Out calls

179 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

So this happened a few times during the last two weeks. I just want to ask and clarify here. Player A catches the disc on the sideline. Player B calls "out" seeing that player A is out. Player A believing that s/he is in throws the disc down field. But because of the "out" call, player B stopped and player B's check gets the disc down field.
Here's my question. (Lets assume player A is in bound) Does the play stop when player B calls "out" and so the disc should go back to player A's hand? Or since A is not out, the play is not stopped and the continuation rule applies?

First off, there is no Stoppage of play when the disc goes OB. The Continuation Rule does not
apply.

When it goes OB, there is an immediate Turn Over and the disc becomes Live. When a disc is
Live, players may move, the disc can be Turned Over again, but no legal pass can be made
before the disc is put In Play at the appropriate spot.

So, once the disc goes OB, the only way play can continue is when it's put into play where it
was supposed to after it went OB. Any throws that happen before that are not legal, don't
count, and don't affect where the disc will be put into play.

Now you asked about what happens when one player calls OB. While play doesn't stop, the
disc is immediately OB. Each player is a referee, and has the authority to make that call if
they are sure ("I think he might be OB, 'check feet'" is garbage and unspirited). If another
player/ref disagrees with that call, then the disc goes back to the previous thrower before the
OB call.

Whether the original OB call is contested or not, nothing that happens after that condition
which resulted in the OB call will matter.

As Temple says, note that an "out" call does not constitute an infraction call, and so does not stop the play. A subsequent dispute over an "out" call can stop the play, or possibly a violation call (e.g., because player A has thrown the disc whilst called out-of-bounds).

Temple addressed the scenario wherein rule XVI.D applies (a play without an agreed-upon outcome returns the disc to the previous thrower) and the scenario where the "out" call is not disputed.. I'm going to address a dispute where it is subsequently decided that player A was, in fact, in-bounds.

As Temple points out, the Continuation Rule does not specifically address disputes (Rule XIX.D does), so it is generally unclear when play stops (when does a dispute officially begin?). I think the dispute, in this example, begins the moment the call is made; player A is obligated to either relinquish the disc or to dispute the call. Again, the Continuation Rule does not apply, and we should not need to wait for a thrower to acknowledge the call before stopping play; as soon as an "out" call is made, everyone on the field has every reason to believe there is a turnover.

The dispute may resolve that, upon closer inspection, the defender was incorrect, and player A was, in fact in-bounds. If everyone is satisfied to this end, then I think the throw must still return to player A. The throw has occurred after the play in dispute (the catch). And because a dispute began before she threw it, she just threw a dead disc.

You raise a good point there atanarjuat.

Actually I think the rules support the continuation applying in that case. I think the spirit of
the dispute rule is for when "teams cannot come to a satisfactory resolution". However the
rule doesn't really work when that satisfactory resolution comes after the Stoppage.

I think that that if the D calls the (subsequently found to be) invalid OB, and the pass is
complete, the pass should stand. Even if the OB call made the other D check stop trying,
which allowed the receiver to get the disc (sorry you made a bad call, too bad that it hurt
your team). If the D calls the invalid OB and the pass is incomplete *due to* the OB call,
then the pass should come back to the thrower. And finally, if the D calls the invalid OB call,
but that call didn't affect the O not completing the disc, then the incompleted throw should
stand.

In essence the invalid OB call would be treated as an infraction in the eyes of the continuation
rule.

While I think there's sufficient grounds in the rules to use either my interpretation or your
own, I do think there are cases where your immediate dispute wouldn't work (OB is called
when the disc is already in flight). This is probably a good candidate for a rule clarification.

Note: You are supposed to change behaviour when you hear an OB call. For an infraction call,
you are supposed to keep playing O and D until play is stopped. Players stopping (well,
having their play affected) due to an invalid OB call is a valid effect of that 'infraction'. And
that OB call (which subsequently is determined to be not-valid) does affect play. This is
different from a player stopping after a Foul/Violation call. Stopping after a call is not a valid
effect of the infraction. So when a player stops playing because they heard a call (even if it's
subsequently determined to be invalid), that does not affect play.

Just to be clear for the readers, I know of two "dispute" rules:

XVI.D refers to unresolved disputes, and XIX.D refers to disputes in general. The latter is the rule I leaned on when I formed the opinion I posted above.

