Forum Search:
RSD No Spam
rec.sport.disc without the spam


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » rule loop-hole?
rule loop-hole? [message #5153] Tue, 04 November 2008 11:13 Go to next message
bgeick
Messages: 17
Registered: November 2008
Junior Member
could i do a greatest time-out? if i sky someone then let go of the
disc before i hit the ground, is that a turnover?
Re: rule loop-hole? [message #5159 is a reply to message #5153] Tue, 04 November 2008 11:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ultimate7
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 4, 1:13 pm, bge...@gmail.com wrote:
> could i do a greatest time-out?  if i sky someone then let go of the
> disc before i hit the ground, is that a turnover?

No

Yes
Re: rule loop-hole? [message #5163 is a reply to message #5153] Tue, 04 November 2008 11:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Keith
Messages: 18
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
On Nov 4, 2:13 pm, bge...@gmail.com wrote:
> could i do a greatest time-out?  if i sky someone then let go of the
> disc before i hit the ground, is that a turnover?

I don't think that's a turnover if you're on defense
Re: rule loop-hole? [message #5164 is a reply to message #5163] Tue, 04 November 2008 12:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kazan
Messages: 207
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 4, 11:59 am, Keith <KeithASt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2:13 pm, bge...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > could i do a greatest time-out?  if i sky someone then let go of the
> > disc before i hit the ground, is that a turnover?
>
> I don't think that's a turnover if you're on defense

You'd be wrong, though.
Re: rule loop-hole? [message #5168 is a reply to message #5164] Tue, 04 November 2008 12:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Keith
Messages: 18
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
> You'd be wrong, though.

If an offender were to sky somebody for a score but spike it (or drop
it) before ever landing would it be a score?

The same should apply to d.
Re: rule loop-hole? [message #5175 is a reply to message #5168] Tue, 04 November 2008 12:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 4, 3:13 pm, Keith <KeithASt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You'd be wrong, though.
>
> If an offender were to sky somebody for a score but spike it (or drop
> it) before ever landing would it be a score?
>
> The same should apply to d.

Yes. Ignore the endzone and the jumping because they are irrelevant.
If an offender catches the disc, but then lets go of it, he has gained
possession and then turned it over. If a defender catches the disc,
but then lets go of it, she has gained possession (and is then on
offense momentarily) and then turned it over.

Note that in this scenario, the defender is letting go, not
accidentally losing possession, so XII.C does not apply.
Re: rule loop-hole? [message #5185 is a reply to message #5175] Tue, 04 November 2008 13:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Keith.Larsen.TX
Messages: 41
Registered: September 2008
Member
Sure you can have the timeout... but you check the disc in where you
landed... so turnover after the timeout...

No you can't stop rotation of the disc and intentionally drop it
(isn't this question asked at least once every 6 months on RSD?), if
you stop rotation of the disc it is your unless the ground causes you
to drop it. So if you sky someone, get tabletopped, fall to the ground
and it pops out... then foul and still your disc.

-Keith L
Re: rule loop-hole? [message #5186 is a reply to message #5185] Tue, 04 November 2008 13:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark -Mortakai- Moran
Messages: 152
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 4, 1:51 pm, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sure you can have the timeout... but you check the disc in where you
> landed... so turnover after the timeout...

Actually, no you can't. You need to have possession and survived
ground contact before you can call the time-out. Mid-greatest-attempt
you haven't yet survived ground contact.
Re: rule loop-hole? [message #5191 is a reply to message #5175] Tue, 04 November 2008 14:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bones
Messages: 14
Registered: November 2008
Junior Member
On Nov 4, 12:33 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes.  Ignore the endzone and the jumping because they are irrelevant.
> If an offender catches the disc, but then lets go of it, he has gained
> possession and then turned it over.  If a defender catches the disc,
> but then lets go of it, she has gained possession (and is then on
> offense momentarily) and then turned it over.
>
> Note that in this scenario, the defender is letting go, not
> accidentally losing possession, so XII.C does not apply.

More people should listen to Colin. He's always right.
http://www.pbase.com/tkinley/image/105505226

Bones
"I sustained ground contact with your mother last night!"
Re: rule loop-hole? [message #5245 is a reply to message #5186] Wed, 05 November 2008 07:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Keith.Larsen.TX
Messages: 41
Registered: September 2008
Member
> Actually, no you can't. You need to have possession and survived
> ground contact before you can call the time-out. Mid-greatest-attempt
> you haven't yet survived ground contact.

I was being sarcastic when I said:
"Sure you can have the timeout... but you check the disc in where you
landed... so turnover after the timeout... "

Point is, this isn't basketball, when you call a timeout you get the
disc where you called the timeout, basketball you inbound the ball
after every timeout, NEVER where the timeout was called, you can't
compare the two sports in this respect.

On another note, a football announcer called it a "pick" when a
linesman blocked a defender downfield on a passing play in a game I
was watching this last weekend. If anyone complains that picks should
be legal like in basketball tell them: "Picks aren't legal on a
football FIELD, and we aren't playing on a COURT" so it makes sense.

Anyways, I found that interesting...
-Keith L
Re: rule loop-hole? [message #5266 is a reply to message #5245] Wed, 05 November 2008 09:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rufio
Messages: 26
Registered: September 2008
Junior Member
"Picks aren't legal on a
> football FIELD, and we aren't playing on a COURT" so it makes sense.

Yeah but picks and even designed "rub routes" happen all the time in
Football, and the illegal "picks" they create are never called.
Re: rule loop-hole? [message #5270 is a reply to message #5266] Wed, 05 November 2008 10:07 Go to previous message
marble47
Messages: 4
Registered: November 2008
Junior Member
On Nov 5, 9:39 am, rufio <thatboylookslikeru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  "Picks aren't legal on a
>
> > football FIELD, and we aren't playing on a COURT" so it makes sense.
>
> Yeah but picks and even designed "rub routes" happen all the time in
> Football, and the illegal "picks" they create are never called.

I agree, referees very rarely notice picks.
Previous Topic:Re: Rules Question: Stall
Next Topic:CCC is this weekend
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Jan 20 15:03:02 PST 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.0RC2.
Copyright ©2001-2009 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software