Disagreement on the Pull

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

This happened in my game last night, and it got me wondering.

Person on team A stands on the goal line near the sideline and pulls the disc. It travels OB right from the moment it is released, with a nice bend and it looks like it might come in right on Team B's goal line.

Receiver on team B makes their way to the where the disk is going to land and calls the disk out as it hits the ground. This means the disk goes to the spot it left the sideline, basically at team A's goalline.

The person on Team A who did the pull states "That wasn't out".
Team B, "yeah it was out".
Team A, "it was on the line"
Team B, "okay, it was on the line, which is still out"

The play goes up to Team A's goal line and the game goes on. Everyone is cool like the Fonz.

My questions are?

Can Team B make the call on the in/out of the disc? Best perspective, as that person is right on the sideline, though the length of the field. Team A is within 5 feet of the landing spot.

What if Team A and Team B could not agree on in/out? Do over on the pull?

This is more of a scenario in my head than what actually happened.

I have found that when someone has it in their head that they had the best persepctive, no matter where on the field they were standing, it is next to impossible to convince them otherwise.

If there was an arguement, i would say re-pull.

Whoever has best perspective should decide, but disputes will still arise.

In the event of a dispute, we refer to XVI.D and XIX.D. XVI.D would suggest a re-pull, if you consider the dispute to be over an "outcome of a play." In my mind, though, the outcome of the pull is obvious -- team B takes possession; the only disagreement is over where possession should be established. This is very similar to many turnover scenarios when it's clear that there is a turnover, but it is unclear as to where the disc returns to play.

I would try to get the players to decide on a location to bring the disc into play. Only as a last resort would I suggest a re-pull.

jeebus: "I have found that when someone has it in their head that they had the best persepctive,
no matter where on the field they were standing, it is next to impossible to convince them
otherwise."

Perhaps the problem is that you're trying to convince them of something that matters not in the
slightest? Perhaps they agree that they may not have had "Best Perspective", but that they clearly
saw what they are calling? See below as to why your seeming irritation is groundless and why any
attempt to convince a player who saw the play clearly that their call isn't valid is against the rules
and quite unspirited.

atanarjuat: "Whoever has best perspective should decide, but disputes will still arise."

Absolutely wrong. See below.

--

This is a pervasive myth, and it doesn't help that it keeps getting put forth, especially as an
answer on this forum where complete malarky is impossible to distinguish from the truth. The
myth gives rise to ill-ease during games because people think 'I had better perspective, his call
shouldn't count".

I can't emphasize this enough: NO CALL IS EVER OVERRULED. EVERY CALL IS EQUALLY VALID.

If there are two conflicting viewpoints on the play, it is *absolutely not* up to the person that
had 'best perspective' to decide and overrule the other player.

Best Perspective only ever matters when *nobody* saw the play clearly. Such is not the case
when there are two people who saw the play clearly and are making a call.

--

As to the situation originally described, it sounds like both teams agreed that the disc went out,
stayed out, and landed out. They then put the disc into play correctly (the OB rules for pulls are
the same as regular throws for determining where it went out).

If there is a disagreement about whether or where the disc was OB, then a re-pull would most
definitely be in order.

The do-over is an important concept in ultimate. It's absolutely key to maintaining a fair self-
refereed sport. If you want to introduce some sort of 'compromise' as to where the disc should
go, then that would be like trying to convince the D that the thrower should get the disc half-way
between where the disc was hucked and where it was caught when there's a contested pick.

That's fine, if both teams want to play by this rule-variant, but it's not in the Rules of Ultimate.
One certainly could never expect the other team to agree to such a rule-variant, and especially not
after the incident in question.

Alternative variants are fine if both teams agree (in advance of the incident!), but it's important
(especially on the Rules forum) to carefully identify these non-rules variants. If advice which is
directly counter the rules masquerades as advice on what the rules actually say (especially when
people come to this forum looking for what the rules say!), then a disservice is being performed.

'Best Perspective only ever matters when *nobody* saw the play clearly. Such is not the case when there are two people who saw the play clearly and are making a call. '

My point is that some players feel they saw the outcome of the play clearly every single time, no matter where on the field they are positioned. Those player that feel, for example, that they definitely 100% saw the player catch the disc in, thought they are standing on the far side of the field parallel to the sideline (worst perspective IMO). Even though myself, and several other players (including their own teamates) are telling him/her that they are wrong, we all had a much 'better perspective' on the disc, and the player was clearly out.