Of course, my opinion on when the dispute begins is exactly that -- an opinion. In a game, it's acceptable to me that the players involved will agree to let the outcome of player A's throw stand. This is a common enough scenario that it would be helpful if the rules addressed it more clearly.

"it's acceptable to me that the players involved will agree to let the outcome of player A's throw stand".

That's what we did. We were confused as to what to do, as I stopped moving after making the Out call because I thought play would stop, but my check bolted the remaining 20 yards to the endzone for the score. The thrower was in, though, and my check was already 5+ yards away when I made the call, so a restart probably wouldn't have made a difference, so I withdrew the call.

As an aside, it would seem really weird to me to make an Out call, and then continue running around the field, waiting for someone to acknowledge it. I thought "out" was equivalent to a whistle from a ref in other sports. For it not to be could lead to some really weird situations, I believe.

"As an aside, it would seem really weird to me to make an Out call, and then continue
running around the field, waiting for someone to acknowledge it. I thought "out" was
equivalent to a whistle from a ref in other sports. For it not to be could lead to some really
weird situations, I believe."

I would agree. Except it's not really like a whistle, because you are expected to keep running
around the field, just in the other direction.

I don't mind the case where your team was affected by their own bad call.

I'm not wild about the disc being brought back after a completion. I can see that being
abused. Imagine if every time you heard "check feet", people said "out". They could then say
"oh I was wrong" and the disc comes back. Again, not wild about it.

Call OB when you see it, when you don't see the disc OB keep quiet (please check your
"check feet" at the door).

I think this was resolved properly... both players agreed that the right resolution would be to let the offensive receiver should keep the disc. That sounds like the right application of all the rules to me.

If, however, the person who called OUT suggested that the disc should come back because of whatever reason... some of those reasons suggested already (and I could spout off a few myself)... then this in itself sounds like a dispute which could be properly resolved by sending the disc back.

Play on.

Hi By Hi

Most players now when they hear the check feet call, it isn't really a rule call anymore, but more like a term yelled out... like... CHILLI! or NO BREAK!, but from the other team if that makes any sense. When I hear check feet being yelled, I quickly look at the the cone ahead and the cone behind, which takes less than a second, and if I believe Im good I just play on. Even if, I am pretty sure I was in and the opponent calls check feet, I would still give the 2 cones a quick look just so they know I checked my feet.

Obviously, if contested, it should go back to handler. That rule sounds fair. But what I don't like is when players who are really far from the incident, calling OB when there are others around the incident who believe it isn't. If you are far away, you should call "check feet" so that the handler would quickly check feet like I described above, and play continues if he believes he is in. And you can't really contest that, when clearly the best perspective is the guy who has the disc and he just checked his feet.

HELLO,

Sorry, but I disagree for so many reasons that have been rehashed in other threads. Feel free to call "CF", but don't be offended when it is ignored. You said yourself that if you are far away, you likely can't see whether the player is in or out, so why wouldn't you trust the people nearer to the action to make a call if it is warranted? If you don't trust your teammates to make the call, respect your opponent's honesty and ability to do the same.

As for the "only a second" to look at two cones, a lot can change in that second, and if you're standing on the line turning your head front to back you really can't tell where you are relative to the line so it's a second wasted. The best you can do is to hope the field is straight and extend the line formed by the two cones in front of you, which hopefully you do automatically before/as/after you catch.

Expecting *any* response from the other team after you yell (it's not a call) "check feet" is
cheating, and terrible spirit.

Abusing the yell "check feet" so that those who don't know the rules stop for "less than a
second" is cheating, and terrible spirit.

Yelling "check feet" instead of "OB" when you see your teammate OB is cheating, and terrible
spirit.

The yell "check feet" is absolute, 100% garbage. If you're not sure the person is OB, you
keep quiet. If nobody is sure the person is OB, they're IB, even if they're actually OB!

Sorry for the heat, that's just how strongly I feel.

Over the years, I have heard so many people's versions over how they think a "friendly" check-feet call is intended or interpreted. The formula for justification is usually that it is somehow more spirited by virtue of being less committal, like a sort of olive-branch call. Thus the call usually thrives in circles of players who feel less comfortable with the rules or uncomfortable making related decisions.

And sometimes it works within these small circles, where people arrive at an unspoken consensus on the call's meaning. But invariably, players with different understandings of this undefined call one day meet, and they discover that they don't actually agree on the details (and there are many hidden details), and confusion ensues, and the game suffers.

