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

The sideline being in or out has no bearing on the matter since it just
redefines the 'line' that is the outer limit of the field. If the field was
wider or narrower it wouldn't change the meaninglessness of your previous
argument- just the 'exact' nearest undefinable point.
What now bothers me more in looking up some rules as a result is that where you
put the disc back in play may be different depending on why the disc is being
returned to the field.
If the disc was caught OB or picked up by the old D after landing OB it is put
into play on the field proper. However, in reading IX.C.1 (In - and
Out-of-bounds) it says that if the disc is caught in-bounds and momentum
carries the catching player OB, the disc is put into play on the perimeter line
(which is OB itself). I'm sure that's not quite what anybody really had in
mind.
Gimp