View topic - Another Best Perspective question

Another Best Perspective question

Clarify Ultimate Rules and post other useful Ultimate related stuff!

Another Best Perspective question

Postby GwaiLo » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:32 am

Offence makes a catch in the area of the front endzone line. Receiver was running towards the endzone while making the catch. Two nearby defenders call "not in" explaining that they saw it as him catching before the endzone and he ran it in after the catch in his slow-down steps. Receiver disagrees and calls himself in. After some discussion, receiver is adamant that since he made the catch, it's his call to make, claiming that he has best perspective since he made the catch.

I have always been of the belief that more often than naught, although the receiver obviously has some perspective, they typically do not have BEST perspective since they are focusing most of their attention on the disc that they are trying to catch. It's pretty difficult to be watching a disc in the air while watching the cones on opposite sides of the field forming an imaginary line at your feet at the same time. So my belief is that usually a nearby player (either on offence OR defence) typically has BEST perspective.

Is there some sort of exception that allows the receiver to claim best perspective and supersede other people's calls on their perspective, over-ruling and claiming the point?

* Just for clarification....this is simply a rules question, just so I know for future situations. I have seen this come up in numerous games and have witnessed a different outcome almost every time. So I want to be sure of the actual rule on perspective and what should be done to resolve it. I don't think you can contest and go back to the thrower since nobody is disputing the catch. I suppose contest and receiver retains possession at the goal line?
User avatar
GwaiLo
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:48 pm

Postby nfpete » Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:06 pm

There is nothing specific to the receiver that grants them best perspective.

In some cases I'd say the receiver has best perspective, lets say a slow "jump into the endzone" catch where they carefully plant a foot in. Some times they have the worst perspective, like a high speed jump while frantically dragging a foot.
nfpete
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 8:07 am

Postby GwaiLo » Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:17 pm

nfpete wrote:There is nothing specific to the receiver that grants them best perspective.

In some cases I'd say the receiver has best perspective, lets say a slow "jump into the endzone" catch where they carefully plant a foot in. Some times they have the worst perspective, like a high speed jump while frantically dragging a foot.


Thanks Pete. So what is the right solution if O and D can't agree? I assume receivers disc on the goal line? Wouldn't make sense to go back to the thrower since the catch is not in question, but rather positioning in relation to the endzone.
User avatar
GwaiLo
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:48 pm

Postby nfpete » Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:25 pm

If nobody wins the argument back to thrower.

Alot of times I notice it comes down to 'who wins the argument' , which I personally don't like, but the way the rules are written I think it's here to stay.
nfpete
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 8:07 am

Postby jlising » Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:29 pm

I think they should both dual to the death! :twisted:

or i guess back to thrower works too...but that's not as fun :roll:
jlising
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:03 pm

Postby GwaiLo » Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:51 pm

nfpete wrote:If nobody wins the argument back to thrower.

Alot of times I notice it comes down to 'who wins the argument' , which I personally don't like, but the way the rules are written I think it's here to stay.


Agreed.....especially in a self-reffed game, there will always be differences in perspective. And it's unfortunate that sometimes it does become "who wins the argument" as you called it. But I agree...that's not something that's going to go away on its own.

I still don't get why it would go back to the thrower though. Because both teams agree that it was a fair catch IN BOUNDS (if it was a dispute about OB or not, then yeah, back to thrower). They just can't agree if it was caught before or after getting into the end zone.

I would think the catch should stand...but since both teams don't agree on in or out of the endzone (within the field proper), I would see possession being taken at the goal line. That way offense retains possession, doesn't get penalized by losing yards (ie: what if it was a huck from one end-zone to the other? Wouldn't seem right to go all the way back when both teams agree that the catch was made).

If we compare it to say a "travel" call (for lack of something better to compare to....not saying this was actually a travel per-say....just looking for a comparison of some sort). Receiver catches disc and changes direction before taking a couple of extra steps. Defense calls travel. Offense disagrees. It wouldn't go back to the thrower. It would go back to the point where the catch was made. Right?

