Best perspective

8 posts / 0 new
Last post

Let's say a reception happens near a field line. The receiver and an on-field defender near-by both claim best (though differing) perspective (O: "in", D: "out").

My understanding is this sort of dispute results in a do-over with the disc going back to thrower.

Is there any case when a "benefit of the doubt" would be extended to one of the players in the dispute?

Nope. Do over.

Every call is as valid as every other call (even if the call stinks).

You must have a macro for that response, Temple.

XV.E. and XVI.D. together say that you first try to figure out who had best perspective, and if you can't, you send it back.

That sounds exactly like what happened here.

But for clarity, just because both of them quickly say the opposing call, doesn't in itself send it back. They should first try to quickly confer to see whether either of them had better perspective. Non-agreement there is what sends it back.

Important feature of Mortakai/s post is the word "quickly". You do want to be clear about why
you feel you have best perspective, but even if you're right a do-over after 10s is better than
the "correct" outcome after a 5 minute argument during which half of the players have become
involved to give opposing viewpoints and interpretations and the other half are bored silly and
everyone's frustrated and angry.

Thanks for the clarification.

I started playing ultimate in Calgary two years ago so I actually learned two different ways of dealing with this. The first situation happened when I was defending in the endzone and the offence caught the disc while in the air and landed with both feet at the same time, one foot in and one foot out. I called him out and he said he was in because you only need one foot to be in. I tried explaining that the first point of contact included parts that were out so he is out. Their captain came running over and screamed, "YOU NEED TO LEARN THE RULES. YOU ONLY NEED ONE FOOT IDIOT". On a side note, they were beating us 11-1 at this time. So the correct play in this situation is to run over, scream loudly and let people know you are the captain and are right. The louder you are, the more right you are.

The second situation happened in a very close game. They had a huck and their guy caught it about five feet in front of the endzone, still in play and not in. He gets up, thinks he has scored and spikes the disc. I run and grab the disc and throw it as I see it as a turn over. He asks what is going on, I say he is not in and turned the disc over by throwing it on the ground. He yells "I WAS IN. YOU DON'T GET AN EFFIN SAY BECAUSE IT'S MY CALL AND OUR POINT!" He then grabbed the disc and walked getting ready for the pull. So the correct play here is to swear and just grab the disc. This shows you are right.

So as opposed to finding out who had the best perspective, it is clearly shown that by yelling loudly, swearing and grabbing the disc you can settle all arguments in under ten seconds.

On a serious note, I would challenge all teams to read the rule book once. When I first started playing I heard rules like it's the catcher's call, and you are not allowed to say "you're out" as you have to say "check feet". These aren't actual rules and the book only took me a few minutes to read through. There are still points that can be debated, but by each player taking a few minutes to read the rules, it can save many discussions on the field.

I also want to implement a bylaw where if there is a disagreement you can bet points on who is right. If you think the rule is one thing and they disagree, you can bet two points. You agree to the bet, continue the point as decided on on the field and then during the next break look up the rules on the sideline (with the copy of the latest edition you have brought to the field) and the winner gets the amount of points bet or the loser gets them taken away. It won't happen, but still fun to think about.


Change betting points for beers, and it has been done before, and will be done again.