is an unwieldy first attempt, which I think captures the spirit. It
means that there is no violation no matter what happens, just an adjustment
as to where the disc is next put into play. And it avoids the need to judge
a player's intent.It allows players to go all out trying to catch the disc.
"russ" <rl...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
news:bepepp$bqf$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
russ
> A way to solve this in the next edition of the rules, if there is one,
might
> be to take intent out of the equation altogether.
Certainly a goal of the SRC. This is a pretty solid idea that I haven't been
able to poke a hole in.
In final wording, I would put another bullet point under II.D (definition of
Possession, which is equivalent to a catch).
II.D.5 A player who takes possession of the ^ disc establishes a pivot at
the point on the playing field proper closest to where they first contacted
disc after any other player contacted it.
The wording is still a little clunky. I don't like "establishes a pivot",
but "takes possession" seems redundant or even contradictory, and "put in
play" may or may not be technically correct. I also considered putting "In
Bounds" at the carrot (^), but that may be covered by the definition of
turn-over. Finally, the phrasing from "first contacted" is subject to
clarification.
Scenarios:
Unintentional bobbles:
It seems fair as a blanket statement to make unintentional bobbles take
possession where they first could've caught the disc. Some unfairness may
creep in if where they first touched it it was not catchable (or
possessionable, like in the air OB?). So bobble into the endzone, no score
(different than current play, but fair, I think... I've heard the argument
of "I hadn't caught it yet", and it's pretty lame). Bobble out of the
endzone, no score (playing field proper).
Intentional bobbles:
Here's some weirdness, people should try to poke holes. Are there scenarios
where an intentional MAC moving back to original position is a big enough
advantage that it outweighs the risk (which may be large or small) of making
the MAC? E.g. I MAC away from my defense to make an easier catch, but get it
back where I contact it.
The penalty of intentional stuff is still a travel (this time implicitly, by
defining a pivot spot). This gets rid of my favorite "intent" clause, but
that's been the SRC mission, I think.
Nice work.
russ
malcolm
> > > A. A "self-greatest" is legal. Player jumps from in bounds, tips the disc,
> > > lands out of bounds, runs back in bounds and catches the disc. It's a
> > > successful catch, though it's traveling and the defense can require the
> > > player to return to where the player originally jumped from.
> > >
>
> with the right into the wind conditions plus a timely gust, the tip
> could add enough height to catch wind and blow it back in bounds.....
> for a goal?
>
the endzone to make a layout D on a disc he thought was going to curl
in. Only to Mac it sky ward whereupon it caught the wind and started
looping into the endzone once more.
Realising his mistake he got back on his feet ran the few yards back
into the zone and layed out again this time knocking the disc to the
ground. It was pretty sick I can tell you. And if it had been at the
other end of the field he could have caught it and pulled off a self
greatest. It was Finn by the way for any Clapham players reading this.
malcolm
Clapham Ultimate, BrunelSTD
WHUF
> "WHUF" <WH...@email.com> wrote in message
news:<uwJPa.42362$C83.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
> > Yardage gained, whatever that means, has nothing to do with it. The
rules
> > only bar tipping to oneself in order to advance the disc. If you don't
tip
> > for that purpose, it's not a travel, no matter where the disc ends up.
> > Intent is a part of this rule.
>
> And that's a problem, for a couple of reasons. First, imagine this
> argument between player X and player Y (opponents): X: "Travel! You
> tipped the disc to yourself to 'advance the disc.'" Y: "Contest. My
> purpose was to make the catch easier--I really had to reach for it and
> I felt it would be easier to tip it, keep running and then make a
> simple pancake catch, so no travel." That's a nightmare to
> adjudicate.
Yeah, anytime intent is part of the rules, it creates a problem. But it's
only a problem where the intent isn't obvious. Clearly the freeestyler
doing a nail delay around the field is commiting a violation.
I guess you could take intent out of it by allowing any bobbling, tipping,
etc. but making the disc come back to the point of the first touch with a
check (as long as the bobbler gained legal possession in bounds). That way
there would be no reason to bobble or tip the disc except to gain control.
Any side benefit of advancing the disc would be negated.
This is sort of how the original poster wanted to play it, as a sort of
allowable travel. The good thing is that this would legalize the self-MAC
greatest (with some wording about whwere the disc come back in). It would
also take away a play that seems unfair, in which a receive bobbles the
disc into the end-zone. The bad thing is that it would add an extra
stoppage and slow down the game in situations where there's no doubt the
bobble was unintentional. I don't think the ground touch without a check
like the 10th Ed. added for throwers bringing the disc in from o.b or
walking up to the goal line would really work in such situations, because I
doubt someone pulling such a maneuver would be aware enough of exactly
where the first touch occured. Another bad side effect would be that a
player who accidentally bobbles a pass backwards and has to lay out for it
would be allowed to regain a lot of lost time and ground.
> Secondly, and more importantly, it's not at all clear to me that what
> Y did (assuming we can accept his explanation) is legal under the rule
> as written. It's very plausible to argue that he intended to advance
> the disc. Imagine a murderer arguing that he didn't "intend" to kill
> because his ultimate purpose was to steal money. No dice. While he
> wasn't motivated by a desire to see the victim dead, he still
> intentionally killed her. (How about a more mundane example: my
> faucet is leaking; I unscrew the thing on the end so I can replace the
> gasket; my only reason for doing that is so I can fix the leak, but
> it's obvious that I intended to remove the thing from the faucet.)
> Same here. The receiver quite intentionally advanced the disc by
> tipping--just because the tipping-and-advancing was only an
> intermediate step in the process, the ultimate goal of which was
> simply to obtain possession, doesn't mean there wasn't intent to
> advance the disc by tipping. In fact, it PROVES there was intent to
> advance the disc by tipping. I don't think the words "in order to"
> differentiate between this simple definition of intent and a more
> specialized definition that somehow only accounts for end purposes and
> not intermediate means to those ends.
Well you can intend two things at the same time. You can do one action
purposefully to get two benefits. Admittedly the wording of the rule is
somewhat self-contradictory and could use clarification. If you look only
at the second clause in the bobble rule sentence ("...purposeful controlled
bobbling to oneself...in order to advance the disc in any direction is
considered traveling and is not allowed.") you'd think any time one
bobbles/tips and wants to advance the disc, it is a travel. But the first
clause ("Bobbling to gain control of the disc is permitted...") explicitly
allows bobbling for another purpose without specifying that that bobbling
has to be a complete accident.
How I reconcile it is that we can assume that the bobbling that is
explicitly allowed is obviously likely to advance the disc because it would
be virtually impossible for it not to do so. So advancing is not
prohibited in and of itself. Everyone agrees that a receiver who boinks
the disc off his hand or chest while running and then grabs it, has just
done what the bobble rule allows, despite the fact that he advanced the
disc.
If any intentional bobbling that advances the disc (even if gaining control
is the main purpose) were illegal, it would not be necessary to use the
words "in order to advance." That would be redundant since that clause
refers to purposeful bobbling.
In fact since it's impossible to bobble without advancing the disc at least
slightly, your interpretation makes any intentional bobble illegal. That
means that any touch on the disc that results in a tip or bobble would have
to be an attempt at a catch.
If that were the case then most of the language in the rule would be
meaningless. There would be no reason for the rule to contrast "bobbling
to gain control" with "purposeful, controlled bobbling to oneself (i.e.,
tipping, delaying, guiding, or brushing) in order to advance the disc in
any direction." All it would need to say would be "Accidental bobbling is
permitted, but intentional bobbling (i.e., tipping, delaying, guiding, or
brushing) is traveling and is not allowed.
Your interpretation would not allow a receiver to bat a disc up in the air
solely to to get a better grip on it to gain control. Say a hammer's going
over your head and as you chase it backwards, you can't get a hand on the
rim, but can get your palm under the top. So you reach back and bat it
forwards where you can get underneath it and make the catch. You
intentionally advanced the disc by batting it forward, but I would argue
that because you did it to gain control it is not a violation. In my
experience this is how this is played at all levels, and though that
doesn't make it right, it shows you are proposing a new interpretation of
the rule that is different from what most players I know would think is
correct.