And then it leads to even further myth-propagation, because many receivers develop the sense that if they are asked to "check their feet," then it must be "their call" to decide if they are in or out of bounds, by simply "checking their feet," however they understand it.

All told, the check-feet call is the best-intentioned, worst myth in ultimate. But it persists, because there are always going to be people who like to say, "I'm not a hardass-- you can call 'check-feet,' and I'll just check my feet, and it'll be friendly."

Thanks guys & gals - this is great. Really covering some of my pet peeves here...

We had this discussion on Monday night. I was trying to explain to someone on my team that 'check feet' isn't really a call, and if you have a good/the best perspective and you think they're out, call OUT. However, I'm a little fuzzy on where exactly this is in the rules (its been a while). What is the section of the rules where in/out is covered, so I can review with my teammates on Monday?

(Edit - found it.)

The explanation of what constitutes In- and Out-of-bounds is in section IX with exactly that name.

Other notable rules:

XV.E. explains what best perspective is and who makes the in- or out-of-bounds call.

II.A. defines best perspective

And some looser-connected rules:

XI.C. refers to best perspective in the context of a person scoring a goal and then throwing another pass

II.J. defines the perimeter lines, including how to deal with an unlined field

I could certainly go on... but that's the main ones.

Thanks.

So basically, if the player with the best perspective makes the call, depending on the situation that could or could not be the receiver, correct? I could imagine situations where it might or might not be the receiver who has the best perspective. Or is the assumption that the receiver is excluded automatically, regardless of their perspective?

The receiver gets no special status in terms of perspective. (The only sort-of exception is for up/down calls, where it is acknowledged that the receiver "usually" has a better pespective by dint of knowing when his hand closed on the disc.) Sometimes he is the one paying closest attention to where he is relative to the lines/cones, but not always. Indeed, sometimes he is so focussed on making the catch (esp. when it's a difficult one) that his is about the worst awareness beyond perhaps knowing which part first touched the ground after the catch. The myth that it's "his call" (referring to the receiver) is just that - a myth.

edit: apparently the reference to the receiver's perspective in up/down situations has been removed, so in no case does the receiver have any special status.

Another note about "best perspective":

Best perspective only comes into play when it's *unclear* whether the person was OB, the disc
was down, etc.

If you ever see a player OB, you call it. Nobody can override your call saying they had better
perspective. They can disagree, but your Call is always valid.

Another reason why "it's his call" is bunk. It's anybody's call who sees it.

"If you ever see a player OB, you call it."

Absolutely, but keep in mind that implied in that is that you have a reasonable view and are certain that they are out. This does not mean that seeing that a receiver is close to a line and might be out is justification for calling him out.

"If you ever see a player OB, you call it. Nobody can override your call saying they had better perspective. They can disagree, but your Call is always valid."

Hypothetical situation:
Player A catches a pass near the sideline and runs out.
Player B calls "out!" because in their opinion the player was out.
Player C, who is standing right near the sideline and was watching the play says "i think it was in. i also think i have best perspective."

Option 1:
Player B says "i think I have best perspective". Okay so in this case, there isn't an agreement over who has best perspective so back to thrower.

Option 2:
Player B says "hmm it looked out to me, but you're right. you clearly have a better perspective than me so therefore you should make the call." So player B retracts his/her call and play continues with Player A as the new thrower.

Is option 2 a valid option? Should player B relent to player C's better perspective? In this case, doesn't the better perspective override the call?

The difference is between "override" and "retract". A second call doesn't *override* your call i.e. cause your call to become invalid without your consent. But you can choose to retract or change your call. That's different.

Best perspective only matters when nobody saw it clearly.

If you're sure the person was OB (the only reason to *ever* make that call), then there's no
uncertainty and best perspective is irrelevant.

There may be two people who are both certain that the opposite thing happened. That's fine,
but neither can have their call invalidated because somebody suggests one person's
perspective is invalid.

It doesn't matter if you're on the opposite side of the field, if you're sure, your call counts
equally to anybody on the field. Obviously it's rather unlikely you can be sure from the
opposite side of the field, but there are scenarios where it can happen.

As Craig mentioned, if you want to retract your call, by all means do so. However this
shouldn't be happening very frequently, since you're only ever making the call when you're
*sure*, right?

"Best perspective only matters when nobody saw it clearly. "

Can you give an example situation where Best Perspective would come into play? If a player only makes a call when he or she is "sure", then when would "Best Perspective" apply?

tongue in cheek: does "Best Perspective" apply when someone yells "check feet"?? :)

Anytime nobody's sure.

