Turf End zone Score Questions

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

2 Questions:

1) If one scores in the end zone when one is running full speed should the disk be placed at the first point of contact (assuming it was in the end zone) or where one comes to a full stop?
2) If one scores in the end zone when one is running full speed and the scorers momentum takes the scorer out of bounds should the disk be place at the first point of contact in the end zone or brought to the front of the end zone?

Thanks
Nick

My interpretation is that the disc should be placed at the first point of contact - i.e. where it was
caught since the disc is dead when you score. This answers 2) as well, since first contact has to
be in the endzone to score.

IMO this is fair and simple to put into practice.

It is more a matter of etiquette than a rule*, but I agree completely with Sock. It is supremely annoying to watch a player catch a point at speed and to subsequently carry the disc to a more unfavourable field position before laying it down there, particularly when you're twitching to score right back.

There is room to argue the technicalities of potential violations here, but it's not really worth it.

In general, it is a far more polite gesture to put the disc near the first point of contact as quickly as reasonably allowable (sometimes, this means making a stiff deceleration). It shows you are not intentionally robbing your opponents of field position, and it enhances the turnaround and speed of the game -- which, after all, is what 5v5 is all about! I know I respect and appreciate that kind of diligence from an opponent.

*("When a team scores, the receiving player acknowledges the goal and immediately places the disc on the ground." -- VUL rules page)

... fully agree with those opinions. The scoring team shouldn't get a field
position advantage from the scorer's slow-down.

Further to...if the scorer doesn't place the disc at the first point of contact,
I'd say the person putting the disc into play should take the disc to the
first point of contact and then ground check to bring it into play.

Thanks achoo that final clarification really helps especially when the scorer is super tired after a long deep strike. I guess it would be similar to when a person brings it up to the line in regular ulti? But I just know someone will get confused and tell me to bring it back to the previous point. I wish that rule was more “officially” clarified.

Thanks all of you.

It's important to reiterate that there is no rule governing this 'etiquette' (as of yet).

In the same way that it is not a point if you catch the disc on the run, take a few stumbling
steps, hit the ground and lose contact, it could be argued that the point is not actually scored
until conditions fully meet the "sustained control" part of the rules. Thus, the very first point
of contact isn't really the point where the rules *say* the disc should be brought in.

In fact, the rules support strongly that the disc is play from where it comes to a stop. Just as
on a non-score, if it looks like the player hasn't done their level best to come to a stop
immediately (this can be 4 or 5 steps sometimes), one can call travel.

Personally, I like to play turf as is mentioned above. That makes sense to me.

Importantly though, I know that no rule supports this interpretation (yet), and if somebody
wants me to play it from the back corner, because that's the point where the disc stopped
after they tried their best to stop immediately, I'll have no problem with that, as technically,
that's what the rules support.

My point is that, one cannot start enforcing this 'etiquette' procedure, nor can one *expect*
that everybody offers you that same 'etiquette'. Work it out to mutual agreement as best
you can, but remember that one can only *expect* the game to be played by the rules.

Best would be to amend the turf rules slightly to support this idea that most of us agree
upon.

I agree with Temple to get this stuff written down in the rules...
because if it isn't formally stated, we're going to get 'knowledgable'
players arguing 3 different 'correct' outcomes... Just like we do now with
so many other calls where players don't really know the rules but
understand them from hearing them from someone who heard them
from someone else.

... but then again, writing them down doesn't seem to fix that either,
so allow me to quote "Emily Litella"...

Oh, and if it's going to be written, please don't say "ground check" if
we mean "touch the disc to the ground". (I.e., please don't use the
word "check" if you don't intend there to be a "check").

"There is no pull after a point. When a team scores, the receiving player acknowledges the goal and immediately places the disc on the ground. The other team has 8 seconds to take possession and put the disc into play at that spot (they cannot walk the disc to the goal line). " -- VUL Rules Page

Eh, I don't think the rules strongly support any particular stance on the issue. Although we understand that we should place the disc "immediately" on the ground (really, that should probably say "playing field"), the rule is completely mum on where we should place it, one way or the other.

And while I'm tempted to rewrite the rule, I can understand why it's as brief and ambiguous as it is -- because if we wanted to make a rule that was genuinely airtight in its interpretation, we'd have to go ahead and write a whole paragraph on goal-scoring and disc placement. We'd have to redefine how goals are scored (which comprises something like three different clauses with cross-references to two other sections in the 11th Ed), and we'd have to be able to address questions like, "Well, if I land after a catch, but then bobble it, and then dive, and then catch it, and then I slide 15ft, where do I put the disc?" The longer and more specific rules get, the more litigious people tend to become about them, which further engenders the need for exhaustive specificity.

Personally, I don't care enough to put that much thought into it. If we want to be able to play under a simple rule set, then we have to accept some degree of ambiguity and difference of opinion.

atanarjuat, I agree with everything you wrote in the post above this (except perhaps the
specificity of the rules leading to more disputes).

I agree especially with:

atanarjuat: "If we want to be able to play under a simple rule set, then we have to accept
some degree of ambiguity and difference of opinion."

But then I think about the following that you said earlier in this thread.

atanarjuat: "It is supremely annoying to watch a player catch a point at speed and to
subsequently carry the disc to a more unfavourable field position before laying it down there"

And to reiterate you then said:

atanarjuat: "In general, it is a far more polite gesture to put the disc near the first point of
contact as quickly as reasonably allowable."

--

See the rub there? You're saying that it is annoying (supremely annoying!) when people catch
it at speed, then leave it where they stop. You go on to say that it is *far more polite* to put
the disc back near where the first ground contact occurred. Of course the specifics of both
cases aren't important. What is important is that, in an area we all agree is open to
interpretation, you are having serious reactions to the set of interpretations that you don't
hold. This is what happens in practice.

You offer a counter-example of your own argument here in this thread. You're guilty yourself
of developing your own sense of the rules, which itself isn't bad (I agreed that difference of
opinion is okay under a simplified ruleset), but you then judge others for not following your
specific interpretation. You go so far as to accuse somebody who doesn't share your specific
interpretation of this ambiguous area of "intentionally robbing" the other team of field
position. That's a serious beef!

You can't have it both ways. You can't suggest that differences of opinion are okay out of one
side of your mouth, while out of the other side you are calling people who don't share your
opinion supremely annoying, intentional robbers, and far more impolite. That's really passive
aggressive.

I'm not nitpicking on something you wrote, you're not unique in this. This is fairly well the
standard reaction that most people have in such a situation. People get their nose bent out of
joint all the time, thinking the other person, who may be playing by "The Actual Rules" or in
their eyes "Their Own Wrong Rules", is somehow impolite or unspirited.

That's not good. That's what a single, clear ruleset can help to avoid. When there's a clear
outcome in the rules, then there's one course of action that we all (supposedly) agree is fair
and spirited.

When there's 5 courses of action allowed by the rules, 5 different people can think different
ones are fair and spirited, and that leads to 5 people seeing other people playing unfairly or
unspiritedly.

While, as you mention, we should all accept the differing opinions in the latter case, in
practice, as you also have shown, this doesn't happen, bad feelings multiply.

Well, there's no doubt in my mind that the person who annoys me is playing fairly by the rules. I know the rules. There's lots of room for annoyances in the rules. Of course, in this particular case, I sincerely doubt they're trying to annoy me on purpose. I think you're making an awfully big deal out of my sense of nuisance.

I do think it is far more polite gesture to place the disc right away near the catching-point . . . just as it's a polite gesture to hold the door open for me. I really appreciate that.

In any event, I've sent a suggested wording to the LC. It's far from perfect, but maybe it'll help.

What about something to the extent of "first point of contact with control of the disc in the endzone?" It covers the scenarios of catching at speed (where the disc was caught) and catching/bobbling/laying out and sliding (where the receiver is in control of the disc).

That's similar to what I suggested, IN.

The problem is that you have to pinpoint where possession was established on the more complicated catches and slides and then get up and go drop it there. This itself can slow down the game and invite disagreement, which is bothersome. A 6' tall player landing horizontally might span 9' from toe to disc. Do you split the difference? What if he's snatching the disc just at the moment that he bids -- you'll have different perspectives on possession at take-off versus landing.

And if there's disagreement, what's the recourse? A violation call? And so on.

On catches like that, I'd rather just get on with it, which is where the simplicity of "immediacy" really begins to show its appeal.

atanarjuat: "I do think it is far more polite gesture to place the disc right away near the
catching-point . . . just as it's a polite gesture to hold the door open for me. I really
appreciate that."

I think you missed my point in a way that can lead to unnecessary ill feelings on the field.
Unlike the widely held system of victorian etiquette that we (largely) share in our society and
that suggests that it is indeed good manners to hold the door open for the next person, there
is no such widely held system of etiquette in this case.

What if your opponent thinks that it's most polite to come to an immediate stop and place
the disc on the ground? His etiquette clashes with your catching-point contact (and both could
result in better field position after the score, depending on the scenario). If both people think
the way you do, both will think the other person is *far less polite*. That's ill-will that's
completely unnecessary.

The truth of the matter is that in such a case there is absolutely *no* right answer. There's
no universal 'polite' answer either (each interpretation can yield better or worse field
position). However, when people start imposing a system of ethics or morality which they
make up themselves, they are going to look at people who don't buy into their flavour of
How The Game Should Be Played as very impolite, robbers of field position, and supremely
annoying.

---

atanarjuat: "The problem is that you have to pinpoint where possession was established on
the more complicated catches and slides and then get up and go drop it there."

And this would be relatively unique in ultimate. Personally I think it best that the disc is
placed on the ground exactly where the disc would be put into play if the point had not been
scored. In this case, the exact same judgement call is made on every catch the offense
makes. All the same rules as regular ultimate apply, if the other team thinks the player
gained field position by not stoping immediately (i.e.: a travel), they can talk about it and
compromise on where the disc is put into play.

I think you missed my point in a way that can lead to unnecessary ill feelings, Temple. When someone fails to hold a door open for me, I'm not holding some kind of bizarre, seething grudge about it. While I appreciate certain gestures, I don't go around pretending that they're rules or requirements. In short, the absence of a polite gesture does not cause me to think of someone as impolite, or unspirited, or intentionally offensive. At worst, it means that they have habits that annoy me.

Right now, I feel like you're imposing your system of psychology on me.

----------------

"I think it best that the disc is placed on the ground exactly where the disc would be put into play if the point had not been scored."

So . . . wouldn't that be a choice between where the disc lies and the goal line?

''Play it as it lies.
I hit it off Frankenstein's fat foot.
Those are the ruIes."
- Shooter McGavin

atanarjuat: "I think you missed my point in a way that can lead to unnecessary ill feelings,
Temple. When someone fails to hold a door open for me, I'm not holding some kind of
bizarre, seething grudge about it."

I don't believe that you do (nor can I see where I suggested that).

What I have seen you do in this thread is what I've seen a great many people do on the
field. You have an idea of what 'polite' or 'spirited' play is, but that idea isn't shared by
everybody and really has no reason or basis for general adoption. The problem is when
people who have this ethos see somebody who does something that they consider impolite
(or far, far more impolite).

atanarjuat: "In short, the absence of a polite gesture does not cause me to think of someone
as impolite, or unspirited, or intentionally offensive. At worst, it means that they have habits
that annoy me."

So, when people do the opposite of something you think is "far, far more polite", you don't
think they are being at all impolite? (Far, far more polite than what, I have to ask?) That's
contradictory. Either you misspoke when you were relatively vehement about their robbing of
field position and their supremely annoying behaviour, or you're telling tales.

In a system where everybody can agree on what is polite, this sort of ethics helps the game.
However, the problem is in cases where your system of etiquette is arbitrary, isn't widely
agreed upon. In these cases, there's no justification for the annoyance.

It really isn't far, far more polite for people to do what you think they should do.

I suppose if you think that no ill-will is brought to the game by being supremely annoyed by
these robbers of field position who are acting opposite to the way that is far, far more polite,
then there's no hope of changing.

Let me tell you though. Everybody on the field can tell when somebody is supremely annoyed
like this. It does come out and it makes the game less enjoyable for all. When there's
absolutely no basis for that annoyance, then that annoyed person is guilting of bringing the
ill-will.