Re: Quick rules question

Way to fight the hypothetical.

You posed the hypothetical as a situation where the current rule is better
than the simpler alternative. The issues raised by your example are already
addressed in XVI. D. Perhaps you should pose another one that better
furthers your argument.

...let me make it clear: the defender does not believe that the
foul clearly had no effect on the play; he agrees that, while it would
have taken a good effort, the receiver could have gotten there.

Well, your previsou statement was: "It's pretty questionable whether either
one will get
there and make a play." It sure sounds like a reason to believe the foul
had no bearing outcome on the play.

If the defender thinks it does have a bearing on the play, then he deserves
the consequences of "the defender elbows the receiver in the face, knocking
the receiver down." As the rules state, "XVI.I.1. It is the responsibility
of all players to avoid contact in every way possible." If the defender
can't prevent the score without bitch slapping the receiver, his team
deserves to be scored on.

That's a valid point of view -- I'm just expressing what I also think
is a valid point of view...

fair enough. It's a civil discussion and I appreciate the thought you put
into it.

... what I think is the dominant point of
view.

Once, the dominant point of view was "the world is flat." The game would be
better if uncontested fouls in the endzone resulted in goals. Moving the
disc to the goal line unnecessarily slows down the game. It also rewards
endzone foulers with a second chance.

But if you describe the result of an uncontested receiving foul in the
PFP as "receiver awarded possession, at a more favorable field
position, and becomes the thrower," then it is consistent.

And if you describe beer as "a liquid", we would all get drunk when it
rains.

..Also:
consistency merely for its own sake isn't necessarily good.

The stated goal of the rules is "resuming play in a manner that simulates
what would most likely have
occurred had there been no infraction." The endzone foul rule could achieve
that goal better by matching the rule in the playing field proper.

Todd


"pgw" <petegw42@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147811645.744274.130470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

todd wrote:
...Say a
receiver and defender are both running real fast toward a disc going
away from them. It's pretty questionable whether either one will get
there and make a play. Unfortunately we'll never know because the
defender elbows the receiver in the face, knocking the receiver down
and in the process losing his own self's balance. It's a clear foul,
and the receiver calls it. The defender can't possibly contest ..

Of course he can. See:

XVI D. If a foul or violation occurs which has no effect on continued
play,
(e.g., A violation away from the play), play stops, the result
of the play stands, and play is restarted with a check.

If the defender believes that the foul had no effect on the play, he
clearly
has grounds to contest and the disc will go back.

Way to fight the hypothetical. I thought it was already clear, but if
it wasn't, let me make it clear: the defender does not believe that the
foul clearly had no effect on the play; he agrees that, while it would
have taken a good effort, the receiver could have gotten there.

...In
the face of that uncertainty, it seems like a pretty large reward, and
a pretty severe penalty, for the offense to get an entire fifteenth of
the way toward victory as a result.

As I mentioned above any real uncertainty would be contested.

I don't know what you mean. But if you mean to suggest that the
defender should contest any time he's not sure whether the catch could
have been made, I strongly disagree. In my opinion the defender should
only contest when he is sure the catch could not have been made.

But also, if
the rule were changed to award a goal for uncontested receiving fouls in
the
endzone, then the burden would rightly be placed on the defense to avoid
fouling in the endzone.

That's a valid point of view -- I'm just expressing what I also think
is a valid point of view, and what I think is the dominant point of
view.

..I would argue that as to fouls that prevent
catch attempts, it already is consistent for the entire field.

Not consistent at all. Fouling in the endzone changes the play that
would
have happened otherwise. Uncontested fouling elsewhere on the field
results
in "resuming play in a manner that simulates what would most likely have
occurred had there been no infraction."

Yes, yes, I understand. Under that description, it's not consistent.
But if you describe the result of an uncontested receiving foul in the
PFP as "receiver awarded possession, at a more favorable field
position, and becomes the thrower," then it is consistent. Also:
consistency merely for its own sake isn't necessarily good.



.

Relevant Pages

  • =?utf-8?Q?Re:=20Insane=20Sky=20Cat?==?utf-8?Q?ch!!!?=
    ... "And here lies the real crux of the play in my ... the receiver doesn't catch the disc if the ... I would rule this no foul on either player. ... yourself initiate is a foul on ...
    (rec.sport.disc)
  • Re: Quick rules question
    ... receiver and defender are both running real fast toward a disc going ... there and make a play. ... It's a clear foul, ...
    (rec.sport.disc)
  • =?utf-8?Q?Re:=20Insane=20Sky=20Cat?==?utf-8?Q?ch!!!?=
    ... "And here lies the real crux of the play in my opinion.... ... the receiver doesn't catch the disc if the defender doesn't ... I agree, if the defender had NOT jumped, the Offensive ... Either it is a foul on someone or not a foul. ...
    (rec.sport.disc)
  • Re: MENS FINAL CRITIQUE
    ... against Tim Gehret. ... There is no rule that says it's okay to clobber a receiver as long as ... have been one of the following: a receiving foul that affected the ... play, a receiving foul that did not affect the play, or a so-called ...
    (rec.sport.disc)
  • =?utf-8?Q?Re:=20Insane=20Sky=20Cat?==?utf-8?Q?ch!!!?=
    ... O thinks he can get to the disc at ... Defender has no reasonable chance to avoid that collision ... People seem to think that anyone saying this play is a foul ... The receiver has a real shot of making ...
    (rec.sport.disc)