I don't really know....I guess this one's not really as cut and dry as some other calls. It just doesn't seem right to penalize the O and make it go back to the thrower when both teams agree that it was in fact a catch.

hmmmmm
User avatar
GwaiLo
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:48 pm

Postby nfpete » Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:58 pm

Ok, so next time i'll actually read the post :)

You're absolutely right, receiver takes disc on the end zone line.
nfpete
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 8:07 am

Postby GwaiLo » Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:02 pm

nfpete wrote:Ok, so next time i'll actually read the post :)

You're absolutely right, receiver takes disc on the end zone line.


Can somebody read this post for me? :p
User avatar
GwaiLo
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:48 pm

Postby Kirker » Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:11 pm

the throw does not go back to the thrower. that would only happen if the completion of the pass was in question.

here, the pass is clearly completed and the question is whether or not it is a goal. according to the UPA 11th edition (below) - if people can't agree on the issue then the "result of the pass stands". I take this to mean that if those on the field and off the field (in that order) cannot agree, that it is a goal. but, it's a little ambiguous.

in my experience, the result of this call is often subject to the mood of the game. in hotly contested call-fests, the receiver will often insist that their perspective supercedes that of anyone else on or off the field. in more collegial games, players often agree that the most sensible solution is for the receiver to simply take the disc back to the goal line, tap it in, and resume play (this is my preference).

all that said, in ultimate "enforcing the rules" (ie, making calls) is almost always to the advantage of the defense. The spirit of the game dictates that making calls shouldn't be done surreptitiously - but often the defense will use travel calls, pick calls, the erroneous "check feet" call, etc. to their advantage. This might be the one case where the offense can actually use the rules in their favor in an unclear situation.

-Kirk.

Scoring
1. A goal is scored when an in-bounds player catches any legal pass in the end zone of attack, and retains possession of the disc throughout all ground contact related to the catch.
1. To be considered in the end zone after gaining possession of the disc in accordance with II.O.2 and XV.E, the player’s first point of ground contact must be completely in the end zone.
2. When an in-bounds player in possession of the disc whose first ground contact will be completely within the end zone loses possession of the disc due to an uncontested foul, or lands out of the end zone due to an uncontested force-out foul (XVI.H.3.b.4), that player is awarded a goal.

2. If after receiving a pass outside the end zone, a player comes to a stop contacting the end zone, that player must carry the disc back to, and put it into play at, the closest spot on the goal line.

3. If a player scores according to XI.A, but then unknowingly throws another pass, a goal is awarded to that player, regardless of the outcome of the pass. However, if it is unclear if the player scored according to XI.A (i.e., there is no agreement on the player who had best perspective, and there are opposing view points on the play), the result of the pass stands.
Kirker
 
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:15 pm

Postby Mortakai » Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:19 pm

Kirker wrote:here, the pass is clearly completed and the question is whether or not it is a goal. according to the UPA 11th edition (below) - if people can't agree on the issue then the "result of the pass stands". I take this to mean that if those on the field and off the field (in that order) cannot agree, that it is a goal. but, it's a little ambiguous.

- - -

3. If a player scores according to XI.A, but then unknowingly throws another pass, a goal is awarded to that player, regardless of the outcome of the pass. However, if it is unclear if the player scored according to XI.A (i.e., there is no agreement on the player who had best perspective, and there are opposing view points on the play), the result of the pass stands.

Actually, that result of the pass standing in this quoted rule refers to the pass that the receiver "then unknowingly throws"... not the original pass itself.

While I agree with a bunch of us here (and elsewhere) that it doesn't make sense for the whole throw to go back to the original thrower, when all agree the reception was good, it's difficult to make this clear conclusion through the logic in the current wording of the rules.

The closest I can come is to say that if the receiver continues to dispute the location of the catch, by the rules, the disc should go back to the original thrower because of the following 2 rules:

XV.E. If it is unclear whether a catch was made before the disc contacted the ground (grass is considered part of the ground), or whether a player’s first point of ground contact after catching the disc was in- or out-ofbounds or in or out of the end zone, the player with the best perspective makes the call.

... then ...

XVI.D. If a dispute arises concerning an infraction or the outcome of a play (e.g., a catch where no one had a good perspective), and the teams cannot come to a satisfactory resolution, play stops, and the disc is returned to the thrower and put into play with a check (VIII.D), with the count reached plus one or at six if over five.

So, given that, my suggestion is this... either the thrower should agree that the person calling them not in the endzone DOES have best perspective and then take it back to the line, or if not, then "come to a satisfactory resolution", which would be to keep the disc and take it to the line.

Both of which are allowed by the rules, and I think ends up with the common sense solution.

But if the receiver stands to his ground that he's right, and won't budge or move to either of these choices... then just send it back. I'll bet he'll then agree to take it to the line... which IS coming to the satisfactory resolution and so doesn't have to go back.

Or in other words, just do what feels right, and agree to it, and that's just fine ... and is following the rules.
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Postby Mortakai » Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:43 pm

GwaiLo wrote:Is there some sort of exception that allows the receiver to claim best perspective and supersede other people's calls on their perspective, over-ruling and claiming the point?

Nope, no exception at all allowing the receiver to claim best perspective. In fact, they often have one of the worst perspectives; remember they're focusing almost entirely on their hand reaching the disc. Almost every time I've ever looked down at my feet and the line at the moment of the catch, I end up dropping the disc... but then, I'm just amazing that way.

Here's possibly one of the more definitive explanations:
UPA's Standing Rules Committee wrote:In/out (of bounds, or of the endzone), as well as up/down calls should be made by the player with “best perspective.â€￾ Best perspective is defined as: “The most complete view available by a player that includes the relative positions of the disc, ground, players, and line markers involved in a play. On an unlined field, this may require sighting from one field marker to another.â€￾ So in reality, the player with best perspective is sometimes neither the receiver nor the defender, but perhaps another player more removed from the play that can see all the cones.

By the way, that's found here: http://www.upa.org/ultimate/rules/FAQs (search for "best perspective" to find it). Interesting comments about our friend, "check feet" as well in this discussion.
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Postby Edk001 » Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:58 pm

Mortakai wrote:
GwaiLo wrote:Is there some sort of exception that allows the receiver to claim best perspective and supersede other people's calls on their perspective, over-ruling and claiming the point?

Nope, no exception at all allowing the receiver to claim best perspective. In fact, they often have one of the worst perspectives; remember they're focusing almost entirely on their hand reaching the disc. Almost every time I've ever looked down at my feet and the line at the moment of the catch, I end up dropping the disc... but then, I'm just amazing that way.

Here's possibly one of the more definitive explanations:
UPA's Standing Rules Committee wrote:In/out (of bounds, or of the endzone), as well as up/down calls should be made by the player with “best perspective.â€￾ Best perspective is defined as: “The most complete view available by a player that includes the relative positions of the disc, ground, players, and line markers involved in a play. On an unlined field, this may require sighting from one field marker to another.â€￾ So in reality, the player with best perspective is sometimes neither the receiver nor the defender, but perhaps another player more removed from the play that can see all the cones.

By the way, that's found here: http://www.upa.org/ultimate/rules/FAQs (search for "best perspective" to find it). Interesting comments about our friend, "check feet" as well in this discussion.


That's part of the problem. You get some players who catch the disc and have absolutely NO perspective on where they landed, but who become REALLY adamant that they are right in calling themself in, and everyone else is wrong. And of course, if you challenge them by explaining the rules, your team gets docked spirit points. Go figure.
Are you photo worthy? Then lay out for the camera!
Edk001
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:50 am

Postby Jim Lim » Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:08 pm

I'm interested if someone could concretely clarify on what Kirk brought up that was subsequently corrected by Mortekai. This something that is 'new' to me - that if an offensive player catches the disc CLEARLY in the endzone but throws it to another player, thinking he/she was not in, then the point stands no matter if the next player catches it or not. I had always thought that a goal was when the catching player signaled (usually stopping play or celebrating or spiking... hmm, reminds of the time an unmentioned player spiked a disc thinking he was in but wasn't :lol: ) himself/herself being in the endzone, but if he/she continues to play and throws it away, then it is a turnover. From what I read here, it is only a turnover if the first catch was not CLEARLY in the endzone. Sure, usually someone makes another throw when they're close to the goal line, but I've seen times when someone just wasn't thinking and threw it despite being in by a metre or two. Thanks.

Jim
"Love each other or Die"
Morrie Schwartz.
Jim Lim
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 8:29 pm

Postby Big Country » Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:36 pm

Jim Lim wrote:hmm, reminds of the time an unmentioned player spiked a disc thinking he was in but wasn't :lol:


Yeah Tim Edwards!!!! I'll mention him, because it was just too funny!
User avatar
Big Country
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:17 pm

Postby Big Country » Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:38 pm

As to your question Jim. That was the old rule. In one of the new additions, as long as the first person was in, it is a point.
User avatar
Big Country
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:17 pm

Postby Mortakai » Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:00 pm

Big Country wrote:As to your question Jim. That was the old rule. In one of the new additions, as long as the first person was in, it is a point.

Yes, and also the requirement to signal that a point has been scored has been removed.
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

My perspective on perspective

Postby gregorylang » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:23 pm

This is ultimately a MOTHER RULE

1. this is another area in which the rules fall short, and whenever uncertain about how to handle a situation just ask "What would John Harris Do?" his life mantra is to do what seems most fair.

2. I want us to always cede "Best Perspective" to the receiver - if they believe they have it - give it to them, but then I want players to apply Spirit and acknowledge immediately that they don't have best perspective. Putting this authority and responsibility into the receivers hands should result in more honest outcomes more often.

3. if the receiver makes a claim to best perspective and gains advantage, evoke the MOTHER RULE....accept their call but insult their mother and move on.
gregorylang
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:37 am

Postby HotSauce » Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:43 pm

Mortakai wrote:The closest I can come is to say that if the receiver continues to dispute the location of the catch, by the rules, the disc should go back to the original thrower because of the following 2 rules:

XV.E. If it is unclear whether a catch was made before the disc contacted the ground (grass is considered part of the ground), or whether a player’s first point of ground contact after catching the disc was in- or out-ofbounds or in or out of the end zone, the player with the best perspective makes the call.

... then ...

XVI.D. If a dispute arises concerning an infraction or the outcome of a play (e.g., a catch where no one had a good perspective), and the teams cannot come to a satisfactory resolution, play stops, and the disc is returned to the thrower and put into play with a check (VIII.D), with the count reached plus one or at six if over five.


I would argue that the section about being in or out of the end zone would apply to being in or out of bounds of the end zone. It's only logical. That would be an argument between a goal and a turnover and it should go back to the thrower if it can't be resolved. A dispute over in or out of the front of the endzone would be an argument between a goal and retaining possession on the front of the end zone. To penalize the receiving team further by forcing the disc back to the thrower seems wrong to me. So either that rule has to be rewritten to clarify this situation or we just play by the spirit of the game. Or as Greg calls it...the MOTHER RULE.

WORD!
User avatar
HotSauce
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:02 pm

Postby Mortakai » Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:04 pm

HotSauce wrote:To penalize the receiving team further by forcing the disc back to the thrower seems wrong to me. So either that rule has to be rewritten to clarify this situation or we just play by the spirit of the game. Or as Greg calls it...the MOTHER RULE.

Agreed on all counts... and until the rule is re-written, if the receiver simply concedes to the person who called them not in the end zone, that results in exactly what we're all suggesting.

... and also what John Harris would do.
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Postby WiseOne » Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:40 am

Can a player OFF the field be considered to have best perspective?
WiseOne
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:32 pm

Postby Mortakai » Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:24 pm

WiseOne wrote:Can a player OFF the field be considered to have best perspective?

There's no such thing as a player off the field. Players by definition are only the 14 people playing the point (II.N). Other members of the team on the sidelines are not considered to be players for that point.

So, no, because best perspective is defined in the context of the players.

I'd suggest that the only exception to this is that Observers are often given the task of inherently having best perspective in some instances (e.g., line calls). Of course, comments may be made by people on the sidelines, but it's up to the players what to do with those comments... which hopefully is often to ignore them, unless they're actually valid and helpful (e.g., captain or other trusted person). But that's not part of 'best perspective'.
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm


Return to Ultimate Rules and Tools

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron