Apologies Britdisc.......Feel free to ignore! I just have to get this
off my chest because I am basically being falsely accused of rule
technicality picking by Dave, and don't feel happy just letting that
go I'm afraid.  I was merely forwarding a message from Scott.  FYI, I
think it's obvious in the rules as well as clearly the spirit of the
rules that it should've been a turnover as Rodders decided.  And as
Waggle said at the time, Rodders went neither up nor down in my
estimations as a result of the incident - not talking to Beavan about
the foul would've simply been cheating, and Rodders has always been a
fair player from what I've seen from sidelines, footage, & playing
with+against him.

Chuffed that I caught such a great example of athletic play +
self-officating on camera for all to see!

Felix


2008/5/13 Dave Grayson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Felix et al.
>
> No no no no no no no no no!
>
> Please stop reading the rules and trying to interpret them to the absolute
> minutiae.
>
> Using Spirit of the game as your only rule its pretty simple. If you catch
> the disc and drop it when you hit the ground then you dropped it. If you got
> fouled and that made a difference to you dropping it then its a foul.  No
> amount of "ah but I was in when I caught it and dropped it when I was out
> etc." is needed.  There is no need for revising the rules, just play the
> game folks. Technicalities are utter bullshit. Just play the f*cking game.
>
> And for what it's worth - that was the best call I've seen this season -
> Rodders deserves all the applause he gets, and he deserved his reward of
> inspiring his team to a great comeback.  In this case he truly is Mr.
> Wright...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2008/5/13 Felix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> > (Forwarded message on behalf of Scott from Vision who can't post directly)
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this, but ah well...
> >
> > At 0:58, Rodders is out of bounds and the disc first contacts the
> > ground. He's already established a point of contact within bounds,
> > during the layout, and has subsequently rolled out.
> >
> > At 0:59, we can see the disc has fallen from his grip, whilst he's
> > upside down (impressive btw), although now, no part of his body is in
> > bounds.
> >
> > As we know, ultimate takes rules from many different sports. The fact
> > that we must get a point of contact in bounds after catching the disc
> > is taken from NCAA rules college American football (NFL demanding that
> > two feet be in bounds, rather than the NCAA's one). By their rules, a
> > player, once having established that in-bounds catch as a catch, by
> > having that point of contact, may then drop the ball. Granted, they
> > drop it/hand it to a ref to initiate a new play.
> >
> > However, our rules really aren't clear on this. *Logically*, because
> > he established a contact point before he was out-of-bounds, and was in
> > control before moving out-of-bounds, before being "ground-stripped"
> > (Which I too thought was a rule in the US!) after leaving the field of
> > play, the catch should stand. Had he had to make a further pass, you
> > could argue that the drop is a change of possession. But as it was in
> > the endzone (I assume by everyone shouting that it was a score!), no
> > further pass is needed, so surely an out-of-bounds drop, after having
> > established said in-bounds contact, is irrelevant? It's already a
> > score. The second that contact is made, and he has not dropped it,
> > it's a score, surely? That's why we can spike it/throw it etc in
> > celebration, immediately after catching it in-bounds. He drops it
> > out-of-bounds, after the catch has already been deemed valid, by our
> > own rules!
> >
> > Had he dropped it in bounds, it should have been a turnover. But the
> > rules are a bit ...meh...about it all. I think he did the right thing,
> > because if there's any doubt, you should always give it up, but
> > clearer definitions are needed.
> >
> > Not really after an argument. Just pointing out that the rules are
> > unclear on the matter and this might want to be addressed next time
> > they're up for review.
> >
> > Of course I might just not be understanding where the pitch lies! Kind
> > of hard to tell with only one line for perspective! :)
> >
> > ---------------
> >
> > With regards to pitch water, we (Vision) had to get our own all
> > weekend. No pitch that we were on, at any time during the weekend, had
> > tournament-supplied water. We saw the truck drive past, often empty,
> > but it never gave us water. Almost every team we played complained
> > about this, too.
> >
> > Of course the weather didn't help, but it's something you've got to
> > expect. Rain or shine, we still need water. The volume isn't the
> > issue. It's whether it's there or not that is. Every 90minutes, each
> > pitch should have been replenished. The fact that I didn't even SEE a
> > tournament water-bottle, indicates that there were too few, or people
> > had taken them with them.
> >
> > As has been mentioned, back-to-back games prohibit filling up bottles
> > between games (and unlike the previous poster, I'm not a fan of
> > back-to-back, when there's time for one-on-one-off, but that's an
> > argument for another time!). There's only so much a player can do to
> > keep hydrated. I think taking a large bottle (unsure of the metric
> > sizes to be honest, but the ones that are about 12 inches tall each)
> > each should be enough. In these conditions, that lasts you (usually)
