Dealing with non-calls

[Chewbacca]

Here's a weird one. This was at an intermediate level game, so most players knew most of the rules.

I didn't have possession of the disc and the defence called disc down on me. It was clear that I didn't have possession because the disc was half way across the field. Though, I should have registered something was up since the defence was counting while we were moving.

The opposing team argued that I must either call contest or no contest regardless of whether I agree with the call or not. So I called contest and for some bizarre reason I ended up with the disc at stall 8.

The captains argued that I clearly didn't have possession, but then they agreed that I had to make a contest or no contest call and follow the rules after that point.

So how do you deal with non-calls? It doesn't make sense that you can reset the disc at stall 8 anywhere on the field by calling disc down on any player.

[muskokajoe]

I think this is relevant, although not much help.

I had a similar problem with an out call last summer. On the occasion, I was in (insert usual discussion of "well, you're in\out by that cone, but...."), but was only presented with the option to contest. There can concievably be an advantage to making these calls - the well-known (?) example of calling 'travel' to negate the huck when your teammate is clearly beaten in the end zone comes to mind.

I'm fairly comfortable with relying on 'common' sense and spirit, but is there a better option available?

[lwswong]

Not totally clear on what happened here. I am assuming you are saying you NEVER had the disc (vs you had the disc, and it was out of your hands, they kept counting and you were stalled out).

I would say that if the person who made the call realizes it was a total mistake, they can just rescind the call (you can lobby to their teammates etc to convince the person - in this situation it seems like the captains agree it was a bogus call). Given they rescind the call, you dont have to contest or not contest anymore. Disc stays where it is and you play on.

[GregS]

Not totally clear on what happened here.

Me neither. They called delay of game, counted down from 10, and then counted stalls all the way back up to 10? If so, and you were the person picking up the disc, then I guess the best you could do would be "fast count" (more correct than simply "contest"), and you would indeed get the disc at stall 8. You don't need to have possession of the disc to have stalls counted against you.

I would say that if the person who made the call realizes it was a total mistake, they can just rescind the call (you can lobby to their teammates etc to convince the person - in this situation it seems like the captains agree it was a bogus call). Given they rescind the call, you dont have to contest or not contest anymore. Disc stays where it is and you play on.

This is correct, if it applies.

I had a similar problem with an out call last summer. On the occasion, I was in (insert usual discussion of "well, you're in\out by that cone, but...."), but was only presented with the option to contest. There can concievably be an advantage to making these calls - the well-known (?) example of calling 'travel' to negate the huck when your teammate is clearly beaten in the end zone comes to mind.

I'm fairly comfortable with relying on 'common' sense and spirit, but is there a better option available?

Nope, if the other player sticks with their call, contest is your only recourse. When you're the person who made the correct call and somebody else is trying to get it overturned, you'll be glad that there's no other option available to them.

[muskokajoe]

Not totally clear on what happened here.

Me neither.

I think....:
marker calls "stall 8"
handler throws
marker calls "stall 9"
disc flies
marker calls "stall 10"
receiver catches disc?
marker calls "down!"
....right? Chewie?

Nope, if the other player sticks with their call, contest is your only recourse. When you're the person who made the correct call and somebody else is trying to get it overturned, you'll be glad that there's no other option available to them.

Yeah, you're probably right. Thanks.

[GregS]

I think....:
marker calls "stall 8"
handler throws
marker calls "stall 9"
disc flies
marker calls "stall 10"
receiver catches disc?
marker calls "down!"

But...

I didn't have possession of the disc and the defence called disc down on me. It was clear that I didn't have possession because the disc was half way across the field. Though, I should have registered something was up since the defence was counting while we were moving.

So, it sounds to me like the disc was laying the field, and he was going to pick it up to put it into play.

[muskokajoe]

Ah yes, I see the confusion now.

Chewie?

[larrypmac]

Maybe they started calling stalls because no one picked up the disc? That fits in with the description.

Larry

[Mortakai]

Here's how I would have handled it...

