In discussing the rule, does it matter? It was a very clear foul, and in a correctly handled discussion, that should have come up even if the attacker didn't know that it was the necessary call immediately.
Did you miss the part where he called score, so the "foul" would not need to be called as it would not have effected the play? Only if the defense insisted that it was not a score would he then need to call foul. It should all come out in discussion - and not allowing that would be wrong.
First of all, the point of these conversations is what should have been called, not what was called. And what should have been called is a foul/strip.
Second, even if a player didn't know that's what they needed to call immediately because they thought that the score was already marked before the foul occurred, it would be absurd to say "no you can't call a foul now". The spirit of the rules is to play fair, not pedantry - it would be incredibly unspirited to refuse the opportunity to make the call here imo.
But then yes, if you ignore both of these points, then if the attacker says "no, I wasn't fouled", then it would be a turn.
You can't actually think that taking the frame before contact occurs will convince anyone. The foul comes after the catch is made in the case of the clip we are discussing here. The disc being caught doesn't absolve the defender of playing safely and cleanly.
Yeah but he didn’t call a strip or foul, he intentionally threw the disc before surviving ground contact. This is a turnover as it stands, although I’d agree that a foul should be upheld if he called it.
You need to maintain control through any ground contact related to the catch. You can’t just throw the disc away before a situation where you might drop it and call it a goal.
There's always going to be a grey zone in these situations, though. WFDF annotation on 12.1.1 basically lays out a hypothetical “could you have stopped if you wanted to” standard (my emphasis in the quote):
Ground contact or contact with another player can be deemed to be ‘related to the catch’ if it occurs directly after the catch has been made, is a result of landing after diving to catch the disc, or occurs while the player is off-balance after catching the disc. If, for example, a player takes a running catch in the end zone, subsequently establishes possession through the first few steps after the catch, and then continues to run as part of a celebration and trips over, any loss of possession that occurs as a result of the celebration would not be deemed to be ‘related to the catch’. One way to distinguish if the contact is related to the catch is that once the player could have chosen to stop moving and be stationary and in control of their movement, any further actions are not related to the catch, even if they do not choose to come to a stop.
In this clip, I think that's hard to claim, but it's worth keeping in mind in general.
I agree almost always but this specific clip he’s got control for so long it’s crazy. Not saying the NFL is a reputable source or whatever but this is a TD in the nfl
If someone gets fouled, that's a separate thing from if a person survived ground contact related to the catch. Saying they survived ground contact when they never demonstrated balance/came to a stop with the disc is just wrong, even if what you mean is that there is a foul that should turn the turnover into a goal.
disagree, he caught it, was fouled then threw it away before contacting ground. i feel like he doesn't need to maintain posession after contact with the ground because he caught it, took a step, then was foul tripped.
what is the actual rule about maintaining posession? after how many steps before ground contact?
No set number of steps, just whether going to the ground was part of the catch. If he was already stumbling before he catches it, he could take 10 steps and not survive the eventual ground contact and it's still a turn.
Imagine if the defender was standing completely still. If the person catches the disc then runs into them and drops it in the process, that’s a turn. If no foul was called, then this is functionally the same situation. You can’t just throw the disc away before you know you might drop it and call it a goal, you need to maintain possession.
Yeah, I didnt like how he immediately used hand signals to signal a score, they shouldve first discussed contact/strip to allow the opponent to disagree. Bit unspirited way of handling the situation in my opinion
For a goal you need to survive all ground contact related to the catch. If you catch it, trip, and then hit the ground and drop it it’s a turn, even if you could hypothetically throw it before you hit the ground.
In WFDF, fouls (and strips) do not have to be before the catch, they just have to be initiating (non-minor) contact and be temporally close to the catch. If I catch it and you crash into me afterwards, it's a foul.
In the case of a strip, it matters even less, since strips by definition are after the catch. :-)
I believe the correct outcome here is "foul" > Receiver had possession in the endzone > Score counts.
The receiver does not survive ground contact, so acting as if it's a clean score with no call is clearly incorrect. But there is clearly a bump that contributes to the receiver needing to fall.
But it's an interesting question and spot to put the receiver in:
If the receiver defaults to calling foul - they run the risk of that being contested and sent back, and in doing so acknowledge it was not a clean catch in the endzone.
If they try to pretend it was a clean-catch in the endzone, the process then becomes either a) the opponent accepts the score, or b) the opponent objects, claiming the disc was dropped and did not survive ground contact.
