non players, OB discs, and violations

[Steph Wong]

What happens if...

Light throws the disc OB and a Dark player goes to get it. A non
player (the sideline on the dark team) tosses the disc to the player
on the field. Ground check, huck goes up, it gets D'd in the endzone.
A light player is screaming "violation" like his life depended on it
from the middle of the field (says he said it before the throw went
up)
He says that because a non player had aided in retrieving the disc, a
light defensive player had to check it in and by not doing so was a
violation BUT because it was a D, it was a turn over and light is now
again on offense.

Both teams argue and the sideline pours over the rule book for this
situation. Players decide the turnover stands and play carries on,
with light in possession.

My first question is...is there even a rule about non players let
alone about ground check vs a defensive check if a non player aids in
retrieving the disc? (it was only maybe 5 feet out of bounds)
My second would be...in the case of this violation call would the
continuation rule apply or would this 'have affected play' and would
follow calls made by a non thrower (wait for outcome or throw goes
back)
And finally, if the "violation" call isnt even a real call what
happens to all of that in the end?

thanks
S

[Alex Peters]

People love to make up rules. "You have to check the disc after a non-
player aided in retrieving it" is a made up rule.

There was a discussion about whether it is legal to be aided in
retrieving the disc here:

http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules/browse_thread/thread/13886493993688eb/010a2f4a18500ecf?lnk=gst&q=MOVING+DISC#010a2f4a18500ecf

Consensus was that it is legal.

"Fake" violation calls "count" for the purposes of continuation, so
this would be a turnover.

[Alex Peters]

I should clarify, it is a turnover because the thrower in possession
failed to acknowledge a call, subsequently threw a turnover, and it
was not affected by the (non-existant) violation.

[Steph Wong]

I wasnt so concerned about the turnover, we ended up scoring that point and went on to win the game, I was more interested in whether or not such a violation existed. thanks!
Steph

--
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.

[pacemaker]

Maybe we can get some help here.

If the someone calls "violation" before anyone becomes the thrower,
the continuation rule seems null and void. So no turnover(?) if the
(bogus) violation call is made before someone actually possesses the
disc. Sort of like stopping play after a pick was called and the
offense maintained possession.

How does the SRC see this? In the annotated rules, XVI.C says "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."

pacemaker

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

> If the someone calls "violation" before anyone becomes the thrower,
> the continuation rule seems null and void.  So no turnover(?) if the
> (bogus) violation call is made before someone actually possesses the
> disc.  Sort of like stopping play after a pick was called and the
> offense maintained possession.

In concept, sure... if a foul is called while the disc is on the
ground after a turnover and before someone picks it up, play should be
considered stopped at that time, and not need to wait for an offensive
player to take the time to walk to the disc, pick it up and then stop
play. Perhaps the rules are missing the condition of how does play
stop if no-one is yet the thrower, but I suggest that the logic is
still sound and should be understood.

However, in this particular example, there IS a thrower at the time of
the call -- well assuming I'm interpreting the situation correctly in
that the defender is saying that the violation is that the thrower
didn't check the disc in the way they were required to.

> player (the sideline on the dark team) tosses the disc to the player
> on the field. Ground check, huck goes up, it gets D'd in the endzone.

And having said that, let me clarify, that a thrower unilaterally
(i.e., without defensive acknowledgement) touching the disc to the
ground (e.g., after bringing the disc to the line from OB) is NOT a
"ground check", and should neither be thought of as one, nor should it
be called a check. A "ground check" IS when the defense isn't close
enough to touch the disc for the check, and instead the thrower is
allowed to touch the disc to the ground, AFTER the defense says
they're ready.

There are a few things going on in this scenario... and some have been
covered already, but I'll include them again for completeness.

First, the bad call. As discussed already, the rules do not require a
check when a spectator retrieves or helps to retrieve the disc. So a
violation call here is NOT supported by the rules. [Hands up
Observers, if you'd issue a TMF here, or at least strongly consider it
and tell the team so?] However... a call has still been made and
stoppage and continuation (and whatever other) rules still are in
play.

Secondly, continuation. Yes there is a thrower so there shouldn't be
confusion about whether or when play stops when there isn't even a
thrower yet. It sounds like the defender made the violation call when
the disc was in the air...

However... OR are we talking about a violation related to a play
stoppage?

VIII.D.2 states, "If a called infraction occurs while play is stopped,
any subsequent play is negated and players must assume their
appropriate locations under VIII.D.1."

... which means that continuation does NOT apply and the disc is
coming back whether or not the pass was completed or turned.

It sounds to me like the defender is claiming that play was stopped
when the spectator touched the disc and is THE reason why the disc
needed to be checked in before play could restart, and that merely
touching the disc to the ground was not a proper check as required.

IF play was actually stopped, this is a completely solid contention...
if the disc isn't checked in properly, and someone calls that
violation, it's coming back regardless of whether that pass is
completed or turned.

I certainly COULD get into the theoretical argument of whether this
rule really applies or not in this case, because in literal reality it
wasn't stopped, but a player was claiming it did...

... but on the field, I'd rather just suggest rule XVI.D, which
states, in part, "If a dispute arises [...] the disc is returned to
the thrower [...]." Which, interestingly is precisely the same
resolution as if VIII.D.1 was the case.

How would an Observer rule? ... [notwithstanding the potential TMF for
the bad call ?] ... Not a violation (and play was not stopped),
turnover in the EZ stands. Using common sense, it also most represents
exactly what would have happened in the absence of the violation
(call), which IS the over-riding philosophy of our sport, is it not?

... play on.
M

[Jon Bauman]

First off: "Wonged again!"

Secondly: I know certain observers would definitely give a TMF for this, and I think it's totally legit, but I might not be there yet personally. When observers themselves (sorry to out you, Steve) are unsure about the rule, I'm not sure we can hold players to a much higher standard. On the other hand, it's one thing to be unsure about the rule when something is called against you; if you're making a call, you had best be darn sure the rule you're invoking exists.

How would I rule? It doesn't sound like play was stopped before the violation call, so I'd say XVI.C.2.a.2 applies and it's a "play on". There would probable be a stoppage due to the confusion, but the turnover should stand either way.

M

[Steve]

That's not me, Jon.

I wouldn't give a TMF for it, though. I've heard that "rule" stated a
couple times before (more in the sense of etiquette than anything
else), and I agree with it in the sense that I don't believe one
should gain an advantage from having sideline help (I generally wait
when I'm the thrower in that situation). However there is not and
should not be a Rule about it.

On Jul 30, 1:46 pm, Jon Bauman <baum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First off: "Wonged again!"
>
> Secondly: I know certain observers would definitely give a TMF for this, and
> I think it's totally legit, but I might not be there yet personally. When
> observers themselves (sorry to out you, Steve) are unsure about the rule,
> I'm not sure we can hold players to a much higher standard. On the other
> hand, it's one thing to be unsure about the rule when something is called
> against you; if you're making a call, you had best be darn sure the rule
> you're invoking exists.
>

> How would *I* rule? It doesn't sound like play was stopped before the

> violation call, so I'd say XVI.C.2.a.2 applies and it's a "play on". There
> would probable be a stoppage due to the confusion, but the turnover should
> stand either way.
>
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Mark -Mortakai- Moran <
>

> > upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com<upa_11th_edition_rules%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Jon Bauman]

My bad, Steve. I retracted my "Wonged again". I suppose it should be "Wanged again" though.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.