View topic - Self pass?

Self pass?

Clarify Ultimate Rules and post other useful Ultimate related stuff!

Self pass?

Postby conjob » Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:25 pm

Situation:

Joe is on the offensive team. Bob is on the defensive team. Joe and Bob are inside the endzone and Joe's teammate puts up a crappy hammer which Joe and Bob both jump for. Joe knows that he has very little chance of catching the disc on the initial attempt as he and Bob are neck to neck, so Joe intentionally hits the disc higher up and away from Bob (think jump ball in basketball) in order to make a second bid.

Picture if you're watching, from left to right and the disc is coming straight down, Bob, Joe --> the disc Joe hit upwards to get it away from Bob.

Subsequently the disc is bobbled by Joe on his second attempt, then bobbled by his teammate (lets call him Tim), then finally caught by Joe (still inside the endzone).

Self pass? Not self pass? Something else altogether?

So, not arguing the intent here yet because Joe ADMITTED he intentionally knocked the disc rather than trying to catch it on the first go. But, my interpretation is that it's NOT a self pass on the sheer reason that Tim had touched it at one point (I was actually on Bob's team, in case anyone was wondering if this was not to my advantage haha). Is this interpretation correct?

Second to this though, let's say IF Tim HADN'T touched the disc, and Joe ended up catching the disc after knocking it up and away from himself and Bob, is THAT a self pass? I ask because it's not the same situation where someone smacks a disc further down field so they can gain themselves some yardage. Both players made legitimate jump bids for the disc, and it definitely wasn't a guarantee that Joe would succeed at his second bid (there were other ppl from both teams on the side Joe smacked the disc to). Is it still a self pass? Does this become an argument of intention?
User avatar
conjob
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:43 am

Postby @UltiCraig » Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:10 pm

Rule XV.A
A player may bobble the disc in order to gain control of it, but purposeful bobbling (including tipping, delaying, guiding, brushing or the like) to oneself in order to advance the disc in any direction from where it initially was contacted is considered traveling.

In your situation it may not be a travel, because he can jump once from the same spot to tip it away and then jump a second time from the same spot to catch it, so he hasn't advanced the disc in any direction.

any other perspectives?
Play catch. Invent games. Flat flip flies straight. Tilted flip curves.
@UltiCraig
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:51 pm

Postby GregS » Sat Aug 28, 2010 12:33 am

It's definitely not a self-pass in any of the situations you describe. Joe never had control of it, so the tip is not considered a pass. As such, it's still Tim's throw, and Joe can catch it at any time. Tim could also legally catch it after Joe had touched it.

The real question is, as Craig points out, whether it's a travel. I really like the new online version of the rules because they have little inline comments that clarify the intent behind the wording of some of these rules. One such comment on XV.A reads:
Tipping, brushing, etc. to someone else is legal. It is legal to tip/brush your own throw. However, if after a tip/brush, one is the first player to touch the disc, then it is deemed a tip/brush to oneself and it is a travel.

So, since Joe tipped it away and then was the next to touch it (even though he didn't catch it at that time), it seems that's a travel. If Joe had tipped it, then Tim was the next to touch it, then Joe finally caught it, that appears to be legal.

For interest, another comment in the same section reads:
Remember, you can bobble for the purpose of gaining control, so kicking the disc up to yourself to help catch it would be legal. But tipping the disc for the purpose of evading a defender would not be legal.

This clarifies that the original intent would definitely result in a travel.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby ashunter » Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:39 pm

If the player was already in the endzone, would a travel call have any effect? Would it have to come to the line? The penalty for a travel is a stoppage of play and a check... but

"If a team gains or retains possession in the end zone that they are attacking other than by scoring a goal in accordance with rule XI, the player in possession must carry the disc directly to, and put it into play at, the spot on the goal line closest to where possession was gained."

So since they retain the disc, it would have to go back to the goal line.
User avatar
ashunter
TUC Board of Directors
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:52 pm

Postby GregS » Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:01 pm

I forgot the part about "in the end zone". I don't think that a travel that happens entirely within the end zone is an issue at all. "Travel" applies only to throwers, not receivers. (You usually go very quickly from receiver to thrower, but not when you're not in the end zone.)

I don't see anything in XI that is violated by this situation, so I'd have to assume that this would be a good goal.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby Mortakai » Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:21 pm

Most of this has already been covered, but I'll ramble on anyway. :)

The rules and actions for "Self pass" and "bobble to oneself" are completely different situations.

The "self pass" is where the thrower catches his own throw, and is an automatic turnover (11th ref: XII.D.3). This is something completely different than the situation being discussed.

As mentioned below, as discussed on the relatively new annotated on-line rules, and as understood by many for quite some time, if a receiver purposefully tips the disc in any direction so that they can then run it down and catch it somewhere else, and this person is the next one to touch the disc, they HAVE purposefully bobbled it to oneself in order to advance the disc, and is a travel (11th ref: XV.A).

