Obstructed Play?
pacemaker
where the disc is going to land 3-5 yards in the endzone near the
sideline. O1 appropriately pulls up to avoid contact with D1 who was
clearly going to be able to get to the disc before him. In actuality
"D1" was within a few feet of the sideline out of bounds in the
"endzone extended" . He was not one of the seven players on the
field.
The field was lined and had 3m and 5m lines (ok, maybe 1.5m and 3m),
and "D1" was not a "player" at the time but was inside the 1st line
and close enough to the field to appear to be a defender. To be more
clear, "D1" was a member of the team on defense and was wearing a
uniform.
Could O1 have called a violation (obstructed play)?
III.G. If play is obstructed by competitors, coaches, spectators or
objects within five meters of the playing field, any obstructed player
or thrower in possession may call this violation. Play resumes at the
stall count reached plus one, or 9 if over 8.
thanks,
pacemaker
Alex Peters
Craig Temple
> O1 appropriately pulls up to avoid contact with D1 who was
> clearly going to be able to get to the disc before him.
So this 'D1' who was actually a spectator, S1, was a yard from the sideline, and the disc was heading 3-5 yards onto the field. You didn't mention it, but I'm guessing that O1 was on the field? I don't see how O1 was obstructed.
Is it that O1 gave up on the play because he thought a spectator was going to catch the disc?
There's no call for that. There's all kinds of heckles, but no calls.
Craig
> --
> 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.
>
Mark -Mortakai- Moran
Assuming this spectator/non-player didn't pretend to go for the disc,
I can't think of anything solid to point to.
I certainly would challenge O1's reaction to pull up when they were
over 10' away from where the disc would land when the closest
defending player (even this mistakenly identified player) was also
over 10' away from the disc... people trip, the disc could have been
MACed by the defender, all sorts of things, but surely virtually
everyone should be able to get well within 10' of another player and
still be safe about it... and then by the time O1 would have moved
closer, they would have realized that the off-field non-player WAS a
non-player and just been able to continue to the disc.
Obstruction... certainly not.
Trying to blame one's own bad decision (i.e., not to move closer to
the disc, mis-identifying an off-field non-player) on something
else... priceless.
M
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark Fritz
D1 is just outside of the endzone and the disc is floating along the line towards D1. O1 slows down so as not to run into D1 who can (theoretically) catch the disc by standing there. Looks like a poacher. A quick look up to see an unexpected defender and making a decision not to plow into them seems like a good choice.
In a game where D1 is not allowed to roam close to the sideline just outside of the endzone, O1 has an easy play on the disc and cannot misjudge the high speed situation.
Diagram: x = line ob=out of bounds.
D1x
obx
obx
obxxxxxxxxxxxx
obxO1
obx
obx
obx
obx
>
> Trying to blame one's own bad decision (i.e., not to move
> closer to
> the disc, mis-identifying an off-field non-player) on
> something
> else... priceless.
>
> M
Trying to avoid high speed contact with what appears to be a defender...more priceless. There is no doubt that most players who just looked up would think D1 was actually in the game. There was a split second to make a decision. The disc just fell out O1s (non-diving) reach after he slowed down. I was across the field and O1 probably thought my guy was poaching (yet again).
So if this is not "obstruction", is it okay to have players this close to the sideline? (?No!) we even had lines for this.
Craig Temple
Secondly, ultimate players should all be well used to spectators, even in uniform, being a 1 or more yards ("a few feet") from the sideline. Almost always they are closer than this. That the spectating team member in question *was* actually 1 or more yards is actually quite remarkable in this case.
Thirdly, as the Original Poster said, the marked boundary line was 1.5m. Hang on, the player was "a few feet" away from the sideline, and there was a line that was 4.5 feet away? Just how far over this line was this spectator anyway? You really want the disc back because the spectator was a foot over the spectator line?!
Fourthly, there's been nothing presented so far which even remotely suggests that a collision was imminent. Ultimate players are certainly expected to get well within "a few feet" of another player (especially one who is not on the field!) and still avoid a collision.
It sure sounds like dreadful field awareness let to the O1 to giving up the disc that they could have caught.
Once again, heckling is appropriate. There's no call which can make up for that poor awareness.
Craig
Alex Peters
obstruction occurring. Had he been on the field, or even if the O
player was running off the field (which is technically not illegal),
then it might have been obstruction but it doesn't sound like either
of those occurred.
Mark Fritz
This is a rules group and if everyone feels that a (NON) player at a nationals event inside a restraining line is okay by the rules then okay.
ross
The disc was thrown to a point where I could have easily caught it,
right on the sideline. I would probably have had to layout to make
sure my feet stayed in bounds, but it would not have required a huge,
spectacular play to get it.
When I started to set my feet to go for it, I saw D1 right about where
the disk was going to land. He was not 10' out of bounds - he may have
been 1' out of bounds at most, but the way I remember it, he was
standing in a crouch with his toes just outside the field of play. It
looked like he was going to take one step forward and catch the disk,
so I pulled up to avoid contact.
If he had taken a step forward as I expected (which would have put him
on the field of play), and if I had made a play at the disk, I would
have hit him in the knees.
At the time, I was not aware of the obstruction rule, so I didn't even
think about making a call. If I had known there is such a rule, I
would probably have looked at the positioning of D1 again more
carefully before making a decision.
Also, I didn't know this at the time, but right before the play, one
of my teammates (not in play) asked D1 to step back off the sideline,
and he refused.
Mark Moran- were you there? And if so, is my recollection of what
happened really that far off? If you weren't there, I'd ask you to
please back off on the "priceless" dig.
On Jul 16, 1:26 pm, Mark -Mortakai- Moran <mdmora...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
ross
were not quite understood, and the misunderstanding was carried
through the rest of the discussion.
1) ""D1" was within a few feet of the sideline..." means he was _less
than_ 3 feet from the sideline, not that he was right at 3 feet. I had
a better view than Mark (I was O1), and I would say that D1 was just
out of bounds - but very close to the sideline. I remember looking at
his feet and at the sideline in confusion after he did not take a step
forward to catch the disc, at which point I realized that he was out
of bounds and therefore probably not an active player.
2) "the disc is going to land 3-5 yards in the endzone near the
sideline." Was taken to mean that the disc was going to land 3-5 yards
from the sideline (10' in one of the replies). Actually it was going
to land 3-5 yards from the goal line and within 1 yard of the sideline
- about one or two steps away from D1.
3) At no time during this point did I try to blame anyone or anything
else for my lack of field awareness. My reaction at the time was "Oh %$
%$@!!, he was out of bounds. There's nothing I can do about that -
guess I'd better go play D now." Which is pretty much what I said to
the guy that I went and defended. Play continued pretty much right
away, and it was only after the point was over that someone on the
sideline told me that there might be a rule against what D1 had done.
And Mark decided to post to this group to find out if what D1 did was
an infraction or not.
4) When I first saw him, D1 was in a position to take one step forward
(onto the field of play) and catch the disc. I was running directly
toward D1 and in a position to take 2 or 3 more steps and then lay out
for a goal. Admittedly, I did not know exactly where the sideline was,
and so didn't know that D1 was just out of bounds rather than just in
bounds, until after I pulled up. But If he had taken one step forward
and I had laid out for the catch, I would have hit him in the knees.
Craig Temple
But if the spectator had been a player, O1 could have continued at full speed a lot closer to that player and still avoided collision. The situation described (and later diagrammed) is one where the O didn't come close to the individual. There was no description of collision imminent in the play. That's a red herring.
There is an attempt to chalk that pulling up as being done in order to avoiding a collision (which would be obstruction). However, for the scenario described, that sounds absurd to everybody who didn't have a vested interest in the point. Perhaps it was different in real life, but we're talking about what has been put forth here. And that description certainly sounds like the reason for pulling up wasn't to avoid collision, it was because the player thought another player had the disc, and simply gave up.