Because of the rule that no call is invalid, it always goes back to thrower, so that is where i come up with my statement that it is no use trying to convince some people otherwise....even though it is clear that they are wrong.

Once again, Temple, you've managed to shove words into my mouth and passionately let us all know how wrong you think I would be had I said them.

Regarding the technicalities:

However, the rules generally invoke "best perspective" whenever an outcome is "unclear" (e.g., XV.E, XI.C). You've often interpreted that to mean specifically, "when no one sees it clearly," (as in XVI.D) but I think it's just as easily interpreted in a general sense. Moreover, I would say that when "no one sees it clearly," then XVI.D specifically suggests a do-over, and best perspective no longer matters at all. After all, what's the point in relying on "best perspective" when we all agree that no one even had a "good" one?

Now, I never said that a player gets to invoke "best perspective" to "overrule." If players agree on who has best perspective (as in the above scenario), then it makes sense that this player should "make the call" (XV.E, albeit intended for receptions). But if players don't agree on who has best perspective, and we have multiple players "making the call," then we have the common-sense definition of a dispute. I have never said that disputes are best resolved by trying to overrule each other.

I also hope you're not implying that I recommend a "compromise location" as an outcome to the scenario, because I did not say that either. In my opinion, there are two possible locations at which the disc may be put into play. I would recommend that the players choose between them.

jeebus: "Because of the rule that no call is invalid, it always goes back to thrower, so that is where i
come up with my statement that it is no use trying to convince some people otherwise....even
though it is clear that they are wrong."

And how nice it is that you know objectively when you are right and others are wrong!

Regardless of how you feel, *any* attempt to convince a person that they didn't have "Best
Perspective" in such a case is both groundless within the rules, and unspirited.

You are taking a case where you think they are making a call that they didn't see (cheating) and
trying to coach it in the wrong language of the rules. Best Perspective has nothing to do with it.

Make sure that when you're 'trying to convince a person', you're clear what you're really doing.
You're trying to convince them that they are cheating.

I'm not naïve, sure there's a gradient scale, and there will be times when you can be pretty
confident that a person couldn't see it. However, it's important to note that this behaviour is a case
where you disagree with the person and are (mentally at least) accusing the person of cheating.

That is a slippery slope my friend. If you avoid it altogether, you will enjoy ultimate more.

atanarjuat: "Once again, Temple, you've managed to shove words into my mouth and passionately
let us all know how wrong you think I would be had I said them."

You know, I really didn't. I quoted a sentence you wrote, and I said it was absolutely wrong. I stand
by that. It is absolutely wrong to say that "Whoever has best perspective should decide" when there
are conflicting calls on the play.

I think you think I misunderstood your viewpoint. I didn't, I understand it. It's wrong, my arguments
above and below apply to it.

--

atanarjuat: "Now, I never said that a player gets to invoke "best perspective" to "overrule.""

I never suggested your opinion was that it was unilateral or that who had "best perspective" couldn't
be disputed. You said, in the case where there's two calls, that the player with Best Perspective
should decide (assuming all players agree on who that was). Meaning that if both players agree on
who had best perspective, then one player's view of the play is effectively overruled.

That is what I understood you to write. That is what I responded to above. That is what is absolutely
wrong.

--

atanarjuat: "If players agree on who has best perspective (as in the above scenario), then it makes
sense that this player should "make the call" (XV.E, albeit intended for receptions). But if players
don't agree on who has best perspective, and we have multiple players "making the call," then we
have the common-sense definition of a dispute."

That may "make sense" to you, but it's wrong. If I see the play clearly, and I agree that you had
slightly better perspective than me, the correct resolution is a BTT, not that your call counts more.

Example: I'm a couple feet from the front end zone cone, I see the receiver catch it half a meter
before the end zone, but I see that he lands out. I call OB. You are standing just about at the brick
mark. You can see the brick cone, the end zone cone and where the foot landed. You call IB.

We're both close enough to clearly see where the player landed and I agree that you had better
perspective than me (you could see both cones). In this case, it is unequivocal that you have Best
Perspective.

However, the fact that you have Best Perspective doesn't matter at all. The play was clear to me, I
made the call. The play was clear to you, you made the call. What we have is a dispute over the
call, the disc goes BTT. The play is not IB, because you had slightly better perspective. My call,
nobody's call, is ever flatly overruled.

Your argument is that if I was certain of my view, I couldn't be overruled. Your argument is that if
I'm sure, I should contest that you had better perspective. However that's not supported by the
rules. That would be cheating on my behalf in this case, because I agree you had best perspective
(remembering that this isn't actually the case in the rules).

Thankfully, the rules are clear what the resolution should be in this example: Back To Thrower.

--

atanarjuat: "After all, what's the point in relying on "best perspective" when we all agree that no
one even had a "good" one?"

Now you see why I think the Best Perspective rule should be tossed. It is only ever invoked when
the outcome of the play is "unclear". This is a rule completely separate to when there are two
opposing (each clear) viewpoints of a play.

Quick question, Temple.

Here is a line from XI.C, on which I base some of my understanding of "clear" vs. "unclear," and the importance of best perspective.

"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."

It seems to me from this clause that the outcome of a play is unclear if two conditions are met:
i) there is no agreement on the player who had best perspective, and
ii) there are opposing viewpoints on the play

Doesn't this mean that the outcome of the play is clear if there is agreement on the player with best perspective (even in spite of conflicting viewpoints)?

What if the player who calls OB agrees the other player had a better
perspective and goes "You know what, you probably better look than I
did. I retract my call."

Is that frowned upon in Ultimate? Should the player who calls OB stick by
their call even after they realize someone else probably had a better look
than they did? This is assuming at the time of their call, they were sure
of what they saw (that the player looked OB) but later realize there's
another player who can see both cones.

'However, it's important to note that this behaviour is a case
where you disagree with the person and are (mentally at least) accusing the person of cheating. '

I wouldn't say I am accusing the person of cheating. I think there are some people out there that truly believe that they can see every play clearly, even when all evidence points to the contrary, where cheating would be seeing the play one way and calling it another. In a game like ultimate, there is pretty much nothing you can do about these type of players. You try try to tell them what you (and everyone else who saw the play) thinks, but most times it is useless.

I wouldn't call it cheating. I would call it cheap/un-sportman maybe, to not take the word of majority of other people and admit to yourself that you could be wrong, but not cheating.

and FYI, displite this, i do have fun playing ultimate, because in the division I happen to play in (div.4), although there are player like this, they are definitely the minority.

atanarjuat: "Here is a line from XI.C, on which I base some of my understanding of "clear" vs.
"unclear," and the importance of best perspective."

I admit that does imply that your interpretation of the Best Perspective rule is correct, and that
mine is not.

That line adds into "unclear" more than what is present in the word itself, even as it is used
throughout the rest of the rules. This isn't uncommon in the rules, but we have to make sure
it's intentional.

My thoughts on this:

First, the language of XI.C was introduced with the 11th edition update, whereas the Best
Perspective rule is much older. As a result, this may be an unintended consequence to the
language of XI.C.

Second, we should definitely seek further clarification from the SRC, so that we know which
interpretation is correct. I'm going to follow up and post back with more information. Until then
this issue is TBD.

--

sansera: "What if the player who calls OB agrees the other player had a better
perspective and goes "You know what, you probably better look than I
did. I retract my call."

Is that frowned upon in Ultimate? Should the player who calls OB stick by
their call even after they realize someone else probably had a better look
than they did? This is assuming at the time of their call, they were sure
of what they saw (that the player looked OB) but later realize there's
another player who can see both cones."

Certainly not frowned upon. It's what you should do! Though there's a big difference in this and
being overruled by somebody who is agreed to have (slightly) better perspective when you are
certain that you are right and they are wrong.

--

jeebus: "I wouldn't call it cheating. I would call it cheap/un-sportman maybe, to not take the
word of majority of other people and admit to yourself that you could be wrong, but not
cheating."

In a self-refereed sport, making a call which you didn't see is cheating in my book. Honestly
thinking you are correct in what you saw and making the appropriate call based on what you
saw (even if you're wrong) is never cheating and is not cheap or unsportsmanlike in my book.

I think there's plenty of room for different opinions in the former, but I think that in the later
case (where a player honestly believes what they saw), there's little room for disagreement.
Thinking that latter person is being cheap or unsportsmanlike is in itself unspirited and
unsportsmanlike.

I have to say that I'm having a difficult time separating the "you said this to me, so I said this to you" arguments from the actual discussion of the situation... honestly it's incredibly frustrating.

This'll probably get me into trouble, but I'm not hung up about the wording of the rule for best perspective and related items... I DO know what I think the common-sense way to resolve it is... and with that understanding in mind, the wording of the rules fully support it.

Situation: I'm a few yards inside the sideline and see someone catch the disc and I think they land out. It's an unlined field and I'm at a 'bit' of an angle to the line. I call "out". Someone else starts to counter with a suggestion that they're in. (Doesn't matter whether they say "in" or start to stumble over their words or whatever). So play should stop because there's a disagreement - <aside> everyone remember where they were at the time of the catch, please </aside>. The other person adds (or I clearly see) "I pretty much had a view right down the sideline and it looked like they landed a few inches in". And so I say, "I was a bit off the line and it looked close, but since you had a better perspective, sure they're in". ... and play on.

Or... I virtually positive that they were at least a foot out, and just can't understand how someone looking right down the line could see the situation so differently, especially since I can still see the landing divot and when I move to the line, it's right where I thought it was... 15 inches outside the cones. <thought to self> perhaps they mistakenly think the step before the catch was the step after the catch, which might have been inside the line,k sure </thought to self>. And so, I suggest: "perhaps we both had a great perspective, but I'm not sure you had the best perspective, so why don't we send it back?".

Seriously, isn't it THAT simple?

If you agree the other person had best perspective, (and assuming you trust the other players to make what they believe is the right all), then why wouldn't you retract a call and let theirs stand? Or if they might have been in better "position", but somehow their "perspective" may not have been ideal (e.g., in my second half of the example, they possibly didn't see the instant of the catch and the instant of the footfall correctly, and therefore not ideal perspective), then perhaps best perspective is NOT theirs.

Isn't it simple... you either decide to defer to their better view/decision, or you don't and send it back.

I agree. The first situation just requires a person to concede that maybe they don't have the best perspective, which is tough for a lot of players.

But yes, I agree that even after you make your call (and indeed your call is always valid), if you confer with someone who disagree's with your call, and agree that they had a better look then you, you should take back your call.

and worst case, back to thrower/puller etc.

Mortakai: "Or... I virtually positive that they were at least a foot out, and just can't understand
how someone looking right down the line could see the situation so differently, especially since I
can still see the landing divot and when I move to the line, it's right where I thought it was... 15
inches outside the cones. <thought to self> perhaps they mistakenly think the step before the
catch was the step after the catch, which might have been inside the line,k sure </thought to
self>. And so, I suggest: "perhaps we both had a great perspective, but I'm not sure you had the
best perspective, so why don't we send it back?"."

This is the case that I'm talking about. This is a case where you think they do indeed have "the
most complete view", but where you can't understand *how* they came to the other conclusion.
It looks to me like you're claiming Best Perspective, purely because you are 100% they are
wrong, and therefore their perspective couldn't be Best.

The positions of the two calling players is unchanged between your two scenarios. The
Perspective on the play is unchanged. In the former case, you agree that they have Best
Perspective, however in the latter case, you disagree they had Best Perspective. The only thing
that has changed between the two is that you're *sure* the other person is wrong in the latter
case.

That doesn't make much sense.

It seems to me (please let me know if I'm mistaken) that your interpretation of Best Perspective
sometimes includes 'being able to see what I'm *certain* actually happened'. And if the other
player didn't see what you're *sure* happened, then therefore they *couldn't* have actually had
Best Perspective.

Again, that doesn't make much sense.

I see the determination of who has Best Perspective to be pretty objective. Meaning that from
*where* they saw the event is what matters. I don't see how *what* they saw can enter into the
determination of who had Best Perspective (not only is that bordering on cheating in my mind,
but that kind of takes the teeth out of the rule too!).

I know that human beings perceive reality completely interpretively. The brain does an awful lot
of hoodoo magic in its interpretation. Two people can be shown the *identical video* of a play
and come to opposite conclusions. In such a case, the perspective is identical, the only difference
is that there's disagreement. Based on that alone, I know that, when we both have a complete
view of a play, somebody can *truly* have better perspective than me, and still come to a
conclusion I think is *completely* wrong. They can even come to a conclusion that objective
evidence could prove is wrong.

