Incomplete pass after scoring

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Is the rule XI.C is still in effect?
if you receive a pass IN the enzone, make a pass that is incomplete, a goal results regardless of the outcome of the pass?

I thought there was another recent update on the rule stating the opposite that if a pass is made but incomplete, it is no longer a goal. Which version is correct? Thanks

emd By emd

Here's the rule:

C. If a player scores according to XI.A, but then unknowingly throws another pass, a goal is
awarded to that player, regardless of the outcome of the pass. However, if it is unclear if the
player scored according to XI.A (i.e., there is no agreement on the player who had best
perspective, and there are opposing view points on the play), the result of the pass stands.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Yup, the rule has existed that way for several years now and hasn't been revisited, let alone
changed. Once the point is scored, it's in the books, regardless of what happens afterwards.

It sounds to me like somebody was making up rules to suit their team by calling a turn-over
after a point was scored against them.

Any veracity to that assumption?

No I legitimately thought there was a change to that rule. Thanks for clearing that up.

Keep in mind that the goal stands only if it is agreed that the relevant catch was in the endzone.
If there is disagreement on whether or not that reception was in the endzone then it is a
turnover.

I hate the wording of that rule. It seems to be about the most confusing way to put forth
what is meant.

Consider:

XI.C: If a player scores according to XI.A, but then unknowingly throws another pass, a goal
is awarded to that player, regardless of the outcome of the pass. However, if it is unclear if
the player scored according to XI.A (i.e., there is no agreement on the player who had best
perspective, and there are opposing view points on the play), the result of the pass stands.

vs:

Proposed.XI.C) If a player scores according to XI.A, but then unknowingly throws another
pass, a goal is awarded to that player, regardless of the outcome of the pass.

Both actually say the same thing. The rule as it stands is fairly redundant and adds a lot of
confusion.

It's like saying: "If a call is made while the disc is in the air, subsequent passes don't count.
However, if no call was made, then subsequent passes count."

I'm not sure I agree on the redundancy. That second sentence answers the question that would likely arise: "But what if there's a dispute on whether they scored before the throw? ... Do they get the disc back on the line? ... Does it go back to the earlier thrower?" ... To which our answer would be, "No Johnny, it would be a turnover". So we answered that question in the second sentence.

Just because someone is clear on what happens when you turn the switch on, does not necessarily mean that the opposite happens when you turn the switch off. You may assume it, but explicit information is often better, n'est-ce pas?

Mortakai: "I'm not sure I agree on the redundancy. That second sentence answers the
question that would likely arise: "But what if there's a dispute on whether they scored
before the throw?"

What *does* happen when there is a dispute on whether a player scored? Well, one
thing that absolutely hasn't happened, is the criteria for XI.C to apply, the player has
not scored.

So, your question is really one of "What happens when [a player doesn't score]?"

Well, in that case, XI.C doesn't apply. The "If a player scores according to XI.A"
never applies, so XI.C must be ignored entirely.

That line of thinking is consistent with 98% of the entire rules document. If we couple
the else conditions (which are covered elsewhere) to every rule, we'd repeat 5-10
rules after every if-statement rule.

--

Mortakai: "Just because someone is clear on what happens when you turn the switch
on, does not necessarily mean that the opposite happens when you turn the switch
off."

Other rules explicitly apply to the situation. You've got a rule that says "when the
switch is on". When that switch is not on, you ignore that rule. Nobody has a trouble
with that line of thinking throughout the rules.

What do you do if XI.C doesn't apply in the situation you describe? Fortunately there
is a very well understood protocol for what happens when the offense makes a pass
into the dirt.

Mortakai: "You may assume it, but explicit information is often better, n'est-ce pas?"

Often, but I've only ever seen that second sentence of the rule confuse people. If it
didn't exist the conventional wisdom of 'it doesn't matter if you throw it away after a
score' holds firm and true.

That second sentence is a dog's dinner and yes, is completely redundant logically,
semantically, and common sensically.

Hi, I have a question regarding a situation that happened to my team. If anyone has any input, that would be greatly appreciated. Here's the scenario:

An offense player A catches a disc while running and believes he has caught the disc in the endzone (ie landed inside the endzone as the cacth was made). After landing (landing in he believes), then 4-5 steps, he touches the disc to the ground to 'confirm' to other players that he is in the endzone. He starts walking back to the goal line and puts the disc on the ground at the goal line. At that point, defense player B calls player A 'NOT inside' the endzone, saying he landed outside of the endzone and ran in. In addition, player B now says that the play is a turnover, as player A has already put the disc on the ground.

So, just to clarify, it was not clear if player A did catch in the endzone or not: the play was fast, and it could have easily been in or out.

Does anyone have any input on this? Is this a turnover or does the play go back to the goal line? Thanks!

At some point the disc has to be considered "dead". I would say that when Offensive player A touched the disc to the ground to indicate a score if there was no debate at that point the Defense can't then wait until the disc is put on the ground and call turnover.

Consider, in the same case, if the team that "scored" then lined up, the player who "scored" didn't put the disc down but held it and then pulled, would it be resonable for the team recieving the pull to then call turnover on the last point, catch the pull in their end zone and claim a callahan? No.

This should be a goal, or at least Offensive player A should have the disc on the line.

m2c

This should definitely not be a goal.

Tapping the disc to the ground does not invalidate somebody's view of the play. If somebody sees
the disc not-in, then their call is as valid as anybody else's. Sure, you need to make the call
immediately, but there's a fair amount of practical and subjective leeway in that. The actions
described could certainly look an awful lot like the actions that a player who thinks he's *not* in
would take. And only after realizing that the player has called himself in, the other player may chime
up to make their call. Purposefully delaying a call is not valid, but there's an awful lot of subjectivity
in that, and nowhere could purposefully delaying actually benefit somebody.

--

This should definitely not be a turn over.

The player caught the disc in the end-zone, signaled it was a score, and placed the disc on the
ground. That player did not "unknowingly throw another pass", and thus any argument under XI.C
cannot apply. Play was effectively Stopped after the O player acknowledged the point. That this
score was subsequently contested doesn't change that.

--

What's left? Offense's disc on the goal-line.

--

Aside:

finger stinger: "So, just to clarify, it was not clear if player A did catch in the endzone or not: the
play was fast, and it could have easily been in or out."

By that you mean that it was clear to both players who made the call, right?. One clearly saw that
he was in, and the other clearly saw that he was out. Otherwise they wouldn't have made the calls
(that would be cheating).

That there was no consensus as to 'what really happened' doesn't matter in the slightest. Even if
everybody on the field disagreed with one player, his call is as valid as everybody else's.

Hi Temple,

Thanks for your response.... that clarifies the situation!

And yes, when I said "it was not clear if player A did catch in the endzone or not: the play was fast, and it could have easily been in or out", I meant that it was not clear what really happened. Player A definitely thought has was in and player B definitely thought he was not in. So as you say, each of them have equal right to their call.

Thanks again!