Disc Space and Continuation

[JJ Jones]

First - let me say thanks to the USAU Rules Blog page on Disc Space -
http://uparules.blogspot.com/2007/02/marking-violations-disc-space-is-call.html
. Particularly englightening was the use of the "disc space" call
instead of the "foul" call on contact during marking to prevent the
defense from getting an advantage due to stoppage of play.

This question came up concerning the Disc Space rule XIV.B.3 and
Continuation, XVI.C.

Disc Space "is a call". Stated clearly.

Now - if someone is straddling my pivot per rule XIV.B.3 and clarified
in the Rules Blog, for example, can I throw the disc, make the disc-
space call, and per the continuation rule, get the disc back if the
throw is not completed? It seems as though the rules allow for this as
the infraction occurred during the act of throwing. Now granted, the
infraction existed, perhaps, also before the act of throwing - it may
have or it may not have; the marker may have only taken that position
during the act of throwing - but I don't see where either situation
would invalidate invoking the continuation rule. So hence, my question
here and wanting to get clarification on this.

Thanks,
Jeff

[Chris Palmer]

You are required to make all infraction calls immediately. So if you
notice that they are violating the disc space rule before your
throwing motion, but wait to call it until you are in your throwing
motion (thinking that it gives you a "free" throw) then you didn't
call the infraction immediately. Thus your call shouldn't stand and
continuation no longer applies.

Chris

On Oct 4, 10:50 am, JJ Jones <jjo...@jonestc.com> wrote:
> First - let me say thanks to the USAU Rules Blog page on Disc Space -http://uparules.blogspot.com/2007/02/marking-violations-disc-space-is...

[Alex Peters]

So if I come up to you and straddle your pivot at stall 0, and you
don't call disc space right there and then, may I then legally
straddle your pivot for the rest of your possession?

[JJ Jones]

I understand what Chris has said and am Ok with that intepretation -
to not make the call immediately seems to imply intentional cheating.
And I understand Alex's general challenge to his response. But I feel
that both get away from my question so I will re-state in order to
satisfy Chris' condition.

Condition 1:
So - if I throw and recognize that the marker was straddling or
otherwise violating the disc-space rule; and I feel that that
violation affected my throw (e.g. non-incidental); and the pass was
not completed - does the Continuation Rule apply and therefore I would
get the disc back? My assumption is obviously "yes". However, this was
argued loudly by the other team recently - that only physical-contact
fouls apply to the continuation rule.

And now I want to throw Condition 2 to the same question (as this is
the real situation that came up - but I wanted to see the answer to
the simpler condition 1 before painting this picture and getting an
answer - but I will go ahead now):
I recognize a disc-space violation and call it. I was not in the act
of throwing when I made the call. I continue to try to complete a pass
as the violation is not a stoppage of play. The defender either does
not correct the situation and/or does not drop the required 1 second
from the count (thereby not adhering fully to the rule violation). One
second after making the call, I attempt a pass which is not completed.
Does the continuation rule apply? Do I, as the thrower, get the disc
back? It seems to me that the rules support this.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Jeff

[Jon Bauman]

In order to get any redress for marking violation calls, you must retain possession of the disc. The actual language of the rules needs to be clearer on this point, but that was the intent. XIV.B.8 specifies that calling "violation" on a marking violation must occur before the act of throwing. Calling marking violations in any other way never stops play, period.

Jeff

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UPA 11th edition rules" group.
To post to this group, send email to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.

[JJ Jones]

Thank you Jon.

So - to make sure I completely understand you - this says that the
continuation rule does NOT apply on marking violation calls (XIV.B),
e.g. double-team, disc-space, etc.?

I will agree that I really don't get that interpretation from XIV.B.8
at all. And I appreciate you giving us the historical intent of that
one.

And now - back to the Rules Blog on the USAU website (referenced above
and written by Mortakai) wherein it was stated to use the disc-space
call as opposed to a foul when markers are making contact with you as
the thrower, because it gives the thrower the advantage of a couple
seconds in stall count without stopping the play. I will counter that
it takes away the advantage of the continuation rule if the disc-space
violation resulted in negatively affecting your subsequent throw such
that it was not completed.

Let me know if I have any of the above incorrect please.
Jeff

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

With Marking Violations, there's two particular things to remember.

First, "play does not stop" (11th ref: XIV.B.7) on the marking
violation call, and since the continuation rule is purely focused on
how to figure out when play stops and when it should continue, and
since we already know that play 'always' does not stop with the first
marking violation, we don't need to go to the continuation rule. To go
to the continuation rule would actually (often) give a result that's
not the same as what the more specific marking violation rules already
state, which is that play [always] does not stop, and so that's the
right (more specific) resolution. So ignore the continuation rule.

Second, if the marker does not do what is required (stepping back,
dropping the count, etc.) or it's a second marking violation during
the same possession, then the thrower's resolution is to (1) just call
the marking violation again (and so see the 'first' paragraph, above),
or (2) call a violation. In this latter case, the rules specify this
second marking violation (i.e., not doing what is required OR doing
something wrong again) needs to occur before the throwing motion
starts, or you cannot call it. If it IS called as a violation, then
the continuation rules DO apply, and if it's completed, it'll ALWAYS
come back to the thrower, and if incomplete, it's ALWAYS a turnover
(XVI.C.1.a).

M

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

However, if the foul occurs prior to the start of the throwing motion,
a completed pass is going to come back anyway...

And if I'm already into the throwing motion, I may choose to call a
disc space instead of foul so that I don't (negatively) stop play in
case I decide NOT to release the disc, and I think I can still play
through the contact ... OR ... I may choose to call a foul instead of
disc space if I think the foul may affect the throw, and I'm very
likely going to 'pull the trigger', and so that an incomplete throw
will come back to me.

But that's all more detailed strategic thoughts that didn't belong in
the Blog post. There, I was simply giving the players another option
to think about while playing, but leaving it to the players themselves
to figure out when it's to their best strategic advantage to choose
which one.

M

[JJ Jones]

Thanks Mortakai. Really appreciate the rapid/thorough responses from
all.

Jeff

[Colin]

In complete agreement with Mark below.

Just a follow-up on Chris's point. For an infraction that occurs at a
given time, you have to call it immediately - like a travel, a slap on
the hand, a pick, etc. But for continuing illegal behavior (like a
marker hugging you), with every instant that the illegal behavior
continues, you essentially have a new infraction.

So it is true that the thrower could not say, "hey, 'disc space', you
were straddling my pivot four seconds ago," but the thrower could say,
"disc space, you are straddling my pivot right now" and the fact that
the marker was also straddling the pivot four seconds ago is
completely irrelevant.

Same thing for a marker who puts you in a bear hug as you try to pivot
across. If he's still hugging you when you begin the throwing motion,
you can call a foul on the throw, rather than the foul on the pivot.

You are under no obligation to call every infraction that occurs. In
fact, some might argue that it is better not to call every infraction
that occurs. In response to JJ's follow-up, choosing to call some
infractions, but not call others is perfectly legal -- not cheating.

-Colin

On Oct 4, 2:44 pm, Chris Palmer <crisp...@gmail.com> wrote: