Continuation throw after an "out" call

[jam9]

A player on Team A catches the disc at the sideline, and is called out by a player on team B, but before hearing the call the player on Team A turns and throws a pass upfield to a teammate. The disc is dropped.

Team A states that because the call was made before the throw, play was dead and should return to the thrower (who calls himself inbounds).

What's the outcome here?


This happened at regionals today pretty late into an elimination game. The argument lasted a good 5 minutes, and eventually we were out-stubborned. I'd love an official confirmation one way or the other. I believe these are the relevant rules and definitions:


Violation: Any infraction of the rules other than a foul.

Violations and Fouls:

Any time an infraction is called, the continuation rule applies. Continuation Rule: Play stops when the thrower in possession acknowledges that an infraction has been called. If a call is made when the disc is in the air or the thrower is in the act of throwing, or if the thrower fails to acknowledge the call and subsequently attempts a pass, play continues until the outcome of that pass is determined.

XVI.C(cont). Play then either stops or continues according to the following conditions:


XVI.C.2. For calls made by a non-thrower:

XVI.C.2.a. If the team that called the infraction has possession:

XVI.C.2.a.2. If the offense called the infraction after the thrower began the act of throwing or if the defense called the infraction, play continues un-halted. Players should announce "play on."

[oshai]

You've pretty much answered your own question. You quoted the continuation rule, the relevant part of which is "Play stops when the thrower in possession acknowledges that an infraction has been called. If a call is made when the disc is in the air or the thrower is in the act of throwing, or if the thrower fails to acknowledge the call and subsequently attempts a pass, play continues until the outcome of that pass is determined."
If the thrower is inbound, then the turn over stands. If the thrower acknowledges s/he's out of bounds, then there is still a turnover, but the disc goes back to that spot.

[jam9]

That's pretty well what I thought. To follow that up then:

When a team effectively refuses to acknowledge a call, despite a reasonable explanation of the rules - is there any recourse? We wasted a good 5-6 minutes on this one, so is it basically either let them have their way, or stop the game and look at the rulebook for another 5 minutes finding the relevant rules?

[atanarjuat]

The Continuation Rule (XVI.C) doesn't actually cover this case as described, because catching a disc out-of-bounds isn't an infraction. It's a common misconception, but you'll notice for instance that "out-of-bounds" doesn't show up in section XVI, and the disc is never dead after an OB catch.

To get the Continuation Rule involved, you'd have to make a weird call like, "Violation: you're holding my team's disc," or "Violation: you just threw my team's disc." And that's too confusing for me to even consider. This is just a run-of-the-mill catch that happened to be disputed.

So what does take effect is XVI.D (the "dispute rule") which specifically address cases like catches on which no one can agree on best perspective (or perhaps even "good" perspective).

Now, an unresolved dispute, by XVI.D, returns the disc to the thrower -- the thrower prior to the disputed catch.

So there are a three possible outcomes:
(i) Team B relents, concedes the Team A was in-bounds, and takes possession as a result of the latest turnover
(ii) Team A relents, concedes they were out-of-bounds, and Team B takes possession as a result of the OB catch
(iii) Neither Team B nor Team A relents -- disc goes back to the original thrower

Obviously, it is in Team B's interest to relent if Team A is particularly adamant that the catch was in-bounds.

[jam9]

The Continuation Rule (XVI.C) doesn't actually cover this case as described, because catching a disc out-of-bounds isn't an infraction. It's a common misconception, but you'll notice for instance that "out-of-bounds" doesn't show up in section XVI, and the disc is never dead after an OB catch.

To get the Continuation Rule involved, you'd have to make a weird call like, "Violation: you're holding my team's disc," or "Violation: you just threw my team's disc." And that's too confusing for me to even consider. This is just a run-of-the-mill catch that happened to be disputed.

I noticed "out-of-bounds" is not in XVI, which is why I included the definition of a violation below ("any infraction of the rules other than a foul"). I think shouting "out of bounds" is the short way of saying "you're continuing to play a disc that should have been turned over" - ie "you've commited an infraction of the rules".

The rules also state in XVI: Violations and Fouls

An infraction may only be called by a player on the infracted team who recognizes that it has occurred , unless specified differently elsewhere. The player must immediately call "violation" or the name of the specific infraction loudly.

In this case, my understanding would be that calling "out of bounds" is identifying that infraction by name, so there's no need to say "violation".

So what does take effect is XVI.D (the "dispute rule") which specifically address cases like catches on which no one can agree on best perspective (or perhaps even "good" perspective).

Now, an unresolved dispute, by XVI.D, returns the disc to the thrower -- the thrower prior to the disputed catch.

