Odd situations

5 posts / 0 new
Last post

Hiya, I've got four situations that occured to me during play, and one that is just kind of silly question.

1) Disc goes up, two ppl on the same team catch it, neither will let go - I start the stall... do I continue the stall when one lets go, or is that a "new possession"?

2) Disc goes up, Im battling a guy for it - he boxes me out, but like... stops in his tracks and actually backs up, pushing me totally away from the disc... call a foul?

3) Same guy, disc goes up (not a floater, just a bullet) and hes running to catch, Im running to catch, and he runs while leaning into my direction with elbows up.

Now, I realize 2 and 3 are some form of boxing out, which I dont mind, however I find that it comes under the list of things described as moving in such a manner solely to prevent opposing player from playing the disc - because in both cases, he took as indirect route as he possibly could... (ok not really but yeah.)

4) I fake a throw, my mark squeezes his arm with his side, and traps my hand there, and i lose the disc. Strip? or should I be holding it in a death grip to prevent that from happening next time?

And last but not least... the stupid thing that wont ever happen...
5) throw goes up, D player runs out of bounds, pulls a greatest (catch AND throw) and O catches it. Is the disc OB during the greatest, because D player started OB and caught the disc before throwing it? Cuz the rule states a mac does not cause the disc to be OB but a catch does.

And I really dont need an answer to the last one, just me being imaginative and trying to mess with the rules.

1) It's not a new possession as one of them is in continuous control of the disc. If they claim that the person who let go was in fact the one with possession, then it would be a hand-off and thus a TO. Your stall count is valid.

2)The other player is playing the man, not the disc while the disc is in the air. XVI.H.3.C.1:

When the disc is in the air a player may not move in a manner solely to prevent an opponent from taking an unoccupied path to the disc and any resulting non-incidental contact is a foul on the blocking player which is treated like a receiving foul (XVI.H.3.b).

It sure sounds like he was moving solely to prevent... Otherwise, he's initiating contact which is against XI.H: "Fouls (II.E): It is the responsibility of all players to avoid contact in every way possible."

3) This sounds like bad defense, as you can't run fast while leaning to the side. Run around him. I'm honestly not sure if it is against the rules, though.

4) It's not a strip, because the defender didn't cause loss of control through contact with the disc. However, XVI.H.3.a.1:

"A throwing foul may be called when there is non-incidental contact between the thrower and marker. The disc in a thrower’s possession is considered part of the thrower."

clearly makes it a foul (non-incidental means affecting continued play.)

5) This is a bit interesting. The disc becomes OB when the defender catches it, but they are not allowed to make a throw until they have established a pivot (ie: gone in bounds). This makes the defender unable to make a legal pass. However, the disc is still live (and subject to a TO,) so I believe that when the original O team catches the disc, it's "play on." If the pass from the new offense had been complete to his own team, it would have been a violation and stoppage, but not a TO.

5 is tricky, but I'd say you nailed it, GB. Basically it's a travel call.

However, the OP said he tried a greatest, which is what confuses me a bit. It's not really a greatest if you are already OB, so either it's play on (if greatest from IB was successful) or "travel" then "play on."

Actually, I don't think it's a travel call. Between the time that the disc is caught and when it is put into play, its status is "live," meaning that no legal pass can be made, but it's still subject to turnover. So, in throwing the disc he created a turnover and play continues.
However, I suppose an argument could be made for travelling, as the thrower failed to "establish a pivot at the appropriate spot on the field." In that case, though, I believe that the continuation rule may apply, which would result in the original offense retaining possession wherever their player caught the disc on the field. I think.

For 2) and 3), it's impossible to determine based on the description.

So long as no other rules are being violated (such as taking an unavoidable position), you can
do whatever you want to box a player out as long as you're also going for the disc. That's just
good receiving. If somebody is running like an airplane with their arms out, that's legal. It's
also dumb, because it'll let their check run around them easily.

You can absolutely perform actions that are solely intended to prevent a player from getting
the disc, so long as that's not the only thing you're doing. So long as you're also trying for
the disc. For scenario 2), it's still impossible to say, but you'd be hard pressed to explain that
running away from the disc was even partially an attempt at getting the disc (there are
scenarios though, like if you've mis-read the disc and have to back up).

It's often misinterpreted that 'all of your actions must solely be to catch the disc', but that's
not the rule, and that's not how the game is meant to be played. That interpretation would
forbid any and all boxing out entirely.

Boxing out is part of the sport. Boxing out is legal. Boxing out is good offensive reception and
good defensive reception.

Blocking for your teammate to catch the disc, blocking with absolutely zero intention of going
for the disc yourself, is not boxing out, and is illegal.


5) is a travel and an immediate turnover. Throwing a live disc before putting it into play
where you're allowed to is a travel. The offense could have called it and then called play-on,
or they could have just ignored the call.