Even the diagram showed the O1 player been 3 or 4 times further from the Spectator than the Spectator was from the line (which was "a few feet" away). As described so far, I'm visualizing the O being several yards away from this stationary spectator when the O pulled up. That doesn't sound like obstruction to me.
Honestly, I'm having trouble envisioning this scenario where O1 had to avoid collision with a *stationary player*, but didn't even get close enough to try for the disc, and in fact wound up several yards away. I've seen a lot of bids on discs at competitive levels (recreational levels too) that were shoulder-to-shoulder and done quite safely.
Please clarify if there's something more to this situation than has been described thus-far. Perhaps some more detail about what was seen as obstruction (specific timing, spacing, and sight-lines, perhaps).
>
> This is a rules group and if everyone feels that a (NON) player at a nationals event inside a restraining line is okay by the rules then okay.
Yes this is a rules forum, but the rules talk about obstruction. Seeing a stationary substitute a yard or so *off* the field and then being distracted, surprised, mistaken, defeatist, or otherwise *not* obstructed will never fall under the rule cited which requires "obstruction". Just imagine the calls you could make if it were, you'd never have a turnover near the line again!
The rule says that if a person is *obstructed* on the one side of the line, then the person may call a Violation, this didn't occur, thus, no Violation. Had there been obstruction, beyond the line, then there would still have been no Violation. The rule requires *both* obstruction and being on the wrong side of the line. Since the criteria for III.G were not met, any attempt to call Violation wouldn't be supported by the rules (hence the responses you're getting on this rules forum).
So far there seems to be nothing more to this beyond being upset because a player at nationals thought a guy several feet OB was going to catch the disc, and thus didn't even *try* to bid for a catchable disc. It sounds like a mistake was made, own it and learn from it, the rules aren't going to validate it.
Craig
Mark -Mortakai- Moran
near the sideline" as "in the endzone 3-5 yards from the sideline.
That is where I calculated my 10' from. Totally my bad.
In that case, obstruction may be the right call. If the O player could
not make a play on the disc because the person standing at the
sideline was in their way, then an obstgruction call is valid. 11th
ref: III.G.
Back to thrower.
Mark -Mortakai- Moran
post as to who was there and relative positioning. See my other reply
in this thread...
Also wrong for making a bad attempt at a joke, at your expense...
especially since I was wrong in my assumptions.
... one of the reasons I typically don't take that type of tone in my
messages... humble pie is a poor choice of desert.
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Craig Temple
I'm still not sure there's obstruction in this revised scenario.
> 4) When I first saw him, D1 was in a position to take one step forward
> (onto the field of play) and catch the disc. I was running directly
> toward D1 and in a position to take 2 or 3 more steps and then lay out
> for a goal.
It still sounds like you were some 2-3 yards away from the point where you would make a layout which would have brought you close to this spectator, but only if he then moved to a different place.
That's a lot of ifs, I don't see that there was imminent collision, or obstruction. I see potential obstruction, 2 or 3 steps later, but not where you stopped.
It also sounded like there was no risk of collision if he stayed where he was. Thus, where he was, he was not obstructing. If he moved, which he may have, then there may have been obstruction. The go-no-go for avoiding collision seemed to be 2 or 3 steps later, not where you stopped. In this scenario I see a player making a lot of realistic assumptions about the play, and then stopping. However, I don't see a player who stopped in order to avoid an imminent collision.
To tell the truth, I'm still having a bit of trouble with your scenario, Ross, so this may not be the case. You've said that the spectator was no more than 1' OB and that he would have to have moved in order for there to be a potential collision. However, you also said that you would have to have laid out to keep your feet IB. You also said both that you had just started to set your feet for that layout, but also that you were 2-3 steps from the layout. That in itself seems inconsistent to me.
In the scenario where the spectator would have to move for there to be obstruction and you were still 2-3 steps from laying out, I'd say that there's only a *potential* for obstruction, and I can't see a valid call.
