Strip?

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

The disc is in the air and the O player layouts for it, but both the D and O player grabs the disc at the same time with one hand. Because the D player is standing still holding on to the disc, the laying out O player lands on the ground without the disc. Does the disc go to the O player since both of them caught it at the same time or should he call a strip or is it a TO?

Strip, tie goes to offense. Assuming play happened as you state. If disagreement, back to thrower.

Matt

darn,
I thought the message was related to taking clohes off

I don't think the O player ever had possession. Just because you hold a non spinning disc in your hand doesn't mean you have caught it. You need to establish possession of the disc first by having a first point of contact. It is along the lines of loss of possession due to ground contact related to a catch negates that player’s possession up to that point. Since the O player never established a first point of contact, he never established possession. The D player established this, and thus has possession and should keep the disc. It is the same as laying out for the disc, having it in your hands, but landing out of bounds. If you don't have possession per Appendix 1, II, O, you can't call a strip. Thoughts?

I have some thoughts on that.

First, ground contact has nothing to do with establishing possession. (The section you reference refers to loss of possession due to ground contact, but does not state or imply that ground contact has anything to do with establishing possession.)

As a result, assuming that the O player had sustained contact with a non-spinning disc then he had possession of the disc. In fact, that section explicitly states that "catching a pass is equivalent to establishing possession of that pass." If that possession began no later than the D player's possession, then according to XV.D. the O player retains possession. Only if the D player had caught the disc prior to the O player grabbing it would the outcome be any different. As iamcanuck pointed out, if there's a disagreement over the timing, it should go back to the thrower.

"Strip" is the correct call. (in response to the OP) Keep in mind that the disc should remain in the offense's possession, but it doesn't happen automatically - a call is required. Also, that making a call is not the same thing as calling someone a cheater and should carry no innuendo or ill-will.

I think it's great that anyone takes an interest in learning and interpreting the rules, but in this case I think you've inadvertently combined elements of a few. I suggest that you read the following relevant rules a bit more carefully:

II.O
IX.C (not relevant to this situation, but aside from scoring and best perspective, this is the only spot where the first point of contact is relevant.)
XV.D

I see what you are saying, but have some thoughts/questions. In no way am I saying anyone is wrong/dumb etc., I'm just trying to see if my interpretation is right or not. I just don't want this to be seen as a pissing match or name calling.

I do see in the rules that a catching a pass is equivalent to establishing possession of that pass. If a player is in mid air, and has control of a non spinning disc, is this a catch, or does the player need to touch inbounds or the endzone? If a player lays out, and controls the disc in the air and lands out of bounds, it is not a catch. If a player does a "greatest" by throwing the disc back in play without touching out of bounds, was his original touch in the air considered a catch?

II.B states "Completed pass: Any catch that results in the team in possession of the disc retaining possession. Any pass that is not complete is incomplete." If you don't keep possession throughout coming to the ground, how can you say it is a catch? The offensive player did not come down inbounds or in the scoring area and thus, to me it doesn't appear that he has retained possession. If a player in the middle of the field lays out and controls the disc and then drops it, while still in the air, it's not a catch. If that same player hits the ground and the disc pops out, it's not a catch, so how is this different?

Is it considered a catch and strip because the defensive player is touching the ground and in the scoring area and thus when both people have control of the disc, there is a point of contact as one person is on the ground who is touching the disc, and the other person is also touching the disc, making him have a common point of contact?

I am aware of the rules quoted, and am familiar with the 11th edition rules, but I think I'm mostly confused on when a catch is considered a catch. Maybe it's because I watch too much NFL.

Thanks for the help

I think you're confusing 'catch' (gaining possession) and retaining possession. One can catch
the disc (gain possession) and subsequently lose possession (by landing OB). Remember that
the rules define certain terms to mean specific things. What you may consider a "catch" may
not be what the rules define one to be.

It sounds like you equate a catch to be a completed pass. This isn't what the rules define. A
catch is only the first requirement of a completed pass (the rest being what happens after you
catch).

Catching = Establishing Possession (II.O.1)

Establishing Possession = Sustained contact with, and control of, a non-spinning disc. (II.O)

Points of contact don't come into whether or not Possession is established, only whether it is
retained.

You can catch a disc in mid-air and then land OB, that doesn't change the fact you actually
physically caught the disc. You can even catch a disc while standing OB. You can intentionally
catch your own pass. You can even catch a pass and then be stripped all in mid-air. Some of
those will be completions, some wont.

