Non-travel call

11 posts / 0 new
Last post

Curious one for you. I'm on the sidelines at Potlatch. I go to fake a huck by stepping out of bounds with my non-pivot, and trip all over a bunch of crap that is laying there. I stumble around like a drunken idiot (both feet are now well OB) while my mark continues to count stalls. He didn't call travel on me.

At the time I was thinking that he was breaking the rules by essentially ignoring them, but now I'm thinking otherwise. It was certainly to his advantage to ignore the travel, as he got up to stall 8 before I was able to get a pivot back and release the disc. What say you, guru(s)?

As a follow up; could he have called travel on me if I didn't re-establish the same pivot (foot and/or location)?


I would say
a) legit for him not to call travel and continue to count stalls. His call to make (or not) and the violation is caused by your own actions (though see additional note below), so I have no problem with it.
b) I would say yes, he could call travel if you didn't re-establish the pivot at the same spot (I think either IX.C.1 or XVI.J.2.a could apply and both indicate similar things)

Lastly I would say this could have been obviated if you called a violation under III.G when you first tripped on the bunch of crap on the sidelines. It was obstructing play (by preventing you from pivoting properly) so you could call violation, stop play (and the count) and then bring the disc back to your pivot point, restart play with a check and the the count resumed at the count previously reached plus one (or 9 if over 8).

As you stumbled around out of bounds, I woulda called 'out', taken the disc from your hands, given you a loving tap with my shoulder (master's style) to ensure you stayed out of the way a little longer, and then thrown the disc for a point. :)

JDD got the rules pretty much perfect.

Craig added the veteran advice.

I'll add something in between. Had you moved your foot back in-bounds (to the apropriate
spot), and you'd thrown right away, the marker could have called travel to get a free shot at the
D. As long as the marker calls the Travel 'immediately' after your foot was moved (even back to
valid position), it would have been a valid travel call.

Should the thrower make a ground-tap after re-establishing his pivot in-bounds?
Or does the ongoing stall count make that unnecessary?

--> stumble around like a drunken idiot <--

"like a" drunked idiot... or were you actually drunk at the time? That is, were you 'like' one, or were you 'actually' one... actual intelligence level notwithstanding.


Oh, good tangential question, atanarjuat (... how DO you pronounce that, anyway... "a tan rat", "I turn right"?)

The best I can come up with is a "maybe, but probably not". The disc certainly WAS in play before the drunken stumble, but I'm not convinced it necessarily went to a "live" state while he was trying to get back IB. The definition of "live" says "players are allowed movement", which isn't the case in this example and his moving is a travel violation. The reason behind touching the disc to the ground is so the marker (and others) know when the thrower has placed his/her pivot, which in this example isn't as important to know.

Regardless, in any case, I'm not sure it really matters because there're bigger things happening here, and if the marker ends up calling a travel because the thrower didn't touch the disc down, I would certainly expect a 'discussion' about it.

I wasn't ACTUALLY drunk, unless someone slipped something into my Gatorade, which, considering what tournament I was at, would not be at all surprising.

Thanks for the input, all. Definitely not one I expect to be dealing with at any point in the near future, but good to know I could call the violation on the sideline crap (and probably receive a great deal of heckling for it).

(It's "ah-tan-ar-jew-at," or "-jwat," depending on how fast you say it. Check out the movie of the same name.)

Let's examine a similar example for a moment. An O-player catches the disc, and the D-player immediately begins counting stalls. But suppose momentum carries the stumbling O-player either out-of-bounds or into the endzone. To my knowledge, the O-player has to ground-tap the disc upon returning to establish a pivot.

In these scenarios, does the disc not automatically transition to a live state? In these cases, the O-player is allowed movement in the sense that he is allowed to move so that he can get back to where he is supposed to be.

... ah, then like it's spelled...

Yes, correct, but in that case the player isn't travelling but moving OB and bringing it back as they should, and then need to ground-touch it. While in the original example, the pivot was already established (perhaps with an earlier ground-touch if they had already come back in from OB), and then travelled OB and returned (again). I can see they were sorta in a "live not in play" state because they couldn't validly throw it while stumbling way out there, and I suppose they're also now allowed movement (and in fact need to move) to come back to the line (again)...

... oh I don't know, this rules business is all so confusing.

"Check out the movie of the same name."

While we're off-topic, I'd recommend "The Journals of Knud Rasmussen" too. Similar in feel and cinematography, yet perhaps slightly more accessible to audiences unfamiliar with the Inuit way of life. Both are great movies however.