So there are a three possible outcomes:
(i) Team B relents, concedes the Team A was in-bounds, and takes possession as a result of the latest turnover
(ii) Team A relents, concedes they were out-of-bounds, and Team B takes possession as a result of the OB catch
(iii) Neither Team B nor Team A relents -- disc goes back to the original thrower

Obviously, it is in Team B's interest to relent if Team A is particularly adamant that the catch was in-bounds.

In this case, none of the above happened because while we eventually (i) relented on the in-bounds call, they argued that because the call was made before the throw that the disc should go back to the thrower on the sideline. Team A refused to relent on both being out-of-bounds and on the continuation rule, and in the end demanded that the player near the sideline should maintain the disc.

[atanarjuat]

Yes, but I feel that circuitously trying to get the Continuation Rule involved is highly unconventional and confusing.

Because you're not really calling some obscure infraction called "throwing my team's disc." What you're really calling is a "turnover." And a turnover isn't an infraction. "Out-of-bounds" is just something a player with best perspective calls when someone makes a catch while out-of-bounds.

The trouble with going to the Continuation Rule is how crazy the logic gets, because you're arguing that there was a turnover on a catch. If there was a turnover on a catch (or a drop, for a more absurd example), then they are no longer the team in possession, and your team is now the offense . . . but then they threw it . . . when you're saying the thrower who failed to acknowledge the call shouldn't even have been the thrower . . . . It breaks the Continuation flow diagram. It's a analogous to the other team picking up a disc that isn't theirs and throwing it -- it just doesn't work.

Anyway, I recommend treating this like other disputed catches (XVI.D), outside of the Continuation Rule.

[jam9]

Yes, but I feel that circuitously trying to get the Continuation Rule involved is highly unconventional and confusing.

Because you're not really calling some obscure infraction called "throwing my team's disc."

I don't know if it needs to be this complicated, but for what it's worth I'd say that "throwing my teams disc" or "throwing a disc while out-of-bounds" is an infraction (and therefore a violation). It's at the very least a delay of game. The definition of "violation" is intentionally broad, and not every infraction is listed in the rule book. For example, I imagine if someone were to be spit on while throwing, they'd make a call about it, but spitting isn't mentioned in the rules.


Anyways back to it: A team threw a turnover, and tried to use the excuse that because an "out" had been called, they should get the disc back (while simultaneously arguing they weren't actually out).

What if the initial receiver near the sideline had actually been attempting a greatest: He jumps out of bounds, catches a disc and throws it back to the middle of the field where it lands on the grass.

At some point either during his jump or as the disc is floating to the middle of the field, someone on defense calls him out, and claims the player jumped from out of bounds.

Is there any conceivable reason that the disc would return to the player who attempted to throw the greatest? Even if he argued that he had actually dragged his toe and been in bounds the entire time?

[atanarjuat]

It's at the very least a delay of game. The definition of "violation" is intentionally broad, and not every infraction is listed in the rule book.

Despite my best efforts, I think I'm failing to communicate that I completely agree. There is no doubt in my mind that taking the other team's disc and throwing it is an infraction. And any infraction can be called. Some are more useful to call than others.

I'm arguing that the real issue here is the turnover, and calling an infraction on subsequent actions based on the presupposition that it is a turnover is a really awkward way of trying to address it. You can call it, for sure, but it doesn't really help you out. The Continuation Rule was never designed to determine what happens when one team doesn't realize there's a turnover and plays with the other team's disc, especially when that historical point is unsettled.

It's the outcome of the *previous* play that is in dispute, so applying the Continuation Rule to the subsequent one doesn't address that. Imagine, for example, picking the other team's disc off the ground and throwing it. You could arguably apply the Continuation Rule in the exact same way and conclude that play should continue where it lands. But that's crazy.

Your example of the disputed greatest is another example that would go to XVI.D if there was no agreement on which player had "best perspective" or "good perspective." XVI.D somewhat leaves it up to players to determine a satisfactory resolution. In this case, I would say there's undoubtedly a turnover, and it's just a matter of determining where -- the sideline or the middle of the field. I think it makes a lot of sense to use XVI.C as a guideline, but I don't think that XVI.C should technically apply.

Ultimately, XVI.D says that if teams cannot come to a satisfactory resolution, the disc returns to the thrower (the original one, in this particular case). I don't think there's a "good" reason for the disc to return to the player who attempted the greatest.

[oshai]

Somehow, this just seems like such a dick move on epic proportions...
If they were in-bounds, then they threw the disc - turn over.
If they were out-of-bounds, then they were out of bounds - turn over.
In no case would the disc go back to the thrower.