A Townsville gent had mightily caught the disc in the endzone, hit the ground and rolled around a bit, and then about a full 3-4 seconds after the catch, the disc popped out of his hand.
The gent claimed the goal, and after a lot of discussion the Heroic defenders let the claim stand.
This question has come up several times in games we've watched or been in over the past few years, but alas, this is not a goal - its a drop.
Three rules are relevant here:
"14.1 A goal is scored if an in-bounds player catches a legal pass and all
of their first simultaneous points of contact after catching the disc are
entirely within their attacking end zone."
"12.1 A player catches the disc by demonstrating sustained control of a
non-spinning disc."
"12.2 If a player loses control of the disc due to subsequent contact with
teh ground or a team-mate or a legitimately positioned opposition player, the
catch is deemed to have no occured."
So if you drop it, you haven't demonstrated sustained control, hence its not a catch, hence its not a goal.
Why the confusion?
It is likely this comes from the change to the rules in recent years, that established that the point of scoring is when the catch is taken, whereas in the past the scorer needed to catch the disc and then indicate that they scored (typically by tapping the disc on the ground).
This rule was partly changed because of the hoo-ha that came from players catching the disc in the endzone but not realising they were in (a particular issue without lines in place) and throwing the disc again, only to see it thrown away or intercepted.
In learning the new rule, people have got it right in their head that its the point in time of the catch in the endzone that counts, but they're forgetting that if you end up dropping it, then its a drop.
[Edit - additional point raised in the comments but worthy of inclusion in the main post:
Another simple test - if the same thing happened in the playing field rather than the endzone, what would be the outcome?
I think everyone would agree - its a drop and a turnover.]
20 comments:
So how long is "sustained"? Eg. A person has control of the disc but a teammate comes in to congratulate them thus knocking the disc out of the hands. By strict definition, control has been lost due to contact with a teammate.
Having not seen the catch between Townsville and heroes, to me, control of a disc for 3 seconds would indicate to me that the loss of control was not a result of the motions during a catch? But i wasn't there.
Compare to say a person who holds the disc for a fraction of a second before spiking by throwing it 10m in to the air. Thats considered a catch.
So in your example, if a player spikes the disc straight away, he scores, if he maintains composure and holds on to the disc, but then drops it for some other reason, its not a score.
Where is the line drawn?
There's another simple test that I meant to put in the post (and I will edit it to do so, as not everyone reads the comments) - if the same thing happened in the playing field rather than the endzone, what would be the outcome?
I think everyone would agree - its a drop. Like I posted, everyone is confused by focusing on the newer rule relating to the point of time that the score occurs, and forgetting that it needs to be a catch not a drop.
As far as Stafa's spiking example goes - its usually apparent if a release is controlled or not. The time is irrelevant. Immediately spiking or otherwise throwing the disc away after taking a catch is controlled. A strip from a congratulating team-mate looks different to a drop due to collision.
If you haven't shown sustained control after 3 seconds of holding the disc then you have serious issues and should not consider a job waiting tables where you may spill stuff. or in a lab or around any hazardous materials for that matter. I mean you can basically run 20metres from standstill in that time.
jdrs probably all over the shop on the number of seconds.
on the other hand, Petes airtime is usually several seconds (he's so awesome), so its not unreasonable that hed catch the disc, float in the air for several seconds, then hit the ground and lose the disc
if you dropped it midfield at any time it is obviously a turnover but wouldn't the point imeadiately end if it was caught in the end zone and any dropping or throwing of the disc subsequently be irrelevant?
I could understand a turnover if the drop occured close enough to the catch to argue that control had never been established but surely if you can hang on to it for a even few seconds and come to a stop it would have long stopped spinning and the point is over.
Surely the defining aspect is whether or not the player establishes and then sustains control. This includes maintaining control after impacting the ground or a teammate. If you catch it in the air and then hit the ground and drop it, it's a drop. No matter if it's after 1 second or 3/4.
Sauce
This reminds me of when a South African player threw away the ball in the Cricket World Cup before he had gained control...
Unfortunately, Heroes and Villians did not face off.
An interesting contrasting rule is that, if someone goes for the catch outside the endzone, ACCIDENTALLY tips it on, and ends up catching it themselves again in the endzone, then it's a goal.
It has to be unintentional (and, let's face it, you'd have to be pretty gutsy to try something like that deliberately), but it seems to indicate fairly clearly that the goal isn't scored (or the disc "caught") until deliberate control is incontrovertibly established.
There was an example of that happening at Halibut, in one of the games Heroes DID actually play. ;)
I think it was scored by one of the girls on Fish-n-Discs? Possibly.
