"check feet" call

152 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

offensive player catches the disc close to OOB lines, and defensive player calls 'check feet'. O player looks, says they are in and continue on playing. This would seem like the nice thing to do, but is 'check feet' even something they have to acknowledge? What I mean is if some yells check feet or whatever at me, if I know i am inbounds, do I have to double check and stop the flow of the point because they asked me to check my positioning?


In our game it lead to an argument where defence thinks he is out, he thinks he is in etc. and really killed the flow of that play entirely, and the O was in the opinion that this should have never happened because they shouldn't have to stop because the D yelled out check feet.


In that situation, if I think someone is OOB, what should i be saying/calling out?

If someone is out the D should call 'OB'.


If you are on O and someone yells 'check feet', ignore it until you have made your pass. Then politely tell the D player to call you out if you are out. (and then point out how of course you were NOT out).


There have been many many discussions on this topic. A little searching would have stopped this thread from starting again, and again, and again... :)

Is it really possible that this has never before been posted here? I'm shocked. (It probably has, but buried in another thread.)


"Check feet" is not a call. Period. Some people think that it's a polite way to say "you're out," but they're wrong. I'm sorry to be so blunt.


Because everyone is a referee, and the overriding assumption is that everybody is being honest, there should be no reason to ask someone if they're in or out. If you see them out (and this does not mean "if you think they may be out"), make the call. By doing so you are not being a prick, you are merely doing what is expected, indeed required, of every player. If you cannot see, respect the fact that they likely paid attention and if they don't acknowledge the fact that they're out, it's likely because they know they're not.


Sometimes, a player isn't paying attention and may not realise that they're out. However, if you can't see that they're out, it's more likely just an interruption for you to ask them. Further, there is no obligation whatsoever to acknowledge someone asking you if you're in. If someone is standing there demanding that the receiver/thrower call themselves in, they're not actually making an official call of any sort, they're just not playing defense. The absence of any OB call is implicitly an IB call. If you can't make the call, trust that one of the other 13 referees can and did.

then is OB a contestable call? if so, if it is contested, does it go back to original thrower?


also what is the argument if you are disagreeing whether or not the pull was OB? We had this a while ago where the hit the ground in, then rolled to what looked like OB and then back in. If the one side says it is in or out, can the other side contest that?

Agreed. 'Check feet' is not a call.


However, slapping your check in the groin and saying, "Check your bag, sir" is to be encouraged...


Jeebus, anytime there is a dispute, play will stop until it is resolved. (And that's the lameness of 'check feet' shouted from across the field, because if you actually do stop and say "I'm in" and the nearest defender says "You're in", then all of your flow has been disrupted. Someone across the field has no perspective to be making much of a call, Hummel-vision excepted. . .) If I'm sure I was in and you're sure I was out, and if we stop the play to discuss it, and still can't resolve it, then the best solution os for the disc to go back to the thrower for a do-over.


On the rolling disc, it's the same. If you can't resolve it, then pull again. (And the disc rolling back in has nothing to do with the question. Once it's out, it's out.)

I'd have to disagree. "Check feet!" is as much a call as yelling "You have time!" to let someone know they have time to catch the disc, or "You're in!" to let a teammate know they're already in the endzone. It's a form of communication. If the offense stops to actually check, that's their perogative. I use it as a method to communicate to my teammate who's closest to quickly confirm the player's field position.


I do agree that it's a call that the offense does not have to acknowledge. However to say that it shouldn't be yelled is wrong (in my opinion).


Matt

Mat,


You're right that you have as much right to say "check feet" as you have to advise a receiver that they have plenty of time. I also welcome the fact that you recognise the lack of any obligation on the part of the receiver to acknowledge the communication. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't, and think that "CF" is a ligitimate call.


Besides, this goes back to the respect issue. If you can see that the player (be it your team or opposition) is out, call "out." If they're in, feel free to call "in" to save them the time to check and to avoid any confusion on the field. If you can't see, trust that they (or someone in a better position) will make the call. If the receiver or the play is getting close to the line, you could also advise them to "watch the (side)line" to avoid uttering "CF" and potentially stop the play.

As much as 'CF' is an illegitimate call ....to go so hardline on this topic when we play on fields that aren't regulation size, don't have the proper setbacks, frequently are laid out with sidelines that aren't even close to straight or square the allowance of a friendly 'CF' call with in the league seems an innocuous enough concession to me. CF at a tournament would be another matter as the tourney is supposed to setup the fields properly and that is under control but in league...c'mon.


Your option is a crap load of OB calls instead and if I call OB and you disagree the flow of play is interrupted anyway so that argument is moot. I'd propose that the CF call be interpretted as "OB but I won't argue and force it to go back to thrower if you at least confirm you are in bounds but from my perspective I think you are out but since you are on the line I'll defer the best perspective to you." Too many people throw from OB after a catch and/or don't reestablish a pivot foot inbounds after a catch and run OB (ie. should be a travel call) that a simple CF covers many more instances than an OB/travel call in a much less intrusive manner. If I call CF and you ignore me then I will follow that up with an OB call simple, no. If I call CF and you say 'In Bounds' as you are throwing I'll concede. Note I personnally don't make this call unless I am within a few steps of the sideline anyway so I can get into a best perspective situation within a step or two.

The problem I find with the "Check Feet" call is it is done most often without perspective. If you have perspective call OB, otherwise trust that one of the other players will call it correctly. "Check Feet" on it's own doesn't even support perspective. It is like saying "I didn't actually see you do <action>, but please tell me if you have done it correctly". Self refereeing works better when those who "actually" see something make the call.


As a communcation tool if I think one of my players is OB, I call them OB. If I think they are in the end zone, I tell them they are in. Both these calls I do only if I have perspective. Otherwise I keep playing.

Dodger, I think you'll find you're in a very small minority:


"Your option is a crap load of OB calls instead and if I call OB and you disagree the flow of

play is interrupted anyway so that argument is moot."


If you see somebody Out of Bounds yelll "Out!" or "OB!". Period, full stop end of story.


There's nothing poor spirited about this, in fact it's very good spirit to make the right call, and

make it unambiguous.


If they disagree, they'll go back to the thrower, but allowing people to play on after they're

OB is not something we want.


--


If you see somebody OB, call it!


If you're not sure, don't call it and hope other people are paying attention.


Check feet is not a call, ignore it if you think you're in.

As a receiver, asking me to check my feet is one of the worst things you should expect me to do. My perspective is often the worst perspective compared to others around me. I'd need to look one way to one cone, then turn around 180 degrees to look at the other cone, and then try to figure out whether I turned 175 degrees from one cone to the other (and hence in), or 185 degrees (and hence out). I can *never* tell whether I'm in or not between two cones on an unlined field when I'm that close to the line. Plus now let's add in the fact that I caught two steps ago, and was concentrating on the disc, and did not see exactly where my foot was when I had possession, so where I am now means nothing anyway. Me doing *anything* in response to a "check feet" '''call''' gives no value whatsoever.


If you're close enough to see that I was either in or out at the catch, then call it, please. If I've run out and you know I was in when I caught it and now have run out and it appears that I don't know that, then a simple "bring it back to the line" will help me; or if I throw it from out there, then call a "travel". If there's 4 other people who you think have better perspective who're being silent (it'd have been nice if at least one of them would have said either "in" or "out"), and you're quite sure you know the call, then just make it, whether it's in or out. Or remember that possibly they were silent because they all knew the catch was in, and just aren't saying "in"... perhaps they know what they're doing... however, you can at least say "I think you're out", or "are they out?". Then either a better perspective will be communicated or your words will be accepted.


But given all of that, when I hear "check feet", I'm not about to stop and figure out what the heck you want me to do. Are you asking me to bring it back to the line? ... Are you calling me out at the catch? ... Are you asking someone else to give a best perspective call? ... Are you really asking me to attempt to triangulate and figure out whether the cones are 175 degrees or 185 degrees from where I'm standing and then look for imprints in the grass for evidence of my first contact after the pass?


Man, it'd sure have been nice if you'd said what you meant in the first place.


