RE: Marking Violations

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Are making violations contestable, given that they are distinct from general violations?

To be perfectly clear: I mean, for example, the first call of the marking violation during the stall count, such as "disc space" or "fast count." Can that call, by itself, be contested?

You can contest any call made on the field. Contesting some calls, like marking violations, has
no effect.

Play doesn't ever stop for a contest, and whether or not you contested the marking violation
doesn't effect the resolution of the second call which stops play (if that happens). Basically
there's no point in contesting it, other than perhaps confusing the marker, which would likely
lead to a premature stoppage.

An important note: If you ever hear somebody say "You can't contest a..." then you know that
person doesn't know the rules, is making up rules, and worse, is trying to enforce those rules.

So, to explicitly carry the argument to its finish, what is the effect on the stall count?

Must the marker still readjust his stall count to "count reached - 1," regardless?

Or, is it treated as a "contested violation?"

As I mentioned, there's no effect in contesting the first marking violation. A contest doesn't
stop play, it only affects the outcome of the continuation rule. Marking Violations are specific
cases to which the continuation rule does not apply.

In summation, saying "contest" after the first Marking Violation is treated identically as if you
say nothing at all.

Save the contests for after the violation call. Yes, this does mean that you are obligated to
drop the count after each and every fast count call, even if you disagree with them.

There's a small hole in the rules here in that if a thrower continues to call Fast Count, when
the Marker disagrees, the Marker is still obligated to drop the count every time (not doing so
would be cheating). In practice, this isn't much of a problem, as very likely the marker would
say something like 'whoa hold on a second, I'm counting fine' and we all know that if there's
ever a dispute on the field, play stops and the count resumes at the next number (no greater
than 6).

Alternately, if the thrower is making repeated unjustified calls you could call violation. It may not help the stall count but it will make the point that you disagree with his calls. However, make sure that they are indeed unjustified before doing this.

I contend that a contest of a thrower's call of a marking violation DOES(or 'should') stop play. Unfortunately, the rules don't support that--or the opposite--in their current form and wording. In essence, our contest is actually our statement that the thrower is calling something that the rules don't allow, or a violation in itself.

Yes, of course, that may be considered a stretch by some, and perhaps the marker should be calling 'violation' instead, but that's how I believe it should be addressed.

We'll make sure this is covered when we (the SRC) go through the rules on our next pass, which is planned for later this year.

I suppose the 'dispute arises' clause can work for this as well (which happens independently of
an actual call).

Also Mort, I have a bucket full of suggestions on changes kicking around my head. Let me know
if you want them. If you think the Marking Violation contest issue is bad, don't even *think*
about looking at the PoV rule.

yes, please send them to me, absolutely

assuming you have my hotmail address, use that; my kpmg address doesn't work anymore. if you don't have my hotmail account, it's on my facebook profile, or just send me something with this link and i'll respond, which'll give you my addy.