Out calls

179 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hi By Hi

"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."

It may be valid, but it is still a bad call.

"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."

Are we talking about the same kinda disagreement? I feel that you are using disagreement for the word argument?

I was surprised in the previous post because the key word from the quote was FREQUENTLY. When the other team disagrees with your call they would think that it is a bad call. And when bad calls are made frequently, it leads to an issue. This issue would be argument.

I'd have to disagree on both "Disagreements are common in ultimate!" and "That is why you fail." Because disagreements should be uncommon. And most of the games I play are uncommon in disagreement. "Back to thrower" isn't issue-free when it happens a lot. Which leads full circle back to why check feet could be better than OB.

--

"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?"

No I am not advocating a rule. But I am saying that calling "check feet" is not un-spirited. To avoid un-spirited usage of the word, "educate" players about the call or term, and what to do when you hear it.

Temple: "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."

HELLO!: "It may be valid, but it is still a bad call."

What do you define a "bad call"? Is it a call that, given a video replay, would be shown to be
incorrect? If so, then you have to appreciate that there's nothing unspirited in making such a
call when you believe it to be true.

You really have to understand that. You have to understand and assume that even if you
know what you saw, somebody else who saw it differently called what they saw. You have to
assume (no matter how sure of what you saw), that the other person is just as sure, is not
cheating, and made a good call.

That philosophy is what allows disagreements to stay disagreements (differing opinions), and
not escalate to "argument". You seem to think the two are equivalent in ultimate. I think
that's because you and the players you're playing against are missing out on a key component
of SOTG: That all calls are 'good', even the ones that are wrong.

--

HELLO!: "I'd have to disagree on both "Disagreements are common in ultimate!" and "That is
why you fail." Because disagreements should be uncommon. And most of the games I play
are uncommon in disagreement. "Back to thrower" isn't issue-free when it happens a lot.
Which leads full circle back to why check feet could be better than OB.:

How long have you been playing ultimate? Second question, where is this magical ultimate
where there are no differing opinions? Is it the ultimate where nobody makes a call against
the other team, so that there's no possibility of disagreement. Instead you sit back and grind
your teeth when you see a player OB, but play on? I've got news for you, while there may be
few disagreements (differing opinions), that's not good ultimate.

Disagreements *are* common in ultimate. People see the same play differently all the time.
When you're not afraid to make a call, and you don't get your nose out of joint when
somebody *dares* to call you OB, a disagreement is not a bad thing. It just goes BTT without
any fuss whatsoever.

If the ultimate you're playing has disagreements leading to arguments, which leads to
unpleasantness, then you're playing a game with a SOTG problem. Can I hazzard a guess to
say that these games are generally played by people who haven't been playing all that long,
have never really read the rules, and don't have an idea of SOTG beyond 'everybody be
nice'?

--

HELLO!: "No I am not advocating a rule. But I am saying that calling "check feet" is not un-
spirited. To avoid un-spirited usage of the word, "educate" players about the call or term, and
what to do when you hear it.

Wait, we know what to do when you hear it. Ignore it. We agree on that?

So, knowing that you should ignore it and play on, what do we educate people calling it to
do? We would have to educate them to *absolutely not expect any action by the O*. The
problem is most people want the O to 'check feet', because it's 'more spirited'. That is utter
garbage, and that thinking leads to the kinds of problems you're experiencing in your games.

Hello!

If you really do see someone OB and call it, it's never a bad call. If you repeatedly think you see someone OB and have several people disagree, then maybe you should reconsider how you perceive someone as OB. Maybe you should reconsider what good perspective is, or perhaps the several other people who disagree with you are letting their bias intrude or maybe they have a worse perspective than you, in which case your call is not bad. Still, if you honestly and confidently see someone OB, how can it be a bad call?

As for disagreements, they are not all bad, and Temple is not using it to mean "argument." It only does that as a euphemism. If I call a foul claiming you hit my hand causing me to flub a throw, and you say that the disc had already left my hand, it's a disagreement. One resolution is to contest the foul and have a do-over. That's the way it should be. Another resolution is to have a heated "argument" with reenactions, name calling and aspersions cast upon each other's parentage. That is not what Temple is referring to when he says "disagreement," and that latter example is indeed bad.

"No I am not advocating a rule. But I am saying that calling "check feet" is not un-spirited. To avoid un-spirited usage of the word, "educate" players about the call or term, and what to do when you hear it."

It's true that saying "CF" isn't inherently unspirited, but expecting any outcome is, in which case why bother saying it at all? The education you refer to is exactly what you're so adamantly railing against. The call is "Out" or "OB," and when you hear it, unless you or someone else disagrees with good reason, it's a turnover.

-->To avoid un-spirited usage of the word, "educate" players about the call or term, and what to do when you hear it.<--

At the risk of making this 'discussion' go on for way too much longer...

Hello, what do YOU suggest people should do when they hear the term, "Check Feet"?

I'm a strong advocate that the correct and appropriate way that is least prone to error and confusion is to simply call someone "out" when that is what you have seen. (whether you are offense or defense). I also suggest that people also call someone "in" when it's close, just so someone makes the definitive call and everyone can keep playing in either case, without confusion.

"Check Feet" to me is nowhere near that clear. The receiver-now-thrower cannot see correctly where the invisible line is when the end-points are on either side of them, they do not often know where there earlier first landing point was for a catch on the run so the 'look at the line' after stopped doesn't much help determine that, and some people use that call to tell a receiver who has caught the disc in the end zone to not make another throw because they are already in (that's exactly what I was told it meant on my first day of ultimate centuries ago).

So many more questions need to be answered to respond to "check feet". Like: Why are you asking me to check my feet, do you think I caught it out, or ran out, or are in the end zone? Or: If you think I'm out, can you call me out, please, because I have no freaking idea where I am or where I caught it... I was focusing on the disc? Or: Can someone else who actually had a good perspective, please make the in/out call like they're supposed to? ... So many unanswered questions that need addressing if the "check feet" comment is to be understood and resolved.

With the rules suggesting the way that is fastest, and least prone to confusion... exactly how does calling "check feet" help with making it even less confusing... exactly what are you suggesting that people need to understand about "check feet"?

Hi By Hi

Firstly,

"That philosophy is what allows disagreements to stay disagreements (differing opinions), and not escalate to "argument". You seem to think the two are equivalent in ultimate."

REALLY?! Because that's what I thought you thought disagreement meant when you said "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." I thought I had made that clear in my previous response that "when bad calls are made frequently, it leads to an issue. This issue would be argument."

--

"You have to understand and assume that even if you know what you saw, somebody else who saw it differently called what they saw. You have to assume (no matter how sure of what you saw), that the other person is just as sure, is not cheating, and made a good call."

I have always understood that. Except, he may think it is a good call, whereas I think it is a bad call. What you, Temple, need to understand, is that MOST players who call check feet is not cheating, and is not unspirited.

--

"The problem is most people want the O to 'check feet', because it's 'more spirited'. That is utter garbage, and that thinking leads to the kinds of problems you're experiencing in your games."