As a small aside... when I'm playing, often on a catch near the EZ, when I think I have a 'valid' perspective (not necessarily the 'best' perspective), I'll typically call "in", "not-in", or "don't throw it, I think you're in" if I'm mostly sure. And you'd be surprised how often I hear from behind me, "It's not *your* call to make, it's hers". Um, yeah, it is.

TAD,


Based on your response, I'm not sure if you actually read some of the previous posts.


The position/quality of the sidelines has no impact on the issue - if you see that the player is out according to whatever line is relevant, call "out." Perhaps they don't realise they're out because of the wonky lines, but that is why you are empowered/required to make the call if you can see it.


As for your proposal, you suggest that it's OK to make a call if you don't see it when there are likely several people who were in a better position and able to make the call? Presumably, if they didn't make a call it's because there was none to make, so you should respect that.


In the case where you see someone throw from OB after running past the sideline, call travel if it bugs you. If you call "CF," they could ignore you as they know that they were in when they made the catch. A travel call is no more intrusive, and is the correct thing to do.


As for your assertion that we'd end up with a lot of OB calls, I don't understand your logic. If you see someone OB and you call it OB, they were out and the call is justified. If this happens a lot, then it means that there are a lot of OB catches. The only reason there would be an excess of unjustified calls would be if people without perspective made OB calls instead of respecting the fact that others could make the call in a more informed way.


Finally (for now) the issue isn't with other people making an OB call, it's with people who really can't see it asking the receiver to pause their game and break their flow to honour your silly request to confirm that they've done what everyone should do every time they catch the disc near the sideline - be aware of their feet.

I disagree with people saying that you should trust someone with a better perspective. That (to me) is equivalent to saying trust the marker to know which way to force (I prefer to yell which way we're forcing, so everyone knows what's going on). I will continue to bring to my teammates attention (usually on D, but sometimes on O) if I think that a receiver is close enough to the line to warrant a closer look.


I still agree the receiver has zero obligation to actually stop and converse whether they are in or not.


Matt

Yes, you should help your teammates know what's going on, but it sounds like you try to micro-manage your team on the field. Accept that there are 13 other players on the field and if you're on the opposite sideline respect them to the point of assuming that someone is going to look at the sideline. In the meantime, stop yelling and start playing.

That's the great thing about the internet, trying to gauge intent ;)


Just to be clear, I'm talking of situations where you don't have the 'best' perspective, but a good enough perspective to question someone's position. In these situations, I will ask (i.e. at a volume loud enough to get my teammates attention - doesn't mean going ballistic) my teammate with a better perspective to double check their (or their opponents) position.


Matt

--> I'm talking of situations where you don't have the 'best' perspective, but a good enough perspective to question someone's position <--


Yup, part of my discussion covered that. If you have a good enough perspective to question the position, you also have a good enough perspective to make the call. Otherwise, I contend that you also don't have good enough perspective to question it. So just be clear and call it; you can always retract it if someone else claims better perspective with the opposing conclusion.


Of course, a bigger part of this problem is that a bunch of the players on the field don't even know that it's up to *them* to call someone "out" (or "in" as the case may be). It's difficult playing with 13 other "officials" when 10 of them have *never* even *read* the rules. If the closest people were making the calls that they *should* be in the first place, the 7th person back from the line wouldn't even have the internal conflict of whether to say "check feet" or not.


Ah well, I've even tried bribing people to read the rules and it hasn't happened. C'est la vie.

Ah, but that's what TAD was trying to avoid. Calling it OB requires a stoppage and check (i.e. all chance of flow killed), while drawing attention to it allows an on the fly discussion/confirmation with flow maintained. Especially as offense can ignore the call (check feet call that is) and quickly confirm their in/out status after the throw.


Matt

If the call can be ignored---i.e., silence means that all others agree that no "out" call needs to be made---then we're all on the same page. However, I thought I read earlier that at least one person who says "check feet" would decidedly stop play if there was no response. To me, ignorance/silence after the "check feet" call means there is no-one else believes there is a call to be made. That *should* be the end of it, n'est-ce pas?


