Greatest attempt after a foul on the thrower
michae...@pomona.edu
following situation is, because I can see it happening, especially in
an upper level game.
The handler is near the goal line and throws to a cutter to the corner
but is fouled by the mark. The foul causes the throw to go out of
bounds, but the receiver doesn't hear the foul call and attempts the
greatest, catches the disc in the air, but can't complete it back to
the end zone.
As I understand the rules, if a player catches the disc after a foul on
the mark it's "play on", and a greatest is technically considered a
catch because the player had possession by stopping rotation. For
example, a defender can't sky a guy and throw the disc downfield before
hitting the ground to try and gain yards for his or her team. So if
the greatest is technically a catch, does that mean that this play is a
turnover? It seems ridiculous to punish the receiver for trying to
make the play, but if the pass is technically completed to the receiver
after a foul on the mark then it would appear to be a continuation and
turnover.
Paul P
Joa'quine (Joaq)
the title of the thread is retarded. Maybe.
Paul P wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.disc/browse_thread/thread/a3c9eb0a29c94b0a
colinm...@gmail.com
and a throw. Possession is gained when rotation is stopped and control
is established. Sustained contact with and control of a non-spinning
disc. I think the throw adequately demonstrates control.
The foul on the throw entitles the thrower to get the disc back, if his
pass is incomplete. The rules don't allow the offense to achieve added
advantage. They attempt to simulate what would have happened, had the
thrower not been fouled, without guaranteeing that it would have been
complete. If it's completed anyway, the rules assume that's a good
enough result. If it's not completed, the thrower gets to try again.
But the greatest is unrelated. If the thrower hadn't been fouled and
the receiver had attempted the greatest, the outcome of the greatest
attempt would stand. Even though the foul potentially caused a
misdirected pass, which required a greatest to keep it in bounds, I
don't think a foul on the thrower justifies a free greatest attempt.
The better solution is to encourage the thrower to call his foul more
loudly and accept the possible rare incomplete greatest as better than
the alternative of more frequent free greatest attempts, not
necessitated by the foul, but merely to try to gain extra advantage not
related to trying to simulate what would have happened, had the foul
not occurred.
MadOne
This blatant cheating and advantageous strategy must stop. blah blah
blah
It is wrong to call this a turnover:
Can you imagine a scenario where there are hundreds of screaming fans
and the receiver is on a different side of the field as the thrower?
There's no way he'll hear the foul call. And what if he's hard of
hearing. So - assume the receiver can't hear the call. If the foul
had not occured - the receiver would not have had to attempt a
Greatest. Let's not penalize the thrower for not yelling loud enough
- there are many instances where the receiver just will not hear you.
On another note, what do you make of the clause 'Loss of Possession due
to ground contact related to a pass reception negates a player's
possession up to that point'? I think it more closely approximates
this scenario than anything else in the rules.
In any case, it seems pretty clear the rules were not written with this
in mind - so stop trying to apply them to this situation. If someone
tryied calling this a turnover in a game, I'd call them a Weeny and
wouldn't let them have the disc.
colinm...@gmail.com
the preface. So, treating the rule by itself and assuming no change to
the preface, it makes sense not to give the offense this advantage.
I can imagine a situation with hundreds of screaming fans, but not one
that arises enough to base the rules around. Perhaps barking dogs
could replace them in some instances, but I'm not sure it applies all
that often. Hearing impairment also exists, but those players play
with a disadvantage. They are also subject to turnover if they turf a
pass after a pick call.
The situation you describe (fouled thrower, receiver doesn't hear call
and turns a greatest) doesn't seem entirely fair. But strictly making
these situations not turnovers creates another, more frequently
occurring problem. I could easily run an offense based around free
goal shots resulting from greatest attempts. Every time the disc is on
the backhand sideline (force flick), the dump handler cuts upline to
receive a fouled pass, at which point he jumps, catches the disc, hucks
it downfield and lands out of bounds.
It doesn't seem like the rules were written with this specifically in
mind, but the changes I can think of to address it make the situation
worse, so I'm stuck applying the current rules. Does the
greatest-attempter actually have to land O.B. for it not to be a
turnover? What if he just claims he thought he was going to land O.B.?
