1st time this season...

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Yes, at 8:00 on Tue, May 5th at Winona, we heard it called for the first time this year...

"I'm in by that cone!"

:)

And that's not even to talk about the 'check feet' call.

Also at Winona last night:

"You're out"

"It's not your call. It's the catcher's call."

"No, it's the person who has best perspective."

"No, it's whoever catches the disc. It's their call whether they were in or not"

"It's rule 15 E. Best perspective makes the call."

"I don't want to argue. Let's just go back to the thrower."

No one said 'check feet' on this one, but you could tell people wanted to.

I have no problem with "check feet". I am sure there are some purists out there who somehow find it offensive to use the term. However my team and the teams we play all use it frequently and will continue to use "check feet" for the foreseeable future.

"It's rule 15 E. Best perspective makes the call."

Someone actually quoted the rule number/paragraph!? Temple....

Jeremy,

Check the linked thread. Many have argued this topic before, and if nothing in that thread sways you then you're unswayable and there's no point in continuing the argument here.

"It's rule 15 E. Best perspective makes the call."
Someone actually quoted the rule number/paragraph!? Temple....
__________________________________________________________________

It was me. This is my third year playing and I find it odd that people who have been playing for 10 years don't know the rules. Sure they have changed over time, but how hard is it for every person to spend 15 minutes and read the rules before the season starts. I think 75% of the arguments/disagreements on the field could be solved if everyone read the rules. You don't have to buy the book, as it's free on this site. There are still obviously going to be arguments over the interpretation of the rules, but everyone would be on a better platform. The check feet vs calling out, first point of contact vs. one foot in and circumstances regarding a pick arguments would barely show up and the pace of the game would be better.

I was in the discussion on whether it was a strip or not because I was unsure exactly what was considered a catch. By other players quoting rules, it was solved in a few posts, which was nice. I encourage all captains (I am not one) to make sure each of their team members knows the rules and bring a copy of the rules to the games. It doesn't take up much space in your bag

"Someone actually quoted the rule number/paragraph!? Temple...."

Not me. If you disagree with a call, all you'll get from me is a "let's go back to thrower."

I know the rules so well that I never argue them on the field (there's a right place for that
you know, ie the forum). If you see somebody, *anybody*, arguing a call on the field, you
automatically know that they don't really know the rules.

Everybody has to understand that even a wrong call is a valid call.

Of course if you disagree with the interpretation I'll be happy to discuss with you until dusk on
the sideline, but I won't initiate that discussion.

I have discussed with the other teams in my division and we have agreed to invoke the captain's clause to allow "check feet" to be a valid call.

A whole bunch of people agree that Darwin is wrong, too - that doesn't make them right.

I'm glad you can agree to get along, but I still think you're doing the sport, and any players in your division who are going to play anywhere else a disservice.

"I'm glad you can agree to get along, but I still think you're doing the sport, and any players
in your division who are going to play anywhere else a disservice."

Ditto. The next team that doesn't want to recognize the non-call will likely be looked at as
'unspirited' by people that are used to that (when by no remote stretch of imagination is it
unspirited).

It's silly to have a pre-game discussion with the captains to agree that the term "check feet"
be treated like "out". Why not have that discussion with the other team to say:

"Hey, 'out' is a perfectly valid call. If you see anybody out, call it. Nobody will take offense."

Without rehashing the aforementioned thread too much, the real problem with accepting
"check feet" is not when it's shouted instead of "out". Really it shouldn't matter what words
you use, so long as everybody accepts those words.

No the problem with accepting "check feet" is when it's used to mean "I don't know if you're
out, I can't make a call, because I can't see if you're out, could we all stop the game and
check to make sure you're not out?"

Accepting "check feet" is like accepting that there's some arbitrary area near the sideline
where the opposing team can call "Close to OB!" and everybody has to stop to verify.

That's garbage, and doesn't belong in sport.

When you think about it, "check feet" is a call that is more nitpicky with the rules than any
real call in the book.

You're taking a scenario where nobody on the field sees somebody OB, but because somebody
*might* be OB, you stop the game so that the protractors can come out. Talk about being
overly worrisome about the rules.

I ask you: for recreational games, if it's so close that nobody on either team sees that the
play is OB, shouldn't you be perfectly happy with the play standing? Or is it more important
to stop the game every time it's close in order to catch the few times when a players toe
might be touching the line, but the 14 referees (7 of them with vested interest in the OB call)
didn't see it?

