We are having a conversation with a team of GAs and can't really agree on the outcome of a following situation:
A player is going out of bounds, but as some point jumps in, and touches the in-bounds area (only) at the same time as he/she catches the disk.
What is the outcome? In or out?
By my understanding - here there are 3 actions/statuses that happen at the same time - being out, being in, and catching the disk.
Normally - if the player is 'in and out' at the same time - the final status would be out, therefore, there should be a turn over, however - some argue that as the payer is touching the inbounds area as he catches the disk, he should be considered in-bounds as his/her status has changed.
What would be the correct ruling in this situation?
I disagree Ruebs. If you genuinely touched both at the same time I'd argue that was out.
But technically, there is no such thing as simultaneous (as proved by Einstein) so either you touch in bounds before the disc, or you touch the disc before in bounds. And in practice, if it's that close, then there's no way to be sure enough which happened first and no call should be made.
So you're right, it'll be in bounds, but not because of the logic of the rule but because you couldn't possibly know it was out and then benefit of the doubt to the offence.
There is also an option - 'if unsure what happened first - send it back', however, as we were discussing it here with GA's - what if both, defence and offence, SURE that the catch and the in-touch happened at the same time - what then? Send it back too?
I guess that wouldn't be too viable.
i guess for the future reference we'll consider that IN