Northwest Open Regionals Pseudo Write-Up
Nirvana
definitely a clash of psychological approaches to the game. Furious
knew that their backs were up against the wall for this one, and while
both teams started the game a bit lackadaisical Furious really amped
up the aggression and fire as the game wore on.
Hardly any of the big names that I remember from Furious' championship
teams were playing, and they were relying on guys I had simply never
seen before. I watched Team Canada as they played through Worlds up in
Vancouver, and this team and Furious bore little resemblance. Team
Canada relied heavily on their handlers, above all Derek Alexander, to
get open for quick upfield gains and resets, while Furious at
Regionals often seemed to need bailing out by their downfield cutters
(Nick Menzies was all over the field for them). It was clear to me
that the success of Team Canada was to a large extent a product of
Derek Alexander and John Hassell teaming up with Mike Grant and Mauro
Ortiz.
From the high of Worlds to this bitter Regionals defeat, I hate to say
it but it really felt like this was the end of Furious as we know it.
Andrew Lugsdin couldn't quite seem to will his team to victory. He
wasn't playing nearly as much as I was used to, and Mike Grant and
Kirk Savage blinked at just the wrong times right at the end to turn
the tide towards a Jam victory.
That being said, I really really thought Furious was going to pull
this one out. I have never seen anyone fired up more than Kirk Savage
in this game. Anyone who has seen him play knows that he has the best
voice of anyone, and he was absolutely fucking losing his shit.
The key turning point in this game was a three point Furious run near
the end that had a bunch of ticky-tack calls. Mike Grant was
elucidating to a Jam player on the sidelines how he gets really fired
up to play against defenders that body him up, but that it crosses the
line when defenders attempt to impede his progress using their hands
and arms to not-so-subtlely direct where he cuts. Grant yelled at
Kevin Buchanan several times about what he perceived as awful travel
calls ("He's just pivoting!" / "Why can't you respect any call that's
made on the field?" / "It's because they're stupid calls!") while
Brian Bogle of Jam taunted him repeatedly from the sidelines ("Whiny
whiny Mike! Mike's whining again!"). I can only imagine Bogle is still
upset over being torched repeatedly by Grant during the 2003 Furious/
Condors final, as well as for a few scores in this game.
It was during this three point run that I witnessed possibly one of
the most blatant displays of cheating I have ever seen. Kirk Savage
has the disc on a stoppage of play with Idris Nolan forcing him
forehand. The disc is tapped in and Kirk puts up a forehand huck to
Lugsdin who skies the balls out of two Jam defenders. 2-3 more throws
and it's a score. Except wait! Nolan claims that Savage didn't really
show him the disc to tap it in and therefore the play never really
started. The only problem with this claim is that he started to stall
Savage, which meant that he acknowledged that the play had started. So
Savage flips his shit and starts screaming at everyone, to the pure
delight of the crowd. To everyone's dismay, the observers convene and
decide to send the disc back, which Furious punches in anyway (and
Savage, for about the third different time during the point screams
"They don't want it! They don't want it!").
And honestly, it looked like Jam didn't want it. I guess you could
call this confidence or level-headed cerebral play, but I was shocked
at how disinterested Jam seemed during play and even in timeouts.
Luckily for them however, they have some excellent athletes such as
Bart Watson and Brandon Steets to T-bag defenders after a hospital
pass. They needed every one of these amazing plays to stem the tide of
Furious' momentum. The game ended appropriately on an awful mid-range
universe point throw from Gabe Saunkeah to a laying-out Bart Watson
that caused the Jam players to celebrate with tepid enthusiasm and
Furious to hang their heads like a team that perhaps thought this
might be coming all along.
dar
all. why even bother sharing this info? why not take a shot at zip
or something? that's likely to generate more discussion.
dar
MD
interpretation. I could be wrong . . . let me know if you saw it
differently.
My understanding was that Savage picked up the disc in the end zone,
walked it up to the front, and then threw the huck without first
touching the disc to the ground. Apparently Idris was stalling him
when he threw the huck.
I believe this is technically a travel, based on XIII.B. and XVI.J.
1.d. This got called a lot at Solstice by the Active Observers, so
Savage really should have known better. That being said, however, it
seems very unspirited to me to call that travel when the mark was
clearly set and already stalling. It's one thing if he ran up and used
his momentum to get more distance on the huck, but I don't think that
was the case.
So I'd say it was not cheating, because he was correct according to
the rules, but pretty unspirited nonetheless.
Alex Peters
two things before he can throw, place his pivot foot at the proper
spot on the line, and touch the disc to the ground. Idris is allowed
to start stalling him as soon as he places his foot on the line, and
does not have to wait for him to touch the disc to the ground. Savage
may not have taken a run up to the line for a huck, but not touching
the disc to the ground can certainly make a difference in the
mechanics and timing of the throw.
Nirvana
after an out-of-bounds pull. Regardless of the exact specifics though,
Idris acknowledged that the play was live by stalling to 10 and only
called it back after the huck was completed.
Rich Johnston
As a marker, stalling has little bearing on whether you have
acknowledged that the thrower can make a throw. If someone catches a
pass and their momentum carries them OB, I'll stand there stalling,
and continue to do so as the thrower comes back onto the field. If
they don't tap the disc on the ground as required, I'll still be
stalling, but I'll also call a travel if a throw is made prior to the
disc being tapped on the ground. I have no idea what the actual
circumstances were, but to suggest that a stall count legitimizes any
throw is quite a stretch.