You catch the disc near the end zone line, you're looking between the cones, not sure if you're
in or not. If you were sure you'd say you were in. In this case, nobody's sure so the player
with the best perspective makes the call.

Replace end zone line with OB line, same situation: You catch the disc near the perimeter
line. You look between the cones, not sure if you're in or not. If you were sure, you'd say you
were in, or just play on. In this case, nobody's sure, so the player with the best perspective
makes the call.

Sometimes I catch the disc, but I'm not sure if it was up or down. I can't tell, if I could I'd
play on. In this case, nobody's sure, so the best perspective makes the call.

I do suggest that you have to be pretty sure that it's OB, out of the end zone, or dropped
before you call it such as the player with the best perspective.

--

"Check feet" is usually yelled even when a player thinks they're IB, trying to get them to
reconsider their 'call'. If a player thinks they're IB, they have an opinion, it's not unclear to
them. Best perspective doesn't apply, and certainly can't overrule that (though an offsetting
call can cause a do-over).

I don't think I agree that best perspective only matters when nobody saw it clearly.

In some cases, two people see the same play well (never perfectly, I don't think that's ever possible) and one calls out because from their angle they saw them out, while another calls in because from their angle they saw them in... THEN they should discuss and agree which of them had the best angle, or "best perspective", if you prefer, and that's the call that should be taken as the ruling call. A third person may also add... "let me run and sight down the cones and see for sure, I can still see the divot they left in the ground when they first landed", and that might be then accepted as the better/best perspective of them all.

I believe that's how it's intended to work.

... but unfortunately often doesn't.

I think the way Temple describes the situation is the way the letter of the rule is written.

But, I think the way Mortakai describes it is the way I often see it played... except for one key point: everyone thinks they have best perspective! :)

p.s. the "check feet" comment was fully tongue-in-cheek. I didn't expect a serious reply to it. But thanks for clearing that up regardless.

Actually the letter of the written rules written supports both concepts of when no-one sees it clearly and when more than one person sees it clearly but have opposing interpretations of what they saw.

I don't see how offsetting IB/OB, up/down calls are automatically "unclear". We know how to
handle offsetting calls, Best Perspective shouldn't enter into it.

I don't like that I can have my call, where I saw something clearly, and I'm certain of it
overruled, because somebody had better perspective than me. There are times where I may
believe I have a worse perspective, but I'm still certain of what I saw (think which foot lands
first, etc).

Two people often have differing accounts of the same play. Suggesting one is more correct
than the other, when they're both certain, goes against the spirit of ultimate, in my opinion.

I've raised this to the 11th Edition google group. Perhaps it's best to continue the
philosophical points of Best Perspective there and come back with a report.

http://groups.google.com/group/UPA_11th_edition_rules/browse_thread/thre...
4388?hl=en

so just to make sure what youre saying temple:
if i caught the disc and i was sure i was in, then i'm in? if i'm sure i'm in and someone says they
have a better perspective than me and calls me out, would my call overrule theirs?

There is no overruling statute in the rules of Ultimate. In the case noted, if you're sure you're in, and someone is sure you're out, disc goes back to thrower.

What can happen, as mentioned previously, is that one could retract their call based on subsequent information (e.g. where did your foot touch first on a run o/b type of catch, etc.).

I'd be interested in adding sideline teammates into the best perspective rule/description. I know at elite levels (with no observers) teams will generally try to position players on cones to make in/out calls. Players on the field will generally defer to the sideline in situations where it's clear they would have the best view. Not sure if the same thing occurs in league or not.

That's how I see it iamcanuck, but there are others who feel like somebody who has 'best
perspective' can overrule your call. I don't see any basis in the rules for that however.

I'm all for getting help from somebody with better perspective (whether they be on the sideline
or on the field) in telling me whether or not to retract my call, but I'm completely against
anybody ever overriding anybody's call for any reason.*

* Unless they're wearing an Observer shirt.

Hey Temple. I read this and I am quite intrique by it. However, the wording is still a little confusing... as in... I am not sure what you meant by it, can you word this a little differently please?

"I don't like that I can have my call, where I saw something clearly, and I'm certain of it overruled, because somebody had better perspective than me. There are times where I may believe I have a worse perspective, but I'm still certain of what I saw (think which foot lands first, etc)."

Thanks.

