You make the call

[ultimate7]

Thrower sends a 15 yard pass to the end zone, floats just over the
receiver/defender and thrower tries to run it down unsure if it was
tipped by either (turns out it wasn't touched). Thrower makes a high
layout catch in the endzone. Upon hitting the ground, the disc pops
up out of his hands, the receiver following the play catches it in the
endzone (disc never hit the ground).

[David Westbrook]

Initial thought was "score", thinking that it wasn't a catch (didn't survive ground contact) so treat as a tip which is legal to another player (just not a self-tip).

BUT after re-checking definitions, I think it's a turn ....  Had possession (up to a certain point) by II.O.  By II.O.1 possession means a catch.  By XII.D.3 catch (by thrower) means turnover.

~~~~~~~~~

II.O) Possession of the disc: Sustained contact with, and control of, a non-spinning disc.

II.O.1) Catching a pass is equivalent to establishing possession of that pass.
II.O.2) Loss of possession due to ground contact related to a catch negates that player's possession up to that point.            

XII.D.3) The thrower catches a legally thrown disc. However, it is not a turnover if another player touches the disc during its flight unless the thrower intentionally deflected the disc off another player.

~~~~~~~~~

BUT not 100% sure ...  Hoping there's other responses.

What happened in the live scenario? (or is this a hypothetical quiz question?)

--david

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UPA 11th edition rules" group.
To post to this group, send email to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

How does II.O.2 fit into the story, then?

[Mark Fritz]

Turnover and stoppage of play occurs via XII.D.3 before we can get to II.O.2 --- On Mon, 4/18/11, Mark -Mortakai- Moran <mdmo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > upa_11th_edition_rules+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UPA 11th edition rules" group. To post to this group, send email to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_rules+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[David Westbrook]

I think it's consistent with possession-but-still-a-turn (which would be the case if it'd been tipped or not the thrower attempting to catch it).  together with II.O & II.O.1, the wording of "loss of possession" and "possession up to that point" implies that you can have possession without it being a completed pass;  and I think that that defined possession, albeit brief, is what differentiates it from a self-tip (XV.A), and causes XII.D.3 to apply ...

(still not 100% sure though)

--david

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

Here's how I follow the logic: II.O.2 says that ground contact loss
negates the possession, which I interpret to mean the same thing as
the possession is considered to not have happened. And since a catch =
possession (II.O.1), this means the catch is considered to not have
happened. So then the thrower did not catch his own throw, and no
turn.

M

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

I don't think we can say that. On a catch in the end zone, it's a
score the instant the catching person makes contact with the end
zone... unless ground contact causes them to lose possession. So even
though it was a score a second earlier, it isn't after II.O.2 is
applied a second later, because that rule works on a retroactive
basis. The possession (and therefore the catch per II.O.1) is
considered not to have happened.

On Apr 18, 9:12 pm, Mark Fritz <mpefr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Turnover and stoppage of play occurs via XII.D.3 before we can get to II.O.2
>

> --- On Mon, 4/18/11, Mark -Mortakai- Moran <mdmora...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.

> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UPA 11th edition rules" group.
> To post to this group, send email to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.

[Mark Fritz]

Ahh... But the thrower/catcher actually loses ownership of the disc BEFORE he hits the ground via XII.D.3  As soon as the tunrover happens, the disc is no longer his. This is different than any other catcher who must survive ground contact.  Anyway, I always go back to the preface which (paraphrased) says what would happen absent the infraction. --- On Tue, 4/19/11, Mark -Mortakai- Moran <mdmo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > upa_11th_edition_rules+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UPA 11th edition rules" group. > To post to this group, send email to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_rules+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UPA 11th edition rules" group. To post to this group, send email to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_rules+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Josh Drury]

You're missing the point that II.O.2 is retroactive. Since what would
have been possession is negated, there was no catch, so XII.D.3 is not
relevant. I don't see any rules making this different from any other
catch (e.g. there is nothing in XII.D.3. saying II.O.2. does not
apply) so by the rules, it is treated the same.

On Apr 19, 10:05 am, Mark Fritz <mpefr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ahh...
>
> But the thrower/catcher actually loses ownership of the disc BEFORE he hits the ground via XII.D.3  As soon as the tunrover happens, the disc is no longer his.
>
> This is different than any other catcher who must survive ground contact. 
>
> Anyway, I always go back to the preface which (paraphrased) says what would happen absent the infraction.
>

> > > > upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.

> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UPA 11th edition rules" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UPA 11th edition rules" group.
> To post to this group, send email to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.

[pacemaker]

OK, a combination response to Josh and Mark

First a few questions:

Player O1 is in the air and catches the disc. He was IB when he
jumped. He lands OB. He has the disc in his hands still.

At what point is O1 no longer in possession of the disc and why?
Isn't it immediately as he lands OB despite the fact that the disc is
still in his hands, since he is now a defensive player?
.
.
.
Assume no turnover immediately after the thrower/catcher gets
sustained contact, and control of, a non-spinning disc as written by
the OP. Can he call a force out foul if he is pushed OB? Can he call
a strip if he is hacked as he goes to the ground and loses
possession? If so, what is the end result of the play? Or could he
call a general receiving foul and let the disc fall to the ground
before or as he hits the turf? Assuming no contest, then what? (fwiw,
since a single MAC is allowed, I do see reason in allowing a general
receiving foul if there is contact before the thrower macs the disc
since the contact prevented his play on the disc.)

My entire line of reasoning is based on the fact that once the thrower/
catcher has sustained contact with and control of, a non-spinning
disc, it is a turnover. At that point he becomes a member of the
defensive team (just like the O player who lands OB -- despite still
having the disc in his hands) and as such has already lost possession
since his team has lost possession. Loss of possession is then NOT
due to ground contact related to the catch. That makes all of the
above questions easy to answer.

These are my thoughts and it seems that this interpretation is
consistent with what makes sense. Note that the scoring (XI.A) and
defensive catch/drop (XII.C) specifically use wording from II.O.2.
Are there any other cases where the wording of II.O.2 is not mentioned
in the specific rule when it could be for maintaining possession?
Nope. Well..maybe XII.D.3 That, to me, is another reason to believe
XII.D.3 can stand as I interpret it.

pacemaker (aka Mark Fritz)

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

I think that's an interpretation based on what we think should happen,
and not necessarily what the rules explicitly say.

Please don't get me wrong though... I agree that the objective as
stated in the preface is good to look to, and I also think it's unfair
that a thrower/catcher can save the play purely because he
accidentally lost control upon landing.

Perhaps this will be addressed in our next rules revision, but for
now, I'm simply looking at the logic within the rules. And using that,
I don't interpret the wording as different from any other situation
where someone catches the disc and loses it on ground contact... It's
as if the catch didn't happen in the first place. And since that catch
by the thrower is the sole thing that causes the turnover (i.e., a MAC
would NOT), and the catch is deemed to not have happened by II.O.2,
the turnover due to the catch (which didn't happen) also didn't
happen.

"Hey, he caught his own disc, it's a turn..."
**Oops, it popped out, so no catch**
"But it's still a turn..."
**Why?, the catch was reversed so it's not a catch**
"Because he caught his... Oh wait..."

... but i absolutely agree that it 'should' be one. Just not supported
by the current rules wording.

On Apr 19, 8:05 am, Mark Fritz <mpefr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ahh...
>
> But the thrower/catcher actually loses ownership of the disc BEFORE he hits the ground via XII.D.3  As soon as the tunrover happens, the disc is no longer his.
>
> This is different than any other catcher who must survive ground contact. 
>
> Anyway, I always go back to the preface which (paraphrased) says what would happen absent the infraction.
>

> > > > upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.

> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UPA 11th edition rules" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UPA 11th edition rules" group.
> To post to this group, send email to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

There's a distinction between a player having *physical* possession
(i.e., sustained contact/control) and a a team having possession
(i.e., team on offense and allowed to play/have/touch the disc). When
talking about a catch=possession, that's referring to physical
possession and that wording is included predominantly so that we can
use the terms interchangeably and the rules don't need to have both
terms throughout the rulebook. If someone holds the disc in their
hand, they physically possess the disc, regardless of which team is
considered the team in possession.

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

Sure, he could call a force-out, strip, or receiving foul even before
he catches the disc. In all of those cases, an uncontested resolution
will put the disc into his hands, and that would then be a turnover
because he will have 'caught' his own thrown disc. In the last case,
he may even have been intending to MAC it to someone, rather than
catch it, but if he is awarded possession, and that's equivalent to a
catch, then the rule wording supports it as a turn.

But losing (or not gaining) possession as a result of a rule
infraction, is different than losing possession as a result of ground
contact.

On Apr 20, 5:15 am, pacemaker <mpefr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[k-dubs]

seems to me the wording should be changed to say that the throw can't
touch the disc until somebody else touches it instead of saying he
can't catch it. that's where all the craziness is coming from.

[Jon Bauman]

I like that the thrower can tip their own thrown disc. It is "craziness" I am in support of.

To the original scenario: it seems relatively clear that because the turnover would only follow from possession, and possession is negated, then the turnover is likewise negated and it is treated as a tip by the original thrower. The point of the rule prohibiting a thrower from catching their own disc is that self-caught throws are not desired to be a part of ultimate strategy. That didn't happen here, so why should there be a turnover?

If you ask me, the weird rule is probably the one that allows a thrower to catch their own disc AFTER it has been touched by another player. I'd be more inclined to make catching one's own throw always a turnover rather than prohibiting a thrower from tipping their own throw.

[David Westbrook]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Jon Bauman <bau...@gmail.com> wrote:

I like that the thrower can tip their own thrown disc. It is "craziness" I am in support of.

y, makes for a great heads-up play!

 

If you ask me, the weird rule is probably the one that allows a thrower to catch their own disc AFTER it has been touched by another player.

it's not that weird (or least not uncommon/unique) a rule -- basketball & football have the exact same scenarios ... QB can catch a deflected pass;  dribble is regained after recovering a strip or blocked pass.

 

I'd be more inclined to make catching one's own throw always a turnover rather than prohibiting a thrower from tipping their own throw.

Note that would also include the case of hand-block & thrower grabbing it back.  Also "craziness" that probably has popular support.

--david 

[Jon Bauman]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:28 AM, David Westbrook <dwest...@gmail.com> wrote:

it's not that weird (or least not uncommon/unique) a rule -- basketball & football have the exact same scenarios ... QB can catch a deflected pass;  dribble is regained after recovering a strip or blocked pass.

I'd be more inclined to make catching one's own throw always a turnover rather than prohibiting a thrower from tipping their own throw.

Ultimate is neither frisbee football nor disc hoops :)

I agree, it's not actually that weird. Just a little weird.

[Mark Fritz]

Sorry Mark.  I cannot find the rule which says that getting possession after an uncontested foul call equals making a catch as is required for the turnover in XII.D.3 (see below for my II.T.4 to II.O.1 ignoring II.O.2 "completed pass") XVI.H.3.d  Strip: If a defensive player initiates contact with the disc after an offensive player has gained possession of the disc, and the offensive player loses possession as a result, it is a strip. A strip is a subset of fouls and is treated the same way. XVBI.H.3.b.4 Force-out Foul: If an airborne player catches the disc and is contacted by an opposing player before landing, and that contact causes the player to land out-of-bounds instead of in-bounds, or out of the end zone instead of in the end zone, it is a foul on the opposing player and the fouled player retains possession at the spot of the foul. If an uncontested force-out foul results in an in-bounds player landing outside the end zone being attacked when they would have landed in the end zone without the foul, a goal is awarded. XVI.C.3  An infraction affected the play if an infracted player determines It is the infracted player’s responsibility to announce if play was affected. For example, if a defender calls "pick" while trailing a receiver by 6 feet, the defender should indicate whether the pick affected the play. If the pick did not affect the play, the defender will still recover any distance lost, but the completed pass will stand. If the pick did affect the play, the disc reverts to the thrower. that the outcome of the specific play (from the time of the infraction until play stops) may have been meaningfully different absent the infraction Contact that occurs after the outcome of the play is determined cannot affect the play. For example, if a defender catches a disc before bumping into the receiver and knocking him over, that contact did not affect the play and the turnover will stand. . (For example, if a receiver is fouled and thereby prevented from getting open for a pass, the play was affected; however, if the receiver would not have received a pass even without the foul, the play was not affected.) . . .. So in the force-out and strip the concern is that the outcome of the play was somehow meaningfully different as the laying out player was heading to the ground as he *could* have landed in bounds and have disc pop up to a teammate since he never survives ground contact anyway....  BS --yes...tmf-able -- probably...but supported by the rules if we accept that ground contact must be survived for a turnover to happen in XII.D.3 -- the player never got a chance to *not* survive ground contact. (yes..I am rolling my eyes too) XVI.H.3.b.1: "If a player contacts an opponent while the disc is in the air and thereby interferes with that opponent's attempt to make a play on the disc The opponent must at least begin an attempt to make a play on the disc. The opponent’s "attempt to make a play on the disc" includes any second efforts after a disc is tipped, if the disc has not become uncatchable. , that player has committed a receiving foul." Play on the disc *could* include a MAC attempt.  Again, nothing to suggest that getting the disc at the spot of the infraction equals a "catch." Maybe I am missing something which says an uncontested receving foul or uncontested force-out foul = catch as is required by XII.D.3, so I cannot follow your reasoning. (I can certainly follow the sentiment)  However, if the SRC has deemed II.T.4 reflects to II.O.1 before II.O.2 can happen then maybe.  But aren't we now in the logical loop which caused the disagreement with XII.D.3 in the first place? next --abolish the ground tap (joking...) Let there be no doubt.  I do understand how II.O.2 can (and maybe should be) be invoked in the OPs question.  I am trying to find a way, within the rules, to say it gets ignored via a turnover before ground contact since that is the outcome which I would hope everyone thinks is fair. The one other place where II.O.2 could be cited is simultaneous possession, since those often go to the ground and if the O player loses control (due to ground contact -ha), D gets it.  That would not fly on the field, but is supported in the rules. pacemaker --- On Wed, 4/20/11, Mark -Mortakai- Moran <mdmo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Mark -Mortakai- Moran <mdmo...@hotmail.com> Subject: [UPA_11th_edition_rules] Re: You make the call To: "UPA 11th edition rules" <upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com>

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UPA 11th edition rules" group. To post to this group, send email to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_rules+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Jon Bauman]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Mark Fritz <mpef...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Perhaps you can enlighten us on why the language used in II.O.2 is spelled out for scores (XI.A) and turnovers (XII.C) (preventing a double turn) but not XII.D.3.

There are instances of possession lost due to ground contact with scoring opportunities and interceptions very frequently, but I'd call this scenario an exceptionally rare occurrence, not necessarily worthy of a cross reference. If there were cross references between every two rules that could potentially apply in a situation, they would cease to be useful tools for understanding.

Please also explain when an IB airborne O player who lands out of bounds and has the disc in his hands loses possession of the disc and why.

I would say they lose possession (in the logical sense, not the physical sense) as soon as their first ground contact is out-of-bounds according to IX.C, E, and XII.A. One could nit-pick and say that "turnover" isn't defined, but the dictionary definition is sufficient: "the act or an instance of a team's losing possession of a ball through error or a minor violation of the rules". We're not going to start adding definitions for words used in their conventional senses to the rules.

--- On Wed, 4/20/11, Jon Bauman <bau...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Mark Fritz]

Jon Bauman wrote: "I would say they lose possession (in the logical sense, not the physical sense) as soon as their first ground contact is out-of-bounds according to IX.C, E, and XII.A. "

. Ok then.  I suspect you are actually with me on this. As soon as II.O.1 ("Catching a pass is equivalent to establishing possession of that pass.") occurs, there is a turnover (XII.D.3: "The following actions result in a turnover and a stoppage of play:...The thrower catches a legally thrown disc...") Immediately the thrower/catcher loses possession due to XII.D.3. Ground contact or not,  possession is lost.   II.O.2 never comes into play.  This does not invalidate II.O.2 or the score and no double turn rules. The counter argument is that II.O.1 does not even happen until all ground contact is finished.  I understand that.  I just think if we are going to claim a turnover happens as soon as the IB airborne O player lands OB, then the same applies here. . One more question for information:  Are all throws resulting in uncontested receiving fouls considered completed passes and thus catches (and vice-versa)? mark fritz

[Jon Bauman]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Mark Fritz <mpef...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jon Bauman wrote: "I would say they lose possession (in the logical sense, not the physical sense) as soon as their first ground contact is out-of-bounds according to IX.C, E, and XII.A. " . Ok then.  I suspect you are actually with me on this. As soon as II.O.1 ("Catching a pass is equivalent to establishing possession of that pass.") occurs, there is a turnover (XII.D.3: "The following actions result in a turnover and a stoppage of play:...The thrower catches a legally thrown disc...")