I believe that hearing a check feet call, throwing and then running downfield, means the same as throwing and saying "was in" and then running downfield. In other words, if I actually thought "oh yeah, I *was* out, you were right", I'd say out loud "oh yeah, I *was* out, you were right", and then think to myself how much easier it would've been if someone had actually made the "out" call when they saw it.


If the objective is to have a good on the fly discussion/confirmation, I've *never* seen it after a "check feet" call. I *have* seen it when one person says "was he out, I couldn't tell", and a reply is quickly made "nope, he's in". No stoppage, and all communication is quick and clear. "Check feet" means too many things for a quick confirmation to happen on the fly, mainly because I'll never really know what I'm supposed to confirm.

If the play goes out of bounds IT IS NOT A STOPPAGE! A stoppage occurs only when a foul or violation is called or there is confusion. Saying "out of bounds" qualifies as none of these. The correct sequence is:


1) Ofense catches out of bounds


2) D (or O - whoever sees it best) says "OB"


3) O realises they're out, puts disc down


4) member of new offense picks up the disc, establishes pivot, touches disc to ground (if necessary), play continues.


No stoppage, no check, no confusion, no irritation. The only time it would become a stoppage would be if different perspectives disagreed as to whether it was in or out and a discussion ensued.


Also, as Mort has said, the person with the disc in their hand likely can't tell if their first contact was in or out if they weren't aware of it as they caught it, so they can't very well confirm.

Let me ask the group this... "What does "check feet" mean?


? - "You caught it in, but ran out, so bring it back to the line please"


? - "I think you caught it out but I'd like someone to confirm it"


? - "I think you caught it out and would like you to agree/disagree or somehow acknowledge that you've checked"


? - "I think you caught it in the end-zone so don't make another pass"


I think that depending on the person, "check feet" has been used for each of these situations.


Okay, so I catch in the end-zone, and then run another step in the EZ and then another step OB. Factually, I caught a score and only need to acknowledge it.


Then I hear "check feet" from four different people, and each one means something different. One of them thinks I'm in and doesn't want me to throw again, another thinks I caught outside the EZ and ran in, another things I caught it outside the EZ and then ran OB, and thr fourth thinks I was OB at the catch. I may assume (correctly of course) that I caught it in the EZ and they're all letting me know not to throw another pass... acknowledge the point and walk off. [-Is that a turnover to some of them?-]


Wouldn't it be so much better from a clarity standpoint for one to say "I think you're in, don't throw again", the second to say, "you ran in", another to say "you ran OB, take it to the line" or wait until I throw again and then call "travel", and the fourth to say, "OB catch". Then we can discuss understanding what the right call is.


I realize my logic is warped at times. This isn't one of them, is it?

I'm fairly certain that iamcanuck was refering to the fact that there would likely be more stoppages, because people would call "OB" and the receiver would then say "I'm in by 3 feet, look at the cones!", then discussion, looking at the cones, etc.


but true, OB is not a stoppage.


Mort...


I think that 'Check Feet' often means


-you're out, but either a) I don't know the rules and think you have to call it or b) ultimate is all about spirit, and if I call you out people will think I have bad spirit...maybe I can get you to call yourself out and the spirit faeries will be appeased

"I'm fairly certain that iamcanuck was refering to the fact that there would likely be more

stoppages, because people would call "OB" and the receiver would then say "I'm in by 3 feet,

look at the cones!", then discussion, looking at the cones, etc."


Ok, but what's the alternative? The O just plays on after somebody thinks the disc is OB!?


If you say OB, then you think the person is OB! Whatever the outcome, the Offense

continuing playing is absolutely the wrong thing to happen. It may be that you decide to go

back to the thrower, but that's a perfectly acceptable solution when one person thinks the disc

is OB and the other thinks its IB.


VERY IMPORTANT: If just *one* person thinks the disc is OB, then when they say OB, the disc

*is* OB, and it's a Turn Over (unless there's a disagreement, at which point it's BTT).


EQUALLY IMPORTANT: If you're not sure the disc is OB, you can't make a Call (that's

cheating). Say what you will

(except an actual big-C Call), to notify your team to make a big-C Call if they're sure, but

other

than that, play on.

I agree that Check Feet may not be the right call (as per the stigma attached to such a call), and actually had a nice response posted saying try to use such calls as check line, watch line, etc.


My thoughts are more in line with the EQUALLY IMPORTANT statement made by Temple. It's when you're not sure, and don't believe the receiver (or anyone else) has really checked. I don't want play to stop, just want someone with better perspective to quickly make sure.


Matt

First - I said that I never call it unless I am close - not across the field - not out of position - I call it in a position where I think you are out, my perspective is pretty good but since I am not standing on the side-curve I can't make a call that is truly from the best perspective, I think the received has the best perspective but hasn't applied it ....and there is the rub if I see a player catch the disc then become busy establishing a pivot foot, looking upfield for the next cutter and basically ignoring their position on the field I know they likely haven't applied their best perspective - CF is basically asking them to apply it (read the definition of best perspective again.....last sentence is interesting).


Calling OB in the situation is the rulebook response to this situation. But take your rules beanies off for a second and consider this from an actual leageue play perspecive. As I pointed out before there are any number of soft variants to the rules in league play (how many times have you let a dropped pull be picked up, or let a person bring the disc to the line after establishing a pivot foot in the endzone but thought they weren't in the endzone or played on a field that didn't meet the rules criteria or let an equipment timeout happen). Most of these are either 'spirit' things or because it's not worth the effort of enforcing a rule that makes only marginal difference in game outcome and enjoyment. If you're a hard ass in each of these situations then either your playing in the elite/div 1 pools only or your entire team is cringing everytime you do it.


So coming back to check feet you see that it's about avoiding the confrontation on an OB call. If you are definitely without a doubt OB I'll call it. If someone other than the received has better perspective I'll shut up, If you are IN because you are looking at different cones (some people believe the orange cones carry more weight than the yellows) than I am or because I don't have the _best_ perspective but a good enough one to question your judgement then we have a confrontation the results of which depends on how much of an ass each of us is. To me CF is an option that is much less likely to become confrontational.

I think the gist of your argument is like so (please clarify If I'm mistaken):


'Only when you're not sure the disc is IB/OB, but think they might be OB, yelling "Check

Feet" so the thrower checks their position will help prevent confrontation."


Firstly, I think that's baloney, when you're not sure, you DO NOT make a call. Especially not

a passive-agressive semi-call like your if-you're-spirited-you'll-stop-and-look-but-I-really-

don't-care "Check Feet".


*** If you have your "rule beanie" on, nothing is said on the field whatsoever! How does

nothing being said possibly lead

to any more confrontation than making your if-you're-spirited-you'll-stop-and-look-but-I-

really-

don't-care "Check Feet" call? ***


Be honest with me for three questions:


1) When you think a person might be out (that an a dollar will buy you a candy bar), and you

yell your passive-agressive if-you're-spirited-you'll-stop-and-look-but-I-really-don't-care

"Check Feet", and they don't even think about checking their feet, what do you think? Does

your

impression of their spiritedness diminish somewhat? Do you think less of them, think they're

maybe cheating, and playing on when they might have been OB?


2) How do you think the majority of real players in the league would answer that first

question.


3) Since your situation only comes in when you're not sure, and the rules suggest when you're

not sure (and nobody's sure) if the disc is out, then the disc is IB, and there's no stoppage,

turnover, or conflict whatsoever, do you really think you're preventing even the tiniest bit of

confrontation by making a semi-call when the rules suggest you should just play on???


--


"...but since I am not standing on the side-curve I can't make a call..."


Haha, I understand it's an attempt at griping about the crooked lines (trust me, I'm all about

griping), but please tell me you're not one of those people that say "I'm in on that cone", are

you?


Let's all say it together:


"Two cones *always* make a straight line."


Really the fact that the field is rectagular has nothing to do with our sport. The field could be

star shaped and it would change none of the OOB rules, or how you should apply them.


Also, you really should beleive that when you're standing half-way between two cones, and

very close to the line joining them, you have one of the *worst* perspectives on the field.

You can't see the two nearest cones, so you can't begin to imagine the straight line between

them.


This is all about the last sentence of the "Best Perspective" definition. How do you interpret

that as the reciever having the onus to make the call???


