[Ian French]

Would like to propose that pulls that roll out the back or the side of the endzone are played from where they went out rather than from the front of the endzone. Rationale:

1. This would add a valuable tool to the defences of elite teams, while having minimal impact on teams at a non-elite level where the pulls don’t go as far.
2. It would speed play up at the elite levels. Currently one of the best ways to field these big pulls is to not field them but stand aside and let them roll out the back or side, as attempting to stop them rolling risks having to play from an even more disadvantageous position. This creates a long delay fetching the disc and walking it forward. If there was no disincentive to trying to stop the roll teams would field the pulls in motion.

[Meret Trapp]

I disagree that it will only have a limited impact on non-elite level teams, as the difficulty is precisely in placing the pull exactly in the endzone and not necessarily that players are unable at all to pull of a rolling pull.

Your suggestion would lead to a further increase of rolling pulls, making it easier to get teams in the worst starting position.
And in my opinion, the defence already has the advantage of gaining several seconds to cross the pitch and setting up more effectively, while the disc is carried to the front of the endzone in the rules we already have. Which in reverse is an incentive for the offense to stop a rolling pull. It can be a tactical decision what the offense prefers/ which risk to take.

[Brian Bradburn (Burn)]

Pros and cons to all ideas, but I know that at least one national league is currently using this idea. In fact, all rolling pulls going through the endzone stay on the line where they went out, i.e., not brought to the goal line. They went one step further and moved the pulling line up to a line at the brick mark so that, intentionally, offense would have a worse starting position. The reasons for implementing this were reported to be: 1) Getting a pull to roll through the endzone then out the side was considered a “skill shot” and should be rewarded with a field position advantage. 2) It was considered to be more exciting play to have offense start deeper with less dump options, defense arriving sooner, and more callahan possibilities. 3) They did not believe defense has the advantage; quite the opposite. But to be fair, they play on a slightly wider field which gives offense more swing space. Still, some will argue that games with a fewer defensive play turnover possibilities, isn’t the most interesting.

[John Tofalis]

Completely agree. There’s so much excitement when a big pull lands at the back of the end-zone, so I think if you can throw a disc 81m with 7 people trying to stop it, you should be rewarded, regardless of where it rolls.

[Christian Schneider]

I am arguing for the opposite:
1. I would like to bring the brick mark up to the mid-point of the central zone and
2. I would even consider allowing going to the brick if a pull rolls out.

Reasoning: The Pull is supposed to start the game, not be the first stoppage. And any player can put have the pull stay inside the field if they really want to, even in windy conditions.

History: In the late 90s the brick mark was only 9m in front of the end zone and a lot of teams didn’t care and just pulled out of bounds to be able to set up the D. The community found that counter-productive (both from a player’s as well as a spectator’s perspective) and decided to increase the penalty for out-of-bound pulls. Now 20 years later we are back to square one and I’m proposing to reevaluate the idea of the Pull and possibly increase the penalty again.

[David Birdwell]

I like Ian’s initial idea and I think the current brick “penalty” for a pull that lands out of bounds will still discourage teams from pulling out of bounds in order to set up there defense.