Actually, it seems like it only leads problems to your games.

--

"So many more questions need to be answered to respond to "check feet... So many unanswered questions that need addressing if the "check feet" comment is to be understood and resolved."

REALLY?! If yes, then educating the word in would be good. On a side note, the word choice "educating" was quoted from Temple. Almost all of the check feet calls that I have encountered resolve within a second or 2. No disagreements or arguments with check feet. Whereas if OB had been called and disagreed, it would've taken a lot more time to resolve.

"Still, if you honestly and confidently see someone OB, how can it be a bad call?"

It maybe a good call to the ONE person who called it, but to EVERYONE ELSE who disagrees, it is a bad call. I NEVER SAID if you clearly see someone land OB, you shouldn't call it, I just said that if everyone else saw it differently, you just made a bad call. TO CLARIFY, so Temple can't misuse my word, the word "differently", as in complete opposite.

--

"I think that's because you and the players you're playing against are missing out on a key component of SOTG: That all calls are 'good', even the ones that are wrong."

Doesn't SOTG say you have to respect all the calls? I don't remember it saying that all calls are good. I respect all calls, even when they are bad. But I start to lose respect when bad calls are made frequently.

--

Hi By Hi

--

"How long have you been playing ultimate?"

I played highschool, varsity, and vul fall, summer, hat. How long have you? No wait... Don't answer that.

"Second question, where is this magical ultimate where there are no differing opinions?"

When did I suggest that ultimate would have no differing opinions?

"I've got news for you, while there may be few disagreements (differing opinions), that's not good ultimate."

I've got news for YOU, I think that's the BEST ultimate.

Sorry I gotta go back a few posts to answer this one. "Name one case where yelling 'check feet' at the other team avoids *any* confusion or argument."

Player catches it in the end zone sorta stratling. Then throws it away. One player says, she was in, the other says she ran in. The third says back to thrower. I would've said "check feet."

--

All calls can be abused, but the fact that check feet isn't actually in the rule book, it may serve to fill some gray areas, especially in a sport where there are no referees.

"Wait, we know what to do when you hear it. Ignore it. We agree on that?"

No. I can expect some people to ignore it.

What I wish to see with the word check feet is that the most recent receiver, when unsure of their IN or OUT possession, would make a quick and logical judgement to see if they are IN or OUT. If someone believes they have the perspective to disagree with the call IN or OUT much after, they should've called IN or OUT in the first place.

--

"I also suggest that people also call someone "in" when it's close, just so someone makes the definitive call and everyone can keep playing in either case, without confusion."

I'd like to see that too.

'Player catches it in the end zone sorta stratling. Then throws it away. One player says, she was in, the other says she ran in. The third says back to thrower. I would've said "check feet."'

Well, first I should point out that the third player is incorrect.

Regardless, I just don't see how the proposed use of "check feet" is any less ambiguous. I certainly can't tell whether it means she travelled or scored. If I were in her position, I'd either ignore the call, or I'd stop the play anyway to figure out what you were really trying to say.

Sorry, but even if you have arrived at a definition of "check feet" that you consider eminently reasonable, HELLO, I'm not going to spend energy spreading it, because (assuming I don't get laughed off the field) there are still many, many competing definitions of "check feet" out there. Maybe you have found one that works for you in your circle of competition, but it just doesn't work in general. I can't take it with me when I travel; it would be conceited of me to explain the etiquette of a call we've made up to someone in another city.

I recall once hearing someone yell "check feet" whilst I was airborne, midway through a greatest (God only knows what that was supposed to mean). What would you have me do? Should I seriously explain to the player that he used the wrong definition of "check feet" -- that yours is much better?

HELLO, I'm convinced that you believe it's better to yell 'check feet' than not in some
situations, but do you also believe that your opinion on that is not one that's held by the VUL,
CUPA, UPA, WFDF and many others?

"Almost all of the check feet calls that I have encountered resolve within a second or 2. No
disagreements or arguments with check feet. Whereas if OB had been called and disagreed, it
would've taken a lot more time to resolve."

You can't see it, but this is the problem with check feet. Amongst those who feel 'check feet'
is preferred over OB (something the rules and all governing and guiding bodies specifically
state the *opposite*), then that is the only time where "OB" causes the problems you're
experiencing.

Please realize that the discussion is bouncing back and forth on these two points.

1) We (me, atanarjuat, mortakai, Gin-Boh, the VUL, CUPA, UPA, WFDF, the rules) are all
saying that 'check feet' leads to problems when people think it is preferred over "OB".

2) You (and the pro-check feet folks) are all saying that 'check feet' is preferred, because
problems occur with "OB".

You need to realize that you're only proving our point. Generally, whenever there's a problem
arise with somebody calling "OB", then you know the people who have issue with the "OB"
call have missed out on the rules and SOTG.

Yes, games work well (dare I say better) when you play people who *exactly* share your
view on 'check feet'. However this view isn't shared by the greater ultimate community, it's
governing bodies, or it's standing rules. Problems occur when somebody in your select group
(who share the exact view on 'check feet') plays somebody who is playing by the generally
accepted rules of the game, or their own variant which differs from yours.

Your group isn't necessarily playing wrong. However, when you expect others to share your
unique view, and they don't, you get problems such as issues arising over OB calls.
Something that should never, ever happen.

The real problem is that your group is playing under this variant *and* not realizing it's
outside the accepted rules of play, and so you *are* expecting others to share your view, and
problems with OB calls *do* occur.

This is the problem with your 'check feet'. This is the problem with all variants of play that
are different from the rules. Any time two teams have a different view of 'how the game
should be played' there is a very good chance that one team will think the other is not playing
'how the game should be played'. That leads to problems that don't exist if you share the
accepted view of 'how the game should be played'.

This statement is 99.99% false:

"You need to realize that you're only proving our point. Generally, whenever there's a problem arise with somebody calling "OB", then you know the people who have issue with the "OB" call have missed out on the rules and SOTG."

This statement is 50% false (not the part about governing bodies):
"Yes, games work well (dare I say better) when you play people who *exactly* share your view on 'check feet'. However this view isn't shared by the greater ultimate community, it's governing bodies, or it's standing rules. Problems occur when somebody in your select group (who share the exact view on 'check feet') plays somebody who is playing by the generally accepted rules of the game, or their own variant which differs from yours."

This statement is also false (HELLO! has repeatedly said that he understands and knows the rules. He's talking about his experience, which I might add is shared by literally hundreds of ultimate players) He clearly understands that CF is not a core component of the rules. He's demonstrated that throughout the discussion and highlighted it in several posts.
"The real problem is that your group is playing under this variant *and* not realizing it's outside the accepted rules of play, and so you *are* expecting others to share your view, and problems with OB calls *do* occur."

Temple, until you understand what he's saying, you're not going to wrap your head around the possibility that there are parts to a society (including an Ultimate Society) that are not dictated by rules bodies. Rules bodies become involved and are useful for formalizing reconciliation of conflict in society. They are not good at dictating things like "Spirit of the game".

