Re: Another rules question
- From: "pgw" <petegw42@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Jul 2005 11:56:18 -0700
Jon Bauman wrote:
> It's a travel.
>
> The fact that the rule (XV.A) occurs in the receiver section does not
> limit it's application to receivers. Note the other rules in that same
> section. The term "receiver" is consistently used when application is
> limited to receivers.
If the rule means what you say it means, it's terribly written. How
can a defensive player travel? (Note that he does not become an
offensive player until he catches it; is it some kind of retroactive
travel?) Why put this rule under "the receiver" when it is also
supposed to apply to defenders? What if the defender never catches it
but just finishes off by letting it hit the ground on the goalline?
How could that possibly be called a travel?
If the rules committee wants the defensive self-mac to be illegal, it
should write a much, much clearer rule on the subject. (However, in my
opinion if the rules committee wants to make the best set of rules for
ultimate, it should just erase XV.A from the books. But that has been
covered plenty of times before too.)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Another rules question
- From: Jon Bauman
- Re: Another rules question
- From: Charles the baby crusher Paisley
- Re: Another rules question
- References:
- Another rules question
- From: rpgcaw2000
- Re: Another rules question
- From: Jon Bauman
- Another rules question
- Prev by Date: Re: Is this guy from Wilmington?
- Next by Date: Re: Is this guy from Wilmington?
- Previous by thread: Re: Another rules question
- Next by thread: Re: Another rules question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|