A case like this happened last week. The receiver caught the disc on the run towards the
sideline. He jumped to catch it, and gained possession in the air, then came down near the
line between the 10m brick and end zone cone. He was not my check, I wasn't close enough
to try for the D. As he caught it I knew he was going to be close to OB. As a result I focussed
very carefully at where his first point of contact was. I saw it OB and called it.

I was very close to this person, as a result I couldn't see both cones and his foot. I could see
where his foot landed and then noticed by looking at the brick mark and the end zone cone
that this contact was at least a foot OB. Let's be clear: I was absolutely dead certain (I'd
have bet a year's pay) on the fact that his first point of contact was about 1 foot past the
outer edge of the sideline.

The guy who threw the disc up the line (and the receiver) both called the play IB. I would
agree that the thrower had better perspective than me in that he could have seen both cones
and the receiver's foot had he been watching (I assume he did since he called it IB).

I'm not suggesting that I am right and the thrower was wrong, and that this is a case where
Best Perspective fails. I am suggesting though that it goes against the entire spirit of
ultimate's equality of refereeing to have either my or the thrower's call overruled. Even
though I am certain that I was right and the other guys were wrong, I wouldn't want any
resolution to that play other than: offsetting calls, disc back to thrower. As certain as I was, I
assume that the other guys were just as certain in their calls. That's the philosophy you must
have as an ultimate player.

Philosophy is all well and good, but let's be clear: The rules don't support using Best
Perspective to ever overrule ultimate, despite what some may be suggesting.

"The rules don't support using Best Perspective to ever overrule ultimate, despite what some may be suggesting."

I'd agree mostly with that. But even if you are certain when you make a call, that doesn't mean you shouldn't retract your call if you realize someone else had a better view. I'm not saying this was the case in your situation, Temple, but I did want to highlight for everyone else where the rules say it's appropriate to identify a single person with the best perspective:

"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."

If there is a dispute as to who has best perspective, then it's back to the thrower, of course. But in cases where it is clear that one person had better perspective than another, one could argue that 'ultimate' says you should yield to their perspective. :)

"XV.E. If it is unclear whether..."

Well, if Temple is "certain" in the case he's pointing out, then it's not "unclear." So, Best Perspective wouldn't apply. I think the point Temple is making is that if you know what you saw, then someone who has a better perspective can't overrule your call.

However, if you are uncertain, then the rules clearly state that the person with the best perspective makes the call.

Absolutely correct. And by all means take into account what the other person with better
perspective saw, then retract/change your call if you decide.

Be clear though that nobody can ever tell you your call doesn't count.

Hmm... I think i understand what you are saying. I appreciate the explaination. Thanks guys!

Hi By Hi

Gin-Boh

Oh I won't be offended if you don't check. I would take it as though as you believe you are in-bounds. When check feet is called, I do check my feet out of courtesy for the opponent.

"Oh I won't be offended if you don't check. I would take it as though as you believe you are
in-bounds. When check feet is called, I do check my feet out of courtesy for the opponent."

Fair enough, but don't expect that submitting to their call is helping in any way. Doing that,
like any time you allow somebody to break the rules 'to be nice' is only reinforcing their
incorrect notion of the rules, and passing the buck to the next team that might want to play
by the actual rules.

Any time you hear "check feet" you just heard a player that doesn't know the rules and more
than likely is playing unspirited (albeit unwittingly) by expecting you to check your feet.

"Check feet" is a garbage myth, it's best not to enable it, it's best not to repeat it, it's best
to re-educate it out of existence.

"When check feet is called, I do check my feet out of courtesy for the opponent."

I simply cannot understand how checking your feet does anything. Where you are when you check will tell you nothing about where you were on first contact. And there's no easy way to know where you are relative to two cones on either side of you.

Why check your feet? ... you have the worst perspective and you can't look backwards into time.

Hi By Hi

"And there's no easy way to know where you are relative to two cones on either side of you." You look at one cone... turn and then look at the other... Sounds easy to me.

Where you check your feet can tell you a lot about where you first contacted. For example, if you landed and didn't take additional steps. If you did take steps, you can look and estimate how ridiculous it is to call in or out.

For example, a common example, you catch your disc in the air, and quickly look down to see where you can make good contact. You continue to look down to see where you landed first. Then you take some steps to break your landing.

I think the person who caught the disc here would have good perspective. If someone then calls check feet, no one is stupid enough to check feet at the location after the landing is broken. The check feet call is still valid here, because the receiver can now look back to see where he landed in approximately and then check the feet.