To me it would be cheating to want to claim that the player's perspective wasn't Best, simply
because I think he's wrong. However, I'm certain of my call, I shouldn't be forced to abandon it.

Perhaps I'm being too stringent with the Best Perspective rule. I admit that if you're willing to
fuzz the Best Perspective rule, then there's no problem. However, if that's the case I still see no
reason for that rule to exist, other than as an etiquette reminder of 'if you're not 100%, defer to
the Better Perspective'.

That's the way I make any call. If I'm not really sure (rare that I make a call in such a case, but
sometimes after the fact I realize my 'map' of the field may have been a bit off, casting some
uncertainty), then I'll happily retract my call. However, this isn't me being forced to retract it. If
I were to read the Best Perspective rule as one which is in effect any time there's disagreement
(don't we already have a rule for that?), then there would be a great many calls that I am
*certain* of which I would be forced to have overruled.

That's interesting, because I think I'd believe someone else was wrong only if I had equal or better perspective.

If someone else can see both cones and I cannot, I'll defer the decision. I might ask a question in a dispute (e.g., "Really? I thought his left heel was in-bounds when he caught it. Did you see it?") I might supply additional information that may have been missed (e.g., the divot in Mortakai's scenario). I've never really thought of it as being overruled.

All that said, I don't split hairs when assessing the ownership of best perspective. Small changes in angles and distances yield equally good perspectives in my opinion, provided the views are substantively just as complete.

Thanks people for the replies to my original question. Much appreciated.

PS: You guys sure can type!

Temple: "I know that human beings perceive reality completely interpretively. "

Don't you mean "I know that human beings interpret reality completely perceptively."?

If you are contending that human beings are interpreting their perceptions, are you not implying that there are separate layers of consciousness - ie at least the a) perceptive and the b) interpretive? Isn't it furthermore possible that these different layers of consciousness might each have different qualities of "goodness" vis-à-vis perspective?

As such, if multiple layers of consciousness in the player's psyche have variable "perspectives", then isn't their choice of which one to assert rather unreliable? Insomuch as the rules do not mention how to deal with the question of thought mobility within the ego, I think the "best perspective" rule should be thrown out and probably replaced with a more logically rigorous clause that would expressly account for the problem of mind.

I have forwarded the question to John-Ralston Saul for his viewpoint, will report soon.

themindset: "As such, if multiple layers of consciousness in the player's psyche have variable
"perspectives", then isn't their choice of which one to assert rather unreliable?"

I know this was mentioned in jest, but is this truly in question?

themindset: "Insomuch as the rules do not mention how to deal with the question of thought
mobility within the ego, I think the "best perspective" rule should be thrown out and probably
replaced with a more logically rigorous clause that would expressly account for the problem of
mind."

They've got one. Disagreement > Back to Thrower. **

Any other attempted resolution immediately devolves into a debate on the possibility of
universal, certain, and necessary truth (and whether that is required before accepting
something as 'true'). While fun, I prefer to have that debate off the field.

--

** Note that this "Disagreement > Back to Thrower" resolution is supported by those on both
sides of this issue. However in supporting that basic resolution, those who say Best Perspective
applies whenever there's a disagreement require the idea that whether or not a player had Best
Perspective includes whether or not they saw *what really happened*. Balderdash I say.

Best Perspective has *nothing* to do with being correct. Attempts to read that into it are
merely attempts to avoid a call that one is *certain* of from being overruled. In my opinion,
that's something which is already ensured by the fact that BP is invoked only when a play is
"unclear".

"Best Perspective has *nothing* to do with being correct."

I think Best Perspective implies that you are in a better position to be correct.

I know that working as an umpire, or working as an observer, if I am out of position when I make a call, I not only feel less confident - those who are impacted by my call are also less confident in the correctness of said call.

The perception of correctness (in view of Relativism) is as important as Objective correctness, and as such Best Perspective in terms of others' ability to perceive the 'caller of the play' as having a Perspective that is (at the least) "good" is important in cultivating the silent consensus for which ultimate strives.

Unfortunately, this viewpoint pits Relativism vs Objectivism.