>
> I'm still having trouble with an earlier part of the discussion,
> though. Say a receiver violates the no-intentional-self-tip rule.
> The original poster indicated that the remedy is to give him the disc
> at the spot where he originally tipped it. This seems wrong to
> me--how can we be sure he could have caught it there? Maybe the only
> way he makes the catch is to violate the rule! There are two ways to
> handle this: either send it back to the thrower, or punish his
> intentional violation by calling it a turnover. Both seem more fair
> to me than giving it to him. Anyone have better insight than me on
> what the actual result is, under the rules? (Has anyone ever CALLED
> this violation?)
That earlier discussion was based on an entirely different interpratation
of the rule. In my opinion it's only a violation if he didn't tip/bobble
the disc in order to gain control. So by calling a violation of the bobble
rule, you're saying that he could have gained control without the tip. If
the only way he makes the catch is to tip (with or without advancing), the
it's not a violation. It's inconsistent to say then that he wouldn't have
caught it. The only exception I can think of is, as Russ pointed out,
where the tip is done over o.b. territory, when the reciever could have
made the catch without tipping, but would have been o.b.
russ
> II.D.5 A player who takes possession of the ^ disc establishes a pivot at
> the point on the playing field proper closest to where they first
contacted
> disc after any other player contacted it.
Weird scenarios:
Standing on a sideline, doink the catch, layout and catch it without
touching OB. Land OB with possession. Catch, possession back by the
sideline.
Go for a catch, doink it. Take a step, catch disc. Have to back up a step
and (ground) check disc?
Floater, easy catch. Nail delay and wander the field. When it dies catch it,
walk to spot of initial contact and ground check. Maybe your marker stays at
point of initial contact and issues a delay count?
So far, I'm ok with the weirdnesses. Might want to leave the intentional
bobbling is illegal text in place so that doing this for fun is still
cheating (it's just that there are no (few?) benefits now. If I weren't lazy
I'd check the ground check rules, the delay count rules, and the turnover
rules to make sure there were no loopholes.
The big question is if every time someone tips and they have to reset, is it
going to slow the game or cause more problems? I picture it looking like the
'walk into the endzone" catch, where the receiver-turned-thrower walks to
the line and sets up. Not the most elegant or obvious part of the game, but
not completely out there.
russ
xvector5
thrown too far for an ex-St. Cloud State player to catch. He happens
to be a very good freestyler. As he is running after the disc, it
becomes clear that he will have to lay out to catch it. Instead, he
tips it up to a playable level with his foot. In doing so, he tips it
beyond the goal line. He catches it easily there, but the play is
ruled no goal. He takes the disc back to the site of the tip and SCSU
eventually scores. The violation has been called at least once, it
seems.
winey
"F"ing catch the disc on the first try then you suck. So, if your
debating this with someone who bobbled, macked or tipped the disc
unintentionally then say:
"You suck. You should have caught in in the first place."
tebewebb
> B. A player in traffic might jump and tip the disc away from defenders, then
> follow it and catch it. It's a good catch, but also a travel.
I was on d, leaping to make a high d catch, when the o comes up under
and deliberately tips the disc up a micro-second before i grasp it. I
turn in mid-air, still trying to catch the disc, miss it, come down,
and hyper-extend my knee falling backwards. O player easily catches
the gently descended disc, tells me (after I get back from the
hospital) that, yes, he knew i was going to sky him, so he tipped it
instead. Course, this was back in college, when i could jump.
Stephen
fun & games, his & hers
formerly gun, permanently happy
xvector5
Then after the finals we said it again.
Blarg
"xvector5" <XVec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1bbb60b1.03072...@posting.google.com...
Dan
> Rule: You cannot tip a disc to yourself deliberately.
Blarg,
That is not a rule, and if it was a rule, that would be a bad way to
cite it. Try looking it up on upa.org first, then copy & paste it in
here like this:
"XV.A. Bobbling to gain control of the disc is permitted, but
purposeful, controlled bobbling to oneself (i.e., tipping, delaying,
guiding,
or brushing) in order to advance the disc in any direction is
considered traveling and is not allowed."
Dan