> > 60-90 minutes. Sometimes it runs out, and you have to steal teammates
> > water. But there should always be sideline water. For £180, we ought
> > to get water almost on demand, especially when we're unable to fetch
> > it ourselves!
> >
> > That's my two-penneth worth.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Scott
> > Vision Ultimate #87
> >
> > (BD still doesn't allow me to post messages, so hopefully this will be
> > forwarded accordingly!)
> >
> >
> > 2008/5/13 IndoorsDOC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Just in case anyone's confused, here's why rodders wanted to check up on
> > >  it - if it had been a foul, it WOULD have been a goal. You don't have
> to
> > >  directly knock the disc out of a guy's hands for it to be a strip; any
> > >  foul that results in him letting go of the disc is enough, so if you
> > >  trip or unbalance the guy after the catch, it could be a strip.
> > >
> > >  WFDF Rules:
> > >  16.5.4. A defensive foul that causes the receiver or thrower to drop
> > >  the disc after they have gained possession is a "Strip" foul.
> > >  16.5.4.1. If such a foul occurs and the reception would have
> > >  otherwise been a goal, and the foul is uncontested, a goal is
> > >  awarded.
> > >
> > >  B
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Justin Parkhurst wrote:
> > >  > Indeed, well spirited by Rodders in the COTD we saw. I don't fault
> the
> > >  > sideline though, they are allowed to be involved in the game -
> indeed, one
> > >  > of the great things about big games are the spectators - but Rodders
> knew
> > >  > what happened, and he wasn't about to pretend it didn't simply
> because
> > >  > others didn't see it happen (indeed, anyone who would have tried to
> 'get
> > >  > away with it' really is in the wrong sport, in my opinion.)
> > >  >
> > >  > For some reason, several people on the sidelines that day were saying
> 'in
> > >  > the US that would have been a goal'
> > >  >
> > >  > This does not appear to be true. Both UPA rules and WFDF rules seem
> to say
> > >  > this is a turn over. Relevant rules from both are posted below:
> > >  >
> > >  > This is from WFDF
> > >  >
> (http://www.wfdf.org/index.php?page=rules/2007_wfdf_ultimate_rules.htm)  see
> > >  > 13.2
> > >  > 13. Receivers and Positioning
> > >  >
> > >  >   13.1. A player "catches" the disc by demonstrating sustained
> control of a
> > >  > non-spinning disc.
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >   13.2. If the player loses control of the disc due to subsequent
> contact
> > >  > with the ground or a teammate or a legitimately positioned opposition
> > >  > player, the catch is deemed to have not occurred.
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > UPA rules (section II, sub-section O, as well as Section XI) :
> > >  > http://www.upa.org/ultimate/rules/11th#XV
> > >  >
> > >  > II Definitions:
> > >  > ..
> > >  > O. Possession of the disc: Sustained contact with, and control of, a
> > >  > non-spinning disc.
> > >  >   1.. Catching a pass is equivalent to establishing possession of
> that pass.
> > >  >   2.. Loss of possession due to ground contact related to a catch
> negates
> > >  > that player's possession up to that point.
> > >  > ..
> > >  > XI. Scoring
> > >  >   1.. A goal is scored when an in-bounds player catches any legal
> pass in
> > >  > the end zone of attack, and retains possession of the disc throughout
> all
> > >  > ground contact related to the catch.
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > -Justin
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > ----- Original Message -----
> > >  > From: "Dan Knapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >  > To: <[email protected]>
> > >  > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:55 AM
> > >  > Subject: Re: [BD] COTD: Fire v Chevron - Rodders' layout grab
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >> And the clip also nicely highlights why uninvolved players and the
> > >  >> sideline hecklers should stay out of it and not get involved. You
> can here
> > >  >> people calling out and moaning about the speed of the game.
> > >  >>
> > >  >> Rodders made an awesome call, and had to ignore a lot of his peers
> to do
> > >  >> so. Lesson there? He is a teacher I guess...
> > >  >> _________________________________________________________________
> > >  >> Win Indiana Jones prizes with Live Search
> > >  >> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000002ukm/direct/01/
> > >  >> __________________________________________________
> > >  >> BritDisc mailing list
> > >  >> [email protected]
> > >  >> http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
> > >  >> Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
> > >  >>
> > >  >>
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > __________________________________________________
> > >  > BritDisc mailing list
> > >  > [email protected]
> > >  > http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
> > >  > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  __________________________________________________
> > >  BritDisc mailing list
> > >  [email protected]
> > >  http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
> > >  Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > BritDisc mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
> > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
> >
>
>

__________________________________________________
BritDisc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed

Reply via email to