We played a game last night where we caught a pass near the sideline. The defender called 'out', the player who caught the pass looked at his feet, was clearly in and continued the play. At the time I thought I was really glad he made a call. He was wrong, but he made a call that he thought was correct and he thought he had best perspective. He didn't ask the guy to check feet and didn't disrupt the flow on purpose.

I think instead of people yelling 'check feet' they should yell out 'I don't know if you're in or out, but I am out of position, so please stop so my team can catch up and catch their breath. While I am yelling, are there any other rules we would like to implement or ignore while we have this discussion?'

RE: "Check-feet"
I mostly see this as the sideline influencing a call. While I support the idea of the sideline "not making the call", I recently saw an example of how the sideline can make a positive influence.

Our team was on O. One of our players called a foul on an a reception attempt. The Defender didn't like the call, thought it was a clean D and was pretty wound up about it. Instead of contesting, he consulted briefly with one of his team-mates who saw the play from the sideline. After the consultation, the defender choose not to contest the foul.

Seemed like a good thing in my opinion. No escalation. No "retaliation" call.

Further sideline involvement:
Sometimes I wonder if teams don't use special signals to alert on-field players of travel calls. For instance, on a big huck that is heading to the end-zone, a marker has nothing to do but wait. Lots of time to check his sideline helper for a "thrower travelled" signal.

What's the ethics of this?

"We played a game last night where we caught a pass near the sideline. The defender called
'out', the player who caught the pass looked at his feet, was clearly in and continued the
play. At the time I thought I was really glad he made a call. He was wrong, but he made a
call that he thought was correct and he thought he had best perspective. He didn't ask the
guy to check feet and didn't disrupt the flow on purpose."

Well, so long as the play did stop, and it was resolved by all that the player was in, kudos! If
he decided unilaterally that he was in and played on, then Boo!, he cheated.

--

"RE: "Check-feet" I mostly see this as the sideline influencing a call. While I support the idea
of the sideline "not making the call", I recently saw an example of how the sideline can make
a positive influence."

Let's be clear, there's nothing theoretically wrong with using the words "check feet". There's
only a problem when you expect that the *other team* needs to do anything at all when you
say this. If you (on or off the field) want to yell "check feet" so that your teammate *on the
field* checks for himself to make sure the disc is IB or OB, deciding based on what he sees
whether to make a call or not, that's fine. Expecting that the other team recognize this call is
cheap ass dirty playing (exaggeration, mildly). In practice, "check feet" is so misunderstood,
that I don't like the idea of using that as a signal. It's almost never used as a signal to your
own team, and should be reserved only for fully tongue-in cheek scenarios where everybody
knows you're joking.

--

"Further sideline involvement: Sometimes I wonder if teams don't use special signals to alert
on-field players of travel calls. For instance, on a big huck that is heading to the end-zone, a
marker has nothing to do but wait. Lots of time to check his sideline helper for a "thrower
travelled" signal.

What's the ethics of this?"

If you *ever* make *any* call when you don't personally notice the infraction (even if the
infraction actually happened), then you're cheating. Period, full stop, end of story.

""Further sideline involvement: Sometimes I wonder if teams don't use special signals to alert on-field players of travel calls. For instance, on a big huck that is heading to the end-zone, a marker has nothing to do but wait. Lots of time to check his sideline helper for a "thrower travelled" signal.

What's the ethics of this?"

If you *ever* make *any* call when you don't personally notice the infraction (even if the infraction actually happened), then you're cheating. Period, full stop, end of story."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Temple. This sounds very contradictory though.

Are you saying that if player A travelled and the sideline noticed that it occured they do not have the right to notify the players on the field.

If I am reading it right, doesn't that just mean that cheating is okay... Just don't get caught by the players on the field?

"Are you saying that if player A travelled and the sideline noticed that it occured they do not
have the right to notify the players on the field."

Sure they do. But if a player then makes the travel call when they didn't see the travel
themselves, then they're cheating.

"If I am reading it right, doesn't that just mean that cheating is okay... Just don't get caught
by the players on the field?"

Cheating is by definition not ok. Making a call that you didn't see for yourself is cheating. It's
the very first rule about violations and fouls, and has equal weight as all the other rules:

XVI.A) An infraction may only be called by a player on the infracted team who recognizes
that it has occurred, unless specified differently elsewhere.

There are 14 referees in ultimate, the players on the field. If none of those referees detect an
infraction (say travel), then there can be no call.

If you somehow think that taints the sport I've got the following thoughts for you to consider:

1. Imagine what the sport would be like if every infraction was called? That is getting close to
an independently officiated sport. Can you imagine if every single travel/foul/fast
count/double team/etc were called? It would be terrible! The game would be no fun. Best is
when only the violations that really matter (ones that give an unfair advantage) are called.
Which brings me to my next point.

2. If nobody on the field noticed a rule was broken, does it really make that much of a
difference if the rule was broken? Whether or not one team gained an unfair advantage, the
other team did not perceive the unfair advantage (even though that other team had a vested
interest in making a call). Well, if both teams are happy that a play is fair, why shouldn't the
play stand? Chances are if an infraction is so small as to be undetected, it didn't matter
anyway.

3. There's a reason that there are some rules that can only be called by some players (fast
count/double team/pick/etc). Generally such rules can only be called by the player that is
infracted. The goal for those rules isn't that every such infraction is called (or they'd let any
of the 14 refs make the call), but that only the ones that are 'of note' to the affected player
are called. Essentially only the subset of all of those infractions that really matter.

Hey Jeremy... and what did you guys agree that the "check feet" call would mean and what is the resolution?

... for the record, on the first practice I ever had before I played my first game, I was told that "check feet" means that I'm already in the end zone and not to throw the disc away... or in other words, "check your feet, you're already in the end zone". I think my first "discussion" (read: argument) was then at my first game when I yelled to "check feet" to another player who I saw had caught it in the end zone, when another person (who wasnt at that practice) then told me that I have no right saying that because the person was in bounds by a mile and a non player isn't supposed to be making that call anyway... imagine my confusion.

Decided right there to read the rules that night and never be caught again no knowing what the 'real' rules are/were.

So last night our team had the check feet debate. Some on our team argued that it is more spiritful to say check feet than to call someone out. They said, by saying check feet, you are saying "in my opinion I think you are out, but I don't want to hurt your feelings by calling you out because it sounds rude, so make the call yourself". Others on our team took my side, where it is rule 15 E, and the person with best perspective makes the call. If you don't have best perspective you stay quiet and if you have best perspective you owe it to yourself, your team and the game to make a call. You can be wrong, but if you have best perspective you are supposed to make the call out if they are out.

I brought up the point, that calling someone out is the same as calling a pick, travel or a foul. You would never hear someone say "Check running line" in order to call a pick or "Check pivot foot" for a travel. You simply call the pick, travel, foul as it applies to the scenario and the rules of the game and everybody moves on. If there is a disagreement, back to the thrower. Can someone who thinks check feet is the right way to play the game, in contravention to the rules, tell me how these are different, without saying, it just is? Also, why is it rude or unspiritful to call someone out? How will this hurt anyone's feelings? You aren't calling them a bad player, attacking their character or making fun of them.

If that person had made the "politeness vs rude" argument to me, I would have said: SOTG has nothing to do with being polite.

It is about playing a good, respectful game that is well-officiated and (hopefully) fun*. Respectful does not necessarily equate to politeness. Fine line, I know.

*Subjective, of course.

"Others on our team took my side, where it is rule 15 E, and the person with best perspective
makes the call. If you don't have best perspective you stay quiet and if you have best
perspective you owe it to yourself, your team and the game to make a call. You can be
wrong, but if you have best perspective you are supposed to make the call out if they are
out."

Squigsy, I agree with you on check feet, but I want to raise a point about "best perspective".
Regardless of who has "Best Perspective", if you see somebody OB (or the disc hit the
ground, etc), you can always call it. I'm not wild about the wording of the "Best Perspective".
The rule adds pretty much nothing of value to the game, but is so commonly misunderstood
that it adds a great deal of problems. Ultimately I'd like to see it removed from the rules, if
not completely restructured.

The correct usage of Best Perspective is when the call is "unclear", ie. nobody can make a
call. In such a case, the player with Best Perspective makes the best call they can, even
though they didn't have a clear opinion. Best Perspective does not apply when there is a
disagreement, because in that case it is clear to two parties, who happen to disagree.

If it's clear to you that a player was out, disc was dropped, etc, then you can always make
the call.