Re: Another rules question
- From: "Jon Bauman" <baumanj@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Jul 2005 14:14:23 -0700
OK, I found the thread I was looking for:
http://tinyurl.com/d9l3e
Here's the relevant blurb if you don't feel like reading the whole
thing. Quoth CVH:
'Please note that under various player catetgories, other types of
players are constrained or awarded rights. The definition is not
restricting the subsequent rules to apply to only one player type. The
definition is there to provide detail when the term is used later in
the rules. For example under "Marker" the thrower is given rights.
And under XV.B it is clear that all players are being refered to. One
should conclude that whenever a player advances a disc according to
XV.A it is a travel. "Oneself" does not restrict the clause to the
"receiver".'
To respond to your comments:
How can a defensive player travel? Only in this way, as far as I know.
Then again, we assume that you have to be a thrower to travel, but this
clearly allows a receiver (no possession gained) to do so. Nowhere does
it say you have to be on offense to travel, it's just the much more
common case.
If a travel is called, it's not clear to me what happens. I think the
most reasonable thing would be for the player that travelled to put it
into play at the location they were when the travel was called.
Assuming, of course, that they catch the disc after the "travel" call.
If no travel is called, and the disc is allowed to hit the ground, then
it is a turnover by the original throwing team since the MACing
defensive player's team never gained possession. Weird but true. The
scenario of two defensive players MACing it to each other down the
field has also been discussed, and that is legal under XV.A.
However, I totally agree with you that XV.A should be nixed because it
would make things simpler and potentially more exciting.
pgw wrote:
> 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.)
.
- References:
- Another rules question
- From: rpgcaw2000
- Re: Another rules question
- From: Jon Bauman
- Re: Another rules question
- From: pgw
- Another rules question
- Prev by Date: Re: ultimate in the world games - media coverage
- Next by Date: Re: Another rules question
- Previous by thread: Re: Another rules question
- Next by thread: W Plains Sectionals
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
