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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Koca) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

>   The problem is that there is no spot on the playing field closest to
> where
> the disc was caught. Since the lines are not part of the playing field
> the playing field itself is an open set (in the topological sense).
> It would be like trying to find the closest real number to 2 that is
> less than 2. Any proposed answer could be improved.

Well, yeah, except that the foot is not a single point, but actually
has some "area".  So, when I "estimate" that the spot is "there" (can
you see me pointing), I then place my foot over that "estimated" spot,
but I'll bet you that the rest of my foot covers your so-called
"closer spots" especially since part of my foot is also "on" the
out-of-bounds line.  I've NEVER been called for travelling once doing
this, so it's obviously an accepted way of doing it.

And if you'd rather have it in mathematical terms.  If you put a ruler
on the ground, and I put my foot on the 2" mark, I'll bet you I'm also
covering the spot closest to 2 that is less than 2.

... but then, I have big feet.