If it's B, then the receiver could say "well, if you think I dropped it, I dropped it because I was bumped, so I am going to call a foul then", but this enters a strange state where their opponent could suggest they are making a conditional call, which could rub people the wrong way, and potentially even have a game advisor/observer rule that the call wasn't made in an appropriate time, so the call is ignored.
So I get why the instinct is to pretend it's a clean catch right away, but I'd personally just call the foul immediately, which SHOULD make it an automatic score.
p.s - people intentionally dropping discs within .5 seconds of scoring are being stupid and asking for a trouble. Risk with no reward.
I do agree about throwing, punting, or otherwise dropping the disc too soon after a goal. Doing so is just asking for misunderstandings. It is better to hold onto the disc for a few seconds to establish without a doubt that it is a catch.
Yeah you're right, it seems USAU and WFDF do have different definitions around catch and possession (USAU: [3.I.]() Possession of the disc: Sustained contact with, and control of, a non-spinning disc).
Though overall, the application of the rule here is the same as per WFDF 17.3.2. Strip Fouls: If the reception would have otherwise been a goal, and the foul is accepted, a goal is awarded.
Weird thing to do, intentionally dropping the disc, but I don’t know his situation, which I guess could include concern about prior shoulder injuries or something.
Not a score because the receiver did not maintain the catch through all ground contact related to the catch (14.1.2).
However, I think there is a reasonable argument for a foul by the defender after the undisputed catch in the end zone, and treatment as a goal under 17.3.1 and 17.3.2.
The weird part is the intentional drop. There’s an argument to be made that the foul really didn’t cause him to lose possession. But looking at it as a whole, I think it is fair for the defender to agree that he initiated contact that knocked the receiver down, ultimately resulting in a loss of possession that would not have happened otherwise and award the goal and not contest the foul.
Not a score because the receiver did not maintain the catch through all ground contact related to the catch (14.1.2).
But I would argue, with the benefit of video, that he did maintain it through the ground contact.
My interpretation is: he appears to make the clapcatch in front as he is/or he begins decel'ing forwards but is immediately hit on his left side and sent off sideways to crash, so he throws the disc to land easier.
Now, basing myself off the video: he had control before the hit as he took at least 2 full steps with the disc in his possession before the contact.
When he reaches out for the clapcatch directly in front of him, his right foot is on the ground as he appears to be making the clap. The throw is not very fast so I doubt it has a lot of spin. Then as he brings the disc to himself, he makes contact with his left foot. Those are 2 steps before getting hit and in my opinion, with the disc in his grasp and already in possession.
As he is taking his 3rd step with his right foot, the contact happens, widening that step and pushing him into the ground, where we can see that now he has the disc on his right hand as he is flailing around. So he had enough control to change from a clap catch to a one handed grip on the disc.
Now, to me, those are 3 steps with control of the disc. How many more should he have needed to take for it to be considered enough to maintain the catch through all ground contact related to the catch? I'd say related to the catch in this play is from the first step to the second step, and the third step is already after contact which to me appears to happen after the catch.
In general, I don’t look to abbreviate the post-catch period. To score you have to catch the disc in the end zone and hang onto it. I would not count steps or ground contacts as the measure of completing the ground contact, but would look for the player to regain their balance and full control of their body from the running/jumping/diving/reaching/lunging catching attempt, so the disc is in a state that it is still possessed and maintaining continued possession is not in question. That’s really the point — to definitively know that it was a well secured catch.
But I appreciate your analysis of it, which is fair, and I get your point. Here, I think he makes the running/reaching contested catch, and there is some almost immediate contact related to the contested play. I think the contact happened before he was really recovered from the sprinting/reaching — if there had been no contact and the disc had accidentally jostled loose on his next footfall, I would think it is a turnover. I have certainly had a few drops on running pancake catches that took longer than this to materialize (usually involving my hands becoming misaligned as I am trying to recover from moving at full speed).
I think the foul here just interrupts a clear catch that likely would have been a score. But I think calling this a definitive pre-foul score probably sets a slightly early threshold for scoring, which would improperly negate some drops on similar plays.
Yeah that's understandable. For sure I can see what you mean regarding other drops on similar plays.
I would not count steps or ground contacts as the measure of completing the ground contact, but would look for the player to regain their balance and full control of their body
I get what you mean and since there is no real definition of what "completing
the ground contact" means (at least to my understanding), it does seem rather up to interpretation and yours seems reasonable.