On Relativism, Joseph Margolis would argue that our our calls should depend on what we take to be the nature of the sphere to which we wish to apply our calls - perhaps our calls could be affected by the Div or Tournament we are in. Even Aristotle predicted contested in-out calls when he held that relativism implied we should, sticking with appearances only, end up contradicting ourselves somewhere.

On Objectivism, Ayn Rand asserted that the individual "must exist for his own sake," she wrote in 1962, "neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." And, although a simple reading of this implies that all calls should be uncontested, a deeper meaning implies that the use of active observers and video-replay equipment is essential to avoid the 'sacrifice' of a bad call.

Having rechecked the rules, I see no dialectical treatise on the issues of Relativism v Objectivism and, as such, I propose that the entire section on Best Perspective be stricken from the rules and replaced by Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time'.

themindset: "I think Best Perspective implies that you are in a better position to be correct."

I'd agree, but I'd also suggest that any fictionalized additions to the BP rule which include
correctness as a criteria (as Mort implied) results in a circular argument of nonsense. This 'turtles all
the way down' argument makes the Best Perspective rule even more useless.

Correctness definitely has to be a criteria. Your perspective leads down the golden path of correctness.

Temple: "...fictionalized additions to the BP rule which include correctness as a criteria (as Mort implied)..."

At risk of others in the class yelling at me to put my hand down and quit asking questions...

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean about "correctness as a criteria".

I'd like to challenge your interpretation of that implication, or possibly correct what I had actually meant to say or imply, but I want to understand what you mean before I do.

[... and yes, you and I both know that WE can have this type of discussion without getting our backs up...].

M

Mortakai: "I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean about "correctness as a criteria".

I'd like to challenge your interpretation of that implication, or possibly correct what I had actually
meant to say or imply, but I want to understand what you mean before I do."

Here's what I read:

You wrote two scenarios where the players' positions and their perspectives of the play were
unchanged. It seemed the only difference between the two scenarios was your certainty of what
happened.

In the first scenario, you weren't *certain* as to what happened, so you deferred to the player
who made the opposite call, because you agreed that they had Best Perspective.

In the second scenario, you were *certain* as to what happened, but you didn't defer to that player
who had that same Perspective as in the first scenario which you agreed was Best. You assumed
that, because they didn't see what you were *absolutely certain* occurred, then they must not
have [insert rationalization of sighting of foot falls or other actions which apply to every
disagreement, which quite possibly could be correct, but which really only means "have had Best
Perspective"].

I see the first scenario as how the game should be played, and I see how that follows along with
the rules. However, I see the second scenario as one in which I think your definition of Best
Perspective goes beyond what's written in the rules. I think your rationale is that (to paraphrase
as I read it) 'if they didn't see what I am *certain* happened, then their Perspective *couldn't* be
better than mine'. That doesn't seem to follow the rules.

This is yet another case where I think the Best Perspective rule reveals itself as completely useless.
If it were struck from the rules, all outcomes would wind up as intended, and we'd eliminate all the
"Best Perspective makes the call, so yours doesn't count" mythology.

Ah, I think I see what you're saying.

The difference, and perhaps I could've explained it differently before, is that with the second scenario, I had actually seen something more when I moved closer to the line, which was the position of the divot compared to the angle of the line.

If the other player had completely missed the divot, then perhaps this suggests that perhaps their perspective isn't best after all. They claim it is best because of their better angle at the time of the catch; whereas I claim mine is best because I have a more complete view of the contact point and the line when I move closer... and we agree to send it back because we don't agree on who has THE best perspective, even though we both agree that both perspectives are pretty damned good.

I'm not sure whether that helps to clarify or to further confuse.

... and yes, I very much agree on the relative usefulness of the best perspective clause(s). ... and am doing what I can about them.

I still gather from your post that you think one player cannot have Best Perspective and be wrong
at the same time. That if you're *certain* that they're making the wrong call, then there must
be *something* wrong with their Perspective, thus reducing it from best.

I think that precludes an awful lot of the subjectivity that is inherent in any call. If you show 100
people the exact same video of a close play, they will not all come to the same conclusion, even
with *identical* perspectives. In such a case, all people have Best Perspective, yet some must be
wrong.

I think your bending of the Best Perspective criteria is closer to cheating than not. Though you
ultimately winding up at the right place (you can't be forced to overturn a call you're 100% sure
of), it's via a spurious route.

