Continuation rule on a greatest
Flo Pfender
The discussed play:
foul call on the throw. receiver (doesn't hear call) tries greatest but
his throw is not complete.
By 10th and proposed 11th, this is a turn.
If the greatest attempt failed because the player was OB before he
throws it (either by jumping from the line or by landing before the
throw), it is not a turn.
If there is also a travel or pick call on the play (before the
attempted greatest), it is not a turn.
So, in a way, we are "punishing" a player for doing something well
(well, not quite well enough I guess).
Where does this come from?
It is pretty inherent in the continuation rule that on a completion
after a fouled throw, play continues unhalted. This is just one case of
this general principle.
If we put exceptions in the rules to "fix" this situation, we run into
some trouble:
1. The greatest after a call is a free throw. If you complete it, fine,
take the extra yardage. If not, back to the original thrower. So what
keeps the receiver who hears the call to try the greatest huck with no
risk?
2. Would this change only apply if the player lands OB after he tries
the greatest?
3. How about multiple greatests? Well, this is probably rather
academic...
4. If we define the catch on a greatest not as a completion followed by
a new throw, other problems in other places come up.
The question is now: Is it worth the effort to deal with this
situation, or can we live with the fact that this tried greatest after
a call is in fact not so great after all...
Flo.
doyl...@gmail.com
would be the one calling the foul, so should be vocal enough for
his/her receivers to hear him/her. Not worth the effort to deal with in
the rules. Catch = possession. Fairly cut and dry.
Matt
kubla
experience a fair percentage of greatest attempts are on long hucks
during which there is considerable yelling by various parties so I
don't think it's so cut and dried that receiver should have a clear,
unambiguous perception of what exactly was or was not called at the
other end of the field.
On the other hand, since the situation is rather uncommon, I am also
not sure it warrants a special clause.
Nonetheless, I think the anomaly of the O being 'punished' for
almost completing a greatest after D foul is unfortunate. My initial
shot at addressing would be a single clause under continuation rule.
Something like:
XVI. C (continuation)
1.b (call made by thrower in act of throwing...complete...'play on')
1. b. i. Except where receiver's 1st ground contact is OB and
incomplete pass attempted before 1st GC. This incomplete greatest
attempt is considered a dead disc. Recievers disc at point on
perimeter of pfp nearest where possession gained.
Plus: O not punished w/turnover for almost completing greatest after
D foul.
resolve anomaly of almost completing greatest being
worse than not catching it all.
Plus: no incentive for O to try and 'greatest-jack' all fouled
throws.
Minus: O might be worse off than if disc back to thrower (trapped
on sideline)
But, if this is off huck than O has gained significant field
position.
If it was just a short dump pass THAN the thrower's call
should have been clear to reciever.
"Flo Pfender" <Flo.Pfen...@googlemail.com> wrote:
....
> 1. The greatest after a call is a free throw. If you complete it, fine,
> take the extra yardage. If not, back to the original thrower. So what
> keeps the receiver who hears the call to try the greatest huck with no
> risk?
solved...I think.
> 2. Would this change only apply if the player lands OB after he tries
> the greatest?
yes.
> 3. How about multiple greatests? Well, this is probably rather
> academic...
> 4. If we define the catch on a greatest not as a completion followed by
> a new throw, other problems in other places come up.
I think the proposed solution doesn't apply to other situations so
further ramifications not a problem...?
>
> The question is now: Is it worth the effort to deal with this
> situation, or can we live with the fact that this tried greatest after
> a call is in fact not so great after all...
probably.
Julian
completed in bounds but for the foul. It does allow the offense to keep
posession on "real" greatest attempts, but not in-bounds "fake"
greatests. That's pretty good. It also means that incomplete endzone
greatests come back to the goal line. That seems like an OK compromise,
but doesn't really fit with the concept of recreating what would have
happened in the absence of the foul. It also still allows for the free
greatest/huck attempt on any such play near the sideline. How big of a
problem is that?