In the other scenario you presented, where the player was standing in the way of your layout which you were just about to make, then I'd say that is obstruction, and grounds for a call.
Craig
PS: Completely off-topic: We've now had several rather dissimilar views of the same play by 3 people (who I'm assuming are teammates), keep this in mind next time somebody's making a call that you think 'there is no way they could have seen that, they must be cheating'.
pacemaker
why it showed up that way.
Anyway, I was presenting a sanitized scenario and Dave filled it in
better. My view was from inside the endzone the same depth in the
endzone as where the disc hit the ground about 15-20 yards away. My
thought was "Why the (bleep) did Dave stop short on his bid for the
disc?"
pacemaker
On Jul 16, 3:20 pm, Craig Temple <tem...@hyperdrive.ca> wrote:
> > I can say that had d1 actually been d1 (not s1) and o1 continued at full speed into d1, o1 would be derided for lack of field awareness.
>
disc which is going towards D1. The diagram was a snapshot when the
decision of Dave probably started. D1 stationary and O1 was running
along the line. O1 did not stop immediately.
Dave described it better. Sorry I cannot insert an animated file
including the flight of the disc and player motion. Please assume
that the player in question (O1 aka Dave) felt there was potential for
injury if he played through. Rereading my posts seem to indicate the
situation, but Dave described it better.
pacemaker
Nate
continuation rule, when obstruction is called, non-players are
considered members of the opposing team?
Thanks,
- Nate
On Jul 16, 1:27 pm, Mark -Mortakai- Moran <mdmora...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
ultimate7
time anyone moves
ross
From what's been said, it's clear that if I had pulled up to avoid an
an "imminent collision" then the correct call would have been
obstruction.
However, there was, in fact, no imminent collision, because D1 never
stepped forward, and because I pulled up before getting all that
close.
So, is what D1 did ok within the rules? Part of the problem is that I
thought D1 was an active defender - he was a member of the opposing
team positioned very close to a spot where poach D's are not uncommon
(near the sideline in the end zone as I was making an up-line cut). I
am aware that it is not uncommon for spectators who are members of
both teams to be that close or sometimes even on the field of play a
bit - but usually, if the flow of play comes toward them, they back
up. D1 did not back up. Thinking it through I see four possibilities:
1) Because he was out of bounds, even just a little bit, I should have
known he was not a "player" but a "spectator", and therefore no-call,
was the correct call. This implies that if a defender steps out of
bounds he can not come back in bounds and make a play. I'm not that
familiar with the rules, but I don't think this one sounds right.
2) There is some other call or violation that should have been made
since D1 was within the spectator line in a way that clearly effected
play - though without causing an imminent collision that would be
required for an obstruction call. Back to thrower.
3) There should have been a violation called on D1, but it is the kind
of violation that must be called before the the turnover. This would
be like a double team or disc space violation - in those cases, the
thrower can't turn it over, and then call double team - he has to
recognize the violation before throwing it. If this is the case, who
is responsible for making the call (before the disc is thrown)? Is it
the thrower's responsibility to make a violation call when he sees the
"spectator" just out of bounds near where he wants to throw the disc?
Does the violation call have to be made by one of the players on the
field? Or can one of the players on the sideline make that call since
the violation is being committed by someone on the sideline? And what
continuation rules apply when such a call is made?
4) There was no infraction or violation. What D1 did is perfectly
acceptable within the rules. If this is the case, then it should be a
part of every team's goal line defense to have "spectators" positioned
just out of bounds on the sides of the end zone, and have them move
only to avoid an imminent collision. Somehow I don't think this one is
right either.
Nate
explanatory, but I was confused by Mark's comments.
Suppose I catch the disc in bounds and my momentum carries me out of
bounds. I collide with a spectator or object within 5m of the playing
field, causing me to lose possession of the disc. Are you saying I
can call an obstruction violation and get the disc back?
Thanks,
- Nate