I'm assuming they counted through the 10-second pre-stall per XIII.3:

3. If the disc comes to rest on the playing field proper, a member of the team becoming offense must put the disc into play within ten seconds after it comes to rest. After ten seconds elapse, a defensive player within three meters of the disc may announce “disc in,â€￾ and then initiate and continue the stall count, but only if a defensive player has given audible warnings of ten and five seconds (the pre-stall).

"Audible" does not mean "verbal", it means "able to be heard".

Yes, they may have been counting, but this could be anything (unless you SHOULD have known it was the pre-stall warnings) - for example: some teams use numbers to call out plays.

If the now-offense didn't hear the pre-stall warnings, then I'd claim they didn't make an appropriate pre-stall, and so the entire stall count was invalid. And if necessary to get my point across, I would call a "violation" on them for the improper pre-stall, and then it's up to THEM to contest or not.

Either way, I'm not accepting a stall 8, or any stall, for that matter. Next time, they'll make sure the warnings are audible.

Now, however, if someone else on MY team DID hear the warnings, or if we should have known that the counting was the pre-stall but just didn't know the rule, then it's OUR bad, and the entire stall count is valid, and I shouldn't contest it at all... double-turn.

... although I might have asked them what they were counting, if it wasn't obvious to me it was the pre-stall, but I thought it was something I should know about...

[lwswong]

Ah yes, I see the confusion now.

Chewie?

I actually talked to Chewie about this.

Here's what happened:

Chewie has the disc, and the marker initiates a stall count. At around stall 1-2 Chewie throws a pass. The play goes for a few more passes, and chewie is running around the field again. BUT, the marker continues the count seemingly unaware that the disc is out, even though he is chasing chewie around the field. He finishes his "stall count", and calls the play dead.

Play eventually stops and everyone seems to agree that the call was erroneous, but not really sure how to deal with it (I think the marker still may have had some inkling that it wasn't erroneous but probably more confused than anyone else).

In the end, its a call that should have been taken back by the original caller, and play should have resumed with no call. Because the play had been stopped, I presume it would just get restarted with a tap in.

All to say that stupid things happen sometimes.

[GwaiLo]

Ah yes, I see the confusion now.

Chewie?

I actually talked to Chewie about this.

Here's what happened:

Chewie has the disc, and the marker initiates a stall count. At around stall 1-2 Chewie throws a pass...

blah blah blah...

more importantly....was said pass an I/O flick?

[tubs]

OR more importantly... would a bro hug nullify all calls?

[GregS]

At around stall 1-2 Chewie throws a pass. [...] BUT, the marker continues the count seemingly unaware that the disc is out, even though he is chasing chewie around the field. He finishes his "stall count", and calls the play dead.

Wow. Never in a million years would have guessed this. The marker absolutely should have retracted their call, and should in fact have been laughed off the field by his teammates for making it in the first place.

And both captains somehow agreed it would be okay for the disc to go back to Chewie at the original spot, with the stall count coming in at 8? Equally ridiculous. They presumably both signed the "captain's agreement" at the beginning of the season that indicates, among other things, that they have read the rule book.

[Edk001]

I wonder if said person who was the one marking and made this "call" recognizes him/herself in this thread, and can learn from it.

Not the ridicule, but rather, that they made a really bad call.

[tugbo]

I actually talked to Chewie about this.

Here's what happened:

Chewie has the disc, and the marker initiates a stall count. At around stall 1-2 Chewie throws a pass. The play goes for a few more passes, and chewie is running around the field again. BUT, the marker continues the count seemingly unaware that the disc is out, even though he is chasing chewie around the field. He finishes his "stall count", and calls the play dead.

Play eventually stops and everyone seems to agree that the call was erroneous, but not really sure how to deal with it (I think the marker still may have had some inkling that it wasn't erroneous but probably more confused than anyone else).

In the end, its a call that should have been taken back by the original caller, and play should have resumed with no call. Because the play had been stopped, I presume it would just get restarted with a tap in.

If "everyone" who agreed the call was erroneous included the caller then the call should be retracted and play restarted with a check.