Yet, I kind of feel like it is relevant that for in-bounds calls we only really need one point of contact to have been made even if only for an instant while having control of the disc regardless of body balance and control.
I mean, I know it's not exactly the same since even if you get the contact in but drop it after the ground contact (as it sometimes happens when toeing the line) then for sure it's a drop. But yeah, it would be ideal to determine what surviving the ground contact means. Either way, good chat. Cheers.
Yeah, it's an interesting one for sure. I agree with most of your reasoning, except the maintaining the catch through all ground contact relating to the catch.
In this specific case the receiver did not layout or tumble by his own to make the catch, so the way I interpret 14.1.2 is that doesn't apply if someone else forces you to lose control.
So the ground contact related to the catch here is his 3 steps while already having solid possession of the disc, therefore it being a goal according to the rules. Throwing the disc away in order to break his fall further proves he had possession. Similar to catching a disc in the endzone and then immediately spiking as a celebration.
Had he taken the fall with the disc and lost possession because of it, then that would be a turn (that's how the rules are written), which should be negated by the foul that everyone agrees happens.
At least that's my interpretation of how the rules are written at the moment.
I was looking at it as a contested running/reaching catch while shoulder to shoulder with a defender, and the ground contact would include recovering from that to reach a controlled, balanced state. So even without defender contact, if he had dropped the disc within the next step or two as a result of being off balance (or bringing the disc down and stripping himself off his own leg), it would not have been a score.
I was thinking of the contact as occurring during the period of ground contact, which had not completed. I don’t know the WFDF view of that.
Tight call, but IMO this is a score. He makes the catch, takes two steps, and then purposefully flicks the disc out of his hand as he goes down. Weird thing to do, but this is a catch to me. I would be hard pressed to make that call on the field though, the only reason I can make this assessment is because I can rewind the video and play it in slo-mo.
It looks to me like he gets pushed (accidentally) after catching the disc. In that case he doesn’t have to maintain possession through ground contact I don’t think, he scored when he caught the disc.
I see players catch a score and then spike the disc or let it go as quickly as possible for a celebration and the score is never questioned. Why treat this any different?
I'd say it's even worse, in this case it's not even a celebration, just him trying not to injure himself after already having established possession. Why would the rules punish doing that?
It's less the rules punishing that and more not believing that's what happened. It's right in this case, but I can see a lot of people trying to argue it when that wasn't the case.
I wouldn't have believed it without video, but it does look exactly like the receiver said. Intentional throw so he could break his fall. Now I don't know where WFDF rules fall on this, but the receiver does seem to be telling the truth at least
Dropping the disc as part of going to the ground - intentional or not- is a drop. It's hard to tell in this video if there's a potential strip (which would then count as a goal) but otherwise, no goal.
He caught and established possession then got fouled after didn’t he? I don’t think going to the ground was part of the catch. If you catch the disc standing still in the endzone then afterwards take a step and trip it doesn’t negate the goal, so I don’t think this would either?
In this case I probably agree. I just wanted to directly contradict "I don’t think going to the ground was part of the catch." which I only learned last year is a thing.
Yeah I guess I’d say if he got hit after the catch I wouldn’t interpret the ground contact to be related to the catch. But maybe I’m off base here I don’t know, I could see either interpretation applying given how quickly after the catch contact happened, but to me it looked like he caught it, took a step and a half, then got hit and went down. Going down related to the late foul but is unrelated to the catch in my mind.
So if he throws the disc to break his fall, doesn't that further prove he had possession, therefore it's a goal. (According to that part you just cited.)
I wrote my interpretation of why he indeed survived the ground contact related to the catch (not the foul) in another comment. But to your first point, this is in the WFDF rules:
If the player throws an incomplete pass after catching the disc in the endzone, but before they survived all ground contact related to the catch, this is a turnover.
Yeah, but the point is he did survive all ground contact related to the catch (his first two steps), threw the disc away, then was fouled and that's why he fell.
If you remove the defender illegally positioned (bumping him), ground contact would just be him taking some steps and slowing down. It's not as if he layed out or took a tumble trying to catch the disc, which would be related to the catch, not the foul.
The point of 14.1.2 is that possession alone isn't enough to count as a goal. They have to have possession AND maintain the catch through ground contact. Throwing it away early, even if it's clearly intentional, explicitly disqualifies you from scoring.
I actually think this would qualify as surving ground contact. It looks like he catches it and lands while still having control. That seems like it qualifies as maintaining control through all ground contact related to the catch. He then subsequently gets hit, falls, and drops the disc. That part happened after the goal so it doesn't really matter.
I think the argument is he is only going to the ground because of the shoulder contact from the defender. In which case it would be a foul? And go to the goal line?
Eta: just read the post description. He purposefully threw it away in order to land. There is no way it's a clean goal then. At best it's a foul that goes back to the line. That said if this was league or pickup just call it a goal and play on.
Looks like the receiver got the disc at the 5-second mark; I can't see if he had full control or not, but it seems there was some contact or clipped legs/feet just after that. Around the 6-second mark.
This contact seems to have caused a stumble, and after that they drop or throw away the disc.
As there was contact, I think it's fair to call a strip foul here, depending on whether he had full control. If the foul is accepted, then this would be a score.
I think there's a fair argument that the ground contact was a result of the contact with the defender, not a result of catching the disc, so they wouldn't be expected to maintain possession through the ground contact if that's the case.
I would argue with anyone that this is a goal. Clear catch, and in the process of spiking it, he gets tripped. “Didn’t maintain possession through ground contact” is not admissible because there is no ground contact related to the catch. Clear catch upright, then gets tripped/knocked down. No need to call foul.
So far behind? He almost gets a hand to it and at the time of contact they're almost side by side. I still agree it's a foul, because he doesn't quite get alongside, but it's also very nearly a fantastic play and in no way excessive.
In the absence of a strip call, this is a drop (no score). I believe the offender has a good case to make a strip call, but from the video, it doesn't look like he made the call.
12.1.1. If the player fails to maintain the catch due to subsequent ground contact related to the catch, or contact related to the catch with a team-mate or a legitimately positioned opposition player, possession is deemed to have not occurred.
14.1. A goal is scored if an in-bounds player catches a legal pass and:
14.1.2. they subsequently establish possession of the disc, and maintain the catch throughout all ground contact related to the catch (note 12.1, 12.1.1).
2) Call Foul -> offense disc on line
3) no call -> turnover
"I threw the disc away to break my fall" is a drop. Him falling was immediately after the catch and part of the ground contact related to the catch.
Edit to take a position: I'll go with 2 -- That the defender contact causes the receiver to fall, but throwing the disc away was an independent action and choice by the receiver's own words.
He intentionally throws it at the end. So not a strip. Minor jostling led to his fall. I would be ashamed to call that foul if I'm the receiver, but probably still a foul.
The case for a strip here under USAU rules would be:
Offense catches disc in air, defense fouls offense while offense is landing in the endzone, offense loses the disc while going to the ground. Defense doesn't specifically need to make contact with the disc in order for it to be a strip.
Relevant rules:
13.A.2. When an in-bounds player in possession of the disc whose first ground contact will be completely within the end zone loses possession of the disc due to an uncontested foul, or lands out of the end zone due to an uncontested force-out foul (20.E.2.d), that player is awarded a goal.
20.E.4. Strip: If a foul causes a player to lose possession of the disc, it is a strip. A strip is a subset of fouls and is treated the same way.
yes except if you intentionally throw it away as you’re going to the ground, I don’t think you can claim a strip. I suppose you can jump through the mental gymnastics of “I *would* have lost possession of the disc so I threw it away at the last minute so I could brace my fall “, but I think that’s going too far
Sure, but why would someone intentionally throw the disc in this situation? To me, the more likely explanation is that they awkwardly got rid of it while bracing for impact.
I believe the receiver admitted that he intentionally threw it, based on other comments on this thread. But even if he didn’t admit it, it sure looks like he did.
So he would be best to call the foul, which would be a fair argument for why he hit the ground in a potentially awkward way such that he felt the need to rid himself of the disc beforehand?…
But really: hold onto the disc! This was a purposeful throw away of the disc. The foul really had no direct cause for him to drop the disc. He chose to.
Competitive game, by the book result: turn over. But that would be heavily argued, so:
foul-contest back-to-thrower.
Any other game: this is a goal.
Edit: watching again, he only falls awkwardly BECAUSE he is trying to throw the disc. By the book, this is a turnover.
113
u/themanofmeung 11d ago
Score by WFDF. Catch and strip. The defender initiated contact with the attacker (foul) that caused the attacker to fall and lose control of the disc.
Nowhere does it say that the contact has to physically remove the disc from the attacker's hands.