Thrower acknowledges a call but then throws the disc
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Seth Meyer
Aug 7, 2010, 8:01:44 PM8/7/10
to UPA 11th edition rules
I can't find a rule that relates to this scenario, but maybe someone
can point me to the correct ruling. At a tournament last weekend I
was on the mark and the thrower said "call", pivoted, and then threw
an incomplete pass. It was clear that he thought a call had been made
downfield, but he pivoted and threw anyway.
What is the right resolution in this case? Is the disc dead when he
says "call", or is this similar to the thrower calling a foul before
the throwing motion and then throwing the disc anyway? If he had
completed the pass I was certainly going to call violation, but by the
time I had processed what had occurred the disc was already on the
ground.
In the end no one had actually called anything downfield, so he
decided it should be a turnover but I'd like to know what the actual
ruling should have been.
Thanks!
can point me to the correct ruling. At a tournament last weekend I
was on the mark and the thrower said "call", pivoted, and then threw
an incomplete pass. It was clear that he thought a call had been made
downfield, but he pivoted and threw anyway.
What is the right resolution in this case? Is the disc dead when he
says "call", or is this similar to the thrower calling a foul before
the throwing motion and then throwing the disc anyway? If he had
completed the pass I was certainly going to call violation, but by the
time I had processed what had occurred the disc was already on the
ground.
In the end no one had actually called anything downfield, so he
decided it should be a turnover but I'd like to know what the actual
ruling should have been.
Thanks!
Jon Bauman
Aug 8, 2010, 12:12:09 AM8/8/10
to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com
Once he acknowledged the call (that was not his own) play was dead. Nothing after that would matter either way. It's confusing for him to do that and I hope it was communicated that it was the wrong thing to do.
--
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.
Seth Meyer
Aug 8, 2010, 1:11:39 AM8/8/10
to UPA 11th edition rules
I guess I don't see how this is different from XVI.C.1a (quoted
below). When the thrower calls foul is he not "acknowledging" that an
infraction has been called? Under this reading, I guess I don't see
how XVI.C.1a could EVER apply since he's no longer able to attempt a
pass after saying "foul". There exact language says "play stops when
the thrower in possession acknowledges that an infraction has been
called" but I think it should perhaps have "... by another player" on
the end of it if your reading is the intended one.
Maybe it's not that common a situation since I've only ever seen it
happen once and so it wouldn't need to be codified, but it wouldn't be
a hard rules change for the next update. What do people think?
Seth
XVI.C
Any time an infraction is called, the continuation rule applies.
Continuation Rule: Play stops when the thrower in possession
This refers to the thrower who possesses the disc or has just released
the disc at the time of the infraction/call. Who the thrower (II.T.5)
is determined at the time of the infraction/call.
acknowledges that an infraction has been called. If a call is made
when the disc is in the air or the thrower is in the act of throwing,
or if the thrower fails to acknowledge the call and subsequently
attempts a pass, play continues until the outcome of that pass is
determined. For the purpose of the continuation rule, an uncontested
stall that occurs after another call is treated the same as an
incomplete pass
Thus, if you get stalled before you acknowledge a call, it is treated
the same as if you ignored the call and threw a turnover.
. Play then either stops or continues according to the following
conditions:
1a) For calls made by the thrower:
1. If the infraction occurred before the thrower was in the act of
throwing (II.T.3):
1. If the pass was incomplete, play continues un-halted.
Players should announce "play on."
2. If the pass was complete, play stops and possession
reverts to the thrower.
On Aug 7, 11:12 pm, Jon Bauman <baum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once he acknowledged the call (that was not his own) play was dead. Nothing
> after that would matter either way. It's confusing for him to do that and I
> hope it was communicated that it was the wrong thing to do.
>
> > .
below). When the thrower calls foul is he not "acknowledging" that an
infraction has been called? Under this reading, I guess I don't see
how XVI.C.1a could EVER apply since he's no longer able to attempt a
pass after saying "foul". There exact language says "play stops when
the thrower in possession acknowledges that an infraction has been
called" but I think it should perhaps have "... by another player" on
the end of it if your reading is the intended one.
Maybe it's not that common a situation since I've only ever seen it
happen once and so it wouldn't need to be codified, but it wouldn't be
a hard rules change for the next update. What do people think?
Seth
XVI.C
Any time an infraction is called, the continuation rule applies.