No, possession may be established while still in the air (otherwise airborne strips would not be legitimate calls, among other things). Possession is lost (in the logical sense) when the out-of-bounds area is contacted. But I don't think that really changes anything in the scenario we're discussing (separate from the question that started this topic).

 

Immediately the thrower/catcher loses possession due to XII.D.3. Ground contact or not,  possession is lost.   II.O.2 never comes into play.  This does not invalidate II.O.2 or the score and no double turn rules.

The counter argument is that II.O.1 does not even happen until all ground contact is finished.  I understand that.  I just think if we are going to claim a turnover happens as soon as the IB airborne O player lands OB, then the same applies here.

OK. I'm not sure if this is supposed to relate back to the original topic, but I don't see any real dilemma with the receiver landing O-B issue.

 

One more question for information:  Are all throws resulting in uncontested receiving fouls considered completed passes and thus catches (and vice-versa)?

 

This is not clearly defined in the rules and has been a topic of debate among the committee. It will be clarified in the next revision, but the only instance in which I know of it mattering is the question of whether a thrower walking the disc to the line can be stalled. 

[Mark Fritz]

Jon,

Perhaps you can enlighten us on why the language used in II.O.2 is spelled out for scores (XI.A) and turnovers (XII.C) (preventing a double turn) but not XII.D.3.

Please also explain when an IB airborne O player who lands out of bounds and has the disc in his hands loses possession of the disc and why.

pacemaker

--- On Wed, 4/20/11, Jon Bauman <bau...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Jon Bauman <bau...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [UPA_11th_edition_rules] Re: You make the call To: upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 1:08 PM

[Mark R.]

So, following this logic, if I decide to punt the disc downfield, it's
permissible for me to chase after it and MAC it to get some additional
distance.

I agree with the various people who have said that the rules do make
the original scenario a score, and also agree with the (partially
overlapping) group that doesn't like the idea of it being a score.

My view is that it would be an improvement to forbid the thrower from
touching the disc before any other player. This is partly on fuzzy
moral grounds ("that just shouldn't be a score!") and partly because
it simplifies things: no thrower would ever be permitted to touch the
disc before another player, whether throwing or pulling.

Mark

[Mark Fritz]

>>One more question for information:  Are all throws resulting in uncontested receiving fouls considered completed passes and thus catches (and vice-versa)?   >This is not clearly defined in the rules and has been a topic of debate among the committee. It will be clarified in the next revision, but the only instance in which I know of it mattering is the question of whether a thrower walking the disc to the line can be stalled.

The reason this matters is what happens if there is an uncontested foul on the thrower/catcher play.  Per Mark, it would imply a catch and thererfore a turnover.

[Jon Bauman]

If the thrower trying to catch his own throw called a foul, it wouldn't have even mattered if it were contested because a teammate caught it when it popped out, so it would have been a play-on scenario. If it weren't caught by a teammate, I'd  say it's a turnover either way, but it's debatable and that particular crazy case may not be explicitly covered in the rules.

Whether possession awarded due to an uncontested foul is considered a catch or two turnovers is a difficult question because each gives better outcomes in different scenarios but the vast majority of the time it just doesn't matter. It's a question of whether we want relatively simple, understandable rules that cover 99.9% of the cases, or totally impenetrable ones that cover 99.99%.

[Mark Fritz]

OK....I have had quite a few back and forth personal emails with Jon Bauman.  Very helpful..I truly appreciate his time and thought. I want to make sure I have not made an error to a certain point of the thinking, and then I will try the rest of the story.  Please do not say ...and then II.O.2 happens. 1) Thrower throws the disc 2) Thrower catches the disc per II.O.1  ( I agree that this will be the reboot point if II.O.2 applies) 3) Per XII.D.3 this is a turnover since nobody else touched the disc 4) Per II.B this is an incomplete pass 5) Per I.A a turnover happens resulting in an immediate change of the team in possession of the disc 6) Thrower/catcher still has physical possession of the disc 7) Thrower/catcher is not a member of the team in possession of the disc Anything wrong so far? I am fairly sure Jon does not disagree with anything to this point.  It is after this where the interpretation of what II.O and II.C and II.L imply comes into play. Going back to the O player who jumped from IB , caught the disc, and landed OB. At what point can I rip the disc out of his hands as he stands there?  Is he considered to be in possession of the disc?  Is he now a defensive player in possession of the disc?  Or does II.O.4 prohibit that interpretation (this is the crux)? I will mention in advance that all other applications of II.O.2 are in cases where the player in possession of the disc is a member of the team in possession of the disc prior to hitting the ground.

