Re: injury footage

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Biggle) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Was checking out the other videos on this page and I have a question
> about the one with the guy landing just barely out of bounds.  It
> appears that receiver landed out of bands after what looks like the
> defender bumping into him some.  What is the correct call in this
> situation? (no call, OB, inbounds, foul, etc)
> 

I have not watched the video, but I was there (well, I was one of the
observers involved in the call. Eric was on the back line, I was on
the front line, so he had much better perspective, so it was
ultimately his call. but from where i was it looked like the right
call to me. from what others saw and possibly this video, maybe not)

There are some very subtil nuances in a scenario like this. this is
how it plays out.

There are two possible calls for Mike on this one: the force-out-foul,
or a throwing foul (if he wanted to throw a greatest...). Here, his
intent comes into play, and only he can tell (it's not up to the
observers to decide). He called the force-out. The rule is

XV.H.Force-out Foul: 
If an airborne player catches the disc, is contacted by a opposing
player before landing, and that contact caused the player in
possession to land out-of-bounds instead of landing in-bounds, the
contacted player may call a foul on the offending player and retain
possession at the spot of the foul. If this foul occurs in the end
zone being attacked, and results in the player landing outside the end
zone, and the call is uncontested, a goal is awarded.

Note that it does not say that the contact must be a foul by the
definition of fouls in XVI.I - all he needs is being contacted by the
other player changing his landing spot from in- to out-of-bounds. This
is the rule the call was based on, we thought he could not have landed
in-bounds without the contact (we might have been wrong - hard to
tell, especially considering the ridiculous things mike is able to
do).

If you read the last part of the rule, it would have still benn a
t.o., as the foul technically occured outside the endzone (contact was
behind the backline, but he might have still had a shot of toeing back
in-bounds). I am sure this is another case of unprecise wording in the
rules - it should rather say
"...and retain possession at the spot on the playing field closest to
the foul. if the player would have landed in the end zone being
attacked without this foul, and it results in the player landing
outside the end zone, and the call is uncontested, a goal is awarded."

We did not call the t.o. because we followed the exact wording of the
rule, though. We would have also called it on the basis of what we saw
if the rule was written the way I stated it.

And now for the other possibility. He could have called a throwing
foul (which he did not), if he intended to try a greatest. Then there
is the question if it was a foul according to XVI.I.

Here is a rule that might apply:

XVI.I.8.Blocking Fouls: 
a) When the disc is in the air, players must play the disc, not the
opponent. A player may not move in a manner solely to prevent an
opponent from taking an unoccupied position via an unoccupied path.
(1) ...
(2) If adjacent opposing players simultaneously vie for the same
unoccupied position, the contact is considered incidental and is not a
foul.

But even if you think that (2) was true in the situation at hand, i
don't think it applies. As (2) is a subtopic of a), the condition
"When the disc is in the air" should apply to it, and the contact
occured after the disc was caught. But one might argue that it only
applies to the sentence it is in... another place where the rules
could be worded more carefully. Something like:
"a) When the disc is in the air, all the following apply. players must
play the disc..."

So, my take on this is that XVI.I.8.a.2 does not apply, so there might
still be a foul. The only relevant rules:

XVI.I Fouls: 
A foul is the result of physical contact between opposing players that
affects the outcome of the play.
...
2. In general, the player initiating contact is guilty of a foul.
...
6. Throwing Fouls: 
a) A throwing foul may be called when there is contact between the
thrower and the marker. The disc in a thrower's possession is
considered part of the thrower.
b) A throwing foul results in a turnover only if the continuation rule
applies. c) ...

Mike becomes the thrower the moment he catches the disc. Contact
occurs that affects the outcome of the play, since he could not throw
it due to the contact, so there is a foul. It does not change the
outcome of the call if the Furious player also calls a foul on Mike as
they both initiated contact by jumping to the same spot (or at least
one could argue this... and remember, it is not the exception of
XVI.I.8.a.2). In both cases the disc goes to Mike at stall 0 since
there was no stall to begin with, and he is the (original) thrower.

XVI.H. If offsetting infractions are called by offensive and defensive
players on the same play, the disc reverts to the thrower with the
count the same, or six if over five, and play restarts with a check.

One question is where he gets the disc if the furious guy does not
call a foul. As far as I could find, the rules don't explicitely state
it. The closest I could find was:

XVI.F. Should a foul or violation result in possession reverting to a
thrower who was airborne while releasing the disc, play shall be
restarted at the spot on the playing field proper closest to where the
throw was made.

But he never released the disc, so this rule wouldn't apply... . I
still think the "right" outcome would be Mike's disc on the goal line,
stall 0.

enough for now...

Flo.