No no no - I said I think the person is out - but I know I don't have the very, absolute best perspective and I don't think the receiver who generally has the best perspective (by rule) has applied it. Which brings in the last sentence of best perspective - sighting may be required. How can a person who catches a disc close enough to the sideline to elicit a check feet call not at least make a cursory sighting? Really they should be doing it anyway - and if you see a person checking the cones after a catch you know you don't have to make a check feet call. But if they don't AND I think you should be what would you have me say?


Your questions are pedantic and not worth my time.


Two cones make a straight line - but which two cones?


A person on a line is OB. A person on either side of a line can tell which side they are on better than a person 5 feet behind them.

--> if-you're-spirited-you'll-stop-and-look-but-I-really-don't-care "Check Feet" call <--


I'd rather not contradict you, Mr. T... however, it's not a "if-you're-spirited-you'll-stop-and-look-but-I-really-don't-care 'Check Feet' call", it's a "if-you're-spirited-you'll-stop-and-look-*and-if-you-don't-I'll-then-call-you-OB-so-I-really-do-care* 'Check Feet' call." ... or at least that what I inferred from Dodger's first response in this thread.


Dodger, my question to you is this... Are you able to distinguish between someone who did look a few strides before the catch and believe they would still be in bounds after the catch and pivot without looking again at that time, and someone who has no idea. To you, they would be identical. In the first case, you're trying to ask someone to do something that they already know the answer to.


Since you've made it clear that you're prepared to call him OB later (if he does nothing), then why not just call him OB at the time? If you answer "because I'm not really sure", then you would have no business calling him OB later, and we might have to call you a "cheatin' cheater". Otherwise, you *should* be calling it right then.


Okay, fine, you may say that you're simply trying to be polite and you're suggesting that someone take a double-take and confirm in/out status because possibly everyone else *forgot* to look the first time. Then in these cases, how about a "are you *sure* he's in"? At least it's clear what you're trying to say/suggest, instead of the 'may-mean-half-a-dozen-different-things' "Check feet" call.


If I personally hear a "check feet" call and I know I caught it in and my foot's on or in the line, I'm going to continue to look upfield, and I might mutter "don't need to". I don't know what the heck you're trying to tell me with the call, and I already believe my foot was IB when I caught it and believe I didn't run out, and no-one has called me OB as a conflicting viewpoint, so my "don't need to" is telling you all that. But I'd bet you'd misinterpret what I said as "don't need to because 'check feet' is a non-call". It's just as confusing as the "check feet" call in the first place.

--> the receiver who generally has the best perspective (by rule) <--


Whoa... hold on a second. What rule is this? It's not in the 10th. It wasn't in the 9th. And it's certainly not in the upcoming 10.1/11th.


Either the 9th or the 8th had a "often the receiver" when talking about up/down. But that was removed, and the rules have *never* suggested that a line call best perspective and the receiver is at all connected/related.


Caveat: I'm missing the 3rd and 5th editions and can't confirm its absence from those editions, although I'm still betting it's not there either.


--> Two cones make a straight line - but which two cones? <--


Is this a trick question? I think it'd be the two cones that define the line (segment) that you're talking about, just like the "rules" describe. What other cones are there?


--> A person on either side of a line can tell which side they are on better than a person 5 feet behind them. <--


Actually, that's backwards. Although another person entirely further down that line would likely have a better perspective than either of those two, as defender 5 feet behind the receiver (...in reality I'd be closer than that ;)...) I will call OB or IB from my perspective if I think it's close. If it's real close and the receiver or someone else wants to discuss, I'll put my hand/finger down at the divot of first contact and then either move to sight myself or ask someone closer to one of the two cones to do it. Of course, this only works because I knew I was beat at the time of the catch so looked down to where the first contact was and made my judgment... and my call. The receiver likely won't have done that at the point of first contact.

Your running full steam to a disc 5 feet from the sideline, reading the disc which strangely isn't floating right over a cone to make this easy, making sure you don't run other people over, playing off your defender AND ensuring that after you gain complete control of the disc you will be 100% sure you are in bounds such that you don't even have to give a cursory look to ensure you are in....every time. Your eyes must be a deep dark shade of brown.