I don't think that check feet is a garbage myth. It may not be in the rulebook, but it can be the short term for, "hey buddy, I think you are out." Because if someone makes that comment, isn't the receiver gonna check their feet anyway?

Oh dear, where to start? First step, please read the linked thread, where this has all been
hashed out before.

Consider that if you're between two cones, you have to turn your head to look from one to
the other, hoping that you can figure out 180 deg as you lose your only reference point. Also
consider that if you're 30m from a point, a one degree arc represents a half-metre, so that
unless you can turn your head 180 deg with sub-degree accuracy, the action is useless. The
only way to figure out where you are right now is to sight along a lone where you can see two
cones and hope that the field is straight.

Regarding your example of checking things out in the air and keeping a fix on your point of
contact as you slow down, you'd have to be a contortionist with super-human reflexes and
balance to do that, or else delusional. If you're running and jumping to catch a disc, the 1/4
second between catching the disc and touching the ground is primarily spent making sure you
have it securely in your hand.

It's not in the rulebook exactly because it can mean "hey buddy, I think you're out," but it
can also mean "I'm on the other side of the field and can't see your feet, but I didn't see you
look down and I don't trust your field awareness," or maybe "you're somewhere close to the
sideline, could you check again for my peace of mind," or even "you're in the endzone, don't
throw it again." I probably missed a few. And if someone makes that comment to me when I
know what's happened, I will studiously ignore them and hope that the rest of my team has
the good sense to do the same.

Here's where I'll start...

Now I think I understand your user name better, because here's where I start my response:

Um, hello??!!!????

I won't go any further though. Just re-read GB's post immediately above, and if you still don't get it, me wasting more evergy re-typing what's already been said (and many, many times) won't help at all, other than to frustrate me even further.

You could also ignore the (very convincing) rationale and just skip to the end and understand the
pertinent point:

The VUL and all governing bodies of the sport (UPA, CUPA, WFDF) agree that you are not
obligated (by SOTG or the rules themselves) to do anything after you hear the 'check feet'
shout. Further, that shouting 'check feet' and expecting another player to do anything is
unspirited.

Accept that this is reality. Lobby for change if you want, but understand the position you're
coming from.

IMHO:

"The VUL and all governing bodies of the sport (UPA, CUPA, WFDF) agree that you are not obligated (by SOTG or the rules themselves) to do anything after you hear the 'check feet' shout."

That is fact.

"Further, that shouting 'check feet' and expecting another player to do anything is unspirited."

That is opinion, possibly held by many, but definitely not held by all. It's completely within the rules and supported SOTG for two teams to agree to do something when that phrase is uttered - it's called the captain's clause. Not following a common convention does not in itself make an action unspirited.

""Further, that shouting 'check feet' and expecting another player to do anything is
unspirited."

That is opinion, possibly held by many, but definitely not held by all. It's completely within
the rules and supported SOTG for two teams to agree to do something when that phrase is
uttered - it's called the captain's clause. Not following a common convention does not in itself
make an action unspirited."

Please read that sentence as:

"Further, that shouting 'check feet' and expecting another player to do anything *in absence
of any pre-agreed captains' clause amendments* is unspirited"

Such a modification is equally necessary for any rule interpretation. As such I think it is
unnecessary.

When I say "expecting another player to do anything", I mean that you are making that shout
with the intent that the Offense stops or slows their flow. When you make a non-Call shout
which is intended to slow or confuse the other team, I call that unspirited. Yes, of course,
only when you haven't already modified the rules to make that non-Call a Call.

--

I equate shouting 'check feet' and expecting a reaction to the following behaviour:

Yelling "Check disc, check disc!" while on D so that the Offense stops flow to see if the disc is
not perfectly shaped.

Yelling "Check your laces!" to have the thrower see if their shoe laces are untied (when you
don't see that they are untied).

Yelling "Watch your pivot!" to have the thrower lose a moment of concentration (when you
don't see that they travelled or not).

Etc, etc, etc.

Shouting any of those (including 'check feet') is perfectly within the rules. But it's also
perfectly within the rules and *100%* spirited to completely ignore them. Shouting one of
those in the hopes that it will cause the O to slow their play is dirty pool and unspirited.

Hi By Hi

"Shouting any of those (including 'check feet') is perfectly within the rules. But it's also perfectly within the rules and *100%* spirited to completely ignore them. Shouting one of those in the hopes that it will cause the O to slow their play is dirty pool and unspirited."

