"Scoring" From Out OF Bounds

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

A player runs up the line not looking where he is going, but runs within the general lining of the field, huck is throw


At this point he is about half a feet out of bounds, but he doesnt know know he is, he catches the huck, but is in bounds. opposing team says he jumped from out of bounds to get the disc. in NO way using it as an advantage, as the other team hinted on, but never exacly said out loud.


This person on our team is tall, and he didnt jump, if anything it was him walking, his first foot was in bounds , yet his second was either in the air still on the ground out of bounds. but none the less, he took off from out of bounds, landing in, THEN catching it, which was what happened from my perspective, yet the other team said it doesnt matter, he came from out of bounds so the point doesnt not count.


Disc went back to the thrower. Did everything go according to the rules here? Im was under the impression that as long as you land in bounds and THEN catch it. its a point. If not, then wouldnt juming in not count in the first place?

IX. IN- AND OUT-OF-BOUNDS

C. Any object or player contacting an out-of-bounds area is outof-bounds. An airborne player whose last ground contact was with an out-of-bounds area is out-of-bounds. All out-ofbounds objects and out-of-bounds offensive players are considered part of the out-of-bounds area.




Should have been a turn-over according to the rules.


Matt

he didnt jump, hw walked, and he landed in bounds first, then caught it. The other team said you cant score coming from out of bounds. is what was the actual dispute.

If he stepped from OB to IB, and then caught the disc, he's OK (i.e. you can run OB, just can't catch OB). Timing is obviously the issue here.


I misinterpreted your original post to being one of jumping from OB - catching in the air - and landing IB.


If the opposing team still thought he was OB when he caught the disc, and you (having 'best perspective') thought he was IB, then BTT was the correct play.


Matt

--> This person on our team is tall, and he didnt jump, if anything it was him walking, his first foot was in bounds , yet his second was either in the air still on the ground out of bounds. but none the less, he took off from out of bounds, landing in, THEN catching it, which was what happened from my perspective, yet the other team said it doesnt matter, he came from out of bounds so the point doesnt not count. <--


I can't tell from your description whether *all* points of contact were IB at the instant of the catch or one point IB and one point OB.


If he was standing with one foot IB and one foot OB at the time of the catch, then he's OB and it's a turnover.


If he was standing with one foot IB and the other foot in the air (regardless of whether it was IB or OB just before being in the air) then all points of contact are IB and therefore he's IB and it's a completed pass.


If he was jumping from OB, caught the disc, and then landed IB, he's OB and it's a turnover.


Coming from OB *does* matter if he doesn't then become fully IB (i.e., no remaining OB contacts) before catching the disc. Coming from OB doesn't matter if he then becomes fully IB before catching the disc.

X-factor, your first post is very hard to follow and seems to contradict itself, which is likely why canuck made the conclusion he did.


Regardless of what came before, if the receiver's last ground contact prior to the catch (or at the time of the catch, if he was not airborne) was in-bounds, then it's a fair catch. If heis last contact prior to catching the disc (or his contact at the time of the catch) included any OB area, he would be OB at the time he caught the disc and the disc would be OB before he touched the field.


If I'm reading your post correctly, he was OB at some time, but had come IB prior to catching the disc, in which case it's a fair catch.

And remember, if your one foot is 3 feet IB, but you have one little tippy-toe on the

other foot touching the line (which is the width of the field

cones), then you're completely and entirely OB.


Chances are like iamcanuck said, they thought he was still OB at the time of the catch and your

team didn't: BTT.


If they did think there was a rule that you have to be completely IB for some period of time

before you're able to catch/score, then they're wrong, but I'd bet the former was what they were

thinking.

I made the call. Yes I understand the rule correctly. It looked to me like he caught the disc after his last ground contact was OB.

sorry for the confusion. what I meant was, yes he was out of bounds, yet as he came in he touched the ground ( in bounds ) first [ from my angle ], then caught it.



What was contested was the fact that he was out of bounds, and then came in and caught it, there was to much Y@*)0&&^$**%( inbetween from both teams on and off the field to really get my words in, so it went back to thrower, I didnt say it was a bad call, but I just wanted to know how it shoulda been officiated.

If I had thought he was in before he caught it, I would have called it a goal. It was a really close call, I can't say with 100% certainty that he was OB. I feel like "back to thrower" was the correct call given the situation.

Fair enough, the right call was made.


Colin,


Thank you for being honest in your call, although there were times in that game where things got a little out of hand. It was a hard fought game.

X,


Actualy, I thought both teams had pretty good spirit. I'm not sure what "out of hand" moments your were referring to. Please feel free to email me if you want to discuss any issues relating to the game.


cheers,


colin

There were a few times, where calls were disputed in a less than spirited mannor, thats all. There were a few of those which made the game seem, more personal at times. The game was well fought, good game overall.