Good discussion on whether it would be a goal or not. I contend that a goal has NOT been scored according to rule XI, primarily because that rule says it's scored when a "legal pass" is caught (11th ref: XI.A). I don't consider it still a legal pass because a travel occurred before the catch. And common sense tells us that a team should not benefit from their infraction.

And so, checking it in at the point of the travel, and then the receiver-now-thrower would carry it to the EZ line to score (again) (11th ref: X.B and X.C).
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Postby GregS » Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:41 pm

Mortakai wrote:I don't consider it still a legal pass because a travel occurred before the catch.

Am I wrong that travel is only for throws? XVI.J is very focused on throwers and pivots, neither of which apply to catches in the end zone. My read was that despite any tips-to-oneself that may happen, the catch is still good and hence legal, but there's a travel before the subsequent throw so you bring it back to where you first tipped it. In this case, that's in the end zone, and still a point.
Mortakai wrote:And common sense tells us that a team should not benefit from their infraction.

Agree with this, I'm just not convinced that the rules back it up in this specific case. If the intention is that you aren't allowed to tip it away from a defender to make the catch, then should that situation not be a turnover instead of just a travel?
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby jed » Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:32 pm

I would tend to agree with Greg. It's tough to distinguish this from bobbling to gain control; and since you're not doing it to gain an advantageous position (you can't get any better than in the endzone), I think it's debatable whether it's even a travel. Assuming it is though, how about this one. I tip it from inside the endzone, and then make the catch outside the endzone (but still in bounds). You call the travel. Point?
User avatar
jed
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:36 pm

Postby GregS » Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:04 pm

Well, if you catch it outside the end zone, it can't be a point, can it?

The OP did note that it was accepted that the tip was the intention of the receiver, to move it to somewhere he'd have a better chance to catch it. In the end zone away from a defender is a better spot than in the end zone near a defender...
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby jed » Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:51 pm

But you are saying that the result of the travel is that you "bring it back to where you first tipped it", then that would be in the end zone.
User avatar
jed
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:36 pm

Postby larrypmac » Wed Sep 01, 2010 7:46 am

So retain possession seems to be the answer here, but a travel is called.

Since the OP pointed out that the tip was not to gain better field possession, but to keep the disc alive so that a catch could be made, I think it should be a legal play and keep on playing.

Larry
larrypmac
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:17 pm

Postby natemartin16 » Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:34 am

Aside from the endzone factor, didn't this happen at worlds in 2008 with team Canada. A bomb goes up, a Canuck and Yanky are neck and neck, the Canadian player jumps up, appears to intentionally tip the disk, spins around the defender, and catches the disc. Just watched this on a highlight clip so unsure whether or not an infraction was called, but somewhat analogous to whats being discussed.
natemartin16
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:28 am

Postby rahil_s » Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:39 am

I don't think John meant to tip that disc to himself. So no infraction occured.
rahil_s
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:05 pm

Postby jed » Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:39 am

I think it might have been the Mike Grant play he was referring to; but still, didn't look deliberate.

This reminds of discussions re. a defensive greatest - i.e. who cares if it's legal or not, just don't ever do it. If you are confident you can tip the disc, you should just try to catch it. Too much can go wrong between the tip and second effort to make this worthwhile.
User avatar
jed
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:36 pm

Postby @UltiCraig » Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:13 am

Recognizing different perspectives is what Ultimate is all about and this thread has generated a few.

In his example conjob wants to know if it was a self pass, by "Joe", if the catch counts and if a goal was scored.

According to the rules we are not allowed to advance the disc with a self pass, a tip, air brush, nail delay or any technique you may know.

Let's review:
In the example, an offensive player, Joe and a defensive player, Bob both from a standing position jump for the disc. Joe intentionally tips the disc upward out of "Bob's" reach.
Joe ADMITTED he intentionally knocked the disc rather than trying tocatch it on the first go.
The disc drops straight down and Joe
touches the disc again, before anyone else has.
(think jump ball in basketball)
Picture if you're watching, from left to right and the disc is coming straight down,
.
After some bobbling and a touch of the disc by "Tim", Joe ends up with the disc and in this case a score. NO advancing of the disc occurred, so the catch stands and the goal too.

The question is did he advance the disc with his tip.
If he did, travel.
If he didn't, it's a catch and in this case a point.

...and who is John? ;)
Play catch. Invent games. Flat flip flies straight. Tilted flip curves.
@UltiCraig
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:51 pm

Postby jason_c_adams@hotmail.com » Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:31 pm

Advance the disc in any direction is I believe the full description.
The intent here (by admission) was to move the disc away from the defender so that he could more easily catch it. This is a violation.[/i]
jason_c_adams@hotmail.com
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:31 am

Postby @UltiCraig » Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:46 pm

...but in conjob's example, what direction did he advance the disc?

Sounds like they were standing side by side and jumped from the same spot twice. The first time to tip it and the second time to catch it.

If he makes both actions (the tip and the catch) from the same spot on the ground, I would say he is not advancing the disc in any direction, so count it as a catch.
Play catch. Invent games. Flat flip flies straight. Tilted flip curves.
@UltiCraig
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:51 pm

Postby rahil_s » Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:47 pm

Craig wrote:...but in conjob's example, what direction did he advance the disc?



