Update and Rule Clarification

If you are referring to the first pass after a point has been scored (after a point has been scored, the team taking possession may NOT score on the first pass), then I recall playing the rule last year that the turnover occurs at the catch location. It makes sense that, on that first pass, the offensive endzone is treated as OB, so if that first pass is completed into the offensive endzone, the turnover occurs at the point on the enzone line closest to where the catch was made.

I don't recall a rule that you cannot score on the first pass after a pull. Barring such a rule, it is legal to score on the first pass after receiving the pull.

I thought that it was not a turnover if you caught it in the endzone on the first pass after a point. Instead you maintained possession and brought it to the front of the endzone, the same as if you took a few steps into the endzone after the catch. I may be wrong. But given the choice I would prefer to play it that way.

I've been rule-clarifying forever down here it seems.  Stupid WFDF.  They should just use UPA rules, because they're 10 times more clear and complete.  I need to find an Australian Higy.

Being the team maintains possession but at the goal line, like Andy described.

My understanding is as follows:

• At the Liquid January Tournament, you took posession at the endzone line as Andy / Darcy describe.
• In league play, it was a turnover and was a holdover rule from the indoor league at SJK on the hardcourt.

The rationale behind the turnover rather than maintaining posession was to 'discourage' the score and huck game.  Teams could play that game and flirt with the endzone but there would be a penalty (ie. turnover) if they went too far and caught in the endzone.

I am 100% certain that the tournament and the league played by different rules on this example.

Hello mate!

I like ice cream too mate.  Alligators.  Dingo babies!

Whoops.  I missed the emphasis on the pull rather than scoring a point.

I think that a score on the first throw after the pull would be a point.  Especially since the offender would have had to pass through all the defenders in order to get to the endzone.

So to resolve this, I suggest that we all agree that a "score" off the "huck" is NOT a turnover, and the endzone reciever maintains possession but must check the disc at the front of the endzone. Anyone second this?  

I second that motion.

Jon Hines has weighed in as the new Leagues Director...

Upon much discussion, it was decided that the rules will be as follows:

Following the pull at the start of the game and the start of the second half, the pull can be caught in the endzone and thrown to the opposite endzone for a point.

Following the score of a point, the first throw cannot be caught in the endzone for a point.  If the first throw is caught in the endzone, it is a turnover at that endzone line.

This is the indoor rule that WODS has been following for a number of years.

Default: Footblocks are in unless either captain opposes their use at which point they are out.

Five minute warm-up.  Twenty-five minute first half.  Three minute half time.  Twenty-five minute second half.

Two thirty second time-outs per team (floating).

This is the traditional rule that WODS has had for continuous play, so changing it in the middle of the season wouldn't be appropriate. But I really don't see the necessity of this rule at ComDev.

In a larger field it totally makes sense - otherwise you could just have someone hanging out in the endzone and all you need to do is huck it back to them for a point. But it's such a small field that the only way to take advantage of not having this rule would be to let the other team score (you're clearly not playing defense), quickly pick the disc up, and throw a fast huck, hopefully before the D takes the 3 steps they need to get into a position to defend.

My observation is that after a point, the defense is always immediately ready because a) they don't have to go far to get into position, no matter where their opponent on the field is b) they're subbing on O anyways, so there's no problems with confusion with who's got who on D and c) the amount of space limits the types of high percentage throws that would give this type of offense a chance before a defense sets up.

So what ends up happening with this rule in place is the defense, already being in position, knows you can't throw over them or you risk a turnover, regardless of completing a pass, and it limits the options for the O. If the point of the rule is to limit a 5-on-5 hucking strategy, then I suppose it works to a degree, but if the point of the rule is to allow the defense a fair chance to set up (which I believe was it's original intention), then I think it's not necessary and hinders the game...

I would have thought the original intent of the rule was to prevent one-pass scores throughout the game.  I have played under similar rules in Ottawa on small fields (similar in size to Comdev).  The way I see it is that it makes for more playing time and less down time between points by forcing the disc to be in play longer.

 I don't know if the rule has much of an effect at all at the upper levels as the endzone is such a short target to hit anyways.  Personally, I like the rule as I find it makes playing defence easier making it more of a challenge for the offence to score (the offence already benefiting from the lack of wind  and long stall count present)