In and Out of Bounds

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Here is the relevant passage from the 11th edition:

"H. To continue play after the disc becomes out-of-bounds, a member of the team gaining possession of the disc must carry it to, and put it into play at, the spot on the playing field proper nearest to where the most recent of the following events occurred:
1. the disc completely crossed the perimeter line;
2. the disc contacted an in-bounds player;
3. the disc contacted a defensive player; or
4. the disc became out-of-bounds due to contact with the out-of-bounds area or a player while any part of the disc was inside the perimeter line.

After establishing a pivot at the appropriate spot on the field, the thrower must touch the disc to the ground before putting it into play (XIII.B)."

Question:
I don't understand how event 1 and event 4 relate. Any time a disc leaves the Playing Field, it must cross the perimeter line (event 1) and eventually contact an out-of-bounds area upon landing (event 4). If the disc was airborne when it crossed the perimeter line, then contact with an out-of-bounds area (event 4) will always be the "most recent event." If I am reading this correctly, then the disc must be put back into play nearest where it landed, even if the disc was thrown directly out-of-bounds. This is not convention, though. What am I missing?

I think the confusion stems from an incorrect assumption here:

"Any time a disc leaves the Playing Field, it must cross the perimeter line (event 1) and
eventually contact an out-of-bounds area upon landing (event 4)."

Discs often cross the perimeter line and return without contacting an OB area. Leaving the
playing field does not equal becoming OB.

Next, it looks like you're only reading the first part of IX.H.4. It does not apply to situations
where the
disc becomes OB while outside the playing field, it only applies to cases where the disc
becomes OB while any part of it is inside the Playing Field.

--

Example 1: Disc is thrown way outside the playing field, never comes back in, hits the ground
OB.

Resolution: The most recent condition of IX.H that applies is IX.H.1. IX.H.4 doesn't apply as
no part of the disc was within the perimeter line when it became OB. Therefore the disc
comes in where it last crossed the perimeter line.

--

Example 2: Disc is thrown way outside the playing field, arcs back over the playing field
where it is contacted by an OB offenceman (who leapt from OB).

Resolution: In this case IX.H.1 and IX.H.4 both apply, but IX.H.4 is the most recent, so the
disc comes in where the offenceman touched the disc (not necessarily on the
perimeter line). The resolution would be identical if it had hit an overhanging branch after it
had come back within the perimeter line.

--

Does that clear it up?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but consider if the O jumped from IB and landed OB. Does his/her landing OB not negate the IB status, thus having the disc return to where it originally crossed the perimeter line?

If the O was to attempt a throw (ie: Greatest) on the other hand, that would count as a reception (IB) and attempted throw (still IB, as nothing has yet contacted OB ground), then the disc would come into play at the point closest to where the O had touched, correct?

Yes, I am assuming that the disc lands out-of-bounds after crossing the perimeter line, but
only because this rule specifically addresses discs that become out-of-bounds. So I am
ignoring discs that return to the playing field, as they never become out-of-bounds, as
Temple pointed out.

After re-reading IX.H.4 with Temple's interpretation, I think I understand, but it's
ambiguously written. I thought that event 4 included two separate possibilities:

a) contact with an out-of-bounds area or
b) contact with a player (assumed to be out-of-bounds or becoming out-of-bounds) while any
part of the disc is within the perimeter

The way Temple reads it, the rule makes more sense:

a) contact with an out-of-bounds area while any part of the disc is within the perimeter or
b) contact with a player (assumed to be out-of-bounds or becoming out-of-bounds) while any
part of the disc is within the perimeter

Correct? That wording threw me for a loop.

your second a and b is correct... both are while any part of the disc is within the perimeter

Yeah, the rule may be a bit tough to read, it needs a comma before the "while" to at least be
grammatically correct/unambiguous.

--

"Forgive me if I'm wrong, but consider if the O jumped from IB and landed OB. Does his/her
landing OB not negate the IB status, thus having the disc return to where it originally crossed
the perimeter line?

If the O was to attempt a throw (ie: Greatest) on the other hand, that would count as a
reception (IB) and attempted throw (still IB, as nothing has yet contacted OB ground), then
the disc would come into play at the point closest to where the O had touched, correct?"