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

I'm confused. You've started with one set of stuff, then you add
something about someone jumping from IB to OB, and then ask some
questions. So, I should ignore all the earlier details? Seriously, im
confused what you want from this.

But I'm not about to comment on part of a story, unless i hear the
other half. Unless you want my answer to be "it depends".

It actually sounds like you're trying to bait one answer because you
want to use that against the answerer with one more piece of
information that completely changes the situation, and if they had
known that information beforehand, would have answered differently,
because it deserved a different answer.

But what are you really trying to ask?

M

[Mark Fritz]

MARK...SORRY:  The first part is directly regarding the OPs question.  I am trying to get to the point where the thrower has made a catch, but is still airborne.  I am fairly sure what I wrote was agreed to by Jon.  Let's give the guy wings and let him hang for 10 seconds as we sort things out. . .

OK....I have had quite a few back and forth personal emails with Jon Bauman.  Very helpful..I truly appreciate his time and thought. I want to make sure I have not made an error to a certain point of the thinking, and then I will try the rest of the story.  Please do not say ...and then II.O.2 happens. 1) Thrower throws the disc 2) Thrower catches the disc per II.O.1  ( I agree that this will be the reboot point if II.O.2 applies) 3) Per XII.D.3 this is a turnover since nobody else touched the disc 4) Per II.B this is an incomplete pass 5) Per I.A a turnover happens resulting in an immediate change of the team in possession of the disc 6) Thrower/catcher still has physical possession of the disc 7) Thrower/catcher is not a member of the team in possession of the disc

Anything wrong so far? (edit:YES...there is stoppage of play according to XII.D, making the disc dead...)

I am fairly sure Jon does not disagree with anything to this point.  It is after this where the interpretation of what II.O and II.C and II.L imply comes into play.

DONE with OPs question analysis for now.  i want to be sure we are all on the same page. . . (analogous question start)

Going back to the O player who jumped from IB , caught the disc, and landed OB. At what point can I rip the disc out of his hands as he stands there?  Is he considered to be in possession of the disc?  Is he now a defensive player in possession of the disc?  Or does II.O.4 prohibit that interpretation (this is the crux)?

> This is asking about an O player was IB and jumped and caught the disc midair and landed OB. His status as he lands is similar to that of the thrower/catcher *in the air* who has the disc in his hands but he is not on the team with possession since a turnover has happened.\ So...can a defensive player holding the disc be considered in possession of the disc since II.O.4 contradicts II.O in general if so? (edit: Jon wrote about physical possession for II.O.1 and II.O.2, but wrote logical possession for II.O.4) . . I will mention in advance of further questions about the OPs thrower/catcher question that all other applications of II.O.2 are in cases where the player in possession of the disc is a member of the team in possession of the disc prior to hitting the ground. I can also add that we cannot apply the Continuation Rule for this turnover since there was not a call or violation.  I believe people want to use II.O.2 as that continuation rule.  I get it. --- On Thu, 4/21/11, Mark Fritz <mpef...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Mark Fritz <mpef...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [UPA_11th_edition_rules] Re: You make the call To: upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com

[Jon Bauman]

We've been discussing this in the committee. I'll try to have a final opinion by the end of the weekend.

[Jon "RB" Bauman]

The committee discussed it and agreed on the interpretation of the
current rule: II.O.2 applies and therefore the original thrower's
subsequent contact with the disc is treated as a tip rather than a
catch. This does not result in a turnover, so the outcome of the play
is a goal.

Thanks for all the thoughts on this topic. The committee will consider
whether we want to recommend a change to the rule itself for the next
edition.

> > --- On *Thu, 4/21/11, Mark Fritz <mpefr...@yahoo.com>* wrote: