Contesting best perspective

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
G5 By G5
#1

How is a disagreement on best perspective resolved? For example, if one person argues that a point was scored and that he/she had best perspective, and another argues that a point was not yet scored and that he/she had best perspective, what happens? Best perspective debates might also occur for dropped passes or out-of-bounds.

Here are the only two references to "best perspective" in the rulebook. Neither of them seem to really resolve the issue, unless XI. C. should be extended to any situation. That is, if "there is no agreement on the player who had best perspective, and there are opposing view points on the play, the result of the pass stands."

XI. C. If a player scores according to XI.A, but then unknowingly throws another pass, a goal is awarded to that player, regardless of the outcome of the pass. However, if it is unclear if the player scored according to XI.A (i.e., there is no agreement on the player who had best perspective, and there are opposing view points on the play), the result of the pass stands.

XV. E. If it is unclear whether a catch was made before the disc contacted the ground (grass is considered part of the ground), or whether a player’s first point of ground contact after catching the disc was in- or out-of bounds or in or out of the end zone, the player with the best perspective makes the call.

G5 By G5

Also, I assume that the debate on who had the best perspective shouldn't degenerate into a ten-minute discussion, right? A simple "I have best perspective" followed by a "Contest, I have best perspective" should be enough to establish that "there is no agreement on the player who had best perspective".

It's simple.

If you saw a person out or in, or if you saw a disc up or down, you call it. That call is as valid as
any other call can be.

If two people saw the play differently, who's to say who is correct? BTT.

Back to thrower!

10 minutes?!!???!!!!!! Holy crap, that's way too long for any discussion. I hope you're exaggerating and it was rather only 3-5, but that's still WAY too long. I'm also picturing people getting increasingly upset and stressed during the discussion as well... which also really shouldn't happen if people keep their focus on what they should, which is that others simply have equally valid perspectives (their own truth) and that we're not just a bunch of cheatin cheaterheads trying to get whatever advantage that we can.

Yes, generally back to thrower is the right/best resolution (and don't forget that player's reset [and "where" depends on the situation] and the disc needs a check).

The specific rule covering that is XVI.D.:

"XVI.D. If a dispute arises concerning an infraction or the outcome of a play (e.g., a catch where no one had a good perspective), and the teams cannot come to a satisfactory resolution, play stops, and the disc is returned to the thrower and put into play with a check (VIII.D), with the count reached plus one or at six if over five."

HOWEVER, in YOUR example, players SHOULD do something a little differently. Remember that in this example (in EZ vs not quite yet in), it might seem unfair to the offense to send the disc 60m down the field because that's where the thrower was, when our players are discussing whether it's a goal or to take it right there on the line, and not way down at the other end of the field (or any other less desirable field position). The offense should rather recognize that they're MUCH better off to simply accept the defense's "not-in" call and check the disc in at the end zone line.

... and it needs to be that check... even if the discussion is very short. Play has stopped when the discussion starts, so a check is requires. The receiver is NOT allowed to discuss for a few seconds, and the say, "ya, you're right", and quickly throw the disc to someone else for the point. "Um no, you've got to check that in first, violation, no goal and bring that back".

G5 By G5

Thanks Mortakai, good explanation. Yes, the "10 minutes" was an exaggeration (it just felt like 10 minutes).

As much as I love ultimate though, the passive-aggressive arguing that is so ubiquitous really bugs me. Any foul discussion should be, at most, two words long -- those words being "foul" and "contest," if applicable. Unless somebody is citing the rules of course, because I know that not everybody has the rulebook memorized (including myself), and a twenty-second rule citation is valuable for everyone.

But please, just say "contest" or "no contest" and let everyone get on with it. You may be right or you may be wrong, but by the next point, everyone will have forgotten.

Actually, I don't mind a little more discussion just to hear a little more of the other person's perspective.

For example:

(1) Situation: thrower's arm contacts marker's arm and the thrower calls a foul. Marker: "Contest... yes I did hit your arm, but I think you had already released the throw so I don't think it affected your play, so I don't think it's a foul". [either] Thrower: "You know I think you might be right... No Foul!" [or] Thrower: "I think the contact happened before the throw was released"... Marker: "Ya maybe, fair enough, let's just bring the disc back and get going".

It'll still take no longer than 5 or 10 seconds, but I think has a lot more value in that we really understand that we're discussing perspectives and it helps to support that we're not just a bunch of cheatin cheaterheads trying to get away with it because we're able to spout out Contest whenever we hear Foul.

And I'm sure we all (hopefully, anyway) agree that either way is much preferred over the grumbling argument without solution or listening.

My bad, I thought the "not in" was referring to "out of bound".

I'm really happy that this discussion has happened. Too many times people are arguing on the field who has the best perspective. .... however, I have found time and time again that the person who catches the disc tends to say that it is their call and then play on.

Example on Wednesday night: my check jumps up (looking up) to catch the disc. They land in the field but take an extra couple of steps which puts them into the endzone. I call "not in" and they call "yes I am, it's my call"... they then walk off and celebrate the point with their team.

I find that anytime I try to 'contest', other players say that it is the person who caught the disc's call and play on - which I disagree with.

Yes, it can be especially frustrating because, quite often the person who catches the disc has
one of
the *worst* perspectives on the field.

You wonder to yourself: how can people say that they saw both where their foot was and
where the
two cones 180 degrees apart were at the exact moment when they were looking up at the
disc?
Add to that the fact that people who catch a disc on a sprint will often stand where they've
stopped and argue that they're in, without considering the notion that they didn't go from full
speed to zero velocity in no steps.

There are certainly times where the catcher will be able to make a line call, but it's rare. If
I'm
sure of where it was, I'll point out where my ground contact was when I made the catch to
help
with the call, but even that much is sometimes quite hard to be certain about.

You've got to have a laid back attitude towards it though, or you'll just wind up souring the
atmosphere of your games where it happens (where from your perspective it happens). In all
things rule related, you'll play with much more respect and spirit (not to mention have more
fun), if you remember that every call is a valid point of view, nobody's trying to cheat. Even
if that point of view is based on incorrect knowledge of the rules, or seemingly impossible
observation, you have to give the benefit of the doubt that your opponent is not intentionally
cheating, and accept their call as perfectly valid.

When the situations arise, I used to consciously remind myself: "Well, he's wrong, but he
thinks he's right, just like I think I'm right. He thinks that I'm wrong, but that I think I'm
right. We saw it differently, do over." Now, it's second nature and I don't have to think about
it. This kind of mentality makes it surprisingly easy to simply contest or make a counter-call,
and move on without any drama.

Not to blatantly contradict you Temple, but this is the first year where I have seen some people intentionally cheating on some of these calls. Maybe we've just run into a few bad players on some of the other teams. I hope its not a trend.

True, there are some people that will cheat, but regardless of how you act, those people will be
no fun to play against.

Now if you assume in any small part that your opponent is cheating, it will make absolutely no
difference in playing against the cheaters, and will only serve to sour the game needlessly
against the vast,
vast, vast majority of players that aren't cheating.

It's a no brainer.

A call based on inaccurate or incomplete information is NOT a valid point of view IMO.

Part of Ultimate is accepting that you are wrong sometimes, albeit unintentionally.

If we were talking about feelings, then sure, everybody's feelings are valid, but the 'precious snowflake' approach to situations where there are rules only makes things worse.

Nobody likes to be wrong, but letting someone think they were right, or their opinion is valid and worthy of consideration when they've got the facts wrong, is doing everyone a disservice.

The quantum 'cat in a box' nature of foul and contest (where two people with opposite opinions are either both right, or both wrong -- at the same time) is effective in keeping the game going, but it DOES tend to inculcate an attitude that's at odds with reality.

I agree with your live and let contest attitude Temple, but disagree with the 'why' of it. We allow it in our game because the alternative (intentional cheating to bend the rules re: soccer and hockey's embarrassing parade of dives and intentional fouls) is so much worse and we'd prefer to keep refs with an imperfect third p.o.v. out of the equation, but the harsh reality of life is that sometimes we ARE wrong and all the blustery bluster and prevarications in the world won't make a recumbent bike safer in traffic (inside joke for Temple and moi!) and one just ends up looking like an arrogant idiot. Or so I've heard....

Sage words from Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt):

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake; you are the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

Those are definitely some good points, but from my experience, conflicting calls are almost
always a case of where the two people honestly saw it two different ways.

Obviously one of them (or both of them) are wrong. But there's no possible method for
proving what really happened.

What's the solution here?

My point is that when you see somebody make a call that you know to be wrong (because
you're sure you saw it differently), you need to remember that they are just as sure as you.
Remember that they think you're out to lunch to. While with a video replay, your perspective
may be validated, that doesn't make their call any less valid. They called it the way they saw
it, they called it because they were sure.

It's part of being a referee. *All* referees/officials/observers will make bad calls. However a
wrong call is still valid. Absolutely you should look to improve each referee's ability to make
good calls and reduce their frequency of bad calls, but this is something that cannot happen
during play.

The best way I've seen a (possibly mistaken but certainly contested) call on the fields addressed was this way -- to use the relevant section of the rules in a question who has made the call. "So, Mr. X, you are saying that you clearly saw the first point of contact after the catcher gained possession to be outside the line..." If Mr. X says 'yes' then five minutes of talking and re-enacting isn't going to change anything.

Mortakai has made the point before, and Temple is repeating it here. Different perspectives might yield different opinions. If so, do the play over...

Sidestepping the tangent, I'd like to explain XI.C as referenced in the OP. Specifically, that it
does not extent to situations where best perspective is unclear as you may interpret it.

XI.C is specific to scoring. What it says is that if player A catches the disc close to the goal line
such that s/he may be in, but nobody can say for sure, and then makes another pass to Player
B, the pass stands. If a pass to B is complete and in the endzone, it's a goal scored by B. if B is
OB, or the pass is incomplete, it's a TO. If B is clearly outside the EZ, their team is still
attacking. This is because a goal requires certainty, and the change to eliminate the risk of
another pass after scoring only applies if it is clear that A (in the above example) actually
scored.