You're forgiven. :)

There's nothing in the rules to suggest that IB/OB status is negated in such a way.

Further, there is a specific rule in determining where the disc should be put into play in such a
case (IX.H.2: the disc contacted an in-bounds player):

In the case you describe IX.H.1 and IX.H.2 would both apply, but IX.H.2 would have been
most recent, so the disc comes back in nearest where the O touched it, not where it crossed
the
perimeter line.

That's why a really smart player on O will know that even though the catch/greatest is
hopeless jumping for a disc from IB is still worthwhile, as they'll single-handedly push the
other team all the way back down the field from where they would have taken the disc where
it crossed the perimeter line.

If The Greatest is snatching victory from the jaws of defeat by saving an OB pass, and The
Stupidest is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by unsuccessfully trying The Greatest
on a disc that's IB, then perhaps this would be The Cunningest (The Slyest, The Alertest)?

Thanks for the clarification. I think the rule would be clearer if written, "with an out-of-bounds area or player" instead of "with the out-of-bounds area or a player."

I had a teammate injure himself while executing a heroic "Cunningest." Then the other team argued that he touched the ground OB before completing the catch. We chose to call the attempt The Unluckiest.

That is unlucky. Though as a point of clarification for others, which I'm sure you're already
aware: he wouldn't have had to catch it before becoming OB, just touch it while still IB. The
barest tip would be good enough.

--

How did you resolve this issue? Going BTT obviously wouldn't work, as both teams agree that
it's a Turn Over. The dispute comes down to where the disc is returned to play. This is an
example of when the rules don't exactly provide a resolution to the outcome.

A compromise would make sense, perhaps splitting the difference and taking it half-way
between where it went out and where it was touched by the O...

During the latest drafting of rules updates, we decided against "out of bounds area or player" and opted instead for "out of bounds area or a player" because in some cases, it's an in-bounds airborne player who then doesn't catch it or catches it but then becomes OB. It was simplest to not assume the player would always be OB, because they wouldn't necessarily always be that.

We resolved the issue fairly quickly, and let the other team put the disc into play where it first crossed the perimeter line. We did this for two reasons:

1) the player with best perspective (my now-injured teammate) was already off the field and groaning under a tent somewhere. The player with next-best perspective was the one who made the OB argument. If he was sure of his call, then there would be no reason to argue.

2) I feel the general theme in the rules is that the team standing accused of a call cannot gain any advantage from the outcome of the call/dispute, so even if the call went contested, it stood to reason that the disc should go back to where it crossed the perimeter line.

"2) I feel the general theme in the rules is that the team standing accused of a call cannot
gain any advantage from the outcome of the call/dispute, so even if the call went contested,
it stood to reason that the disc should go back to where it crossed the perimeter line."

Interesting interpretation. I've always thought of it as trying to return the conditions to what
they were before the disputed event occurred. I suppose though there's an argument that it
be brought in at the sideline in both cases.

"1) the player with best perspective (my now-injured teammate) was already off the field
and groaning under a tent somewhere. The player with next-best perspective was the one who
made the OB argument. If he was sure of his call, then there would be no reason to argue."

This made my myth radar go: Bleep-bleep-boop-a-wooga! :)

While there's certainly not enough information to tell for sure, it's difficult to imagine from
your description a situation where the player making a wild dive for an OB disc was actually
looking at his feet and the sideline cones in question when he leapt for the disc.

Are you sure the player that made the play on the disc had best perspective? Often the
person making the play on the disc has one of the worst perspectives on the field...

I say that my teammate had best perspective because there was no disagreement that he had leapt from in-bounds. This wasn't a classic "toe-on-the-line" call. The other player, rather, was pointing out that my teammate touched ground before making the catch.

I can't recall which body part it was that may have touched first, seeing as how I was on the opposite sideline at the time. It may have been his catching hand under the disc, or his other hand, or his knee. . . . In any case, on the subject of whether he caught the disc before touching the ground, I feel the receiver had best perspective, since he can feel the two separate events. When it comes to tactile observations, I always let the receiver claim perspective. When it comes to visual observations, you're right that the receiver rarely has a clue.

Ah yes, that makes sense.

To go back to the original discussion, a tree that overhangs a field is a prime example. If the disc contacts the tree, then the disc is considered OB.

Matt