Own player strip in the endzone

[commitch]

I was asked about the following situation at MA regionals and I wasn't confident in the answer, so I thought I would pose the question for the powers that be (read: SRC)

An offensive receiver lays out for the disc in the endzone and catches it. While clearly controlling a non-spinning disc and sliding on the ground, a teammate also bidding for the disc hits it out of his hand and the disc touches the ground.

Goal or turn?

I see two relevant parts of the rules, II.O.2 and XI.A.

The wording of II.0.2 is "Loss of possession due to ground contact related to a catch negates that player’s possession up to that point." But the player didn't lose the disc due to ground contact related to the catch, so I could see it being a goal in terms of this rule.

XI.A says "A goal is scored when an in-bounds player catches any legal pass in the end zone of attack, and retains possession of the disc throughout all ground contact related to the catch." Well, he didn't maintain possession throughout the ground contact, so I could see this being a turn, but again, it wasn't the ground contact that caused the loss of possession. I could see a valid argument saying possession up to that point isn't negated because he didn't lose possession due to ground contact.

Any thoughts?

[colinmci]

I don't think there's a real question of whether the teammate can cause a turnover. I mean, if the player jumped in the air and caught it and got stripped on the way down, it would clearly be a turnover, not a goal.

So here, I think the question is whether the player maintained possession for long enough while sliding that you could say that ground contact ended (and the score occurred) before the teammate stripped the disc.

Reminds me of the question a while back of making a diving catch near the side of the end zone and sliding into someone's bag and losing possession. Of course the proper answer is always to keep the sidelines clear, but the question turned into one of degree - if you slide 20 yards on a snowy field, is it not a score until you come to a stop? Is there a point at which ground contact related to the catch ends, but before you come to a stop? I think the answer is "yes," but I want to double-check that old thread to make sure to write something clear that doesn't create confusion.

It sounds like the teammate stripped the disc pretty quickly after the catch (near simultaneous bid?), so I'd lean toward calling it a turnover rather than a goal. But this is definitely a question of degree/duration/timing.

-Colin

[commitch]

I don't think there's a real question of whether the teammate can cause a turnover. I mean, if the player jumped in the air and caught it and got stripped on the way down, it would clearly be a turnover, not a goal.there's no question in the situation you described, that would be a turn. that's obvious. But that isn't what happened.
So here, I think the question is whether the player maintained possession for long enough while sliding that you could say that ground contact ended (and the score occurred) before the teammate stripped the disc.I guess I don't see it as cut and dry as you because the wording of II.O.2 "due to ground contact"...the player didn't lose possession "due to ground contact", he lost it because of contact with his teammate. I think it should be a turn, I'm just not sure the wording of the rules support it.
Reminds me of the question a while back of making a diving catch near the side of the end zone and sliding into someone's bag and losing possession.That's actually more well defined because of the definition of ground contact (II.F) contains "Items on the ground are considered part of the ground."
It sounds like the teammate stripped the disc pretty quickly after the catch (near simultaneous bid?), so I'd lean toward calling it a turnover rather than a goal. But this is definitely a question of degree/duration/timing.But, again, do the rules support this being the focal point since the ground contact didn't cause the loss of possession? Is XI.A considered more "specific" (but II.0.2 is even mentioned in XI.A.1)?

[colinmci]

The point I was trying to make is that I do not think it is a question of losing possession "due to ground contact." It is a situation where the receiver loses possession due to his teammate stripping him.

So the question is one of timing - whether he sustained possession long enough that "all ground contact related to the catch" is over and it's a score. The cause of the loss of possession is not in dispute here, so I don't think the "possession is negated" portion of II.O.2 is even relevant. Is it?

Extreme #1 - Player jumps and catches the disc, but teammate strips him mid-air in the end zone.

Extreme #2 - Player dives and catches the disc and slides to a complete stop, then teammate runs up and knocks the disc away.

It seems to me that the situation you described is just a question of timing, and it falls between those two extremes. When did "all ground contact related to the catch" end, and when did the teammate strip the receiver? In Extreme #1, you don't need to talk about "due to ground contact" to call it a turn. It's just a loss of possession, and it wasn't a score yet, so the disc isn't dead.

[commitch]

The point I was trying to make is that I do not think it is a question of losing possession "due to ground contact." It is a situation where the receiver loses possession due to his teammate stripping him.I know you think that "due to ground contact" doesn't matter, I'm asking as to an answer WHY "due to ground contact" doesn't matter since "due to ground contact" is the wording in the rule II.O.2. Why doesn't the wording of the rule matter? Everything past your first sentence is based on your first sentence, and if the first sentence is true, I completely get everything past that as it is obvious. I'm just not sure the rules, as written, totally support that because II.O.2 specifically notes "due to ground contact" as the method of loss of possession.

[colinmci]

Mitch, I think that we're both honestly just talking past each other. Rather than simply repeating what I wrote, I'll ask, do you disagree that your scenario falls somewhere between the two extremes I presented? Does "loss of possession due to ground contact" factor into those two situations?

[deleted repetitive content]

If you say the cause of the loss of possession was the teammate stripping him, then that pulls us outside of the reach of II.O.2, so the wording of that rule doesn't matter because that rule doesn't apply.

-Colin

[colinmci]

Just jumping back into the rules, because I think that's more helpful.

It is a score under XI.A if the player "retains possession of the disc throughout all ground contact related to the catch" after catching it in the end zone.

Ground Contact is defined in II.F as "All player contact with the ground directly related to a specific event or maneuver (e.g., jumping, diving, leaning or falling), including landing or recovering after being off-balance. Items on the ground are considered part of the ground."

I don't see where II.O.2 factors into this analysis. Yes, II.O.2 says "loss of possession due to ground contact," but you're talking about scoring (XI.A) and a teammate stripping the receiver -- that has nothing to do with losing possession due to ground contact. The wording of II.O.2 doesn't matter because II.O.2 doesn't apply. II.O.2 doesn't apply, because it has nothing to do with this situation (based on your description of the play). We're just talking about a standard turnover (XII.A, B).

[commitch]

Just jumping back into the rules, because I think that's more helpful.I wasn't trying to talk past you or be annoying, I'm just trying to make sure I have the correct reading of the rules. The rule book is exactly where we should be.
It is a score under XI.A if the player "retains possession of the disc throughout all ground contact related to the catch" after catching it in the end zone.Absolutely agree. This part says to me, no question, turn. Where I got to II.O.2 applying is XI.A.1, which I viewed as expanding upon XI.A. XI.A.1 specifically mentions II.O.2 in relation to the possession in the endzone. I think this is where I am in error, as XI.A.1 is expanding upon XI.A in relation to in versus out, not any aspect of possession requirements.

I absolutely agree once we remove II.O.2, it becomes a situation between the two extremes you mentioned. I thought that from the start.