Since "check feet" isn't a call...

[larrypmac]

Since you aren't supposed to call "check feet" when someone catches the disc near the sideline and you aren't sure whether they are in or out, and you want them to determine before they throw and run away, people are now instructed to make an "out" call, and then let the person with best perspective over-rule.

But doesn't any call, either a violation or foul, except for the new "contact" rule, require a stoppage of play and reset?

In tonight's game, we had an out call. The person with the disc decided that they were in bounds and continued play. Half of the people heard the out call and stopped, while the other half didn't hear, or figured as long as the disc was moving, they kept playing, and three passes later, there was a turnover, with still half of the people standing still and watching.

At that point, the teams decided that they should reset with the disc given back to the girl who caught it near the sideline because everyone had stopped, but there was some discussion that the turnover should stand.

What's the call?

[mkingston]

I am pretty sure the disc needs to go back to the girl near the sideline. If a group of players stopped playing because they heard a call, play should have stopped then and there.

Also I agree with calling "out" and then determining if it was a valid call. "Check Feet" is certainly not a real call. No problem with calling "Out". And then having someone rebut with a "Check Feet".

[lwswong]

I think you got your answer in the previous post, so i'll take the opportunity to discuss the "out" call.

Since you aren't supposed to call "check feet" when someone catches the disc near the sideline and you aren't sure whether they are in or out, and you want them to determine before they throw and run away, people are now instructed to make an "out" call, and then let the person with best perspective over-rule.

I'm not sure it is so cut and dry as one should make an out call instead of "check feet" and then let someone overrule.

The point of "check feet is not a call", is that its already implied that if there is NO call, then the person is in and you should just continue playing.

If you're not sure, it probably means you don't have best perspective, and you should just assume that the person is in (because there has been no call made).

To me, if you don't feel like you might have best perspective, you should NEVER make the out call. You should defer to others who might have better perspective to make that call. And if there isn't anyone to make that call, guess what, they're in.

It's insufficient to me for someone to make a call and halt play "just to make sure". If you're making a call, you need to actually believe it's the right call to make (and that you have the right to make the call - ie. best perspective).

[HotSauce]

Receiver catches disc close to the back of the endzone. He calls himself in. A defender away from the disc says he might be out. It is pointed out that he doesn't have best perspective. Receiver's defender (it is determined he had best perspective) is asked if he thinks he is in or out. He says he doesn't know. Defender away from the disc then says it's contested so it should go back to the thrower. Is it really contested?

[theprdg]

No:

- the receiver calls himself IN based on his perspective
- the receiver's defender determined to have best perspective but doesn't know, no longer has the best perspective
- the defender away was also confirmed to not having the best perspective
- best perspective is with the receiver, therefore it's not REALLY contested

You may still have players (e.g. defender away from the play) contesting it just cause. :\

[guzzwell]

- best perspective is with the receiver, therefore it's not REALLY contested
:\

Wouldn't the receiver be watching the disc and not his/her feet? Can the receiver really have best perspective if he she is not watching the point of contact?

Just stirring the pot, Shawn.

[GregS]

- best perspective is with the receiver, therefore it's not REALLY contested
:\

Wouldn't the receiver be watching the disc and not his/her feet? Can the receiver really have best perspective if he she is not watching the point of contact?

Just stirring the pot, Shawn.

The receiver might not have great perspective, but it could still be best.

[GregS]

I think you got your answer in the previous post, so i'll take the opportunity to discuss the "out" call.

Since you aren't supposed to call "check feet" when someone catches the disc near the sideline and you aren't sure whether they are in or out, and you want them to determine before they throw and run away, people are now instructed to make an "out" call, and then let the person with best perspective over-rule.

I'm not sure it is so cut and dry as one should make an out call instead of "check feet" and then let someone overrule.

The point of "check feet is not a call", is that its already implied that if there is NO call, then the person is in and you should just continue playing.

If you're not sure, it probably means you don't have best perspective, and you should just assume that the person is in (because there has been no call made).

To me, if you don't feel like you might have best perspective, you should NEVER make the out call. You should defer to others who might have better perspective to make that call. And if there isn't anyone to make that call, guess what, they're in.

It's insufficient to me for someone to make a call and halt play "just to make sure". If you're making a call, you need to actually believe it's the right call to make (and that you have the right to make the call - ie. best perspective).

And this is exactly why I think that "check feet" should be codified in the rule book as something that someone who doesn't have good perspective can say, without stopping play, to request that others, who have better perspective but might not have realized that they are close to the sideline, take a look and decide whether to call "out". To me, "check feet" often means "play on, but after you make this throw please double-check that you were actually in, and if you weren't then it comes back as a turnover".

