Violation on a violation call?

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
KMP By KMP
#1

Let's put a not uncommon scenario out. A cutter calls out "fast stall count" or "double team" (i.e. a marking violation). Usually there's a stoppage in play, nothing happens and the game resumes. But recently my team was marked down as "Opponents do not know the rules - don't care to learn them.". A "double team" by a cutter was the ONLY legal call made in the game. There other calls by the other team, but none that correspond to any rules. So I'm spending my saturday evening trying to think of how this call should have been properly resolved according to the 11th ed. rules.

Let's go review a few rules first.

II U. Violation: Any infraction of the rules other than a foul.

XIV B 6. Only the thrower may call a marking violation, and to do so must call out the name of the specific marking violation.

XVI. A. An infraction may only be called by a player on the infracted team who recognizes that it has occurred, unless specified differently elsewhere. The player must immediately call “violation” or the name of the specific infraction loudly.

So if a cutter calls a marking violation, I should call a violation on him because it's an infraction of the rules that's not a foul? Assuming they don't give me a bewildered look nor accept the violation call (which would mean they accept their violation call as being faulty) and contest the violation, then what happens? It's a contested general violation, right? Following this logic, I'd be resolving this with the continuation rule and count goes UP by one with a stoppage in play.

On the flip side, I could just contest the violation. It would mean that the call is now a contested marking violation, even though the call was by a non-thrower. If so, I'd apply the continuation rule again and count goes DOWN by one without a stoppage in play.

*sigh* I need more eventful saturday evenings.

Please take this the right way, it is entirely possible, dare I say likely, that neither of your
teams actually knew the rules cold. That's not a problem until one team or both decides to
argue the rules. When there's a disagreement, if you don't know the rules cold (or even if you
do), just let the goodness of the do-over wash over you. Discuss reality on the sideline (or
here).

You're right, Marking Violations can only be called by the thrower. You do seem to be
confused about thinking play stops after the Marking Violation call. They are special calls, and
play does not stop for a Marking Violation (Marking Violation != Violation). If the Marking
Violation occurs again or is uncorrected, then a proper Violation is called with the word
"Violation". It's only that call that will stop play.

There's two ways to look at what to do when a non-thrower calls a Marking Violation.

1) It wasn't a Call, so ignore it entirely. Since only thrower may call a Marking Violation, the
non-thrower's 'statement' was not a Call. If it's not a Call, you need take no action. This is
relatively common, as frequently a thrower's teammate will shout to him 'call double team',
'watch the double team', just 'double team', etc. If the non-thrower persists and Calls
Violation (or just says 'heywaitaminute!') because you didn't react, then a dispute has
officially arisen, which is resolved in a do-over.

2) It was a Call, and the non-thrower committed a Violation. In this case, you call it. If they
don't contest, then the play continues with the next stall number. Likely they'll contest and
it's a do-over.

Note that both cases are pretty similar, though you'll get away with less Stoppages with
strategy 1), because sometimes the other team actually is only notifying the thrower (this
happens somewhat often from the sideline and the rest of the team).

--

"Following this logic, I'd be resolving this with the continuation rule and count goes UP by one
with a stoppage in play."

Well the count restarts at the next number (no greater than 6). The offense doesn't really
lose any time in this. The call is somewhere less than a second after the last number is
completely uttered (whereas that number is effective at it's first partial utterance), and the
next number is uttered about a quarter second (in 1s I can say "stall" about 4 times like I do
before a count) after play resumes.

So for a contested Violation where the count resumes 3 + 1, in the play time between 3 and
4 you've got: the time it took to say three, plus the amount of time before the call, plus the
time it takes to say "stall" (most people don't say "stalling" as the rules require). With the
length of most stall counts, I bet if you went to tape, you'd see that you get more stall count
when it stops and resumes at the last number + 1.

I only go into this much detail because it may seem wrong to you that the count goes up by
one, but effectively the overall count remains the same as if there was no call. This is good
for a do-over situation.

--

"On the flip side, I could just contest the violation. It would mean that the call is now a
contested marking violation, even though the call was by a non-thrower. If so, I'd apply the
continuation rule again and count goes DOWN by one without a stoppage in play."

See the contemporary thread about contesting Marking Violations (nothing happens, they're
not proper Violations, so there's no need or point to contest them). When a true Fast Count
Marking Violation is called, then there is no stoppage, and the Marker must drop the count
down so that the next number uttered is one less than the previous (effectively the count is
increasing by two seconds. You would say "four" next instead of "six", just like it's been for
ages).

--

That's an awful lot of information. Is it a little more clear?

I would simply ignore the call, since they are not empowered to make that call, I would say it doesn't actually count as anything, they are just words. They can't just make up things and expect you to behave according to their fantasy view of the rules. Similarly, ignore anyone who says "check feet" and keep on playing.

If they persist in trying to enforce such "calls" then tell them they are wrong and point them to the rulebook. If they are extra stubborn ask them to put down a wager on what the rulebook actually says...

KMP By KMP

No no. I"m fully aware that marking violations don't stop the game. The only stoppage that would occur is if the defending team called a violation on the non-thrower making a marking violation call or at the confusion of both teams.

I'm also aware of the general communication between the thrower and the team that can mistaken as a call. Specifically speaking, this wasn't the case. The caller made their team stop play using their body language and gave the thrower resolution options to the caller's call.

Generally speaking, I guess my conflict comes from the automatic "Contest/Accept" approach to fouls/violations. Responding with to a non-thrower marking violation call with a violation would just lead to an prolonged on field discussion at best. Responding to the same call with contest or accept would reinforce the call as being a valid call at least for the rest of the game. I see neither option as being palatable.

And yes I did talk to their captain after the game on the field and write a email afterwards.

Sounds like the case where my second suggestion is in order:

2) It was a Call, and the non-thrower committed a Violation. In this case, you call it. If they
don't contest, then the play continues with the next stall number. Likely they'll contest and
it's a do-over.

"Responding with to a non-thrower marking violation call with a violation would just lead to
an prolonged on field discussion at best."

This I disagree with.

You say "Violation. You're not allowed to make double-team call."

If they respond with anything other than assent, regardless of what they say, then they're
contesting your call and it's a simple do-over situation.

Once you notice they disagree with your call, there's zero further discussion on the field
warranted. The only way you can have "a prolonged on-field discussion" is if you try to
convince them you're right. If you're doing that, you're wasting the time of everybody on the
field and sideline, and you're guilty of not understanding the rules.