Where does the disc go back in to play?

5 posts / 0 new
Last post

Hi all,

This occurred in a recent game and we couldn't figure out where to put the disc back in.

Thrower is on the sideline.
Thrower hucks the disc down the line just OB but its curving back.
Offensive player leaps from in bounds* grabs the disc in mid air and throws it back towards the sideline.
The disc still lands OB.

So, the does the disc come in on the playing field proper closest to where the receiver caught it and attempted to throw it back in? Or where the thrower released the disc?

There was some debate there, but I think the correct answer is where the receiver was...

*But here was the actual issue: a defensive player who was marking the receiver said that he ran OB before he jumped and was therefore OB when he attempted the greatest.

The offensive receiver disagreed and said that he jumped from in bounds.

Everyone agreed it was a turnover, so back to thrower was clearly not the solution. So, it was either where the thrower was or where the receiver was...

Where does the disc come back in?

It doesn't matter if he jumped from in bounds or out of bounds. The disc never came back in, so it goes back to where the original thrower released it. Never in, back to where it was thrown.

It does matter if the O player jumped from in or out of bounds, as he carries his boundedness with him until it changes. Therefore, if he jumped from in bounds and contacts the disc (doesn't even need to catch it), it is therefore deemed in bounds at that spot until something else changes (see: IX.2.H).

As for how to resolve the issue of where to put the disc into play based on the contested in/out of the jumping player, that's a bit more challenging. There are only two places to put the disc into play based on the dispute (where it originally crossed the perimeter line or where the player touched it), and certainly a back-to-thrower doesn't seem appropriate. I don't have a good answer for this one yet; I'll ask some other rules nerds tomorrow and see what they say. It might end up being one where you just make up a third option (split the difference in the distance) and play on.

Resolution for this follows similar logic to this situation that's been asked about a few times in different places over the years...

Take the case of a receiver that catches the disc at the front line and runs deeper into the end zone. The receiver says he caught it in, and the defender says he caught it outside of the end zone and then ran in.  

The rules say that if they cannot agree, then the disc goes back to the thrower for a re-do. 

In reality, the receiver should decide to agree with the defender and take the disc at the line. This all assumes, of course, that no-one else is part of the discussion or resolution (e.g., another with "best perspective" or an Observer). 

For the Greatest example in the OP, I suggest it's a similar option. If the defender doesn't agree with the receiver that he jumped from IB, then it'll need to go back into the thrower's hands - this is the only "here's what we do when we cannot agree on the resolution" wording in the rules that applies. 

Im not saying it's fair... I'm saying that this is what the rules say what happens if the defender is bull-headed enough to not defer. 

As with the goal/no-goal, he should agree so that it doesn't go back into the hands of the thrower. It's a very fair compromise. 


I guess this does makes sense:
"The rules say that if they cannot agree, then the disc goes back to the thrower for a re-do. "
So, might as well agree.