I think I heard that the situation you described came up at Great
Lakes College Regionals in 2000 or 2001 and was ruled a turnover,
though I don't recall the exact details. Unless you invoked the
captain's clause and came to agreement before the game, what gives you
the right not to play by the rules, as written? I suppose you can
allow your opponents to get the free greatest (or effectively do so by
immediately turning it again), but why are you allowed to deny your
opponents a turnover granted by the rules? Or do you get your
authority from being just THAT good? ;)
I haven't quite made the connection between this situation and the loss
of possession due to ground contact, but I think that rule helps avoid
a whole lot of argument. How do you decide if the player actually lost
possession due to ground contact as opposed to ground contact occurring
as an unrelated coincidence? Or what if he lost it in anticipation of
ground contact? What part of ground contact? Feet hitting? Body
hitting? If you have possession in the air, would you be allowed to
drop the disc as soon as the first part of your body touched the first
blade of grass? So I think the rules are made more playable by calling
it a turn.
MadOne
You make it sound like this happens so much ... which it doesn't. And
it's really stretching it to say you could make an offense based off of
it.
Basing an offense around this doesn't make sense - if I'm playing
defense I HOPE you base your offense around this since you are relying
on the defense to foul you.
In any case, this 'greatest' scenario really is no different in
principle than if the receiver is not attempting a greatest. The
offense gets the advantage of playing on. You could base your offense
around that as well but I don't see anyone arguing that they shouldn't
have that advantage.
I don't understand what makes this different except that you think you
found a way to exploit the rule to cause a turnover. A rule I'm pretty
sure you'll only exploit when it's in your favor.
colinm...@gmail.com
all. But I think if it gave them a significant advantage, players
could force it to happen more frequently. I can easily make a marker
foul me in most cases.
The greatest scenario I presented is completely different than if the
receiver is not attempting a greatest. In the greatest scenario, under
the ruling you'd favor, the offense gets a free chance for a second
pass. Not attempting the greatest, there is no question that the
subsequent pass is subject to turnover. Is that not a difference?
How did I find a way of exploiting a rule to cause a turnover? I'm
just exploiting the hypothetical rule to get free throws.
You claim the free throw should be allowed. I claim that allowing it
is contrary to the preface and opens up a new set of unfair situations
that will occur more frequently than the rarer unfair situation you
address.
Flo.P...@googlemail.com
MadOne wrote:
>
> In any case, it seems pretty clear the rules were not written with this
> in mind - so stop trying to apply them to this situation. If someone
> tryied calling this a turnover in a game, I'd call them a Weeny and
> wouldn't let them have the disc.
>
This is a situation which does not occur frequently enough to have the
rules written around it, yes. But, be assured that the rule writers (at
least starting with the 10th) were very aware of this scenario and
decided that it would be better to call this a turn over. The arguments
are similar to Colin's arguments, as otherwise you would get:
1. free throws
2. players trying to jump OB to get free throws
3. bigger advantages for weak foul calls (free throws...)
4. a more complicated rule
These negatives are too severe to balance out the "fairer" solution of
a very rare situation.
Flo.
Parinella
I have to strongly disagree. First, players would not jump OB and give
up the sure completion and yardage in the 1% or 10% chance that they'd
gain another 10 yards on a greatest. Additionally, there is also the
chance that the foul will be overruled by the observer, withdrawn by
the caller, or determined to have happened before the throw (and don't
get me started on _that_ issue).
Second, citing the preface in support of this argument is just wrong.
What would have happened without the foul, most likely, is an inbounds
completion, not a Greatest attempt. Anyone who hasn't spent an hour or
two reading the fine print of the rule (but who has a decent grasp on
the rules in general) is amazed and disgusted that this would be a
turnover.
Third, you express a concern over weak foul calls giving the offense an
advantage, but what about cheap fouls currently giving the defense an
advantage? Cheap fouls by the defense is to me the biggest drag on the
game today (although petty calls by the O is catching up).
Fourth, what happens when there is also a travel called on this throw?
I have no desire to spend an additional hour parsing the rules on this,
but wouldn't it come back based on the continuation rule?
Jim
Flo.P...@googlemail.com
let's just say it like this:
the 10th is clear that it is a turn over if the greatest is not
completed (unless there is a call like a travel/pick etc., in which
case it goes back).
the proposed 11th does not change this, we talked about it at our last
meeting and decided not to. This is not a final decision on the 11th,
so...
This should be enough for here (RSD), let's take it over to the 11th
forum, I'll start a new thread there. If we want to change the rule,
this is where we need to put it:
http://groups.google.com/group/UPA_11th_edition_rules
Flo.
mpef...@yahoo.com
Maybe it is not a free try. If the foul call is on the thrower and not
the marker, a greatest might be needed to keep the disc alive. Is
there any way for a deep receiver to know which side called the foul?
Where does the disc go in instance?
pm
D. Smith
(regardless of outcome), since an offensive foul on the thrower sends
the disc back to the thrower on a completed pass (ie to the greatest
attempter), but would be a turnover if the original pass is incomplete.