XIX.D If a dispute arises on the field, play stops and is restarted with a check when the matter is resolved.

If the caller is still confused about their own call then

XIX.E If a novice player commits an infraction out of sincere ignorance of the rules, it should be common practice to stop play and explain the infraction.

Hopefully that leads to a retracted call.

If the caller insists that Chewie released the disc after the first utterance of the word ten then

contest
disc goes all the way back to Chewie is correct.

[HotSauce]

contest
disc goes all the way back to Chewie is correct.

Are you serious? The marker continued counting after Chewie completed a pass AND was running around the field. There was NO FOUL to contest. If you are running around the field chasing someone, you are NOT counting stalls.

[tugbo]

Are you serious?

I am serious. I think it is important to note that I prefaced this with "If the caller insists that Chewie released the disc after the first utterance of the word ten." This is a mind boggling thing for the caller to insist on.

The caller should be strongly encouraged by both teams to retract their call. Having his own team point out to the caller that he was running after Chewie before the first utterance of the word 'three' should be helpful there. However, if the caller insists on their call and refuses to retract it, then I believe that "contest back to thrower" is the correct way to restart play. I also believe the caller should be made to say "notwithstanding the fact that 13 other players say I was running after Chewie while counting, I maintain that Chewie had not released the disc any time before I reached the word 'ten'"

While this seems an aggregious case, this would not be the first case where most people on the field believe a call was terrible but that a caller refused to back down from his/her call. If the call is not retracted it is treated as any other call. In the 11th edition "it is assumed that no player will intentionally violate the rules" and as such does not take ridiculousness of calls into account.

[GregS]

If you are running around the field chasing someone, you are NOT counting stalls.

Except for the fact that, apparently, he was. Makes you wonder why he never called travel...

[Mortakai]

And both captains somehow agreed it would be okay for the disc to go back to Chewie at the original spot, with the stall count coming in at 8? Equally ridiculous.

Wait, WHAT?!!

That is no way "equally" ridiculous... it's WAY MORE ridiculous.

I'm still howling over here.

[HotSauce]

Are you serious?

I am serious.

Am I missing something here? If the guy kept counting stalls after Chewie made a successful pass (at STALL 2 or 3!!!!) and, presumably, while he was CHASING Chewie around the field. that's just wrong. He's not playing ultimate. He's playing HIS version of ultimate. And in HIS version of ultimate he can call disc down. But in the version of ultimate that the other 13 people on the field were playing (and the version that the rest of the TUC members are playing), there was no call and they should have all played on.

If this makes sense, the next time your opposing team throws for a score, call disc down on whomever you are covering and it would have to go back to him at stall 8. Brilliant!

[HotSauce]

If you are running around the field chasing someone, you are NOT counting stalls.

Except for the fact that, apparently, he was. Makes you wonder why he never called travel...

He was calling out numbers but he was NOT counting stalls.

[tugbo]

Am I missing something here?

I'll try again:

Once play stops and people figure out who made what call the caller should be asked "are you really claiming Chewie had the disc the whole time you were chasing him upfield?"

If the answer is no, then no violation has occurred and "play stops and is restarted with a check" as per XIX.D

If the answer is yes I'd suggest someone on the caller's team should have asked "REALLY!?!?!? Two more passes were completed while you were still counting. You were chasing Chewie down the field for goodness sake. Are you really claiming that Chewie had the disc the whole time you were counting up to ten?"

If the answer is still yes then there is a dispute about the events (not the rules). In that case the correct way to restart play is "contest, back to thrower."

In the more likely case where the caller was just confused and/or was making a call that does not exist, then play would be "restarted with a check" as per XIX.D once the confusion has been sorted out.

To me the lesson here is to avoid blindly contesting before discussing what appears to be a terrible call. When a call seems to be wrong/confused make sure to get the caller to clarify their version of the events. And remember calls can be retracted.

If this makes sense, the next time your opposing team throws for a score, call disc down on whomever you are covering and it would have to go back to him at stall 8. Brilliant!

Intentionally calling a violation you know did not occur is cheating.