Re: nonsensical rule about pivot and in and out of bounds (warning: math geek post)

"Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Shouldn't that have been "(warning: math idiot post)"?
> 
> If you catch the pull and are out of bounds, you put it into play at the
> nearest point, of course there is a nearest point.  ...



   I should have clarified that I was referring specifically to the
case where the pull is caught out of bounds.
   I am sorry but your statement "of course there is a nearest point"
is just wrong. By your smarter than thou attitude I doubt you will
take my word for it.
Ask someone with an advanced degree in mathematics (make sure to
explain that the sideline is not part of the playing field).



 
> Or are you trying to say that anytime you pick up the disc you don't know
> where to put your pivot point, because "oh dear, they said to put my foot
> where the disc lies, but my foot isn't the same size and shape of a disc,
> what do I do???"


    No, that was not what I was talking about.


Cletus wrote:

>See, you're confusing a spot with a point. Don't feel bad, Bob--it's
a
>common mistake. While a point has no real dimension, a spot is much,
>much bigger and is circular in shape. In this case then, the disc is
>put in play at the closest spot on the playing field that is
>tangential to the sideline (or endline in the event that the disc is
>caught after going out the back) such that a line passing through the
>center point of said spot and the point at which the disc was caught
>is perpendicular to the sideline. This spot is unique.

>I'm just glad that you brought this to the attention of the ultimate
>community at large, as this is a prime example of why I'm in strong
>support of the inclusion of "Spot" in the definitions section of the
>11th edition

    Ok, that distinction between spot and point clarifies things. The
spot would be unique once you say how large it is.

,Bob Koca