View topic - Weird situation from GB

Weird situation from GB

Clarify Ultimate Rules and post other useful Ultimate related stuff!

Weird situation from GB

Postby GregS » Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:43 pm

Here's one that I don't expect to ever come across again, but I thought I'd mention it for discussion.

Situation: A pick was called at about stall 6. Neither the marker nor the thrower heard the call. Stall 10 was reached and the disc called down at about the same time a throw was made. The throw was incomplete.

Question: Whose disc is it, and where on the field? Does the answer change depending on whether the thrower had called fast count or contested the stalled down call?

My take: Because the throw was incomplete, the pick call doesn't factor in, and neither would a fast count or contested down call. Turnover stands where the disc landed.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby GregS » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:39 am

rahil_s wrote:Contested Stall, goes back to 8.

XIV.A.3.b.2 wrote:(referring to a contested stall call) If the pass was incomplete, it is a turnover; play stops and resumes with a check.

So it seems that a contested stall call would not alter the turnover. If it did, I would think that the stall count might in fact go back to whatever it was when the pick happened.

Rahil later realized he was wrong and I was right, and deleted his post to hide the evidence. :lol:
Last edited by GregS on Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Re: Weird situation from GB

Postby GregS » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:42 am

GregS wrote:My take: Because the throw was incomplete, the pick call doesn't factor in, and neither would a fast count or contested down call. Turnover stands where the disc landed.

I just remembered my other initial thought on this, which is that since there was in fact no fast count or contested stall, the turnover should actually happen at the spot on the field where the stall down happened, not where the disc landed.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby GordH » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:02 pm

The easiest way I find to sort through these kinds of situations:

The pick adversely affected the DEFENCE.

The dude with the disc threw it away after what might have been a stall down. Why should he get a second chance?

The disc would be moved to the throwing position if the stall down was not contested, if contested wherever it ended up after the throw.
GordH
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:44 pm

Re: Weird situation from GB

Postby jed » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:14 pm

GregS wrote:
GregS wrote:My take: Because the throw was incomplete, the pick call doesn't factor in, and neither would a fast count or contested down call. Turnover stands where the disc landed.

I just remembered my other initial thought on this, which is that since there was in fact no fast count or contested stall, the turnover should actually happen at the spot on the field where the stall down happened, not where the disc landed.


So this begs a stickier question (or maybe not - that expression confuses me): what if he didn't throw the disc and was simply stalled down? Would it then go back to where the pick happened, or still be a turnover?

Or instead of a stall, the thrower calls a foul at stall 9 which is uncontested. Count back to zero, or back to when the pick happened (6 or lower)?
User avatar
jed
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:36 pm

Re: Weird situation from GB

Postby Big Country » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:17 pm

Jed wrote:So this begs a stickier question (or maybe not - that expression confuses me): what if he didn't throw the disc and was simply stalled down? Would it then go back to where the pick happened, or still be a turnover?


I think it is clear. If the thrower acknowledged the pick and stopped, it would go back to the time of the pick. If the thrower did not acknowledge the pick and played on (continued faking, etc) and got stalled down it is a turnover.

A pick has to be acknowledged and effect the play. Or maybe it is not that clear, I am starting to second guess myself.
User avatar
Big Country
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:17 pm

Re: Weird situation from GB

Postby Peeters » Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:01 am

Jed wrote:
GregS wrote:
GregS wrote:My take: Because the throw was incomplete, the pick call doesn't factor in, and neither would a fast count or contested down call. Turnover stands where the disc landed.

I just remembered my other initial thought on this, which is that since there was in fact no fast count or contested stall, the turnover should actually happen at the spot on the field where the stall down happened, not where the disc landed.


So this begs a stickier question (or maybe not - that expression confuses me): what if he didn't throw the disc and was simply stalled down? Would it then go back to where the pick happened, or still be a turnover?


BC is correct, the rule is actually clear on this, XVI. C. states:

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. For the purpose of the continuation rule, an uncontested stall that occurs after another call is treated the same as an incomplete pass.

Jed wrote:Or instead of a stall, the thrower calls a foul at stall 9 which is uncontested. Count back to zero, or back to when the pick happened (6 or lower)?


This one is more "sticky." I would lean towards the Uncontested Foul standing based upon these:

XVI. C. 2. (For Calls made by a non-thrower). 2. b. (If the team that committed the infraction has possession)

1. If the infraction affected the play (XVI.C.3), play stops and the disc reverts to the thrower unless the specific rule says otherwise.
2. If the infraction did not affect the play, play stops and the result of the play stands.


And...

XVI. C. 3. # An infraction affected the play if an infracted player determines that the outcome of the specific play (from the time of the infraction until play stops) may have been meaningfully different absent the infraction. (For example, if a receiver is fouled and thereby prevented from getting open for a pass, the play was affected; however, if the receiver would not have received a pass even without the foul, the play was not affected.)

I would say that since the pick likely didn't affect the marker hacking the thrower, then the play should stand, uncontested foul. Though the lawyers around here might argue that the foul wouldn't have occurred if the play had been stopped in time.
Peeters
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:45 pm


Return to Ultimate Rules and Tools

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron