Rules question: Callahan=Possession?
ultima...@hotmail.com
Thrower throws up the sideline and is fouled. The reciever catches
with both feet were in the air, still inbounds. Thrower then, without
planting a foot throws the disc foward.
We came to the agreement (thanks Paul) that this was not in fact a
turnover because without a foot planted, no 'possession' took place.
In the rules, a greatest is considered a mac I guess.
My arguement is that if the reciever intentionally redirected the disc
forward, shouldn't that be considered possession, and if so, wouldn't
that play be considered a turnover. One other thought I had was this,
if it was intentionally macking the disc (no possession), would it a
travel on the thrower, a subsequent turfed disc and thus also a
turnover?
The opposing arguement was this: The thrower was fouled, the reciever
never had possession, and therefore the disc goes back to the original
fouled thrower.
I see the logic in both arguements but I would like to see what other
think and what the 'official' interpretation of the rules is in both
the 10th and proposed 11th are. Thanks,
-D
mui...@gmail.com
contact with, and control of, a non spinning disc.
Paul P
ultima...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Here's a sticky situation that occured this past weekend at Pada.
>
> Thrower throws up the sideline and is fouled.
OK, lets first stop here. The disc goes back to the fouled thrower if
it was incomplete (not caught in-bounds by an offensive player).
(XVI.G.2.b.2)
>The reciever catches
> with both feet were in the air, still inbounds. Thrower then, without
> planting a foot throws the disc foward.
I'm going to assume that the person who caught the disc was on offense
and attempted a greatest or some sort of quick, continuation throw
before hitting the ground.
> We came to the agreement (thanks Paul) that this was not in fact a
> turnover because without a foot planted, no 'possession' took place.
You can have possesion without ground contact. For the record, I'm not
the Paul in the story.
> In the rules, a greatest is considered a mac I guess.
No. A player is not out-of-bounds until they contact the ground
out-of-bounds. (IX.C)
> My arguement is that if the reciever intentionally redirected the disc
> forward, shouldn't that be considered possession, and if so, wouldn't
> that play be considered a turnover.
Here is the interesting bit. If the receiver catches the disc and
simply lands out of bounds it goes back to the thrower who was fouled -
the assumption being that the throw was faulty due to the foul. Does
the greatest attempt validate the posession ("Play on!") and
continuation stops there? Is the outcome of the fouled pass determined?
Clearly, if the receiver lands in-bounds with the disc you play on.
If the receiver lands out-of-bounds it goes back to the thrower. What
happens to all of this with a greatest attempt?
Obviously, in my mind, if the greatest is completed you are calling
"Play on!" and checking to see if anyone got a picture. It would seem
reasonable for the converse to be true and that a turnover of a
greatest would be just that. I don't like it, but the argument for
that outcome is pretty convincing.
> One other thought I had was this,
> if it was intentionally macking the disc (no possession), would it a
> travel on the thrower, a subsequent turfed disc and thus also a
> turnover?
XV.A says you can't intentionally bobble the disc to yourself, and it
would be quite foolish, though kinda cool if you were successful, to
attempt to bobble or "mack" the disc along to another player. In any
case, you have to have possesion in order to travel.
> The opposing arguement was this: The thrower was fouled, the reciever
> never had possession, and therefore the disc goes back to the original
> fouled thrower.
If the receiver attempted a throw I think that it is clear that they
had possesion, as long as they were not out-of-bounds. It is really
tough to catch and throw, all in the air before landing, so it would be
really bad luck to successfully do this on a play where the play would
have ordinarily gone back to the thrower.
Paul P
Manzell Blakeley
million reasons why a fouled thrower would want the disc back, even if
the catch is made (a short pass to a lesser thrower). One could also
make the argument in this case that the greatest attempt was caused by
the foul... If a receiver does not beleive they can catch the disc in
bounds, why should they be penalized for making an attempt to keep the
disc live?
- MRB
videomanp...@comcast.net
hard to see how this is a 'complete pass' to the receiver. if the
intended greatest succeeded, it's 'play on', but if not the receiver
was attempting to 'rescue' a bad pass (caused by the foul) and did not
succeed in making a completion out of it. jumping in the air and
catching a disc does not make it a completion unless you land with it
in bounds, no?
On Nov 6, 12:26 pm, "Paul P" <paulp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What a weird post. Let me try. (Based on 10th edition.)
>
> ultimatefi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Here's a sticky situation that occured this past weekend at Pada.
>
> > Thrower throws up the sideline and is fouled.OK, lets first stop here. The disc goes back to the fouled thrower if
> it was incomplete (not caught in-bounds by an offensive player).
> (XVI.G.2.b.2)
>
> >The reciever catches
> > with both feet were in the air, still inbounds. Thrower then, without
> > planting a foot throws the disc foward.I'm going to assume that the person who caught the disc was on offense
> and attempted a greatest or some sort of quick, continuation throw
> before hitting the ground.
>
> > We came to the agreement (thanks Paul) that this was not in fact a
> > turnover because without a foot planted, no 'possession' took place.You can have possesion without ground contact. For the record, I'm not
> the Paul in the story.
>
> > In the rules, a greatest is considered a mac I guess.No. A player is not out-of-bounds until they contact the ground
> out-of-bounds. (IX.C)
>
> > My arguement is that if the reciever intentionally redirected the disc
> > forward, shouldn't that be considered possession, and if so, wouldn't
> > that play be considered a turnover.Here is the interesting bit. If the receiver catches the disc and
> simply lands out of bounds it goes back to the thrower who was fouled -
> the assumption being that the throw was faulty due to the foul. Does
> the greatest attempt validate the posession ("Play on!") and
> continuation stops there? Is the outcome of the fouled pass determined?
> Clearly, if the receiver lands in-bounds with the disc you play on.
> If the receiver lands out-of-bounds it goes back to the thrower. What
> happens to all of this with a greatest attempt?
>
> Obviously, in my mind, if the greatest is completed you are calling
> "Play on!" and checking to see if anyone got a picture. It would seem
> reasonable for the converse to be true and that a turnover of a
> greatest would be just that. I don't like it, but the argument for
> that outcome is pretty convincing.
>
> > One other thought I had was this,
> > if it was intentionally macking the disc (no possession), would it a
> > travel on the thrower, a subsequent turfed disc and thus also a
> > turnover?XV.A says you can't intentionally bobble the disc to yourself, and it
> would be quite foolish, though kinda cool if you were successful, to
> attempt to bobble or "mack" the disc along to another player. In any
> case, you have to have possesion in order to travel.
>
> > The opposing arguement was this: The thrower was fouled, the reciever
> > never had possession, and therefore the disc goes back to the original
> > fouled thrower.If the receiver attempted a throw I think that it is clear that they
Paul P
Manzell Blakeley wrote:
> is "Play On" a mandatory call if the catch is made?
It would seem so:
XVI.G
1. If the disc is in the air or the thrower is in the act of throwing
at the time of the call:
a) Play continues un-halted if the team that called the foul or
violation gains (or retains) possession as a result of that pass
(e.g., an incomplete pass following a traveling violation, or offensive
foul). In this situation, players should call "play on."
Not a lot of grey area in "Play continues unhalted..."
> I can think of a
> million reasons why a fouled thrower would want the disc back, even if
> the catch is made (a short pass to a lesser thrower).
Me too. All the more reason to NOT let the fouled player pause and
mull over the options. Do we really want to get into declining
penalties and fouled players having options as to which result to go
with?
> One could also
> make the argument in this case that the greatest attempt was caused by
> the foul... If a receiver does not beleive they can catch the disc in
> bounds, why should they be penalized for making an attempt to keep the
> disc live?
Indeed, that is what makes it interesting. Yet another situation not
really clearly covered. I have been intentionaly ignoring 11th edition
- remembering one set of rules is enough for my little brain - but I
would wager that this isn't really covered in any more depth there.
Paul P
Paul P
Not so hard if you read the rule:
II. K.Possession of the disc: Possession of the disc is sustained
contact with, and control of, a non-spinning disc.
1.To catch a pass is equivalent to establishing possession of that
pass.
If the player attempts a pass (Though it is as yet unclear whether the
player attempted a pass or macked it. Let's assume for now that a pass
was attempted. A mack would be a whole different discussion and
result.) that would be an excellent indication that they had
possession.
> if the
> intended greatest succeeded, it's 'play on', but if not the receiver
> was attempting to 'rescue' a bad pass (caused by the foul) and did not
> succeed in making a completion out of it. jumping in the air and
> catching a disc does not make it a completion unless you land with it
> in bounds, no?
Well... No. At least for the completion part. I'm just making the case
that playing on in the case of a completed greatest and sending it back
in the case of a turfed greatest seem contradictory. I agree that
sending it back in the case of a turfed greatest would be just, but
doesn't seem to fit the rules as written.
Does 11th clear any of this up? Is my interpretation of 10th simply
incorrect?
Paul P
eric....@gmail.com
> > One other thought I had was this,
> > if it was intentionally macking the disc (no possession), would it a
> > travel on the thrower, a subsequent turfed disc and thus also a
> > turnover?
>
> XV.A says you can't intentionally bobble the disc to yourself, and it
> would be quite foolish, though kinda cool if you were successful, to
> attempt to bobble or "mack" the disc along to another player. In any
> case, you have to have possesion in order to travel.