Continuation Rule: Play stops when the thrower in possession
This refers to the thrower who possesses the disc or has just released
the disc at the time of the infraction/call. Who the thrower (II.T.5)
is determined at the time of the infraction/call.
acknowledges that an infraction has been called. If a call is made
when the disc is in the air or the thrower is in the act of throwing,
or if the thrower fails to acknowledge the call and subsequently
attempts a pass, play continues until the outcome of that pass is
determined. For the purpose of the continuation rule, an uncontested
stall that occurs after another call is treated the same as an
incomplete pass
Thus, if you get stalled before you acknowledge a call, it is treated
the same as if you ignored the call and threw a turnover.
. Play then either stops or continues according to the following
conditions:
1a) For calls made by the thrower:
1. If the infraction occurred before the thrower was in the act of
throwing (II.T.3):
1. If the pass was incomplete, play continues un-halted.
Players should announce "play on."
2. If the pass was complete, play stops and possession
reverts to the thrower.
On Aug 7, 11:12 pm, Jon Bauman <baum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once he acknowledged the call (that was not his own) play was dead. Nothing
> after that would matter either way. It's confusing for him to do that and I
> hope it was communicated that it was the wrong thing to do.
>
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Seth Meyer <meyer.a.s...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
> > I can't find a rule that relates to this scenario, but maybe someone
> > can point me to the correct ruling. At a tournament last weekend I
> > was on the mark and the thrower said "call", pivoted, and then threw
> > an incomplete pass. It was clear that he thought a call had been made
> > downfield, but he pivoted and threw anyway.
>
> > What is the right resolution in this case? Is the disc dead when he
> > says "call", or is this similar to the thrower calling a foul before
> > the throwing motion and then throwing the disc anyway? If he had
> > completed the pass I was certainly going to call violation, but by the
> > time I had processed what had occurred the disc was already on the
> > ground.
>
> > In the end no one had actually called anything downfield, so he
> > decided it should be a turnover but I'd like to know what the actual
> > ruling should have been.
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > --
> > 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<upa_11th_edition_rules%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
>
> > I can't find a rule that relates to this scenario, but maybe someone
> > can point me to the correct ruling. At a tournament last weekend I
> > was on the mark and the thrower said "call", pivoted, and then threw
> > an incomplete pass. It was clear that he thought a call had been made
> > downfield, but he pivoted and threw anyway.
>
> > What is the right resolution in this case? Is the disc dead when he
> > says "call", or is this similar to the thrower calling a foul before
> > the throwing motion and then throwing the disc anyway? If he had
> > completed the pass I was certainly going to call violation, but by the
> > time I had processed what had occurred the disc was already on the
> > ground.
>
> > In the end no one had actually called anything downfield, so he
> > decided it should be a turnover but I'd like to know what the actual
> > ruling should have been.
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > --
> > 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
> > .
Jon Bauman
Aug 8, 2010, 4:19:30 AM8/8/10
to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com
The difference is that in this case the thrower verbally acknowledged the call by saying "call". The disc is dead at that point.
When it's the thrower's own call, there's the question of whether it was before the throwing motion or not. The call can't be the acknowledgement since the acknowledgement must follow the call. In practice, XVI.C.1.a almost never comes up. I'm not sure I've ever seen it, but I still think it's the most sensible way for the rule to be written.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.
Nate
Aug 9, 2010, 2:29:55 PM8/9/10
to UPA 11th edition rules
Really? I see it come up at least once per tournament. When a
thrower gets hacked by the mark while pivoting, it's really difficult
for them to process it in time to pull back the throw.
When I explain this rule to people, I describe it as the worst rule in
ultimate. It's really counterintuitive that there would be such a
benefit to markers that foul the thrower while they're pivoting. It's
just one more reason why marking illegally is such an effective
strategy.
Thanks,
- Nate
On Aug 8, 1:19 am, Jon Bauman <baum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The difference is that in this case the thrower verbally acknowledged the
> call by saying "call". The disc is dead at that point.
>
> When it's the thrower's own call, there's the question of whether it was
> before the throwing motion or not. The call can't be the acknowledgement
> since the acknowledgement must follow the call. In practice, XVI.C.1.a
> almost never comes up. I'm not sure I've ever seen it, but I still think
> it's the most sensible way for the rule to be written.
>
> > <upa_11th_edition_rules%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<upa_11th_edition_rul es%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
thrower gets hacked by the mark while pivoting, it's really difficult
for them to process it in time to pull back the throw.
When I explain this rule to people, I describe it as the worst rule in
ultimate. It's really counterintuitive that there would be such a
benefit to markers that foul the thrower while they're pivoting. It's
just one more reason why marking illegally is such an effective
strategy.