I think that's really part of the overall issue. Your posts (not only here, but in other threads) clearly show that you don't understand spirit of the game. You try and propose that if you play within the rules that it's spirited. It's simply not true.

How long have you been playing Temple? Did you bring that up because you're just curious? Or did you bring that up because you're attempting to make a fallacious attempt at an appeal to authority? A kind of "Well I've been playing longer so I'm right".

Dugly: "You try and propose that if you play within the rules that it's spirited. It's simply not
true."

Dug, this is why I won't argue this further with you. I think that statement is completely
false. Playing within the rules is never unspirited. Failing to abide by an unwritten, unspoken,
and unagreed-upon idea of 'how the game should be played' is never unspirited. Further, the
VUL, CUPA, UPA, and WFDF all agree upon that (based on what they have written about
SOTG).

--

Why did I ask how long he'd been playing? There's a hint that it was in direct response to his
statement that disagreements were not uncommon in ultimate. I couldn't fathom somebody
having that experience after having played more than a handful of games. However it turns
out that perhaps he equated "disagreement" with "argument". I'd agree that "arguments" are
not common in ultimate, but if there's one thing that's extremely common, it's that people
have disagreements (lack of consensus).

Hi By Hi

Dugly. :D For the longest time I thought my english was too poor to convey what I wanted to say.

--

atanarjuat

"I recall once hearing someone yell "check feet" whilst I was airborne, midway through a greatest (God only knows what that was supposed to mean). What would you have me do? Should I seriously explain to the player that he used the wrong definition of "check feet" -- that yours is much better?"

Make an educated guess as to what you think he meant. MUCH more often than not, you will probably get it right. Check feet can mean so many things, which is why it is so awesome. Instead of having to say a lot, or calling a rule which is absolute, which stops the game, calling Check Feet may be better for some situations. Having read the situation you stated, I knew what he meant. He meant two things. "Hey you are close to being out or possibly out, I would like to alert someone close by please confirm his contacts to the ground." and/or "hey I think you are out, would you like to confirm?" There's no way knowing for sure what he meant, but if one who understands check feet were to make an educated guess, that's probably the conclusion. And having uttered a quick two syllables does the job, don't you think check feet is awesome? On the other hand, had he yelled out, which is valid, the game would have to stop, then confirm and/or discuss his in/out position. If the players are good, they would play on until the disc is in possession. Which is cool too. What I am arguing here is that, I don't think he yelled check feet to be un-spirited. I think he meant it in good will.

--

"Sorry, but even if you have arrived at a definition of "check feet" that you consider eminently reasonable, HELLO, I'm not going to spend energy spreading it, because (assuming I don't get laughed off the field) there are still many, many competing definitions of "check feet" out there. Maybe you have found one that works for you in your circle of competition, but it just doesn't work in general. I can't take it with me when I travel; it would be conceited of me to explain the etiquette of a call we've made up to someone in another city."

Sorry to hear that. I tried. You may be right about it only working for my circle of competition, the VUL. I have not traveled far playing ultimate.

Hi By Hi

--

"Problems occur when somebody in your select group (who share the exact view on 'check feet') plays somebody who is playing by the generally accepted rules of the game, or their own variant which differs from yours."

ULTIMATELY, The problem occurs when one party makes an un-spirited call. Whether that'd be CF or OB.

When Dugly said, ""You try and propose that if you play within the rules that it's spirited. It's simply not true." There's more to it than just that.

Then you go on saying...

"Failing to abide by an unwritten, unspoken, and unagreed-upon idea of 'how the game should be played' is never unspirited. Further, the VUL, CUPA, UPA, and WFDF all agree upon that (based on what they have written about SOTG)."

****We didn't say that it is unspirited to ignore check feet or to call OB.****

--

"2) You (and the pro-check feet folks) are all saying that 'check feet' is preferred, because problems occur with "OB"."

NO. We are saying, and have been saying since the beginning, check feet MAY BE preferred, because problems CAN occur when OB is called everytime OB is boarderline. We are also saying that it IS NOT unspirited to call check feet where appropriate.

--

"Playing within the rules is never unspirited."

What if they abuse the rules? That would be unspirited then right? Following the rules guarantees spirit MAJORITY of the time, there are times when the rules SEVERELY cost joy and respect.

--

Going back to reread most of the posts. I think the nail was hit when atanarjuat said "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."

And it's just like that. It is usually called for good intention, but it is a bad myth because it isn't in the rule book. If it is meant for good intention then the SOTG is preserved.

HELLO!: "ULTIMATELY, The problem occurs when one party makes an un-spirited call.
Whether that'd be CF or OB."

HELLO!: "****We didn't say that it is unspirited to ignore check feet or to call OB.****"

These two statements are so closely related. Everybody I've ever heard argue that 'check
feet' is sometimes 'better' also has believed in such a thing as an "unspirited call".

There is no such thing as a valid (non-cheating) call that is an "unspirited call". That's built
into the very definition of SOTG. If you don't believe that, please read the definition of SOTG
(you may be surprised to find that it's a little different from your definition of SOTG).

You may say (oh so emphatically) that you don't think it's unspirited to ignore a check feet
yell, but you also say that calling "OB" is sometimes "borderline" or "unspirited" or "bad".
You'll have a hard time convincing me that the same people who sometimes consider
following the rules unspirited, won't find it unspirited if I keep playing after you yell 'check
feet'.

Let's say though with you, you never expect a player to do anything but ignore you. Add to
that, that you think nothing of when a player ignores you and throws for a point (even when
you saw them OB and yelled 'check feet'). I have trouble believing that the same person that
can think there's such a thing as an unspirited call will have absolutely no problem with me
scoring when I was OB and didn't check my feet.

--

HELLO!: "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.""

This is key! Inherent in that statement is the belief that every 'check feet' proponent I've
ever talked to or read posts by has shared. It's the belief that making an "OB" call is
sometimes being a "hardass", 'unfriendly' or otherwise "borderline", "unspirited", or "bad".

That is the real problem with 'check feet', not the 'check feet' yell itself. It's that hand-in-
hand belief by the people who do yell 'check feet' that sometimes I shouldn't be calling OB
when I see it, because it may be "borderline" or a "bad" OB call, or perhaps because
'most/all of the field saw it differently'.

In those cases, you have people like yourself who think it's more spirited, in certain cases, to
yell something like 'check feet', rather than make a "hardass" OB call. That thinking is
absolutely counter to SOTG. That thinking is what leads to the 'problems' with calling OB that
you've mentioned, and that thinking is what's wrong with 'check feet'.

JDD By JDD

"Check feet can mean so many things, which is why it is so awesome."
- HELLO!

This is my favourite quote in the whole argument. Next game I am going to yell out "Aloha!" and see if play is resolved correctly.

Hi By Hi

"Check feet can mean so many things, which is why it is so awesome." "This is my favourite quote in the whole argument. Next game I am going to yell out "Aloha!" and see if play is resolved correctly."

Cool man, if you can get it to mean something. And you took my words out of context.

--

"Let's say though with you, you never expect a player to do anything but ignore you. Add to that, that you think nothing of when a player ignores you and throws for a point (even when you saw them OB and yelled 'check feet'). I have trouble believing that the same person that can think there's such a thing as an unspirited call will have absolutely no problem with me scoring when I was OB and didn't check my feet."

Firstly, CF is situational, but yet you seem to think all CF calls are unspirited which is what I am arguing against.

If I saw the OB I would call it, and you would do the same. We might come to a disagreement. But I would not think poorly of your spirit and neither would you to me. HOWEVER, when these disagreements continue to increase, I would most definitely think you have poor spirit as you would to me if I kept calling OB when you felt you were pretty far INBOUND.

Would you agree?

--

"There is no such thing as a valid (non-cheating) call that is an "unspirited call". That's built into the very definition of SOTG."

Show me.

--

There's much more to say about your post, but you always seem to ignore my points so I will stop responding to yours until you address mine.

Would you please address this one.

"Playing within the rules is never unspirited."

What if they abuse the rules? That would be unspirited then right? Following the rules guarantees spirit MAJORITY of the time, there are times when the rules SEVERELY cost joy and respect."

How are you abusing the rules if you are playing by them? When is it ever unspirited to be playing by the rules?

You two can argue endlessly about check-feet, but I think the elephant in the corner is this claim by Temple: "Playing within the rules is never unspirited."

Anyone familiar with set theory? Remember high school math where you draw overlapping circles for different sets of things? I'm betraying my inner geek here...

I think of "adhering to SOTG" and "playing by the rules" as two sets of activities (or circles). SOTG is a bigger circle -- the definition of SOTG includes "adherence to agreed upon rules" but it also covers other things like respect, joy of play, sportsmanlike conduct, etc.

The underlying question here, as Jesse asks, is whether the Rules circle is entirely contained within the SOTG circle, or whether it's overlapping with some part of it outside, i.e. whether sometimes applying the rules can be contrary to spirit of the game, or at least not fully in line with SOTG.

It's clear there are two sides to the debate. I can understand those who say that any valid rule call should not be called unspirited, regardless or how or when or why it's called. You may not like it, but you should deal with it. In addition, to say that some calls might be unspirited in some situations could lead to a slippery slope. Who decides when and what calls are unspirited? If you want a clear rule book to guide your decisions, and to unequivocally resolve disputes, then I can understand the appeal of this position.

However, I don't know if we need to be that that black and white, or if the original designers of the game *intended* it to be that black and white. If someone's application of the rules significantly affects the joy of play for your team, or if they do so in a disrespectful manner, then I believe they are not adhering to true intent behind the SOTG clause, even if they are technically within the rules. I won't list examples, because I believe most of us have had experiences where we felt the other team was abusing the rules to gain an advantage. That's not respectful or fun, in my book. Your head says "what they're doing is legal" but your gut says "what they're doing is uncool", or "I didn't sign up for this type of game".

I'm not comfortable completely dismissing the latter perspective as being invalid.

Craig makes some good points. I know I have felt I was in that situation a few times, when I felt someone was 'bending' the rule book to gain an advantage. But some of that could be chalked up to the competitive juices flowing.

As a relative newbie (5 yrs), my main problem with CF is that it's passive-aggressive. The way I interpret the rules is pretty simple - if you see someone out, call OB, but if you aren't sure, don't say anything. Calling CF is basically avoiding responsibility for the call and putting the responsibility on someone else, who may or may not have a better perspective than you. That, to me, is borderline unspirited in and of itself. I'd much rather someone call 'OB' if they honestly believed I was OB, and then if there's a disagreement it's BTT, end of story.

HELLO:
'Make an educated guess as to what you think he meant. MUCH more often than not, you will probably get it right. Check feet can mean so many things, which is why it is so awesome. Instead of having to say a lot, or calling a rule which is absolute, which stops the game, calling Check Feet may be better for some situations. Having read the situation you stated, I knew what he meant. He meant two things. "Hey you are close to being out or possibly out, I would like to alert someone close by please confirm his contacts to the ground." and/or "hey I think you are out, would you like to confirm?" There's no way knowing for sure what he meant, but if one who understands check feet were to make an educated guess, that's probably the conclusion. And having uttered a quick two syllables does the job, don't you think check feet is awesome? On the other hand, had he yelled out, which is valid, the game would have to stop, then confirm and/or discuss his in/out position. If the players are good, they would play on until the disc is in possession. Which is cool too. What I am arguing here is that, I don't think he yelled check feet to be un-spirited. I think he meant it in good will.'

My best guess is that he was questioning whether I had jumped from in-bounds or from out-of-bounds when executing my greatest attempt. But (if that is what he meant) merely questioning that fact does not help us. We need the player with the best perspective to take a solid stance; by default, the rules tell us to assume that stance is "in-bounds" until that player tells us otherwise (although he/she could pro-actively announce "in-bounds" too).

If he had decisively called "out," the game would not have stopped; it would have been a simple turnover (which does not stop play, of course). Play might stop only if a dispute arises on the field. In general, disputes should be rare; they arise when someone loses faith in another player's calls. I think you'll agree that's the crux of the problem; you've referred to "abuse of the rules" and "bad calls" as the origins of these disputes.

The irony here, HELLO, is that Temple has effectively said that "check feet" calls also lend themselves to such "abuse." And you've responded that one must have a spirited, friendly view of the "check feet" call; that we should educate others to think of them this way as well. Do you see the similarity in the rhetoric?

Temple says that we must have spirited, friendly faith in the use of the rules (such as "out" calls). He says that we must educate players to think of them this way to avoid disputes. In your experience, "check feet" calls avoid disputes; in his experience (and mine), "check feet" calls cause disputes.

Between the two, I prefer to stand on the side of the codified rules, because I can always refer to them as the way we should play. Let me be clear about my experience; in the games I currently play, "out" calls are not frequent causes of disputes and "check feet" calls are rare and puzzling.

HELLO, a few things you've said leads me to believe you may not understand some key components of the rules.

"[...] Instead of having to say a lot, or calling a rule which is absolute, which stops the game [...]"

It sounds like you think OUT calls cause a stoppage of play. They don't. The disc is still either in play or live (depending on where the disc and player are) but play is definitely not stopped. I'll call out and then pretty much immediately start to bust deep on transition because now I'm on O.

The stoppage will happen if/when someone disagrees with the call and we start to discuss it. Sometimes that happens and sometimes it doesn't.

I'm not convinced how your suggestions, "Hey you are close to being out or possibly out, I would like to alert someone close by please confirm his contacts to the ground." and/or "hey I think you are out, would you like to confirm?" Are actually better for keeping the game going than how the rules suggest it should be done.

The rules suggest instead that the player makes the call. If you're trying to alert someone close by to confirm contacts, shouldn't they be doing that anyway at all times during the game? That's what players are supposed to do: make calls when appropriate. If they're not making the call, it means to me one of two things: (1) they don't understand that they're supposed to make that call, or (2) they saw it clearly and didn't think they were out.

If 1, then the right thing to do is to educate that player that they're supposed to make certain calls, and of course suggest that they read and understand the rules to understand what those calls are.

If 2, then we need to trust that they're making the right call. If YOU are the one that sees it clearly, then it's YOUR call to make.

But in neither of those solutions does, or should, "check feet" come into the picture.

If someone disagrees whether a player is in or out, they will have that disagreement regardless of whether "out" or "check feet" was uttered, and resultantly play will stop while it is resolved. The difference is that the latter term adds to the confusion of what was meant in that particular instance and what is expected as a resolution.

Seriously, if you want Matt, who was closer to the line at the time of the catch, to call him OUT (or IN for that matter)... then instead of "check feet", how about yelling, "Matt, was he in or out". If that's what you mean by "check feet", then why not say what you mean.

That's the beauty of our language, we can actually choose words to say exactly what we mean to say. So why can't we all agree to do just that?

Let me take a different tact with an example of where I think "check feet" is not the best choice of words to use and why...

Situation: After an awesome strike where I'm completely open (a common occurence in all of my games *snicker*), the disc is put up to me and it's sailing above the OB area. Running just short of the EZ at the sideline, I plant my toes (hopefully inside the line) and do a falling catch. There's another striker also heading into the EZ who's only going to be open for another second or two so I quickly scramble to my knees in order to throw a pass for the score. I hear "check feet" just as I'm about to throw, and then realize that it's actually the second or third repeat of the term in quick succession.

My mind quickly does this: "No-one's called me "out" (or "in"), so as far as I know, I had planted properly in-bounds as I intended for the catch. And I think I already moved back to the sideline after the catch, so I don't think I'm about to throw from OB. WTF does 'check feet' mean?"

So I make the throw (use your imagination to decide whether it was game-winning on universal point or a turnover again under hard-cap and we're on the losing end of a 'donut' game yet again), and then enter into a discussion about what the 'cf' call was.

"Did you think I caught it out?". Either they did and should rather have called me "out". Or they thought maybe I was, and rather should have yelled to a team-mate on/close to the sideline to make the right call. Or perhaps it wasn't this at all...

"Did you think I was positioned OB when I was about to throw?". If so, then wouldn't it have been better to yell something like, "You ran out", or "your pivot isn't on the line"... and then call "Travel" if a throw then happened. Or if that was a maybe, how about asking a teammate on/nearer the line if my pivot is OB, "Matt, is his pivot OB?"

In all calmness, aren't ANY of those choices better than "check feet" from an understandability standpoint? Sure it might take a split second longer to spout out, but certainly much clearer.

... and IMnsHO, more spirited.

"However, I don't know if we need to be that that black and white, or if the original designers
of the game *intended* it to be that black and white. If someone's application of the rules
significantly affects the joy of play for your team, or if they do so in a disrespectful manner,
then I believe they are not adhering to true intent behind the SOTG clause, even if they are
technically within the rules. I won't list examples, because I believe most of us have had
experiences where we felt the other team was abusing the rules to gain an advantage. That's
not respectful or fun, in my book. Your head says "what they're doing is legal" but your gut
says "what they're doing is uncool", or "I didn't sign up for this type of game"."

This conversation came up at length a short while a go in the "Relative Sportsmanship"
thread:

http://www.vul.bc.ca/v3/forum/forum_message_display.cfm?FirstMessageID=3...

I don't really want to rehash all those points, but I will suggest that it's impossible to satisfy
everybody's idea of what "abusing the rules" is. What one person considers a 'rule abuse' or
being a 'hardass' may be perfectly spirited to another (say calling "OB" when you see it
clearly, but many disagree with you). Each person can have their own variant on what 'the
proper way to play' is.

Craig, can't you see that this invariably leads to problems? If each person has their own idea
of (let's call it broadly) SOTG, then you're going to have the case where one person thinks
they are playing with SOTG, playing 'how the game should be played', while the other thinks
they are being unspirited, that they 'shouldn't be doing that'.

I've seen that lead to more ill will than anything else in the VUL.

"I won't list examples, because I believe most of us have had experiences where we felt the
other team was abusing the rules to gain an advantage."

Please list an example. Just one. I'll give a likely example of where somebody would start to
feel abuse is occurring:

Example 1: Maybe Team A has been traveling a bit all game. Maybe Team B has too. At
universe point, Team B starts calling them on it. A few throws to the end zone are called
back.

If you accept the notion that *sometimes* a valid call *may* be abusive, or cheap, or what-
have-you, then this is likely a case where you're going to feel that.

There are so many reasons why this could be occurring, that assuming it's a lack of respect
for your team is what's introducing the poison into the game. It's assuming that making those
valid Travel calls is unspirited is what is in fact unspirited.

1. Perhaps Team B hasn't looked at your feet all game, for a variety of reasons. Now they
are and they're seeing you travel.

Is that unspirited by Team B? Are they abusing the rules?

2. Perhaps Team B has seen you travel previously, but didn't bother calling it because they
didn't care that you were giving yourself an advantage. Now the game is close, Team B wants
to win, and they start calling it when you give yourself the illegal advantage.

Is that unspirited by Team B? Are they abusing the rules? Does failure to call an infraction in
the past lock you into an implicit agreement to not make any of those calls in the future?

3. Perhaps Team B has seen you travel previously, but didn't bother calling it. Now however,
they see Team A start taking greater liberties, significantly increasing the advantage they're
taking, so they call travel on these egregious violations.

Is that unspirited by Team B? Are they locked into some 'unspoken captains clause', so that
they can't call any travels now?

Remember in the case we're discussing, Team A *travelled*. They broke the rules! Do they
have any right to think that SOTG dictates that Team B must allow Team A to break the
rules? No!

--

Craig, if you allow *any* sliver of "Valid Calls" to lie outside of the "SOTG" circle in the venn
diagram, you introduce all kinds of problems into ultimate. It's that faith that "all calls are
equally valid" that makes ultimate fun. If the notion exists in your head that some valid calls
are 'unspirited', then you're going to fall back on that notion. You're going to start seeing
"abuse" and "cheating" where perhaps there isn't.

Further, I have see no argument which suggests that the definition of SOTG even allows for
the idea that 'following the agreed upon rules of the game' can ever be unspirited. In fact I
see the exact opposite.

SOTG never suggests that a team needs to allow another to break the rules.

Thanks for the reply, Temple. I agree with some points, and still disagree with others. I have lots of work to do today, so may not reply until tomorrow. But here's one thought to chew on:

If all calls are valid calls, and therefore completely unquestionable, and therefore completely within SOTG, why would we ever need Observers? Why would the powers-that-be develop a role that can overturn some players' supposedly valid calls?

"If all calls are valid calls, and therefore completely unquestionable, and therefore completely
within SOTG, why would we ever need Observers? Why would the powers-that-be develop a
role that can overturn some players' supposedly valid calls?"

Excellent question!

I don't say that all calls are valid "and therefore completely unquestionable, and therefore
completely within SOTG". I say that all *valid* calls, even the questionable ones that you
think are out to lunch, are completely within SOTG. There's a big difference!

What's a 'valid call'? Any call made by a person that believes that the infraction they're
calling occurred.

