In-bounds, not in End-zone

[Mike Nolan]

Last league night I got into a bit of an on-field discussion with
another player. I'm still pretty torn about what should reasonably
happen:

I and the receiver were chasing a disc flying towards the receiver's
attacking end-zone. I was behind the receiver, so I had a very clear
view of his feet as he caught the disc. It appeared quite clearly to
me that he caught the disc two or three paces outside of the end-zone,
and then his momentum carried him into the end-zone. I then positioned
myself at the point on the playing field proper where he crossed the
end-zone line and initiated the stall count. I reached about stall
three or four while he was checking the position of his feet and then
he called "goal." I then told him (probably all-too passionately) that
he had taken about 6 steps before coming to rest in his current
position, and that this meant there was no score. He then stepped back
out of the end-zone and established his pivot foot. All this time (a
few seconds had passed) the other receivers and defenders were running
towards the attacking end-zone. I then continued my stall count where
I had left off (about stall four, if I remember correctly). By this
time the other receivers and defenders had made it to the end-zone.
Play continued until I had reached stall ten. I consequently called
“stalled.”

This is where the real argum --- discussion started. The thrower I was
marking called “fast count”, arguing that I should have dropped the
stall count to zero when he re-established his pivot on the playing
field proper. I have two major issues with this call. Firstly, I don’t
believe I should have dropped the count in the first place. When I
explained to him that he ran into the end-zone there was no contesting
on his part. It wasn’t as if we had actively argued the call and that
we could not come to a conclusion (side note: If that had been the
case, would I have had to restart the count?). More importantly, even
if the count were to have dropped to zero, what about all those
receivers who were given an additional five or six seconds to run
towards the end-zone? Would they have had to retrace their steps to
five or six seconds ago and try to remember where they had been? And,
perhaps most importantly, isn’t it a violation for him to use the time
after I restarted the count at four to look for receivers, only
calling fast count after he had no throwing options? Isn’t that like a
free pass for him? Does he get to wait until he has no options at
stall ten and THEN call fast count?

I know this has turned into a wall of text, but I suppose there are
really two important questions here:

1) When the receiver and defender are arguing an in/out call, does
play stop? Should one of us have screamed down the field to the other
players to hold on while we talked it out? And

2) Was he in the wrong for waiting until stall ten to call the fast
count? Every thing happened at a fast pace, so I’m sure this was
unintentional. I imagine he was concentrating so hard on finding
receivers that he wasn’t aware of my count, or the number of the
count, until I yelled “stalled.”

Anyone have any input into this enigma?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WFDF Rules 2009 Discussion" group.
To post to this group, send an email to wfdf-rules-20...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wfdf-rules-2009-dis...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wfdf-rules-2009-discussion?hl=en-GB.

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

On 22.04.2010, at 07:40, Mike Nolan wrote:

> 1) When the receiver and defender are arguing an in/out call, does
> play stop? Should one of us have screamed down the field to the other
> players to hold on while we talked it out? And

And argument is a freeze, though a proper argument should be initiated by a "contest" or "foul".

> 2) Was he in the wrong for waiting until stall ten to call the fast
> count? Every thing happened at a fast pace, so I’m sure this was
> unintentional. I imagine he was concentrating so hard on finding
> receivers that he wasn’t aware of my count, or the number of the
> count, until I yelled “stalled.”

Yes, he needs to immediately call the fast count. At any rate the new rules state that unless a disc is passed, the defender may stall the attacker at the position of where the attacker went out. That being said, in this case I would expect you to first clearly call that you think the attacker was "not in" or actually "traveling", furthermore the rules state that you need to point to the position where you expect the attacker to position his pivot foot.

If the attacker would have called a contest, indeed the other players would have needed to return to their original positions at the time of when he crossed the line and the stall probably should have gone back to zero (well actually not sure .. I guess the stall would drop according to the normal rules for contested stall) unless the attacker would in the end retract his contest call (in which case everybody would have had to return to their positions and the stall would continue).

In summary:
I think the attacker was wrong. I think by positioning yourself at the line and stalling you made it abundantly clear that you thought the attacker has not scored.

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
m...@pooteeweet.org

[rjhberg]

Hi Mike

Once the player had called Goal it should be a stoppage (see the
interpretations document).You can then determine if it really was a
goal or not.
If not, all players should go back to where they were when the disc
was caught and play would resume with a check. (10.2.1). The stall
count would start at 1

Alternatively, if the defender believes they caught the disc outside
the endzone and they have then run into the goal, they can immediately
call Travel to indicate that the thrower does not have their pivot
established at the correct position. (18.2.6.1) Play does not stop,
however the stall count must be paused until the pivot is established
at the correct position. (18.2.7)

A third alternative could be that the offence is aware that they have
caught it outside the endzone but have run into it, in which case the
defender can start stalling as soon as they are within 3 meters of the
thrower. (14.2, 9.4)

Similarly for an in/out discussion, play should stop as this is deemed
to be a discussion about a contested turnover (13.1.6). If the
turnover call is retracted, players should return to where they were
when the disc was caught, and play will continue with a check.

Regarding the fast count, if this is called because the count started
at the wrong number, this should be called immediately. (15.7)

As with most situations, it is a matter of trying to resume play in a
manner that simulates what would most likely have occurred had their
been no breach.

Hope that helps

Cheers

Rueben Berg
Chair
WFDF Ultimate Rules Committee

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

On 22.04.2010, at 08:12, rjhberg wrote:

> Hi Mike
>
> Once the player had called Goal it should be a stoppage (see the
> interpretations document).You can then determine if it really was a
> goal or not.

Ah ok of course. So yeah since you two did opposing calls, this is an implicit freeze and so play stops.

> If not, all players should go back to where they were when the disc
> was caught and play would resume with a check. (10.2.1). The stall
> count would start at 1

as in "stalling" 1 second pause "1" ..?

> Alternatively, if the defender believes they caught the disc outside
> the endzone and they have then run into the goal, they can immediately
> call Travel to indicate that the thrower does not have their pivot
> established at the correct position. (18.2.6.1) Play does not stop,
> however the stall count must be paused until the pivot is established
> at the correct position. (18.2.7)

oh .. i wasnt aware that the stall is paused. i assumed the same rules would apply as to when a disc is caught in-bounds and carried out of bounds.

18.2.7 especially confuses me because i seem to remember a new rule introduced in 2009 that defines that if you catch in-bounds and run out of bounds that the defender again points to the point where the attacker needs to position his pivot and is allowed to stall. seems kinda weird that stalling is allowed in that case, while in a travel it is not. but i cant find that section in the rules.

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
m...@pooteeweet.org

[rjhberg]

>as in "stalling" 1 second pause "1" ..?

Correct

> you catch in-bounds and run out of bounds that the defender again points to the point where the attacker needs to position his pivot and is allowed to stall

There is no requirement to point, unless it is a travel call.
If it is clear that they have caught it inbounds but have then ended
up out of bounds - ie they have kept their foot in field, leant over
to catch the disc and then fallen over - you can start stalling
straight away.

Rueben