Alternatively, what if we require that all greatests after a foul come
back to the receiver/thrower who attempted the greatest? It takes away
the occasional spectacular play, but prevents turnovers where the
receiver couldn't have heard the foul call (huck attempt with
yelling/wind/etc). Does that cause problems that I'm not thinking of?
I'm not sold on the idea that we need a change, however. I mean, how
many times has this come up? Can we get any kind of anecdotal
quantification of that?
j
kubla
Julian wrote:
.....
> Alternatively, what if we require that all greatests after a foul come
> back to the receiver/thrower who attempted the greatest?
For what its worth, I decided against this solution b/c this whole
scenario is predicated on a marker fouling the thrower- if the O can
turn the foul to their benefit while making the game more entertaining
that seems to me to be a good thing. The greatest is an exciting and
rare play, no need to make it rarer.
Also, do you mean 'all greatests' to include ones where first ground
contact is not OB? I think if we are going to intro an exception it
should be limited to fgc OB....
Also, while there is still anyone reading this thread:
Thanks to all the folks on the SRC and active outsiders for your
ongoing contributions to the sport and community.
-db
michae...@pomona.edu
this topic. I was only thinking of a throw to the end zone, and in
that scenario there is no possible way that the offense can turn the
situation to their advantage because there is nowhere to advance the
disc. You either catch it in the end zone or greatest it into the end
zone, the end result is the same AND it recreates the situation if
there were no foul. I never considered the possibilities for abuse,
but I can easily see how on an upline cut at midfield the receiver
could try the greatest huck even though he/she heard the foul due to
their black, cold, Grinch-sized heart.
I hate to see a situation where the offense is penalized for trying to
make what they feel is the correct play, but if changing the rule would
create more problems than fix, i.e. more people would take advantage of
this new rule than would be helped since it rarely occurs, perhaps it's
best to just leave it how it is and pity the poor bastards that do get
screwed by it.
For me it's not as cut and dry as Matt makes it out to be, i.e.
catch=possession. If I were on the defense and the foul and greatest
end zone play occured, I'd like to think that I would have the spine to
recognize the spirit of the rule and send the disc back instead of
pulling some nitpicky continuation rule out of my ass to justify a
turnover. Clearly the rule was not written to punish this play,
although technically it does result as such.
I don't think you can change the rule such that an incomplete greatest
goes back to the greatest attempter on the line because it was not a
completed pass. It's either gotta go back to the thrower or be a
turnover. I think because of all the possible abuse and ambiguities
with this rule we should just leave it how it is and hope that the
spirit of the game is strong enough such that if the unfortunate end
zone situation does occur that people won't be pricks about it and
demand a turnover. But we'll see.
doyl...@gmail.com
michae...@pomona.edu wrote:
> For me it's not as cut and dry as Matt makes it out to be, i.e.
> catch=possession. If I were on the defense and the foul and greatest
> end zone play occured, I'd like to think that I would have the spine to
> recognize the spirit of the rule and send the disc back instead of
> pulling some nitpicky continuation rule out of my ass to justify a
> turnover. Clearly the rule was not written to punish this play,
> although technically it does result as such.
This is how I'd play it as well. However, I don't think it should be
spelt out in the rules. The rules should simply refer to the
catch=possesion as already is in place. I could live with the
occasional 'rule nazi' enforcing the described play to be a turnover,
as I believe most players would act as you described. So we're looking
at a rare occasion of a rare occasion actually leading into a turnover.
Julian
understood a "greatest" to necessarily involve an OB first ground
contact. Doing the same thing while in bounds is generally gonna be
pointless.
Julian
But at a high-intensity tournament (elimination games at sectionals,
any game at regionals or nationals), I wouldn't be surprised to see
most people argue for the turnover. Stakes are high, teams are
well-matched, and people often press for any advantage at all (but I
don't want to change the subject...).
mpef...@yahoo.com
After a foul and "play on" call, the player who legally becomes a
thrower * must acknowledge the "Play On" call by echoing "Play On" and
then self tapping the disc. The self tap can consist of a ground check
or a tap of the disc against any body part (note: not using other hand
to prevent 1 handed discrimination as mention in the time out threads).
Any action taken without calling "play on" is negated regardless of
outcome. The lack of self tap after calling "Play On" is a violation
and subject to the continuation rule.**
Yes...the self tap seems redundant and subject to gripes, but it is an
extra action to let the play continue relatively uninhibited while also
verifying that the thrower ws the one to echo the call. It also
requires the "play on" echo to be made prior to the thrower making the
throw.
just a thought...
pm
* (so if OB on catch, disc goes back since not legally becoming a
thrower)
** So if someone tries a greatest, calls "Play on" after throwing and
it is incomplete, TO
Mark -Mortakai- Moran
mean (i.e., both offensive and defensive acknowledgement of readiness),
and I'm going to assume you don't. If you *do* mean that, however, it'd
be cleaner to simply require a formal stoppage and check after the
first reception following the call, rather than a continuing "play on".
Some calls under continuation already happen this way.
I also don't see how this suggestion would resolve the base issue under
discussion, which to me seems to be how to resolve the alleged
offensive disadvantage of the failed greatest attempt after a foul on
the thrower. If the downfield thrower didn't hear the call, attempted
the greatest and failed, it'd still be a turnover under this
suggestion.
Fundamentally, I wouldn't want to see us implementing something that
requires the offensive to be unable to take advantage of an immediate
second pass because they're required to wait for the thrower to say
something and then they need to echo it and do something physical...
that interrupts flow for the offense when it was the defense's
infraction... and that would happen every-time there's a foul that ends
up in a play on (which is a lot), rather than this extremely rare case.
Parinella
Julian wrote:
> happened in the absence of the foul. It also still allows for the free
> greatest/huck attempt on any such play near the sideline. How big of a
> problem is that?
It's only "free" if the player would definitely land out of bounds.
Otherwise, the receiver/thrower risks the yardage gained on the first
pass.
>
> Alternatively, what if we require that all greatests after a foul come
> back to the receiver/thrower who attempted the greatest? It takes away
> the occasional spectacular play, but prevents turnovers where the
> receiver couldn't have heard the foul call (huck attempt with
> yelling/wind/etc). Does that cause problems that I'm not thinking of?
>
> I'm not sold on the idea that we need a change, however. I mean, how
> many times has this come up? Can we get any kind of anecdotal
> quantification of that?
>
Not that the plural of "anecdote" is "data" or anything, but this
occurred during one of our games at Regionals this year. It
confounded two players who served as Observers at College Nationals
(one of them the head observer during the finals, the other the chief
of observers) enough that one of them spent many spare moments the rest
of the day reviewing his pocket rule book.
My take is that this is large enough of a discrepancy against what the
rules ought to say that it merits a specific exclusion. (And it's even
more screwed up that if the initial thrower is also called for a
travel, the disc comes back.) In fact, there are already some specific
exclusions for the Greatest (or at least one that I could find):
VI.B.4. After the pull, only a thrower with possession of the disc
that has survived ground
contact can call a time-out.
Would anyone argue that the rules ought to state that if there is a
foul on the throw, the receiver initially catches it but then drops it
two steps later after rolling on the ground, that it ought to be a
turnover?
Jim
PS. If you jump, catch, throw, then land in-bounds, that's not called
the Greatest, it's called the Stupidest.
> j
colinm...@gmail.com
> It's only "free" if the player would definitely land out of bounds.
> Otherwise, the receiver/thrower risks the yardage gained on the first
> pass.
I could see making an up-line cut and jumping and hucking to a good
downfield matchup instead of catching, running O.B. and having to come
back in. If the up-line pass is a break, I could see using the free
greatest as a way of getting around the pursuing mark, too. I think a
lot of D-line offenses would willingly give up 5-10 yards for a free
goal shot.
