Is the word "contest" needed to stop play?

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Scenario:
Player A throws disc to Player B right at the end zone line. Player B looks around and calls himself in. Opposing player calls player B out and begins counting stalls. Player B tries to explain that he thinks he's in, opposing player continues counting stalls. Player B throws an incomplete pass. Discussion then occurs and opposing player explains Player B must say "contest" in order to stop the play because opposing player believes player B will throw it once an open person is there.

My thoughts:
I know by throwing the disc away, it's a turnover already. But my question is if the opposing player should have continued counting stalls. Should play have stopped once the disagreement occurred or does player B need to "contest" their out call? And should player B even be the one to "contest" and not the opposing player "contesting" player B's in call? My understanding is if there is a disagreement on a call, play automatically stops and discussion occurs then followed by a check.

Sorry for the long post on probably a very minor issue but I wouldn't definitely appreciate some clearing up here! Thanks!

"Contest" never stops play. "Contest" isn't a special word in ultimate, it's never required.
You can contest a call using whatever language you choose.

Play doesn't stop when the O calls themselves in and the D calls themselves out (not
necessarily). Play does stop when a "dispute arises":

XIX.D) If a dispute arises on the field, play stops and is restarted with a check when the
matter is resolved.

Obviously there's some grey area there, common sense is needed. Remember a disagreement
isn't necessarily a dispute. From your description, it doesn't sound like there was a dispute. If
there was, Player B likely wouldn't have thrown. It sounded like Player B disagreed with the
call, but went along with it. That's not a dispute.

--

Also good to note, that even if Player B throws the disc away, if they were already in the end
zone, it's still a point. If it can be agreed that Player B was in, then the point stands. This
was new in the 11th Ed.

Thanks Temple.

So if Player B did not want to go along with the call, what should he have done to change the "disagreement" to a "dispute"? Put the disc down?

All the rule requires is a dispute. Whether that's saying "no, I'm in" or "hold on", "or 'I'm in on
that cone!'" (never say that BTW), or whatever. What it rules out is when the guy goes along
the call and plays on. You've got to use your common sense to determine when a dispute occurs.

And if he kept counting stalls after you repeated your assertion that you're IN, you could say "violation" to stop the play. Don't put the disc down.

And it's determined you were out (someone else may have had better perspective), the play would restart with the count at zero.

Temple, your reply leaves me with some questions.

My first thought was that as soon as the defender contradicts the receiver's call, and says "no you're out", we have ourselves a dispute, and thus a stoppage. If I were the defender, I wouldn't have marked up, as I would have assumed there was a stoppage. If I were the receiver, I would've been annoyed if the defender immediately started counting stalls (as if he felt his call overruled mine). But if the defender can say "Oh, OK", change his call, and immediately throw to someone in the endzone without any stoppage, that changes things completely.

That seems much fuzzier, and more prone to confuse other players on the field as well. How many times do they need to argue back and forth before a stoppage actually begins? 1, 2, 5? I'm sure I'm not the only one who might have negatively reacted to a defender immediately starting the stall count, as I would have thought play would stop as soon as there was a contradictory call. Sure, calls can be retracted after a brief discussion, but I still thought that discussion would occur in a stoppage.

Like I said it's a grey area, and common sense rules the day. It's hard to describe all of the
exact situations that can be defined as a dispute. That's why the rules are intentionally vague.
The rule covers all situations where a dispute arises and excludes all situations where a
dispute does not arise. The referees on the field use their judgement as to what a dispute is
when deciding to make a call.

Offsetting calls do not necessarily equal a dispute. But when anybody feels a dispute has
arisen, then it's a dispute, they call that play stops.

The one thing that's black and white is when you as the offender accept the call and play on.
It's hard to argue that the immediate acceptance of "not in" is considered a dispute.
However...

Of course if an offender plays on after a defender thinks a dispute arose (even if it was
immediate ascent), then that doesn't count, because a dispute arose.

I think you guys are trying to make it more complicated than it should be. There's one
criteria: Was there a dispute? Each ref makes their own judgement call.

"Of course if an offender plays on after a defender thinks a dispute arose (even if it was immediate ascent), then that doesn't count, because a dispute arose."

That makes sense to me, and solves my conundrum. A marker could stop playing, assuming a dispute, or choose to start stall counting immediately, hoping the receiver would switch his call. A reasonable outcome can arise from both.

Thanks Craig and Temple!

So to make sure I got it all right: If the marker disagrees with the receiver, he can begin stall counts immediately. If the receiver still believes he is in, he should explain he is in. If the receiver does not stop counting, then he should call violation (since the receiver feels a dispute has occurred but the marker has not stopped the count).

I don't think I'd actually call a violation, and rather would say something like "whoa, stop counting, man... play should stop until we resolve the status here".