By the way, the much-beloved continuation rule would indicate that if the turnover in the OP's scenario happened on the first throw instead of the third, then it's a legit turnover. And I'm too tired to check right now, so don't quote me on this, but I think it also means that the disc goes back not to the person that was originally called out, but to the person that caught her throw.

[haydizzle]

And this is exactly why I think that "check feet" should be codified in the rule book as something that someone who doesn't have good perspective can say, without stopping play, to request that others, who have better perspective but might not have realized that they are close to the sideline, take a look and decide whether to call "out".


I agree on this, not at all levels, but at certain levels of frisbee there are at least some people afraid or unsure to make the call. Sometimes they need to be asked to make the call.

[lwswong]

And this is exactly why I think that "check feet" should be codified in the rule book as something that someone who doesn't have good perspective can say, without stopping play, to request that others, who have better perspective but might not have realized that they are close to the sideline, take a look and decide whether to call "out".


I agree on this, not at all levels, but at certain levels of frisbee there are at least some people afraid or unsure to make the call. Sometimes they need to be asked to make the call.

I think at this point, "check feet" as some certain negative connotations (and seems to automatically elicit the "its not a call" response and related argument). So in this situation, I'd prefer to use terminology like "are you in?" which is clearly not a call but gets the point across that you want someone with perspective to have a look without necessarily stopping play.

I also think its a good habit anytime you are on the sideline to actively call "in" when you're in, (or the defender to also call "in" when the receiver is in) to eliminate any confusion without having to stop play.

[Crunchy]

That's a terrible idea. Darren's going to purposely throw the disc near the sideline just so he can respond with TWSS.

[blank_1982]

My thoughts...

1. We should assume that others on the field are making calls (such as a receiver catching out of bounds) when they feel they are appropriate.

2. Any in/out call that expects some people to stop (like asking "are you in?") and have a look/discuss a situation should expect everyone to stop, thus make the 'out' call if you believe a call is warranted.

3. As a consequence of 1. if someone catches it and continues to play and I think they were out I should call call them 'out'. This can bring about a discussion where best perspective is determined and the in/out is decided.

4. If I don't believe I have perspective to make a call I should continue to play based upon 1. and assume others will make the calls (or non-calls).

5. Definitely believe calling yourself 'in' is a good idea to avoid confusion.

I think I'm reiterating some of what Lawrence said.

The whole 3 passes, then turnover thing is a pet peeve of mine. I really can't understand why the team that made the in call (whether right or wrong) and then turns it over (after 1 pass or 3 is irrelevant in my mind) should benefit from the other team making a call that they were originally out. If they were actually out, then result=turnover. If they were in and continued play and turned it over, then result=turnover. Why should they benefit from either situation.

[GregS]

4. If I don't believe I have perspective to make a call I should continue to play based upon 1. and assume others will make the calls (or non-calls).

Except for those situations where I have bad perspective but recognize that the receiver is near the sideline, but my fellow defender who has good perspective may not. There are some fields (especially those set up on cricket pitches) where it's not always so obvious where the sideline is if you're not actively looking for it, and stopping a continuation break or establishing a mark is often higher in someone's mind.

[blank_1982]

Greg, my thoughts on the situation you present are: if your fellow defender has good perspective then (s)he should make the call right away, if they were in the best physical position to make the call and didn't because their mind was focused elsewhere (stopping a continuation, etc) then (s)he didn't actually have best perspective.

I think my 'perspective' on this is that we have to assume that our teammates and opponents are making the calls that they believe they are actually capable of making. Following that, if they do not make a call then we should trust they don't have a call to make. Stopping play to ask a teammate if they have a call to make seems unfair.

It is definitely a tough one, because we rely on 'best' perspective and people making calls while simultaneously playing hard (or playing kinda hard). It's what makes rule calling so hard at times, but makes our sport so awesome.

Also, if it is determined to be a turnover... who gets the -$2500 salary, the original thrower, the 'out-of-bounds' receiver or the receiver of the third pass that was dropped/thrown-away?

[lwswong]

Also, if it is determined to be a turnover... who gets the -$2500 salary, the original thrower, the 'out-of-bounds' receiver or the receiver of the third pass that was dropped/thrown-away?

easy. Janssen.

[blank_1982]

Janssen was involved? Then it's definitely her fault. She was definitely out-of-bounds. Janssen is always out-of-bounds.

[lwswong]

Janssen was involved? Then it's definitely her fault. She was definitely out-of-bounds. Janssen is always out-of-bounds.

i don't know if she was involved, but it's definitely her fault.

[mark_tran]

1. My interpretation of the continuation rule reads that if the out call was made by a non-thrower and the thrower is determined to be out(thus affecting play), the disc goes back to the thrower on the sideline regardless of the outcome of the following plays and is then turned over if uncontested. If contested, it's put into play from the thrower on the sideline with a stall count of a contested violation.

In the scenario above, the offense doesn't gain any yardage by playing through the call.


2. If the out call is made but the thrower is then determined to be in(thus not affecting play), play stops but the result of the first throw from the sideline thrower stands.

If I'm reading the rule correctly, there is one weird outcome that is possible where the team on offense calls themselves out after the thrower begins the act of throwing and the pass is then completed... rule says "play on"


Also, following the discussion below with Greg, what if you might not be the player with best perspective but still a good enough perspective to see that a player is definitely out and you make the call seeing that the players with better perspective aren't making the call?

[Mortakai]

For the record, I think that calling "out" when you have absolutely no idea, but think they might be near the line and you wish someone else with a better view (or best perspective) would actually verbalize an "in" or "out" call... is a terrible idea.

What's wrong with yelling, "he may be out, can someone close make that call?" ... even adding a "please" if you're 'that sort of person'.

C'mon folks - please educate every player on your team to make the line call whenever it's caught anywhere near the line. We'll make Observers out of you all, yet.

M

[blank_1982]

The thing I find 'wrong' with yelling 'he may be out, can someone close please make that call?' is that you are essentially making a call. You're asking people to stop and maybe make a call that you yourself cannot determine should be made.

Mark, I think you're looking at the continuation rule for when the team that called the infraction has possession. If the defense makes the call, I don't think the continuation rule applies. I may be wrong on that though.

Following up on Mark's last question... if you have 'good enough' perspective to see that a player is definitely out then you must believe you have 'best perspective' and should make the call. If someone else believes they actually have best perspective and that can be discussed. I don't think that was what Greg was getting at though. Greg seemed to be looking at a situation where you're not sure but you think someone else might be sure. In that case I still believe you need to allow that other person to either make the call or not.

[Mortakai]

1. My interpretation of the continuation rule reads that if the out call was made by a non-thrower and the thrower is determined to be out(thus affecting play), (...)

The Continuation Rule only applies to infraction calls (i.e., violations and fouls), and not in/out or up/down calls. Having said that, though, what WOULD be the infraction, would be the thrower throwing the disc when he was in fact out-of-bounds or throwing it when an in/out dispute (i.e., discussion that automatically stops play) is happening.

(...) what if you might not be the player with best perspective but still a good enough perspective to see that a player is definitely out and you make the call seeing that the players with better perspective aren't making the call?

Then definitely make that "out" call. Let them agree, or open up to discussion, in which case you can figure out who has best perspective, or move to sight up the line while play is stopped. Either way, make that call.

... unless you're 50 yards behind the play, on the other sideline, on an unlined field... in which case...

[GregS]

Greg, my thoughts on the situation you present are: if your fellow defender has good perspective then (s)he should make the call right away, if they were in the best physical position to make the call and didn't because their mind was focused elsewhere (stopping a continuation, etc) then (s)he didn't actually have best perspective.

Every year, I have situations where I'm 80% sure that the receiver is out of bounds, but 95% sure that my teammate hasn't even considered that possibility. The receiver may still be standing right where they caught it (or close enough that the call will be unaffected), so "best perspective" doesn't apply only to the play as it happened, but can be considered at any time by simply looking at where the person is now with respect to the invisible line between the cones. Or there are times where I'm on the sideline and KNOW that the receiver is out, but my teammate doesn't make the call, and after the point someone else that was on the field mentions it but didn't say anything at the time because they weren't sure and "check feet" isn't a call.

I think my 'perspective' on this is that we have to assume that our teammates and opponents are making the calls that they believe they are actually capable of making. Following that, if they do not make a call then we should trust they don't have a call to make. Stopping play to ask a teammate if they have a call to make seems unfair.

Stopping play for this is definitely unfair, which is why I want some commonly-accepted (preferably rules-endorsed) way to ask them in the cases where I know they are capable of doing so but am pretty sure they just didn't realize it was an option. Ideally, it would be short and easy to say (two monosyllabic words come to mind...), and not include the word "out" because that's all that some people would hear, so "he may be out, can someone close make that call?" doesn't work for me.

[HotSauce]

(two monosyllabic words come to mind...)

CHECK LINE!

[larrypmac]

Something important to keep in mind on this call that is different from many other calls. Often the person who catches the disc near the sidelines, turns around and throw it, can judge where they were when they caught the disc at that point in time, long after the fact.

On plays where there's a disc nearly hitting the ground (catch or trap), or contact, or a pick in many cases, you can't figure out after the play has moved.

And many times people near the sidelines on irregular fields don't know when they are out of bounds when they clearly are, and sometimes the defenders don't notice. If somebody on the other side of the field can tell that they are out, or even most likely out, but is the only one aware of it because people who should have best perspective are busy making the next play, there should be something to call out.

In leagues where the sidelines are clearly marked, there is no issue, but most of my games don't have well-marked sidelines, and it seems like we need somebody to check feet sometimes.