What's not a 'valid call'? A call made by a person that doesn't believe that the infraction
occurred. That is, conscious cheating.

Calls based on a view that objectively (through instant replay say) can be seen to be
incorrect, are still perfectly valid. No less valid than the 'correct' call.

How can you tell when somebody is cheating instead of just wrong? You generally can't. With
a self-refereed sport, you *really* need to assume that all calls are valid. You must assume
that nobody is cheating.

Otherwise, any time you are certain of a call, but somebody makes another, you'll tend to
think they're cheating or otherwise playing unspiritedly. This is the cause of the majority of
the arguments that arise from calls. It's people that don't honestly believe that an 'incorrect'
call is not cheating or otherwise unspirited. They assume motive behind that 'incorrect' call.

**There's nothing unspirited in an incorrect call that the caller believes in!**

Of course, sometimes the person is cheating! There's nothing in the rules or SOTG that's
going to prevent somebody from cheating or otherwise mitigate it. It will happen, and there's
nothing you can do about it, except walk away, grin and bear it, or get pissed and start being
mean or cheating against them.

Nothing, *nothing* can be gained by assuming the person is cheating. The outcome of the
game won't change, you're not going to have a better time, you're likely going to have a
much worse time. Now if you give a strong benefit of the doubt that a person is not cheating
when they make a questionable (to you) call, then you're on the road to fun ulty. The disc
goes BTT when you contest, and you play on in harmony.

That BTT is really the only way you can have self-refereed sport function. When there's a
disagreement, if you don't think BTT is actually *better* than what 'really' happened, then
you're going to have problems in your games.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not all the way there yet, but I consciously try to positively reinforce
myself. Every time the disc goes BTT, I try to think: *gong* 'BTT is the best outcome, better
than my call'.

--

Why do you need observers? Because sometimes people cheat. That's an inescapable fact.

A game with Observers is effectively not a self-refereed game (it is, but there's an instant-
replay-like veto). With a non-self-refereed game, BTT *isn't* always the best course of
action. Usually what 'really' happened is the best course of action.

That's quite different from a game with self-refereeing.

Hi By Hi

Mortakai

"Seriously, if you want Matt, who was closer to the line at the time of the catch, to call him OUT (or IN for that matter)... then instead of "check feet", how about yelling, "Matt, was he in or out". If that's what you mean by "check feet", then why not say what you mean.

That's the beauty of our language, we can actually choose words to say exactly what we mean to say. So why can't we all agree to do just that? "

I can agree to that. And I have nothing to defend against your well worded post except that, CF is only 2 syllables and it has a quick and inherent meaning. And I am still not convinced that CF is an unspirited call.

--

Temple

"What's a 'valid call'? Any call made by a person that believes that the infraction they're calling occurred.

What's not a 'valid call'? A call made by a person that doesn't believe that the infraction occurred. That is, conscious cheating."

This is going back full circle. I know you have to assume all calls are made valid. But a person cheating will always tell you that their call is valid. Would it still be a spirited valid call then?

Read the second line you quoted. Cheating is not spirited. You can't and shouldn't try to assume
that what you see as an 'incorrect' call is cheating. Read the rest of the post you quoted for a
more detailed answer to your question.

Temple, here's a perfectly legal call that is >entirely< against SOTG.

You're playing VUL, for sake of argument div 7.

Throughout the game each team has taken their time to teach new players what's going on. They've had breaks between points without discussing an exception to the 90 second to pull rule etc.

The game is tied at 16 with a hard cap at 17.

Someone has done their homework on one side. They are on the receiving team. They time from the point of the reception for a point to exactly 70 seconds.

They indicate readiness to receive.

After 21 seconds they charge the other team with a pull violation. In the ensuing 20 seconds they call it again. This player then argues that they get the disc at the mid

VIII.C.4.b

This is entirely in the rules. It meets your criteria that it's a valid call. It's also an extremely unspirited play.

That rule VIII.C.4 only applies to games where Observers are present. Only Observers may issue
those warnings, remove team time-outs, or assess time violations.

Excellent example of an imaginary call.

OK Temple, Rule VIII.C

Sorry, got the sub-subsection wrong!

So given

1: Rule VIII.C "Time Between Pulls" sections 1 - 3 (absolutely no mention of observers in those sections) Quoted here:

1. The receiving team must signal readiness to play within seventy seconds after the previous goal was scored.
2. The pulling team must release the pull before the later to occur of:
a) ninety seconds after the previous goal was scored; or
b) twenty seconds after the receiving team signaled readiness.
3. On a re-pull,
a) the receiving team must signal readiness to play within twenty seconds after the call for a re-pull was made; and
b) the pulling team must release the pull before the later to occur of:
(1) forty seconds after the call for a re-pull was made; or
(2) twenty seconds after the receiving team signaled readiness.

2: The aforementioned scenario.

Do you
a) Disagree that it's a valid call
b) Disagree that it's an dispirited call
c) Agree that it's a valid, but dispirited call
d) None of the above

I think you missed my point. You can't call for the disc at midfield, that's a penalty from a
time violation that only an Observer can make. That call isn't a valid call. It's like a non-thrower
calling double team from across the field. While that's similar to a rule in the book, it's not a
rule that can be Called.

The discussion so far was focussing on the actual rules, and whether or not the criteria for a
rule was met. I suppose that I didn't highlight the alternative that an invalid 'call' could also
be based on a non-rule (I'm not even really sure if that should be called a Call). A person
making such an invalid 'call' isn't necessarily intentionally cheating, but it's still not a valid
call, so I think the example doesn't fit your question.

Maybe you could try again to offer an example of a valid call that you think is unspirited.

Which part of it is made up? It's still in the rules. I even copy pasted the section. As you can see, there's no reference in the rules that it's an imaginary rule.

Just because the result isn't taking it at midfield doesn't make the rule made up.

Ok, I'm confused by your scenario. I'm not sure what exactly is the valid call being made.

Could you restate it without the invalid part/s?

Hi By Hi

"What's a 'valid call'? Any call made by a person that believes that the infraction they're calling occurred.

What's not a 'valid call'? A call made by a person that doesn't believe that the infraction occurred. That is, conscious cheating."

Lemme rephrase my question.

How do you catch someone cheating the OB without yourself being unspirited?

"How do you catch someone cheating the OB without yourself being unspirited?"

You can't! Cheating and being wrong are pretty much entirely indistinguishable. If you saw the
play differently, you call it that way and it goes BTT. That's perfectly fair (if not necessarily
true to what 'really' happened). In a self-refereed sport, fair is more important than accurate.

That's why it's fruitless to ever assume somebody is cheating. Nothing will happen differently
if you think somebody's cheating. All that that conclusion in your mind will affect is your
enjoyment of the game, and likely your attitude (which can cause a self-propagating
negativity spiral and make the game no fun at all).

Why would you even think you'd need to "catch someone cheating"? I've seen people make
calls I was 100% sure were incorrect, so sure I'd have bet a year's salary (still doesn't mean
that they were wrong and I was right), but I didn't think they were cheating. I chalk it up to
misunderstanding the rules or truly seeing it differently.

I don't dwell on those calls I think are wrong, I want a BTT. BTT is better than what 'really'
happened. If I don't play that way, the game becomes less fun.

Sure there have been a (very, very) few cases where I thought that somebody knew that
their call was incorrect. The resolution's the same though: BTT. Far more often, when
somebody makes an 'incorrect' call, so obviously so to you that you think they *must* know
it's 'incorrect', that person actually believes it is correct.

If in your games 'unpleasantness' arises from a simple call like "OB", then I'd bet good
money that it's because the people involved don't have a good understanding of what I just
outlined.

It's a key component to SOTG, that you respect your opponent and assume their view is truly
as valid as your own.

Maybe I missed something in perusing the last twenty posts. How would the allowance of "check feet" calls prevent or deter cheating?

Hi By Hi

" Maybe I missed something in perusing the last twenty posts. How would the allowance of "check feet" calls prevent or deter cheating?"

Oh er... It doesn't. I was trying to defend that check feet is not always un-spirited, and it led to "OB is always valid," and it turned into a discussion about spirited and unspirited calls.

--

Temple

"You can't! Cheating and being wrong are pretty much entirely indistinguishable. If you saw the play differently, you call it that way and it goes BTT. That's perfectly fair (if not necessarily true to what 'really' happened). In a self-refereed sport, fair is more important than accurate."

I know that BTT is the resolution. It isn't always perfectly fair. But because of that, how is it fair for anyone if someone called OB everytime the disc was close to being out then claims 100% of the time that they were right. It is totally valid to claim that they are right 100% of the time. It doesn't mean that they are spirited.

I don't play automatically assuming everyone is cheating. No one does that. But sometimes there's wrong, and then, there is unreasonably wrong. This is what SOTG is made to defend. If I can't even think someone is being unspirited on a call, then why have SOTG at all?

"I know that BTT is the resolution. It isn't always perfectly fair. But because of that, how is it
fair for anyone if someone called OB everytime the disc was close to being out then claims
100% of the time that they were right. It is totally valid to claim that they are right 100% of
the time. It doesn't mean that they are spirited."

Anybody calling OB when they don't see the disc OB is cheating. How does your hypothetical
fit into the discussion at hand?

"I don't play automatically assuming everyone is cheating. No one does that. But sometimes
there's wrong, and then, there is unreasonably wrong. This is what SOTG is made to defend.
If I can't even think someone is being unspirited on a call, then why have SOTG at all?"

I never said you don't assume somebody is wrong. Almost every disagreement (different
views on the play) should result in you being sure of what you saw, and the other guy seeing
it differently. I should hope you usually think the other person is wrong when they call the
opposite of what you're *sure* of.

There's a big difference here between assuming somebody is cheating and assuming
somebody is wrong:

Being wrong is not unspirited!

You seem to think that when somebody is 'unreasonably wrong' then they are being unspirited
(I don't know if you want to call that cheating). Having so little benefit of the doubt does not
show much respect to your opponent, and in my opinion is fairly poor spirited. If you believe
they honestly saw it that way, then you *have* to accept that they are being spirited.
However, if you think they are being unspirited, then you effectively are judging that the
person is cheating (or doesn't know the rule).

In my experience, people are incredibly wrong way, way more often than they cheat. If you
are choosing to equate being 'unreasonably wrong' with unspirited play, you're going to enjoy
ultimate less than if you assume they were completely wrong, but believe what they saw.

When you're presented with somebody that you think made a call which is 'wrong', you really
*have* to assume that they are playing perfectly spirited and they saw the play the way they
called it. If you assume that blatantly (to you), or even repeated 'wrong' calls are due to
cheating, then there's an environment of ill-will cloaked over the game. That's pretty much
the only way to see somebody who makes a valid call as a 'hardass' or 'unreasonable'.

not only has this horse been beaten, its starting to get a little rotton...

I'm amazed how low this has sunk and how circular and convoluted it has become.

Hello!: in post 76, you state that CF is better because it's shorter while having an inherent
meaning, yet in post 61 you say "CF can mean so many things, which is why it is so
awesome." Don't these contradict each other? I believe that the earlier comment (minus the
"awesome" bit) is true, which is one reason I have a problem with it.

You seem to think that calling someone OB is bad because the call is often made by someone
who doesn't clearly see the play, and that someone who does (or perhaps doesn't) clearly see
it disagrees, leading to an argument. And that when this happens frequently, it creates bad
blood. You know what? The anti-CF camp fully agrees with you that someone who doesn't
clearly see the play shouldn't call OB for just that reason. I'm quite sure that conflicting
clearly-seen OB calls are relatively uncommon, which is why calling OB properly (ie: when
you see it clearly) is unlikely to cause problems. If it does, then perhaps the concept of
"seeing it clearly" has to be revisited.

Dugly: To elaborate on post 83, the rule you quoted the second time has no penalty
associated with it, which is why in your initial scenario it is wrong of the player/team to insist
on receiving the disc at midfield.

mrdmdbond: "not only has this horse been beaten, its starting to get a little rotton..."

Gin-Boh: "I'm amazed how low this has sunk and how circular and convoluted it has become."

I agree that it's quite circular, but I don't think it's gotten "low". In fact there's been
practically no acrimony, vitriol, name calling, or otherwise in nearly 100 posts. That might
qualify this thread as one of the most enlightened disagreement threads in VUL Forum
history.

As for beating the horse, that implies that the conversation is resolved, and that continuation
is futile.

I think for the people who disagree (which includes those that might be popping in to read
these posts now or in the future) there's still value in trying to teach the fundamental aspect
of SOTG that's at the heart of this thread. It's that misunderstanding of SOTG, that a valid
call can bee 'unspirited', 'hardassed', or otherwise which always seems to cause people to
want to use 'check feet'.

'Check feet' isn't (necessarily) a problem in itself, certainly not one warranting this much
discussion. 'Check feet' is a symptom of the real issue, the idea that 'making calls is
unspirited'. That's something that I think deserves as much discussion as it needs to resolve
the myth.

What's the alternative? Give up on educating about SOTG? I'm not sure why you'd ever want
to do that, certainly not just because the post count is getting too high.

Gin-Boh, does not having a penalty associated make it a non-rule? It's in the rules right?

Not having a penalty associated with it doesn't make it any less "a rule". If it's a non-rule then take it out. Make another section, maybe put it under the observers section, maybe a "These rules apply to tournament ultimate, perhaps with observers" or something. Right now it's in the rules, and except for the penalty there is no suggestion in the rules that it does not apply.

So take the bit about starting at mid-field out of the example. In my opinion the penalty is not relevant to the fact that making the call is entirely within the rules (It's a violation per the definition, all violations may be called by players on the field etc.)

However, rather than address this, the proponents merely ignored it. That's fine, but ignoring evidence to the contrary doesn't make an argument right. It makes it pointless.

Dugly: "However, rather than address this, the proponents merely ignored it. That's fine, but
ignoring evidence to the contrary doesn't make an argument right. It makes it pointless."

