What constitutes a Legal Throw?

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
emd By emd
#1

From the rules:

T. Throw: A disc in flight following any throwing motion (including a
fake) that results in the thrower losing contact with the disc.
1. A pass is equivalent to a throw.
2. An intentionally dropped disc is considered a thrown disc.
3. The act of throwing is the motion that transfers momentum from
the thrower to the disc in the direction of flight and results in a throw.
Pivots and wind-ups are not part of the act of throwing.
4. A throw is only considered complete when an offensive player gains
possession that is not otherwise negated.
5. An offensive player in possession of, or who has most recently
possessed, the disc, is the “thrower”.


DOes the disc have to spin to be considered a throw? From the rules
above, I would say 'no'.

Spin is not required - the only place in the rules where spin is mentioned is pertaining to possession (requiring a non-spinning disc).

Strange how that section doesn't mention the caveat in XII B:

If the thrower regains possession of an accidentally dropped disc before it contacts the ground without another player touching the disc, that possession is considered continuous.

An accidentally dropped disc isn't a Throw, but an intentionally dropped disc is.

That way a Thrower can catch an accidentally dropped disc, but can't catch an intentionally
dropped disc.

Mort told me once that some teams were using an intentional drop as a short yardage/end zone
play where the thrower would drop it, allowing their teammate to catch it, but if they didn't, the
thrower would catch it again.

I've never been able to imagine how this could be utilized effectively though.

Ah yes, the "statue of liberty play".

Here's the scenario. Handler on the goal line of the EZ he's attacking. Receiver 1 foot inside the EZ. Handler holds the disc in hand with arm outstretched into the EZ. Receiver holds his spread palm a few inches below the suspended disc. Handler lets go of disc, disc falls into receiver's palm, SCORE!

If the disc gets fumbled, without this not being considered a throw (i.e., 10th and earlier), the handler could validly recover the disc. With it being considered a throw (i.e., 11th), it can't.

And yes, this was apparently being done in many places, and yes, the change of this rule virtually stopped it.

I still can't see how the thrower would be able to recover the disc if it were fumbled by the
receiver, but I'm glad the rule stopped the play.

Assuming you are referring to the legality and not the difficulty, I actually can't see how the thrower couldn't recover the disc, as it's been touched by someone else in its flight, without having been intentionally deflected off of that player.

I sure wish you brought this up in the spirit discussion. What a great example of following the rules!

Gin-Boh: "Assuming you are referring to the legality and not the difficulty, I actually can't
see how the thrower couldn't recover the disc, as it's been touched by someone else in its
flight, without having been intentionally deflected off of that player."

Actually I was talking about the difficulty. I couldn't see how one could consistently recover
the disc after it had been fumbled by the intended 'receiver'.

Though you bring up an interesting point. The fumbled statue of liberty play is then legal for
the thrower to recover the disc.

Interesting that the only hole that was actually shored up was when this play didn't even
come close to working (nobody else even touched the disc, which I'd imagine would be rare),
yet it stopped the unwanted play.

/ Please don't feed the troll.
// I'm always interested in continuing other discussions in their appropriate threads.

Oh I see. I agree then that I don't see it working either. For it to work, fumble or not, both the mark and the receiver's defender would have to be making no attempt. If that's the case, why not just toss it a foot, which is a pretty close to guaranteed pass, much higher percentage than recovering a dropped disc.

Actually, I might have to back-pedal a bit... my explanation was just hear-say from the conversations 3+ years ago when the change was considered.

All I can really say is that it made a lot of sense to the group at the time, regardless of how I've botched up the explanation here.

So, next topic please! ?