Thanks,
- Nate
On Aug 8, 1:19 am, Jon Bauman <baum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The difference is that in this case the thrower verbally acknowledged the
> call by saying "call". The disc is dead at that point.
>
> When it's the thrower's own call, there's the question of whether it was
> before the throwing motion or not. The call can't be the acknowledgement
> since the acknowledgement must follow the call. In practice, XVI.C.1.a
> almost never comes up. I'm not sure I've ever seen it, but I still think
> it's the most sensible way for the rule to be written.
>
>
> > > > .
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > 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<upa_11th_edition_rules% 2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > .
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > 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
Jon Bauman
Aug 9, 2010, 3:02:43 PM8/9/10
to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com
In my experience the thrower who is fouled on the pivot but then throws anyway is usually also fouled during the throwing motion. I can't think of a scenario where I saw a thrower fouled only during the pivot, then lacking the wherewithal to stop, throw anyway. I realize we're getting into somewhat subjective territory here.
I occasionally see throwers trying to get a free throw this way, and in that case, I think the outcome is as designed. In unobserved ultimate, The result is usually a disagreement about the timing of the foul relative to the throw and the disc goes back. However, if the rule were changed so that the disc always went back, it would encourage throwers to always try the throw whenever there was a foul on the pivot. I don't think that's desirable. If throwers are going to call the foul on the pivot (not the throwing motion) they need to do it immediately and not throw.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.
Nate
Aug 9, 2010, 4:11:05 PM8/9/10
to UPA 11th edition rules
Completely agreed that purposeful, free throws shouldn't be allowed.
Also agreed that in unobserved ultimate there's usually disagreement
about the timing of the throw, and it'll go back to the thrower either
way.
The problem is in observed games, where the observer can rule that a
foul occurred and affected the throw, but because it happened a split
second before the thrower's arm started going forward, it's still a
turnover.
Thanks,
- Nate
On Aug 9, 12:02 pm, Jon Bauman <baum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my experience the thrower who is fouled on the pivot but then throws
> anyway is usually also fouled during the throwing motion. I can't think of a
> scenario where I saw a thrower fouled *only* during the pivot, then lacking
> always* went back, it would encourage throwers to always try the throw
> > > > > > upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com<upa_11th_edition_rules% 2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com><upa_11th_edition_rules%
> > 2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > <upa_11th_edition_rules%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<upa_11th_edition_rul es%252Buns...@googlegroups.com><upa_11th_edition_rul
> > es%252Buns...@googlegroups.com<es%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>
Also agreed that in unobserved ultimate there's usually disagreement
about the timing of the throw, and it'll go back to the thrower either
way.
The problem is in observed games, where the observer can rule that a
foul occurred and affected the throw, but because it happened a split
second before the thrower's arm started going forward, it's still a
turnover.
Thanks,
- Nate
On Aug 9, 12:02 pm, Jon Bauman <baum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my experience the thrower who is fouled on the pivot but then throws
> anyway is usually also fouled during the throwing motion. I can't think of a
> the wherewithal to stop, throw anyway. I realize we're getting into somewhat
> subjective territory here.
>
> I occasionally see throwers trying to get a free throw this way, and in that
> case, I think the outcome is as designed. In unobserved ultimate, The result
> is usually a disagreement about the timing of the foul relative to the throw
> and the disc goes back. However, if the rule were changed so that the disc *
> subjective territory here.
>
> I occasionally see throwers trying to get a free throw this way, and in that
> case, I think the outcome is as designed. In unobserved ultimate, The result
> is usually a disagreement about the timing of the foul relative to the throw
> always* went back, it would encourage throwers to always try the throw
> > 2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > <upa_11th_edition_rules%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<upa_11th_edition_rul es%252Buns...@googlegroups.com><upa_11th_edition_rul
> > es%252Buns...@googlegroups.com<es%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.
>
> > > > --
> > > > 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<upa_11th_edition_rules% 2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com><upa_11th_edition_rules%
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.
>
> > > > --
> > > > 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
Jon Bauman
Aug 9, 2010, 4:19:20 PM8/9/10
to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com
If an observer is 90% certain (our standard for making a ruling) that the foul occurred before the throwing motion and didn't continue during the throwing motion, I think that's the right outcome. I can't think of a better event to use as a point of reference. If you haven't started the throwing motion, you should be able to pull up. Plenty of throws are stopped even after the throwing motion has begun.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages