[Robert Jablko]

Is there a hole in the rules?

[b]Scenario
[/b]Defense pulls against a strong wind and the disc returns into the own endzone.
The disc never became out of bounds. It lands in the endzone and rests there.

[b]Rule
[/b]If my understanding of the rules are correct, then this is a case of 7.9.

[i]7.9. If the disc initially contacts the playing field and never becomes out-of-bounds, or is
caught in-bounds, the thrower establishes the pivot where the disc stops. [/i]

Now following that rule the thrower has to establish the pivot in the opponents endzone. That seems to be in conflict with another rule, 14.2.

[i]14.2. If a player in possession of the disc ends up completely behind the attacking goal line
without scoring a goal according to 14.1, the player establishes the pivot at the nearest
point of the goal line.
[/i]
Of course the thrower did not score a goal – I discuss that at the bottom – and therefore has to go back to the central zone.

So we have the problem of two rules pointing to two different pivots. Now, my feeling is clearly, that 14.2. is correct, but then 7.9. is not – and I have to break rule 18.2.6.4. to go to the other pivot. That is not optimal.

[i]18.2.6.4. A travel infraction occurs if the thrower fails to keep the established pivot until releasing the disc;
[/i]
———————-

Another thought on that subject

Is is true that in this scenario, by picking up the disc, the thrower “catches” the disc, but it is not a goal?

[i]12.1. A player “catches” the disc by demonstrating sustained control of a non-spinning disc.
[/i]
Catching does not require the disc to be airborn? Is that true?
But of course, it is not a goal, because the thrower did not catch a legal pass.

[i]14.1. A goal is scored if an in-bounds player catches a legal pass and all of their first
simultaneous points of contact after catching the disc are entirely within their attacking
end zone (note 12.1, 12.2)
[/i]
It would be a goal, if he had been fast enough to catch the pull in the endzone, while the disc is still being airborn. That is because the pull is a throw, and a throw is a pass.

[Florian Pfender]

Yes, as I see it there are two issues here.

1) 7.9 and 14.2 give different pivot points. Only 14.2 makes sense here in this rare scenario, so 14.2 should be applied. Maybe we can reword a bit to make this clear.

2) “Callahan” on the pull. Currently, your argument applies, but I think it should not be a score. After all, you are not allowed to “defend” that score as you can’t touch your own pull. We should add to the definition of pull: for the purposes of scoring (14.1), the pull is not considered a legal pass.