I had always agreed with that.

I don't think I have played against any team that yelled it that meant for it to slow the other team down. I also think you guys disregarded that good things about "check feet, for instance, a lot of the confusion and arguments "check feet" could have avoided had it been called versus not called. I am not ignoring that fact that check feet can be used in an unspirited way, but then so could any call.

It's funny, I disagree with almost every statement you made.

"I don't think I have played against any team that yelled it that meant for it to slow the other
team down."

Why do you shout it to the other team? You shout it so that the O will do *something*,
anything other than continue as if it weren't yelled. That is slowing the flow. The reason you
shout it is to distract them or otherwise get them to do something other than what they were
doing in a way that is not supported by any rule. That is unspirited.

Shouting 'check feet' toward the other team is a 'request' if you will to perform some action.
It's almost always backed up with the passive aggressive expectation that if the other player
was 'spirited', they would take a moment and perform that action that you're requesting, ie:
stop their play for just a moment to 'check their feet'.

"I also think you guys disregarded that good things about "check feet, for instance, a lot of
the confusion and arguments "check feet" could have avoided had it been called versus not
called."

Name one case where yelling 'check feet' at the other team avoids *any* confusion or
argument.

"I am not ignoring that fact that check feet can be used in an unspirited way, but then so
could any call."

The 'check feet' yell is not a call, do not confuse it as such. Making a call when it's supported
by the rules is never unspirited. Making a call when it's not supported is cheating. Yelling
'check feet' is closer to cheating than fair play in my opinion.

--

Anyway, it doesn't matter about all that. Even if you disagree, know that the following are
currently true in the sport of Ultimate:

FACT: The other team is not obligated by the rules or SOTG to do *anything* when you yell
'check feet'.

FACT: Expecting the other team to do anything when you yell 'check feet' is poor spirit.

If you don't think either of those facts are true, then you need to realize that you are wrong.
You should probably find an authoritative source that you trust to confirm.

Once you accept that those facts are true. You'll realize that yelling 'check feet' only
introduces problems to the game, and should just be avoided.

I love the bi-annual check feet discussion! (Caution, post might not be historically accurate)

Here's where Temple and I agree:

FACT: The other team is not obligated by the rules or SOTG to do *anything* when you yell 'check feet'.

Here's where we mostly agree:
FACT: Expecting the other team to do anything when you yell 'check feet' is poor spirit.

And here's where we disagree:

Once you accept that those facts are true. You'll realize that yelling 'check feet' only introduces problems to the game, and should just be avoided.

The number of arguments from "check feet" vs. "OUT" are far fewer. Like it or not many opponents don't want to have every little call called against them. I have NEVER seen anyone try the mythical argument that "I called Check feet, which means out" though. But I've only been playing for 12+ years so maybe it just didn't come up yet.

Did their foot slip 1/4 cm before they threw? TRAVEL!

Did they momentarily hover over the disc before picking it up? DELAY OF GAME!

Did they receiving team signal readiness for the pull within 70 seconds of the previous point scored? VIOLATION!

Did they pulling team pull within 20 seconds of that?! PULL VIOLATION!

Temple, I'd bet $20 that you don't necessarily follow each of these rules, let alone call them. Despite the fact that you clearly believe it's not Spirited to not follow the game as specifically indicated by the rules.

The reason we don't time those 70 seconds, or immediately yell delay of game is because of one key realization.

IT'S A FREAKIN' GAME!

Yes, there are rules, and we should never consider it to be dispirited to follow those rules. Honestly, I DO sometimes say "Check Feet" and I don't expect them to necessarily check their feet, nor for anyone on my team or theirs to do any action at all. But in the past in response I have simply decided to yell "OUT" if I have reason to believe they're out.

Know what happened? The game became a rules joust and completely unfun. Nobody bought the argument that "Temple said it's Spirited", I couldn't see why not though! Timed the pulls and brought out my trusty rule book when they argued! It was a glorious win for rules based Ultimate.

So I just reverted to calling "Check feet" and some people do, some people don't, but I don't let it bother me. Calling "Check Feet" didn't introduce any problem to the game. It is a commonly followed convention in recreational play. If you care enough to argue against it, that's fine by me, I'll play your way. Although in my experience, most teams I've been on and have played against are happier to play without the 3 times per point stop that actually calling every infraction entails (despite the fact that Temple says it's perfectly spirited)

"Temple, I'd bet $20 that you don't necessarily follow each of these rules, let alone call them.
Despite the fact that you clearly believe it's not Spirited to not follow the game as specifically
indicated by the rules."