> My take is that this is large enough of a discrepancy against what the
> rules ought to say that it merits a specific exclusion. (And it's even
> more screwed up that if the initial thrower is also called for a
> travel, the disc comes back.)
Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. We view the greatest as a
catch and subsequent throw, so if it isn't a play-on situation,
attempting a greatest saves an otherwise O.B. turnover. Is that right?
If so, that's the most problematic issue at hand. If a thrower
travels and throws some garbage pass out-of-bounds, he gets the disc
back, provided he has a receiver who can jump, catch the disc and throw
anything. Is there any rule addressing this situation? I admittedly
haven't looked into this issue in much detail.
> Would anyone argue that the rules ought to state that if there is a
> foul on the throw, the receiver initially catches it but then drops it
> two steps later after rolling on the ground, that it ought to be a
> turnover?
And how would their argument change if it were 1 step later or 3 steps
or 5 seconds or 10 seconds? It's really hard to draw a clear line
here, but it is not a turnover up to a certain point and then at some
point it becomes a turnover. I'm not exactly picking up the parallel
here, though. In this situation, the receiver accidentally loses
possession. In the greatest situation, he attempts a throw. I can
certainly admit that it may sometimes be difficult to determine what
constituted a catch and throw and what was a catch and drop or failure
to catch and fling.
Colin
Parinella
colinm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Parinella wrote:
> > It's only "free" if the player would definitely land out of bounds.
> > Otherwise, the receiver/thrower risks the yardage gained on the first
> > pass.
>
> I could see making an up-line cut and jumping and hucking to a good
> downfield matchup instead of catching, running O.B. and having to come
> back in. If the up-line pass is a break, I could see using the free
> greatest as a way of getting around the pursuing mark, too. I think a
> lot of D-line offenses would willingly give up 5-10 yards for a free
> goal shot.
If we're not worried about the length of the rule, we could just
specify that you have to land OB in order for the pass to be free.
But you're still risking a turnover if the foul is taken back or
overruled. I definitely see more fouls taken back (and a lot more
overruled or deemed to have occurred before the throw) than I do
Greatests.
And I still doubt that teams would give up the sure completion on a
break, even a 5 yard break. You have the immediate look up the line
before the marker gets there, plus after the marker gets there he
overcommits for a second and you have the inside-break throw.
The parallel is that neither case is considered an in-bounds catch,
such that it would be a goal if it happened in the endzone. It's only
a catch when the catching maneuver is completed after a player has
landed in-bounds.
If I remember correctly, this whole issue arises because it's very
difficult to write the rules such that the Greatest is a legal play.
This means that "completed pass" and "catch" and "possession" have to
be defined using wordsmithing to allow it. Would it instead be
possible to write the definitions using more straightforward English
and to have a special section on the Greatest? We're already jumping
through a linguistics hoop in order to write it, so another hoop might
be ok.
(definition): A play where a receiver jumps from in-bounds to catch a
disc, then throws the disc before establishing a first point of contact
out-of-bounds. (Simply releasing before touching the ground again is
not sufficient.)
(rule). A foul on the receiver-throw in the Greatest is treated as a
regular throwing foul. If there is a foul or violation on the original
throw in the Greatest, the Greatest is treated as a MAC.
Jim
colinm...@gmail.com
> But you're still risking a turnover if the foul is taken back or
> overruled. I definitely see more fouls taken back (and a lot more
> overruled or deemed to have occurred before the throw) than I do
> Greatests.
Overruled fouls assumes playing with observers and in most instances,
an observer really can't see all the contact that may occur between
marker and thrower. Very rare that he can overrule a throwing foul
with any certainty. It has to be a blatantly terrible call, which
we're already assuming won't happen. As far as fouls taken back, I'm
not sure what I've seen relative to greatests, but I think we'd agree
that both occurrences are rare. The risk of turnover seems like a
lightning-striking-twice situation.
> And I still doubt that teams would give up the sure completion on a
> break, even a 5 yard break. You have the immediate look up the line
> before the marker gets there, plus after the marker gets there he
> overcommits for a second and you have the inside-break throw.
I think the worse the team, the more likely a player is to give up the
yardage. In given conditions, it can definitely be worth it. A team
that can't really work it, but has one dominant receiver. A team that
doesn't make good continuation cuts. An upwind-downwind game where the
upwind score is especially crucial (if you automatically win if you
complete the greatest huck, then you're likely to try it). I agree
that it's not likely to happen at the highest levels, but I could see
it being significant at mid-level Club Regionals and through most of
the college game, depending on weather conditions and some other
factors.
> The parallel is that neither case is considered an in-bounds catch,
> such that it would be a goal if it happened in the endzone. It's only
> a catch when the catching maneuver is completed after a player has
> landed in-bounds.
I find the intentional attempt at a pass to be an overwhelming
difference here. Similarly, I don't find strong parallel between a
defender who gets a layout-catch D, but drops it on ground contact and
a defender who gets a layout-catch D and then stands up and spikes it.
> (definition): A play where a receiver jumps from in-bounds to catch a
> disc, then throws the disc before establishing a first point of contact
> out-of-bounds. (Simply releasing before touching the ground again is
> not sufficient.)
> (rule). A foul on the receiver-throw in the Greatest is treated as a
> regular throwing foul. If there is a foul or violation on the original
> throw in the Greatest, the Greatest is treated as a MAC.
I like the idea behind this wording. IX.E is an example of such
specific exception language. I really don't like the free turnover on
a travel call. I don't care as much about the turnover on a foul. The
free greatest attempt bothers me. But if I had decided on the issue as
a whole in favor of the "free" greatest, I'd like your wording. A
couple of nitpicks nonetheless:
1) The SRC seems to assign a very specific, perhaps not intuitive
meaning of "establish" in the rules, which would require a player to
maintain his first point of ground contact for some duration longer
then he would while running.
2) I think I'd like some reference to possession, even at the cost of
additional words. Maybe "the Greatest negates that receiver's
possession." True, pretty crappy language for a nitpicker, but it's
merely to help convey my thought process.
The strongest argument I find against the current rules is still the
throw O.B. with a travel called, that a receiver throws an incomplete
greatest and the disc goes back to the thrower. Actually, the
strongest argument may be textual. See my other post regarding this.
-Colin
colinm...@gmail.com
reviewing them and crafting an argument.
I don't have a lot left to say on this, but I do think that it is not
right for a thrower who travels and throws the disc O.B. should get it
back, if there is an incomplete greatest attempt. Reward the receiver
for a "good try"? Reward the thrower for not throwing it too far out
of bounds, even after failing to throw legally?
I'm torn enough on this between the travel issue and the free greatest
that I don't have a strong enough opinion to justify further
participation in the discussion.
Mark -Mortakai- Moran
colinm...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...] couple of nitpicks nonetheless:
> 1) The SRC seems to assign a very specific, perhaps not intuitive
> meaning of "establish" in the rules, which would require a player to
> maintain his first point of ground contact for some duration longer
> then he would while running.
I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here.
colinm...@gmail.com
I was just saying to be careful about using "establish" for the sake of
consistency, in that it is already down on the books from use in the
double-team rule.
In the DT setting, I've heard it (I think officially) said to require
some degree of relative stationarity, thus allowing the "ring around
the rosie" defense. So "establish" is taken to mean "maintain" more
than to mean "occupy." Counter-intuitive to me, in that setting.
Perhaps "point of contact" in Jim's draft leaves less ambiguity than
"position" does in the DT rule, but it popped into my head that this
had come up before, so I mentioned it. Honestly meant to be
informative rather than snide.