Adam Tarr
> If that's the case then I agree with Idris. Savage is required to do
> two things before he can throw, place his pivot foot at the proper
> spot on the line, and touch the disc to the ground. Idris is allowed
> to start stalling him as soon as he places his foot on the line, and
> does not have to wait for him to touch the disc to the ground.
True. But he's not allowed to tuck the "he didn't tap the disc to the
ground" call into his back pocket. Players must make violation calls
immediately or not at all.
I wasn't there and it's not clear from the story how much time passed
from when Kirk established his pivot and Idris began stalling, until
when Kirk threw the disc. But if it's more than a full second, then
plausible deniability is gone. I can't see how Idris could reasonably
argue that he thought Kirk wasn't planning to throw the disc without
tapping it in at that point. At that point, you've noticed the
violation and you should call it if you're going to call it.
> Savage
> may not have taken a run up to the line for a huck, but not touching
> the disc to the ground can certainly make a difference in the
> mechanics and timing of the throw.
The other reason the rule exists is so that when a thrower is bringing
the disc to a line, the marker knows when the thrower has established
their pivot where he/she thinks it should be. Touching the disc to
the ground means "call travel now, or accept this pivot location as
valid".
Nirvana
was stopped and Savage had a pivot foot. Savage claimed (whether this
is true or not I can't say) that he held the disc out for Idris to tap
it in, at which point Idris started stalling. After the huck was
completed, the score made, and both sidelines agreeing that it was
good, Idris calls it back, at which point Savage went ape-shit.
H
the brick mark, only a ground check.
appleshampoo
pretty sure it was an OOB huck by Jam. If I remember correctly the
play in question occurred on the goal line, not at the brick mark.
Either way it requires a ground check though, so I'm not sure if this
point is relevant.
MD
field) if it were an OB pull.
Seamus
pull by letting them dawdle if they like before checking it.
kdoe
You don't have to tap the disc to the ground if you bring the disc
into play at the spot of the field in which you gained possession.
Rich Johnston
Thats true, but after running out of bounds, the disc "is put into
play at the spot on the perimeter line of the playing field where the
player first went out-of-bounds." (IX.C.1) If you gained possession
while on the perimeter line, however, you'd be out of bounds and it
would have been a turnover.
Additionally,
II.R.2. A disc is live when players are allowed to move and the disc
is subject to a turnover, but the thrower cannot make a legal pass
(e.g., walking the disc to the spot where it is to be put into play).
For a live disc to be put into play, the thrower must establish a
pivot at the appropriate spot on the field, touch the disc to the
ground, and put it into play.
This sounds like exactly what is happening when someone is returning
to the field from OB.
Could be very wrong. Thoughts?
Rich
appleshampoo
walking the disc to the brick after an OOB pull, or he was walking it
to the front of the end zone after an OOB huck. Either way, he's
putting the disc into play somewhere other than where he gained
possession of it, hence it requires a ground check.
Idris
"I'm pretty sure that Idris would not be on the mark (or even on the
field) if it were an OB pull. "
True that. :)
The facts (although this is going to make the story much less
exciting):
-It was a huck to me (our first mistake?) in the end zone that was
long (err.. I was slow), so I ended up defending/marking the
subsequent thrower (Kirk).
-The disc came in at the goal line.
-The disc was never checked (ground or otherwise) before being thrown.
-I called the violation right away... but nobody was listening and
with the disc being caught 45 yards down field and everyone running
towards the end zone... it took a while for them to realize I hadn't
moved off the goal line.
-No observer ever made a ruling on the violation call (because I think
as has been established here... if they had, the disc would have gone
back to Kirk).
-After much screaming by Furious that it was b.s., etc... in my
(lame?) attempt to smooth over what had been a contentious game to
that point, I took back the call. It's true, it was an open side
throw, while I was expecting a check, the reality was it likely would
not have changed my mark.
-The only ruling an observer made was that the disc had to return to
the receiver who made the catch, because over turned/over ruled/taken
back or not, there was a call made prior to the catch.
Sometimes it sucks knowing the rules and playing by them... because as
we all know, sometimes you can look like a douche bag in the eyes of
the spectators.
I suppose they need to add a new preface to the rules... "A call
should be made if and only if it is 100% clear an advantage has been
gained by the violation. If the result of the play shows that... come
on... there really was no extra advantage there, you will labeled an
unspirited cheater." [fyi, this was the basis for much of the
antagonism from FG over some of our calls... if you re-read the quotes
from the original poster, you'll see what I mean]
Anyway... Furious scored 4 passes later.
They scored AND were fired up... I'd say they got the better end of
that one.
Torre
> Sometimes it sucks knowing the rules and playing by them... because as
> we all know, sometimes you can look like a douche bag in the eyes of
> the spectators.
>
Just spectators?
In my experience(which is NOT high level) most opponents think you're
a douche for knowing(and following/enforcing) the rules.
Torre.
danfri...@gmail.com
Absolutely true.
ultimate7
Shocking
> > > throw is quite a stretch.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
rufio
Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
danfri...@gmail.com
> Wait, are you saying a team from Canada doesn't know the rules.
> Shocking
>
The "touch the disc to the ground" rule is new. It's only been part
of club play since 2002.
jacob
"I guess people ... make ... me ... realize ... Furious ... sucks ...
like a douche bag ... I suppose they need to ... be ... labeled
unspirited ... fyi, some of our calls...got the better end."
No wonder people were booing this guy.