Where the disc comes into play

5 posts / 0 new
Last post

I had a play happen a few times that made me think about this hypothetical scenario. 

Player O1 has the disc. O1 attempts a pass to O2. Defensive player D1 goes for the disc and ends up macking it. D1 runs it down and catches the disc. A player on team O calls a violation stating D1 purposely macked the disc to gain position.

The question is where does the disc come into play if:

a) contested

b) uncontested

Uncontested is easy. Intentionally Mack-ing the disc to yourself is a travel, so D1 would get the disc at the spot on the field where they macked it.

If the play is contested it goes..... back to thrower (O1). So of course it would then be wiser for D1 to not contest the travel call. This is a similar situation as was described in a recent rules thread. See Mortakai's explanation. https://www.vul.ca/post/where-does-disc-go-back-play


You could argue that D1 did not have possession at the time of the mack. If so how could you take it back to that point?

Here's the exact wording from the rules:

XV.A - A player may bobble the disc in order to gain control of it, but purposeful bobbling (including tipping, delaying, guiding, brushing or the like) to oneself in order to advance the disc in any direction from where it initially was contacted is considered traveling. 

Note that possession is not required as long as the mack is deemed to be purposeful/intentional. As this act is considered travelling, the disc comes back to where the disc was macked (unless you don't catch the mack, in which case the continuation rule comes into play and it's a turnover).

I suggest it would not go back to the thrower (O1) in any case.

As noted, in the rule excerpt, "... considered traveling". 

The rules are clear as to what happens to a travel.

XVI.C.4.c) states, "After a travel call, the thrower must return to the location occupied at the time of the infraction." In the case of an intentional self-mac, yes, there is no "thrower", but presumably we'll all agree that the intent of this rule is clear - which is that the person called for the travel moves back to where the travel was committed, which is the point of first contact.

And then, the disc is put into this "thrower" (D1) hand because:

XVI.C.2.b)(1) states: "... and the disc reverts to the thrower...".

The biggest "problem" with this is the messiness of the self-mac doesn't make that person the "thrower" - and I suggest this is an oversight in the rules. However, as noted immediately above, the intent of all of the travel rules is to put the disc back into the hands of the person who travelled, and the word "thrower" is used as a way to communicate that intent (which I suggest is a mistake in wording here). To suggest otherwise, such as to put it back into the hands of O1, is also to suggest that a travel infraction should be a turnover, and that is a concept that is not supported by the 11th. 


And so...


If D1 agrees that it is a travel, then D1 should get the disc where s/he first contacted it. If D1 contests that it is *not* a travel, then either the person calling the travel takes their call back, which they may do based on how convincing D1 is in his/er explanation, in which case s/he will get the disc where it was caught... or the person calling the travel will stand firm that s/he believes the mac was intentional, in which case the disc goes back to D1 where they first contacted it.

And the only difference between a contested and non-contested travel is the count. And presumably here there would have been absolutely no valid count.... and so, no difference whatsoever.