Well, how about this. I threw an O/I flick huck from the open side
cross-field to the closed side. It would have been a score except my
teammate tried to show off and stall it/spin it on his fingertip to
make the catch. By the time he got possession of it, he had run out of
bounds with the thing on his finger.
2 questions. 1. If he had kept on running with the thing spinning on
his finger, and stopped in-bounds in the end-zone instead of out, what
then? It hit him in bounds, and he ran in out and then back in (while
intentionally bobbling), and then caught it - what's the call?
Question the 2nd: does this guy owe me an ice cream cake for messing
with my completion percentage?
Paul P
eric....@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, how about this. I threw an O/I flick huck from the open side
> cross-field to the closed side. It would have been a score except my
> teammate tried to show off and stall it/spin it on his fingertip to
> make the catch. By the time he got possession of it, he had run out of
> bounds with the thing on his finger.
Congrats on your brilliant throw. The rest reminds me of folks spiking
when ther are not yet in the end zone. Turnover.
> 2 questions. 1. If he had kept on running with the thing spinning on
> his finger, and stopped in-bounds in the end-zone instead of out, what
> then?
If the whole thing happened in the end zone (catch, finger spin,
'possession' in the form of stopping the rotation) it would simply be a
score.
> It hit him in bounds, and he ran in out and then back in (while
> intentionally bobbling), and then caught it - what's the call?
>
> Question the 2nd: does this guy owe me an ice cream cake for messing
> with my completion percentage?
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.
The key phrase I see here is "in order to advance the disc". If you
are already in the end zone there is nowhere to advance it to really
and you and just showing off. You get possession where you stop the
rotation and the turn serves him right for being a jackass.
At least, I really want that to be the answer...
Paul P
mpo...@gmail.com
"sending it back in the case of a turfed greatest would be just, but
doesn't seem to fit the rules as written."
The rules need to be as they are. Otherwise, the offense can gain an
unfair advantage. Consider the receiver approaching the sideline
getting ready to make a play on the (fouled) throw near the sideline.
If the rule were "turfed greatest attempts are sent back," the thrower
could catch the disc and throw up a hail mary to the end zone. If it's
caught, play on = goal. If not, send it back to the original thrower.
You should not get free shots like this.
What if the receiver thought "I can probably land in bounds, but it'll
be close," and so he tries the above strategy instead of toeing the
line? Furthermore, what if it happened in the middle of the field?
Could he still attempt the throw while still in mid-air with the same
possible set of outcomes?
As soon as you catch the disc in mid-air, you are the thrower. If you
attempt a pass in mid-air and it's a turnover, the original foul has no
bearing on the play. Turnover.
Also why does the subject of this thread reference Callahan??
MadOne
need to stop pretending that they were.
There are many situations where the receiver would attempt a greatest
because he didn't even know a foul was called (i.e. a deep huck). The
outcome should be one of three things:
1. Either the offense should have the benefit of attempting the
greatest without penalty of a turnover.
2. The disc should remain with the person who attempted the greatest
3. The disc should go back to the thrower under the assumption that the
person who caught it would have landed out of bounds
I'm not saying that's how to interpret the rules - I'm just saying
that's how the rules should be written.
ultima...@hotmail.com
read: Greatest=Possession.
Also, thanks for the input. It at least looks like I'm not the only one
having difficulty with this situation.
-D
colinm...@gmail.com
offensive player, making it a turnover (see applicable rules below).
If he ran out of bounds at some point and the disc contacted him there,
where he finally ends up is irrelevant. And he owes you an ice cream
cake.
There's some interesting messiness on where the disc should be put into
play, had he not run out of bounds, but it's more than I care to delve
into with much detail. XVI.A and XVI.B seem to be the guiding rules,
since I couldn't find rules making it an exception. Even though it's
stated as a travel, the travel definitions don't seem to help, so it
might be better to just call "violation". Then there's some issue
about occurrence of violation versus time of call, which may affect
where the disc is put into play. Requires a bit of interpretation of
several sections, as the rules I found don't perfectly address it.
XII. Turnovers
A. An incomplete, intercepted, or knocked down pass, or a pass in which
the disc becomes out-of-bounds, results in a change of the team in
possession.
IX.C. Any object or player contacting an out-of-bounds area is
out-ofbounds.
An airborne player whose last ground contact was with an
out-of-bounds area is out-of-bounds. All out-of-bounds objects and
out-of-bounds offensive players are considered part of the out-ofbounds
area.
IX.E. A disc becomes out-of-bounds when it first contacts an
out-of-bounds
area. Contact between a disc and an out-of-bounds defensive player
does not make the disc out-of-bounds.
CodyTCT
out, though. Your interpretation assumes that the player ran out
before making the catch, which doesn't seem to be the situation.
colinm...@gmail.com
on his fingernail, running around with it and showing off. My reply
addresses exactly that situation.