Best Perspective should be able to be decided without knowing any player's opinion on the play.

I wonder if the way you interpret Best Perspective (highly subjectively, with bias as to what you
are *certain* happened) is making up for the fact that BP should never, ever matter when two
people are sure of their call (as I've always understood it to be the case, but which is called into
question by the new end-zone throw-away rule).

My point can be illustrated by this final scenario:

Scenario: D1 sees player O1 Out of Bounds, D1 is *100% sure* and calls OB. O1 says that
they're pretty sure they were in, both agree that O2 has best perspective. O2 then calls the play
IB.

This scenario isn't exactly unlikely. I think we've all been in a position where we were sure of a
call, but admit our Perspective wasn't Best. This is common in ultimate. When it does occur
though, if we say Best Perspective is in place any time there is a *dispute* (as opposed to nobody
being clear) then, D1 is *obligated by the rules* to have their call overturned. Even though they
are 100% certain that O2 is either cheating, didn't look at the right thing, didn't know the rule, or
is simply unintentionally wrong.

That's not ultimate in my book. I think we all agree that if the parties are certain and conflicting
as above, the correct outcome should be BTT. However, the interpretation of Best Perspective
being put forth *precludes* a BTT.

I don't know, Temple; I just have a really hard time imagining myself in a situation in which I readily agree that someone else has the best perspective, but in which I also resolutely believe that person is wrong. They may be wrong in fact, and I may even suspect they're wrong, but I can't imagine clinging to that conviction if I've already determined that their perspective is substantially superior.

I don't believe Mortakai is saying that disputes are resolved by best perspective. I think he's saying that a dispute* (resulting in BTT) occurs when we disagree on the ownership of best perspective (in his scenario, he arguably improves his perspective after the fact by examining physical evidence).

*(edit: well, in practice, a dispute can arise for many reasons)

atanarjuat: "I don't know, Temple; I just have a really hard time imagining myself in a situation
in which I readily agree that someone else has the best perspective, but in which I also resolutely
believe that person is wrong. "

How many times have you been in a position where you had equally good perspective, but were
resolutely certain the other party was wrong?

It's the same thing. In such a case, you *both* have exactly the same Best Perspective, but
obviously one of you is wrong. Move that other party a few meters and suddenly his perspective
may be better than yours. That doesn't mean his call is any more or less accurate. People make
bad calls. That's an inherent part of our sport. The resolution when you think their call is wrong
(and vice versa) is simple: BTT.

I think there's a fundamental breakdown in understanding here. You should only *ever* make a
call when you're *certain* of what you saw. If your perspective is not good enough for you to rule
on the play, it's cheating for you to rule on that play.

atanarjuat: "I can't imagine clinging to that conviction if I've already determined that their
perspective is substantially superior."

Well, assuming that you're *certain* of what you saw, and have made that call, it doesn't matter
where you were. Another player having Best Perspective does not make their call more valid than
yours.

Also, you added in that case a question of whether a player's perspective was "substantially
superior". Of course we know that the person who has best perspective doesn't have to have
"substantially superior", they just have to have "slightly superior". Under your interpretation *any*
time a player has *slightly* better perspective than you, you *must* defer to them. Doing
otherwise would be cheating by stretching the BP rule beyond what it very clearly says. That isn't
right.

Also, being forced to defer the call to somebody with slightly better perspective is completely
different than thinking somebody probably had better perspective on a play that you aren't
necessarily sure of, and voluntarily retracting your call (as should happen in such a case).

--

There's a reason, I believe why the Best Perspective criteria states that it is invoked *only* when
the outcome of the play was *unclear*, as opposed to *any* time there is a dispute. That reason
is because all calls are expected to be made only when a player is certain and that all calls are
equally valid (an inherent part to our sport in *every* other case).

--

atanarjuat: "I don't believe Mortakai is saying that disputes are resolved by best perspective. I
think he's saying that a dispute* (resulting in BTT) occurs when we disagree on the ownership of
best perspective"

I agree, but Mort is using what he saw of the play, and what he knows of the other player's call as
criteria in determining ownership of Best Perspective. Neither of those have basis in the rules.

"Also, you added in that case a question of whether a player's perspective was "substantially superior". Of course we know that the person who has best perspective doesn't have to have "substantially superior", they just have to have "slightly superior". Under your interpretation *any* time a player has *slightly* better perspective than you, you *must* defer to them. Doing otherwise would be cheating by stretching the BP rule beyond what it very clearly says. That isn't right. "

Well, as I mentioned earlier, I don't split hairs when evaluating ownership of best perspective. I actually don't believe that it's in the spirit of the definition to do so (see below, where I try to clarify my meaning). There can easily be multiple players with substantively identical perspectives, and I don't see much point in trying to arbitrarily differentiate them. That would be a case where I might disagree on the ownership of best perspective. And as you've said, the dispute should be resolved by sending the disc back to the thrower.

"Best perspective: The most complete view available by a player that includes the relative positions of the disc, ground, players, and line markers involved in a play. On an unlined field, this may require sighting from one field marker to another."

So if two views are effectively just as complete, then I don't consider small changes in distances or angles to make a difference. I consider changes that affect the "completeness" of the above list to make a difference (like getting a view of both line markers, e.g.).

Ideally and theoretically, the owner of the best perspective should be the first and only one making the call (this is why I say "best perspective should decide"). And no matter how confident I feel in my perspective, I won't make a call if I can see that someone else has the best perspective.

"I think there's a fundamental breakdown in understanding here. You should only *ever* make a call when you're *certain* of what you saw. If your perspective is not good enough for you to rule on the play, it's cheating for you to rule on that play. "

At any given moment, I may make such a call and be confident in it. I may think that I have best perspective, too, and that no one has any reason to doubt me. But if someone else makes a contrary call, and I see that it's the real owner of best perspective, then I'll defer to him. Why? Because he probably should have been the one to make the call in the first place, and I can acknowledge the seed of doubt in my call that wasn't there before. Suddenly, it becomes clear that I shouldn't rule on this play.

"Must" I defer? Well, I don't think the rules actually comment on this. A dispute is a dispute, for one reason or another. I think the rulebook indicates that disagreement on the ownership of best perspective(XV.E), or the lack of any good perspective (XVI.D) are good reasons for a dispute, and I'm not inclined to start a dispute for any other reason.

atanarjuat: "Ideally and theoretically, the owner of the best perspective should be the first and
only one making the call (this is why I say "best perspective should decide"). And no matter how
confident I feel in my perspective, I won't make a call if I can see that someone else has the
best perspective."

This is not something remotely hinted at in the rules.

There are *many* times in every game where a call is made by somebody who has less than
Best Perspective. The idea that their call is any less valid (let alone necessarily incorrect) is
groundless.

I would hope that you don't apply that rigorous (and groundless) standard to others. If one were
to think that a player who did not have best perspective somehow shouldn't be making a call,
then one is playing unspiritedly.

However, if, as it appears to be the case, you choose to use your own definition of Best
Perspective which essentially states that any perspective that saw a play completely and clearly
is as equally 'Best' as any other that saw the play completely and clearly, then I think we're on
the same page, mostly. However, that definition of BP isn't supported by the rules. It's a
contorted version of Best Perspective which is necessary in order to have the game not break if
one thinks BP applies any time there's a dispute (as opposed to when the play is unclear).

Really? I think that XV.E hints at it ("if it is unclear . . . the player with the best perspective makes the call").

"There are *many* times in every game where a call is made by somebody who has less than Best Perspective. The idea that their call is any less valid (let alone necessarily incorrect) is groundless."

In my mind, it's not about being correct or incorrect (after all, everyone could be in agreement, and all of them incorrect); it's about giving the call to someone we trust. My grounds for thinking that are XI.C and XV.E. If the SRC says that's not at all what they meant me to think, then I'd ask that they tidy up the language so I can understand it better.

"However, if, as it appears to be the case, you choose to use your own definition of Best Perspective which essentially states that any perspective that saw a play completely and clearly is as equally 'Best' as any other that saw the play completely and clearly, then I think we're on the same page, mostly. However, that definition of BP isn't supported by the rules. It's a contorted version of Best Perspective which is necessary in order to have the game not break if one thinks BP applies any time there's a dispute (as opposed to when the play is unclear)."

You know, you can disagree with me without using words like "contorted." I draw my interpretation from the words "most complete view." I can accept that other people look at it differently, but the language does not say, "best view."

Did anyone else here really enjoy that the first person to reply to Jesus' question was jeebus?