No I don't call every infraction I see (I certainly don't mind when others do). But that doesn't
mean I sometimes make attempts to affect the game regarding an infraction *I don't see*.

That's the difference between calling travel and saying check feet. It's a flaw in your
argument.

You may not expect the other team to do anything when you say 'check feet', but then why
do you shout it? You're at least hoping that the offense will slow for a moment to check their
feet (I'm guessing). That is dirty pool in my book.

If you don't see the player OB, the rules are very clear on what to do: You say nothing.

--

"So I just reverted to calling "Check feet" and some people do, some people don't, but I don't
let it bother me. Calling "Check Feet" didn't introduce any problem to the game."

Again, the 'check feet' yell is not a call. Saying as much, like making the shout in the game,
gives weight to that phrase that simply doesn't exist. The problem that is introduced in your
case is that the teams you're playing against are having their incorrect notion that 'you should
check your feet when somebody yells it' reinforced. After all 'that's how we've always
played'.

When you perpetuate and reinforce this fallacy, the problem doesn't crop up when two teams
with the same variant of the rules play each other. The problem does arise when that player
with the incorrect idea of 'check feet' shouts it at somebody and gets put out because the
player didn't check their feet.

By far the vast majority of players that shout 'check feet' really think that the other player
should check their feet (that's almost tautologic), whether by the spirit of the game or the
letter of the rules.

--

"But in the past in response I have simply decided to yell "OUT" if I have reason to believe
they're out.

Know what happened? The game became a rules joust and completely unfun. Nobody bought
the argument that "Temple said it's Spirited", I couldn't see why not though!"

You've highlighted a problem where players are playing by their own set of 'rules', and that's
causing problems. You've exactly highlighted my point that when players think 'it's his call',
he should 'check his feet', problems arise in those games.

Don't you see how educating players on the correct way, rather than allowing each player to
have their own set of 'what's right' is the best way to resolve that?

I always call a simple "OB" when I see my or the other team OB. That has resulted in
arguments exactly zero times (in all range of divs). Frequently the other player or team has
disagreed with my call, but it's never caused an issue. "Ok, let's go back to thrower" has
resolved every single case.

If arguments are arising when you call OB and are disagreed with, perhaps there's something
wrong with how you are resolving those disagreements.

Hi By Hi

"You may not expect the other team to do anything when you say 'check feet', but then why do you shout it? You're at least hoping that the offense will slow for a moment to check their feet (I'm guessing). That is dirty pool in my book."

Yes, I hope that the offense would take a look, not to "slow" them down, but because I think that they are out. HOWEVER, what if no one else but you felt that they are out. If you called "out", (Temple will disagree) it would be a "bad call." And when players continue to make bad calls, that would be dirty pool in my book. Also, I am surprised that "Frequently the other player or team has disagreed with my call, but it's never caused an issue."

"You've highlighted a problem where players are playing by their own set of 'rules', and that's causing problems. You've exactly highlighted my point that when players think 'it's his call', he should 'check his feet', problems arise in those games."

I agree. But instead of "educating" the word out, why don't we educate the word in.

"Yes, I hope that the offense would take a look, not to "slow" them down, but because I think
that they are out. HOWEVER, what if no one else but you felt that they are out. If you called
"out", (Temple will disagree) it would be a "bad call." "

I do disagree, but that certainly shouldn't matter to you. What should matter is that the VUL,
CUPA, UPA, and WFDF all disagree. Any time you see a person OB and call it, it's perfectly
valid.

Differing opinions are common in ulty. If you're coming from a position where one party in a
disagreement made a "bad call", then you've got some learning about SOTG to do.

--

"Also, I am surprised that "Frequently the other player or team has disagreed with my call,
but it's never caused an issue.""

The only thing that comes to mind is: "That is why you fail."

Disagreements are common in ultimate! The beauty of ultimate is that it's got a built in,
issue-free disagreement resolution system: Back To Thrower.

--

"I agree. But instead of "educating" the word out, why don't we educate the word in."

The rules already have a word for you to shout when you see the play OB (hint it's "OB").
Are you advocating for a rule which allows the D to force the O to stop when they don't see
the play OB?

Pages