I don't think you're being ignored. If you look, I've repeatedly asked for clarification, so that I
can respond. Gin-Boh also weighed in. I'm going to guess that he hasn't given you a response
to your question for the same reason I haven't been able to.

I'm still not sure you've provided clarification (at least not so that I understand what you're
talking about).

You started the scenario with the following:

Dugly: "Temple, here's a perfectly legal call that is >entirely< against SOTG."

I still don't know what call was made that you're suggesting was both legal and unspirited.
Please, spell out the situation and illustrate the Call.

Like Temple, the only call I can envisage is " Hey, violation -- you're taking too long," or the perennial hecklers' favourite, "Is this a time-out or what?"

It's sometimes comically hypocritical coming from some teams, but I wouldn't consider it unspirited to merely stress the time limits at any point. I hear it even in league play about once or twice a night. I would only call it unspirited if the tone and delivery were particularly offensive.

"Like Temple, the only call I can envisage is " Hey, violation -- you're taking too long," or
the perennial hecklers' favourite, "Is this a time-out or what?""

That's kind of what I was thinking, but didn't really want to argue my own speculation. Since
you bring it up though... I'd hardly even think of that as a "call". The resolution to to 'calling'
"violation, you're taking too long" is *exactly identical* to not making any call whatsoever.
This is a rare example of a violation that can occur between points, which has no impact on
the game.

I find it difficult to believe that one could consider it unspirited to request that the other team
follow the rule, especially when that request (call it a Call if you like) carries *literally* no
functional difference from merely asking (heckling!) the other team to please stop delaying
(no difference from saying nothing for that matter).

In sum, it is by no reasonable interpretation of the definition of SOTG unspirited to point out
that the other team is taking too long. As with any call or other interaction, you can certainly
be a jerk about it if you try. The same applies for any rule: "Foul, asshole!" is unspirited,
even if it is a foul. In such cases, it's not the calling of the rule that's unspirited, it's the
overall lack of respect shown through the interaction.

Dugly, is this the call you meant when you said "Temple, here's a perfectly legal call that is
>entirely< against SOTG."? If not, please elaborate.

Also, since this is such an outlier rule (one that dictates what happens between points), and
since has no action required upon its call, maybe you could provide another example of a call
that can be unspirited when it is legally called.

Allow me to preface with this: I've never seen this call made, nor do I expect it to ever come up. This is an merely an example, albeit bizarre, of something that's entirely within the rules and in my opinion is dispirited.

The same scenario, but with the call as you suggest "Hey violation you're taking too long" rather than at midfield. I agree that this is exactly the same as not making the call (or rather as simply suggesting)

It's clearly a call by the definition of the rules. It's not really fair to say that we hardly think of it as a call. While I agree with the sentiment of it hardly being a call it's not relevant to the point.

If you were to honestly time and at 90 seconds call violation, you are then absolutely making a fair call by the definition of the rules. In a game where this is the only time this has come up, and if both teams have repeatedly taken their time and not timed between points, this is unquestionably against SOTG.

I agree that any call put like you suggest (Foul expletive) would be unspirited, no matter what the foul is. However, that is a separate issue where it is dispirited not because you are making the call, but because the delivery is disrespectful.

I've chosen this call as my example because it meets the original criteria that you laid out. A valid call that is against SOTG. If you agree that I am right in this case I'll see if I believe (or can argue that) the concept applies to any less fringe rules.

As I mentioned above, I don't feel Dugly's example is contrary to SotG. So, I'll offer an example of a call that is valid (to my knowledge), has been called against me, and which I've considered unsportsmanlike.

On offense, I catch the disc and sharply stop to set my pivot. My defender bumps me hard enough that I slip, and my pivot trails; my defender calls the travel.

That I could/should call a foul myself isn't the point; the audacity to call a travel resulting from said foul has struck me as being in poor taste.

I think a perfect example of a legitimate call that is against the SOTG is a travel called on a huck. Receiver catches it, no one downfield realizes there was a call. Receiver subsequently turns the disc over. Continuation rule means that the turnover doesn't stand, even though the travel had no influence on the play downfield.

Another example is a foul called by the thrower. Receiver has an easy catch even with the foul, but drops it. Did the foul affect the catch? Doesn't matter, back to thrower.

There's other examples that flow from this logic, generally involving the continuation rule that allow a team to recover from a turnover which the violation did not contribute to.

Matt

Matt,

Both scenarios you've suggested are examples of where you apparently feel that the rules are inadequate or inappropriate. I don't think either of them makes sense as an example of one team "using" the rules against the other, or of applying the rules somehow against SOTG. While I agree to a certain extent with your logic and dislike of the continuation rule, I think that it is a fair compromise, as defining every possible situation would be insanely wrong and would introduce even more subjectivity into the application of the rules.

As for the question of Dugly's scenario, if in a game where extended pauses were routine on both sides and it was in effect a teaching game someone suddenly decided to strictly enforce the time limits, I think that the enforcer's own team would be embarrassed. As such, I think your example is extremely unlikely and contrived. Is it poor SOTG? It fails a bit on the etiquette front, but it's not terrible, and I wouldn't say "[it's] >entirely< unspirited."

I'm not sure I agree with either of those examples, Matt. The rules are simple in both of those cases when play stops and exactly what happens to the disc. The simplicity is primarily there so that the most objective decisions can be consistently made. What's unspirited about that?

With the first example (travel/huck/pass/turnover), the rules are clear that play stops at the end of the first pass. So yes, I agree that perhaps the folks downfield didn't hear the call and possibly the turnover would have happened anyway, and so I presume you're claiming that the offense is unfairly benefitting from their violation. But in counter to that, perhaps the players near the thrower DID properly stop playing when they should have (i.e., after completion of the first pass), and so none of them continued to run downfield; one of these players may have been a much better choice for the next pass, but the receiver didn't have these good choices and was only left with the guy who can never catch and so turned it over. And so rather than figuring all this out (through further complications to the rules and more detailed discussions between players), it's just a simple, "play stops after one pass and back to thrower if that was completed". Not unspirited whatsoever.

And for the second example, again we can go into the complicated throughts of where to draw the line between a foul that doesn't affect the play and it's the receiver's 100% fault for dropping the disc, versus those that DO affect the play, and even though the disc goes towards the same receiver, the pass wasn't as easily catchable as it otherwise would have been. The discussion here is that the marker can contest the foul saying that "it didn't affect the play or continued play and therefore was incidental and not a foul", and then allow the thrower to explain why it was, or to agree and withdraw the foul and let the turnover stand. That's all part of spirited discussion. And if the thrower did truly believe the foul DID affect the throw and it comes back. You've asked, "did the foul affect the catch?"... the real question that needs to be asked, is "did the foul affect the THROW?". If so, it comes back, easy peasy, and no (unfruitful) discussions about the grey areas, and uncomplicated wording in the rules. I don't understand why that call would be unspirited.

By your logic, it would be also valid to claim that a completion away from a pick would be unspirited to stay completed, even though it was after the call. (Regardless of whether the defense stopped playing because they heard the call or not)

Pages