Onside pull?

[torre.hargett]

Any thoughts from rules gurus on the onside pull? Is it legal?

This happened in a summer league game the other night. Team A is losing by a lot, scores a goal then signals ready to pull. Team B signals ready to receive. Team A stands around for a few seconds then drops the disc into the playing field. After pre-stalling the disc, Team A takes possession and works it down the field.

A player on Team B did hear them pre-stalling after a few seconds, but wasn't able to reach the disc before the pre-stall 10 turnover.

Is this legit?

[mdmoran62]

Well, first off, as described, this isn't even a Pull. Look in the definitions and starting play sections of the rules, a throw (i.e., a "drop" is not a throw) is required and the throw is intended to be from one team to the other to start play...

... not some attempt at bending the rules (some may want to use the word, "cheating") to get an unfair advantage by doing something that is clearly NOT how the game is intended to be played.

Would Observers issue a TMF for this intentional and premeditated attempt at 'creative' use of the rules? Well, I sure would.

[commitch]

Dropping vs throwing the disc could be rectified by "throwing" the disc just a little bit. But the described "onside pull" is missing a stall count. If the disc lands on the playing field proper, the other team would have ten seconds to put the disc in play (or 20 if it landed out of bounds or in the endzone), otherwise the defense could then start stalling. The prestall must be audible warnings (ie, the people 70 yards away must be able to hear your warnings). To be a legal stall, the marker has to count loud enough for the thrower to hear it (though this may not be the case since there isn't a "thrower" yet). Basically, the receiving team would have 20 seconds (not ten) from the first audible prestall warning to get 70 yards down the field and get a throw off.

the way things are in the rules, I wouldn't issue a TMF as the risk/reward of this attempt seems reasonable (give up ~70 yards of field position for a slim chance of getting a turnover before they get to the disc).

[torre.hargett]

Dropping vs throwing the disc could be rectified by "throwing" the disc just a little bit. But the described "onside pull" is missing a stall count. If the disc lands on the playing field proper, the other team would have ten seconds to put the disc in play (or 20 if it landed out of bounds or in the endzone), otherwise the defense could then start stalling. The prestall must be audible warnings (ie, the people 70 yards away must be able to hear your warnings). To be a legal stall, the marker has to count loud enough for the thrower to hear it (though this may not be the case since there isn't a "thrower" yet). Basically, the receiving team would have 20 seconds (not ten) from the first audible prestall warning to get 70 yards down the field and get a throw off.

the way things are in the rules, I wouldn't issue a TMF as the risk/reward of this attempt seems reasonable (give up ~70 yards of field position for a slim chance of getting a turnover before they get to the disc).


Thanks for the response. Completely forgot about the the pre-stall had to be followed by the stall. Who woulda thunk?

[mdmoran62]

Dropping vs throwing the disc could be rectified by "throwing" the disc just a little bit.

But that's still not a throw to the other team.

[torre.hargett]

But that's still not a throw to the other team.

There is no minimum distance a pull must travel in order for it to be considered a pull.

[commitch]

But that's still not a throw to the other team.A throw is a throw is a throw. There is no requirement of direction, distance, altitude, etc, etc for a pull. Only the other team can catch the pull, but their location relative to the pull is irrelevant.

[mdmoran62]

There is no minimum distance a pull must travel in order for it to be considered a pull.


A throw is a throw is a throw. There is no requirement of direction, distance, altitude, etc, etc for a pull. Only the other team can catch the pull, but their location relative to the pull is irrelevant.

Agreed that there is no distance, direction, etc. requirements. However, the definition of the pull includes: "throw from one team to the other". So if it's not that, then it's not a pull, and the point hasn't started.

If the pulling team is throwing it a few yards for the purpose of an "onside kick" to cause a delay-based turnover that is clearly not intended by the rules, rather than intending it to be a throw to the other team, then I'm going to claim that this is an infraction of the rules (and an intentional one, at that, which is something that no-one should support).

[commitch]

I agree that intentionally breaking the rules should never be supported, but I would still say that this action (which I'm not at all convinced is "breaking the rules") has a "punishment" in that you give up substantial field position if you aren't successful, and the odds of being successful are low given your delay count can't start until the other team hears the first warning, thus being aware of the situation, and they have 20 seconds to cover 70 yards and get a quick throw off to reset the count (~7 mph, a jog pace). I could see if the average player couldn't get to the disc in time, but even getting to the disc around the time the stall starts isn't a particularly crazy task.

If a puller winds up for a big pull and the disc slips out during the throw and it lands 2 feet past the line, the intent was certainly to throw it far, it just didn't go anywhere useful. The same situation would exist, but the intent is very different. If you are trying to discern intent, how far does the disc have to go before you should consider intent, or how much effort has to be shown in the throw? I'm all for TMFs for things that aren't the intent of the rules (like a defender going out of bounds and hiding amonst sideline players), but this one seems to be pretty well covered within the rules as written.

[thompsor]

So, it's clear that dropping the disc and starting the prestall is perfectly fine. So what about the next step - all 7 players form a ring around the disc, preventing the receiving team from grabbing the disc and starting play. Can double team be called - there's no "thrower"? Can the team on defense just call foul every time the offense tries to get the disc and break through?

[commitch]

So, it's clear that dropping the disc and starting the prestall is perfectly fine. So what about the next step - all 7 players form a ring around the disc, preventing the receiving team from grabbing the disc and starting play. Can double team be called - there's no "thrower"? Can the team on defense just call foul every time the offense tries to get the disc and break through?I think you have now gotten into the area he was referring to....intentionally cheating. In an observed game....TMFs o' plenty. In an unobserved game, make whatever call you want....double team, foul, etc....even if contested, the disagreement stops play and resets your prestall.

[rrudnic]

I think I'd go with pick but it doesn't matter the line for deliberate cheating is definitely crossed.

[kdubs]

I agree it's cheating, but I can't find the right rule that's being broken. The blocking fouls states things about "while the disc is in the air" and "a player may not move". Doesn't state anything about what happens once it's on the ground and that the team as a whole can't block. I think we all agree it's wrong, but I'd like to be able to state "you are breaking this rule" and I can't find it.

[mdmoran62]

There's all sorts of things that the rules don't cover, and shouldn't. Examples include the onside kick/pull, ringing the disc on a turnover so the pre stall and stall gets counted down, and my favorite: 5 players in a ring with two players inside give-and-going all the way down the field to score.

... unless we want to suggest that the rules need to get so exponentially bloated so that they explicitly cover ALL of the situations that are very clearly not how the game is intended to be played.