When you think about it, it makes sense. Even in football, you can watch a guy catch a pass
in the endzone, but because he didn't drag two toes, the pass is still incomplete.

Is that more clear?

Really good points but I have one thing to add to Temple's answer.
You said "catching a pass is equivalent to establishing possession of
that pass" and then started mixing the definitions of catching a pass
and completing a pass. It's weird to think that you can catch a pass
that leads to an incomplete pass but anytime the O catches the disc
OB the catch is caught but not complete.

Temple. I think I understand what you are saying...

Is it that if you touch the disc, with a 90%, chance of gaining possession of the disc; however, if the other teams player is able to remove the 'possibility' of you possessing the disc before you actually possess the disc its not your disc? (Opps, I mean without fouling)

I have just realized what I have wrote. I guess, if you don't have possession you don't.

Scire, I don't know if you're quite there.

I think you're still confusing gaining possession with completing a pass or retaining
possession. You can gain possession and still wind up with an incomplete pass and a turnover,
because possession is subsequently lost.

As to your 90%. It comes down to the question: Do you have sustained control of a non-
spinning disc? If you can answer yes, then your possession is 100%. If you have to answer
no, then your possession was 0%. Naturally there can be different opinion as to what
"sustained control is", but that's where the do-over comes in. The call each player makes is
either 100% possession or 0% possession.

Does that make any more sense?

Scire,

Just to hammer it home, and to dispel what seems to be a common misconception, chance has nothing to do with possession or strip. Either you had control of the disc or you didn't, "I almost had it," or "I was going to have it" or "I was touching the disc" don't matter.

The reason I am making the point is that I've often heard someone support a strip call by arguing that their hand was contacting the disc and they were about to complete a catch when it was grabbed or hit away. Sorry, but that doesn't count - if you didn't have control, you didn't have possession and you have no more right to the disc than anybody else.

Okay. I get it. I do appreciate that you guys pointed that out. It is a point of view that you have to see without a bias.

Usually, when it happens to you (You were about to catch it), most of the time you think you deserve the disc. With that point of view you believe the disc belongs to you, but it really doesn't.

I will definately try to keep that in mind when it happens to me.

For me, I find it's best to think about it this way.

Strip is when somebody literally takes the disc away from me *after* I've caught it. For me,
this feeling is very distinct and completely unambiguous when it happens.

The close calls, when somebody prevents me from catching, just physically feel different.

It's the difference between felling the disc pulled out of your grip and having somebody screw
up your catch. The former is a strip, the latter isn't.

A lot of time I'll think to myself 'I totally had it', but it gets pulled/swatted away. But by 'I
had' it I really mean 'I woulda had it'. That's not a strip, just good D.

--

One other point I'd like to make is that when I think a catch was at the same time, but the
other person says they caught it first or calls strip, I pretty much always give the benefit of
the doubt. Unless I'm absolutely certain (which is exceedingly rare), I accept the call.

When you think about it, catching the disc at the exact same time as somebody else feels
exactly the same as catching the disc just after somebody else. There's really no tactile
difference, and no way for you to know for sure. Of course it feels completely different for
that guy if he feels himself catch it a moment before you, so his certainty can be a lot
higher.

Generally, unless both people agree that it was a tie, it probably wasn't.

Regarding catch and ground contact... allow me to word it another way.

Catch/possession only needs the sustained contact and control of the disc (per II.O.). There is no explicitly worded requirement of ground contact for it to be considered a catch/possession... it only refers to the player/disc interaction.

Now, if the disc doesn't survive ground contact, you retroactively consider the catch/possession to have happened (II.O.2.). That doesn't mean that the catch didn't happen, but that it's now reversed.

So this means that the catch/possession is considered to have happened right up to the point of "ground contact possession loss", at which point, it's no longer considered to have happened. If the disc is stripped prior to any "ground contact possession loss", which means it was still in its "it's still considered a catch" state, then it's a strip.

If it helps, if the ground contact WAS required for possession, then the definition of possession would have said something like "sustained contact with a non-spinning disc ***and the receiver has made ground contact*** ".

And for the record, a strip isn't only a strip in the end zone, but anywhere on the field. But having said that, segregating a strip from any other type of foul that causes loss of possession is, for the most part, a waste of time, not required, and no differently resolved.