WFDF RULES

[Guest]

The ultimate forum for talking about Ultimate Frisbee. Aimed at bringing new life to the world of Ultimate Frisbee discussions, UltiTalk.Com (UT) combines both regional and international topics in one friendly place. So say hello to UT: The International Ultimate Frisbee forum.

[Stepan]

Well the WFDF worlds are approaching and the new rules have been out for few months. There might be some discussion about the WFDF/UPA rules differences..and not only that..
First I would like to know your (anybody's) interpretation of the rule "12.3.2. A thrower may contact an out-of-bounds area once a pivot point has been established in-bounds."
Example: I am picking up a disc from out-of-bounds and coming back to the field. As most of the players (imho) I put one foot into the field (estabilishing the pivot point in-bounds) while the second food still remains out-of-bounds and I put the disc into play.
There is an interpretation, however, which would consider this as a traveling violence because I was never completely in-bounds before putting the disc into play. According to this interpretation I should FIRST come entirely into the field, estabilish the pivot foot and THEN I can pivot out of bounds. Sounds logic but I don't think many players do it this way. What is your suggestion?
I also need you opinions because we are finishing the translation of the rules into Czech and want to be precise in the formulations. Thnx

[Seppo]

Great post Stepan.  I think your later interpretation is the correct one.  The player must FIRST establish him/herself in-bounds (which means that all parts of him/her must be in-bounds).  Once this has occurred and the disc is put into play, the player may then pivot so that other parts of him/herself (i.e. his/her non-pivot foot) come in contact w/ an out-of-bounds portion of the field.

As you pointed out, we've all seen this time and time again.  A player picks up the disc, puts it into play, pivots outside of the sideline and then lets loose a HUGE huck.  (And sometimes, due to sideline players and/or spectators "crowding the field", the disc will hit one of the railbirds and the offensive player will call interference.)

For everyone's reference, here is a link to new WFDF rulebook:

http://www.wfdf.org/index.php?page=rules/2007_wfdf_ultimate_rules.htm

- Seppo

[Stepan]

Thanx Seppo, I think will go on with this interpretation.

[rjhberg]

I would have said the first interpretation was correct:

I am picking up a disc from out-of-bounds and coming back to the field. As most of the players (imho) I put one foot into the field (estabilishing the pivot point in-bounds) while the second food still remains out-of-bounds and I put the disc into play.

The rule doesn't say "once a player is inbounds" it only states "once a pivot point has been established in-bounds".

You don't need to come all the way into the field to establish a pivot point in-bounds.

[Stepan]

Well rjhberg this is what I am not sure. Maybe as a non-native speaker I have a little problem with the word "once" in this sentence which you could help me out with. Is it just a requirement to have the pivot point in-bounds or does it say that you can only pivot out-of-bounds after the pivot point is estabilished?
Similar situation - catching the disc in front of the endzone and running inside by momentum: to play the disc further you have to play from "the nearest point of the Goal Line" (15.2.). Can you be entirely inside the endzone and just touch the Goal line with what you decalre as a pivot point to put the disc into play (and eventually score)? I don't think so - I would better see you leaving the endzone completely before playing. And the same policy should be applied to the 12.3.2. rule.
Unless I am wrong even in this example - than your interpretation would probably be the right one.

Anyone else? We are on 1:1 now which does not make it much clearer;)

[rjhberg]

Ah

Now I see what you mean.

However in my opinion, the "once" is more a reference to "if ever" or "whenever" - so it is more immediate than saying "after".

The first interpretation you had is definitely the way it is currently played, and my understanding of the way the majority of the rules are written is to clarify the way the game IS played, not the impose a new way of playing.

But is is unclear and maybe WFDF can clarify this point in the next rules revision?

[Elysium]

It seems pretty clear that you only have to put one foot in bounds and put your pivot there, even if your other foot is out of bounds.

"12.3.2. A thrower may contact an out-of-bounds area once a pivot point has been established in-bounds."

It only says a pivot has to established in-bounds.  You are implying that since it says "a thrower may contact an out-of-bounds area once..." that that also means "a thrower may not contact an out of bounds area until..." which is obviously untrue.  If it were true, then simply walking back to the line when out of bounds would be illegal because you haven't established a pivot yet.

What the rule really implies is "A thrower may [legally throw while contacting out of bounds if] a pivot foot has been established in bounds."  And yes, I would say it applies to the endzone as well.

Even if you were right, however, once you have your pivot down in bounds, and you move your other foot at all, you are suddenly "all the way" in bounds, thus legal to put your foot back down anywhere out of bounds  If one foot is touching in bounds and nothing is touching out of bounds, you are in bounds.  Thus, when you set your pivot, and then move to throw at all, you have legally done so by your interpretation of this rule.  The only thing that would be illegal under your interpretation is setting a pivot with a foot down out of bounds, and then never moving that off foot, throwing with both feet glued to the ground (and when does that ever happen?).

[maciej_uwaga]

Hey,

I did't want to start new topic. I have question about the rules. There was a turnover in the middle of the field. Unexperienced D player take a disc from the ground and give it to O player. He take it, and then put it on the ground because he was wating untill his team will set up. This is a double turnover or not?? Thanks

[s0urce]

Techinically, yes.  Although the defensive player should not have picked up the disc.  If the offensive player did not want to be the thrower in possession, he should have instructed the defensive player to put the disc down at the point of turnover (wherever the disc came to rest)

[AstroLucjan]

Hi Maciej 
It was me that took the disc from the unexpierienced player. My bad. I could done better - instructe him.
But the situation was like this:
I was the nearest person to unexperienced player, and he nearly pushed it in my hands.
I called a violation like - "You can not pick up the disc", and for me the disc was dead couse of my call.
So i put it down.
The first violation stopped the second one. Am i right?


And a similar question:
If after turnover somehow the disc would be somewhere else than it should be.
Example - a D player illegally moved, thrown or kicked the disc.
Funny example - a dog would take it 20 meters away.
Other example - disc is broken, and active O player take a new disc (which he's not throwin, but stepping and putting it down).

Is it legal in this special situation for any O player (with intentions to continue the game asap) to pick up the disc and put it in the right spot, where the disc should stay after turnover (or 3 meters from the pivot point when out of bounds - WFDF rules - 11.9)?
Or it always have to be the O player that is suppose to put disc into play?
Otherwise it is a double turnover?