RE: Fast count

6 posts / 0 new
Last post

Marker counts stall 1...2... 8...9..
thrower calls fast count, saying the marker missed count 3.

Now, I'm not sure about this, but I understand the call for fast count if you skip numbers, but don't you have to call it... like... reasonably close to that occurance, so that he would count 2, 3, 4... instead of getting to 8 and 9 then saying u have to go back to 2 because u missed something?

What would happen at this point? I presume the outcome does not rely on if the marker actually missed a number - as contesting the fast count doesn't do a whole lot. Would this not be akin to having someone count 1 to 6 in the span of 1 second, and then not saying until at 9 fast count?

What should happen?

Maybe you could separate and enumerate your questions, just so that we're sure we're answering each and all of them.

Yes, all infraction calls must be made immediately following observation of the infraction (see rule XVI.A). Although, this rule technically falls under section XVI, I believe the "immediacy" clause is intended to apply equally to marking violations.

However, the response for an ordinary "fast count" call is always the same (see the table under XIV.A.5) -- the marker must return to the count reached - 1. So, if the marker skipped a number, and even if the thrower is somewhat late to make the call, the marker does not have to return to that point in the count.

Note that skipping a single number in the count is an instance of "fast count." If the marker flagrantly skips multiple numbers in the count all at once, the thrower can legitimately argue that the marker committed multiple simultaneous marking violations, and call a general violation.

Fast Count:
"a) If the marker does not say “stalling” to initiate or resume a stall count, counts at intervals of less than one second, or skips a number in the count, it is a fast count."


"Would this not be akin to having someone count 1 to 6 in the span of 1 second, and then not saying until at 9 fast count?"

That's a weird scenario (a super-fast counter against a super-slow victim?), but again, the marker's response to the "fast count" call is unchanged: he must resume the count at stall 8 unless he starts a dispute with the thrower over the matter (or vice versa), which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Fast count (by definition) covers missing "a" number, but doesn't explicitly include missing many numbers.

So, it would be completely valid to call a general violation, and if uncontested---it sure as hell better be contested, or you're dealing with a deliberate cheater and liar who should be shamed off the planet, or at least off the ultimate field---the count will reset to 1.

All things considered, though... isn't this just a theoretical discussion, rather than a situation that would EVER happen? I think we have our hands full with situations that actually DO happen in games, such as our wonderfully short, "check feet" discussion... don't you?

As far as calling it immediately, I contend that the wording in XVI.A suggests that the immediate requirement refers to immediately upon recognition, rather than immediately when it occurs. So, if it takes the throwers brain a second or two to recognize that the marker missed a whole whack of numbers, he's still allowed to validly call the violation. As long as it's called immediately upon recognition, and not waiting another few seconds to see if he was able to get a throw off before 10.

Play on...

Yeah, I think you may be pointing out a case where an advantage could be gained by the
Marker by skipping a bunch of numbers in the count (as the count only goes back one).

There's no rule that satisfactorily prevents this. It's cheating. There's no rule that can prevent

Possibly it was done out of ignorance of the rules, but if that's not the case, see what Mort
wrote about shaming.


If your scenario is a count that goes 1..2..4..5..6..7..8.. (skipping 3), then it's different.

I agree with Mort that a call must be made immediately after you are aware of it, but I don't
necessarily agree that you can always make the call immediately after you're aware of it.

In the example I gave above, you may have only noticed that "3" was skipped 5 seconds
later. In this specific case, I think making the call is OK, because the count is still fast, the
violation is still occurring. Perhaps you were keeping a count in your head, and you noticed
yours was at 7 when his was at 8, that's a fast count still occurring when you call it.

However for other calls, in my opinion that much delay is pushing the bounds of making a call
"immediately". For example, if Player A travels on a throw, Player B saw what happened, but
for some reason doesn't realize what happened until several seconds later, I think that is too
late to be able to make the call. Likewise for an OB call. If it takes you a 5 count to notice
that the player landed with his left foot first and that was OB, your window for calling it
"immediately" has passed.

Hey guys thanks for the feedback...

The question arose because during a recent game I was called on it...though I was fairly sure that I didn't miss a number, I was rather annoyed that I was made to start my count at 2, and of the rather convenient time that the call was being made - halfway between 8 and 9.

We stopped play to discuss it, and I wasn't entirely sure... and since the game was lopsided and almost over anyways with tensions boiling over, I was just like okay wahtever, and did as requested, starting at 2, though my first response was to go back to count 7, then continue 8, 9, 10 as (i believe) should be the response outlined in the rules...

Hmm, I don't like that the call was made after stall 8 and then the person suggested you
drop the count down to 2.

The rules definitely don't support that. The rules support calling "Fast Count", which requires
you to drop down so that the next number is 7 (instead of 9). And if you fail to do that, or
fast count again, he could call Violation and the count would drop to 0 if you didn't contest or
6 if you did contest the Fast Count).

It's tough not to get annoyed if somebody is making up rules and calling them, but life is
easier that way.

I'd have contested his call and suggested, since there was a dispute that the disc should come
in at 6. If he insisted, that you drop to 2, you might as well do it. Somebody who is both
ignorant and insistent is best avoided. Bring it up with his captain, etc... but there's no
abiding cheating cheatersons. Arguing on the field would just make you wrong too.