I recall control of the disc being defined as stopping or reversing the spin of the disc.
Whether that happens or not comes into play alot with fouls and strip.
But as a ground strip could take a good 5 seconds before it can happen, due to stumbling/rolling on the ground, consider it the same as bobbling a disc and eventually dropping it. The catch is still deemed to have never of occured. So even though there was 'control' of the disc, an eventual ground strip is still a drop.
I agree with Tomsteve! If the catch occurs in the endzone the point is over right?
What if a player caught a goal and then went to throw the pull for the next point and completely shanked it - you could argue that he or she did not have sustained control of the disc - therefore the previous point restarts and its a turnover!
Ok...a bit too far.
There seems to be a deafening silence from Reuben here - maybe he can put this thread to pasture.
Tomsteve and Julz need to read the last bit of 12.2
But I have also emailed Mr Rubes inviting his input (he's a busy man though).
The definitions help clear this up:
Possession of the disc:
"Loss of possession due to ground contact related to a pass reception negates that player's possession up to that point."
It's the "related to a pass reception" that is key.
A few scenarios:
Scenario 1:
A player dives to make a catch in the endzone.
They catch the disc.
Then they hit the ground.
Hitting the ground causes them to drop the disc.
No Goal.
The loss of possession was due to ground contact related to the pass reception.
Scenario 2:
A player dives to make a catch in the endzone.
They catch the disc.
Then they hit the ground.
Hitting the ground does not cause them to drop the disc.
After landing with control of the disc, they let go of it.
Goal.
They had established possession after the ground contact related to the pass reception.
Scenario 3:
A player runs into the endzone.
They catch the disc.
Then they run to celebrate and trip.
Hitting the ground causes them to drop the disc.
Goal.
The loss of possession was NOT due to ground contact RELATED to the pass reception.
Scenario 4:
A player runs into the endzone.
They lunge to catch the disc.
Directly after catching the disc they trip.
Hitting the ground causes them to drop the disc.
No Goal.
The loss of possession was due to ground contact related to the pass reception.
Scenario 5:
A player runs into the endzone.
They lunge to catch the disc.
Directly after catching the disc they trip.
Before hitting the ground they throw the disc.
Goal.
The loss of possession was due to ground contact related to the pass reception.
To clarify it was against those dirty canadians. The senario played out the mike "our man form the north" Larson took a sweet layout out grab. Caught the disc then landed retaining control of the disc. No problem right well before he finished his slide he somehow lost possession of the disc. My view was obscured, but tractor was sure he had lost possession before he had stopped sliding(yes he slid for a while). Rueben ruling there?
Anyway for these 2 dirty northern americans to resolve a dispute without fisty cuffs was a bit of a surprise.
Extra note:
The reason Scenario 5 needs to be a goal is to deal with issues related to Interception by the defence.
All the scenarios I describe could be applied to an interception by the D, with "No Goal" meaning No Double Turnover and "Goal" meaning a Double Turnover
(Double Turnover being where the D intercepts the pass, establishes possession but then intentionally losses possession so someone else can be the thrower)
If Scenario 5 was a goal, and therefore we determine that possession had NOT been established, then the D could intercept a pass, be falling, throw the disc towards their endzone and then hit the ground. According to the above determination, possession had NOT been established, therefore the D get to take possession where the disc lands – which is much closer to their endzone. This is not desirable.
You could make it so that possession is determined differently in the endzone from the rest of the field, but this makes an unnecessary inconsistency and doesn’t seem fair.
Jangles - it all comes down to what caused him to lose possesion. Was it a bump caused by him sliding? - No Goal
Or did he intentionally let go of the disc after gaining control in the endzone? - Goal
If this is unclear, it's a contested turnover and the disc goes back to the thrower.
Another note:
Don't forget that an intentionally dropped disc is counted as a throw (see definitions)
So is it as simple as asking the receiver if they intended to let go of the disc?
And apologies for misremembering who was playing this game.
How is there a debate on this anyway? It's pretty obvious if someone accidentally loses control of a disc in the process of taking a catch or directly afterwards. And as JdR says all you need to do is ask the offensive player if they dropped it on purpose or not. In the spirit of the game they should be honest, if you honestly believe they are cheating, then you can contest the goal and have a discussion with them about it. In the end it comes down to what they say.
There was no debate but it was just one of those interesting happenings that makes you dig down into your knowledge of the rules. Tractor didn't do a "Magon"(we need a name for the incident) and we walked to the other end once they had a quick discussion.
What Jangles said - it wasn't a big deal in that game, but I posted because its a confusion that comes up every once in a while, and should be simple, really.
Post a Comment