Vertical.
rahil_s
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:05 pm

Postby @UltiCraig » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:04 pm

Vertcial


Hey Rahil,

I defer to your experience, but to clarify for me please.

I thought advancing the disc in any direction refers to the 2 dimensional field?
ie. forward, backward, sideways, etc.
Standing in the same position to tip and catch means I haven't gained an advantage for my field position, so why would it be a travel call?

Thanks for your input.
Cheers,
Craig
Play catch. Invent games. Flat flip flies straight. Tilted flip curves.
@UltiCraig
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:51 pm

Postby natemartin16 » Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:00 pm

Jed wrote:I think it might have been the Mike Grant play he was referring to; but still, didn't look deliberate.


I was indeed referring to the Grant play, and I would argue it was very deliberate. Not that it really matters, but to point out that it is one heck of an athletic play.
natemartin16
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:28 am

Postby okleydo » Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:11 pm

Mike Grant's play at time 5:45:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsGmH4Gzkg8
User avatar
okleydo
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:55 pm

Postby jed » Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:42 pm

search161 wrote:Advance the disc in any direction is I believe the full description.
The intent here (by admission) was to move the disc away from the defender so that he could more easily catch it. This is a violation.[/i]


Mores specifically, the wording is"...in order to advance the disc in any direction." The "in order to" part brings intent into the equation.

My argument would be that he tipped the disc in order to improve his chance of catching it (or to evade the defender); and not to advance the disc. Still not a smart play IMO, but not necessarily a violation.

As for the Mike Grant play, think what you will, but it would have been pretty dumb to tip the disc instead of just trying to catch it. He didn't become the best player in the world by making dumb plays in clutch situations. I think he missed the catch, but immediately adjusted and went for the second effort.
User avatar
jed
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:36 pm

Postby conjob » Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:08 am

To start: this is awesome :) thanks everyone for all the responses!!

So, I might have missed it somewhere, but if it IS a travel, but all of this occurred in the endzone, does it go back to the line? My understanding is a travel helps you gain an advantage on the field of play, but travelling in any direction in the endzone still makes you in the endzone...?

In case anyone was curious still, there was some "2 dimensional" movement when the disc was tipped, and it was in the direction to the receiver's advantage, though the horizontal distance gained was minimal.

I would have to argue against Jed in that it's not really a dumb play. If you know there is minimal possibility that you can actually catch it in that situation, but since you're aware that you're tipping it away while your defender is not, you are consciously more ready to make that second catch attempt. Yes you run the risk that the tip goes awry, but the probability of make that second catch is actually higher than the first by "faking out" the defender with a tip instead of catch. Arguably I have never experienced this type of neck to neck jumping for a disc (being a midget and all I rarely get to "jump ball"), so I could just be full of hot air :p

I'm still curious as to the discussion on intent though, especially with this Mike Grant example in the mix. In the situation I presented, the tipper had confessed to his intent, but what if he didn't? What if Mike Grant meant to push the disc out of reach first? How do you argue intent? I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that also the part of the argument between charged with murder vs. manslaughter?
User avatar
conjob
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:43 am

Postby Mortakai » Fri Sep 03, 2010 2:11 pm

Stay tuned on this folks. We're currently in quite a discussion within the SRC on exactly this topic, and I'll try to bring back some feedback from that collective as soon as we get to a consensus.

For the record, I very highly doubt that Grant wasn't trying to catch that disc on the first attempt.
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Postby jed » Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:10 pm

conjob wrote:If you know there is minimal possibility that you can actually catch it in that situation, but since you're aware that you're tipping it away while your defender is not, you are consciously more ready to make that second catch attempt. Yes you run the risk that the tip goes awry, but the probability of make that second catch is actually higher than the first by "faking out" the defender with a tip instead of catch.


The bold part is where you lose me. I just don't think the probabilites would ever line up this way. I.e. if your chances of making the catch are minimal, your chances of successfully completing a tip and second effort catch are going to be much less.

Just go for the catch - you might surprise yourself! And if not, you can still go for the second effort...
User avatar
jed
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:36 pm

Postby tugbo » Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:55 am

According to the UPA Standing Rules Committee (SRC):

In this situation, the disc was intentionally advanced (upward), so it
is a travel under XV.A. The infraction pretty clearly affected the
play, so the disc would revert to the thrower (XVI.C.2.b.1).

Relevant rules:
XV.A
A player may bobble the disc in order to gain control of it, but purposeful bobbling (including tipping, delaying, guiding, brushing or the like) to oneself in order to advance the disc in any direction from where it initially was contacted is considered traveling.

XVI.C.2.b.1 :
If the team that committed the infraction has possession [and] the infraction affected the play, play stops and the disc reverts to the thrower unless the specific rule says otherwise.

From http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules/browse_thread/thread/3e2b267f1e79279c
tugbo
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:55 pm


Return to Ultimate Rules and Tools

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron