Re: Skill vs. Style



Hallo,

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 07:39:38 +0800, bob_koca@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote
(in article <1138837178.232959.318260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

> 
>         Well, then I'd suggest he call the foul on the throw, instead
> of on the
> catch end of the motion. IF the motion truly is one continuous stroke,
> then
> fouling that interferes for longer than the disc to get to his hand
> does
> become a foul on the throw, though if he calls the foul early, it's his
> own
> fault the turfed throw gets turned over.
> 
> 
> ----
> 
>   I am not sure that he could not call a foul on the catch and then on
> the throw also. The first foul was for the first contact. If there is
> even more contact after that (quite possible isn't it?) a separate foul
> for that later contact. 

	The call on the catch stops play unless he tries to then throw. There isn't 
an allowance for calling subsequent fouls in the rules, and certainly no 
process for resolving a sequence of fouls like that. I'd call it that the 
first call prevents consideration of a subsequent foul on the throw, so if he 
chooses to throw after calling the foul on the catch, it's a TO.

	Maybe CVH will weigh in.

Larry

.