Meanwhile I am behind you by a yard or two and while you are catching it I look at your position, the cones and what not and say looks like he didn't have possession until he was out to me but he sure ain't showing any signs that he even looked but he's winding up to throw....I'll make a quick CF call here to prod him into making some kind of determination and then finish my next two steps and be in a much better perspective to make a final determination and if you actually continue to not acknowledge your field position you may force me to make a real call (either you are OB and travelling or OB and didn't catch it after factoring in your steps after I think you gained posession.) But if you quickly look at your feet and the cones and say 'In" and throw...it's on with the show since most people CAN tell when they are in or out when they actually DO look.


Really the best person to say anything is likely one of the subs on the sideline watching the play but they can't actually say anything. Well they can say what they want but it means nothing per the rules.

gererally best ....sorry old memories clogging my lanes....point was I feel in the situation the receiver has a better perspective then me if they were to actually apply it.


2 cones - way to many people believe that the orange cones over rule the yellows ...also way too many people don't lay the yellows down properly or they get kicked over by people on the sidelines that often they are well out of place with the general overall line of the sideline...really if a yellow at the brick mark is 2 yards out of line with the endzones would you still use that 'segment'? The receiver may have been using peripheral vision and thought they were in by a cone that is severly out of place.


Your opinion on perspective is yours and mine is that if you can't tell if you are on a line between two points you are an exceptionally dull person. Even then if you are on the line you are out. If you are that close to the line but IB maybe you should be checking your damn feet anyway. That said if no one has a better perspective then the receiver hmmm that means it is the best perspective if I recall my good, better, best sequence correctly.

How many times does it have to be said? If you're on or near a line a line and not at one end, you really can't tell which side you're on.


You're describing one specific situation in which it's possible that the reciever really doesn't know if they're in/out. Typically, all of these conditions are not present at once, and it is possible for the receiver to know where they are as they catch it. Most of the time, as I approach a sideline I pay attention to peripheral vision and parallax shift and I have a very good idea where the sideline is. Often, even if I'm laying out dragging a toe I'll have a good idea, even if you don't know it, so there's no reason to assume that because you didn't see me examine my position that I don't know where I am. If I'm sure that I'm in, and you are sure that I'm out (as opposed to that I may be out), then I'd rather the play stopped and we figure it out. If I'm sure that I'm in and you see that I"m somewhere close to the line, you have no business saying anything at all.


If you honestly believe that they're out, say it. If you can't tell, shut up. If you're moving into a position where you can tell, wait until you can tell before making a call. The call doesn't have to happen the instant they touch the ground - even if they throw right away then you see that they were out, it's a legit call and the disc comes back (or to the previous thrower if there's disagreement.)


And finally, the rules apply equally at all levels of the sport. Just because you're playing in div 7 doesn't mean that there's now a 2m leeway on the sideline. This doesn't mean that you have to be calling delays and whatnot, but just because someone isn't very skilled doesn't mean that a disc that just touches the ground shouldn't be a turnover.

I'm not willing to keep going back-and-forth on this. I've pretty much said what I've wanted to say (... and the crowd cheers!). You've heard my logic and I've heard yours. Through lack of persuasive skills and/or over-stubbornness to some degree on one or both or all parties it seems that agreement won't happen. Back to thrower. In reality I'm guessing that it would rarely come to bad feelings in an actual game, and we'd come to a "back to thrower" conclusion *much* faster. And if we knew who each other was during the play, it'd actually be pretty humourous, don't ya' think?


Okay, "pretty much said what I"ve had to say" except for two comments about the cones. (... you *knew* I couldn't do it too, didn't you?)


It's the closest two "field markers", period. The rules are pretty clear about this. If the small yellow cones are used to help mark the field, then they are "field markers", because that's exactly what they're doing. I think it's hard to validly argue otherwise.


If markers/cones get moved, whether we're talking inches or feet, and the players are continuing to play, then I think they're implicitly agreeing that's the line segment even though it's part of a longer, crooked line. I've seen some badly crooked lines even when the cones *don't* get moved! If we start attempting to agree on some degree of tolerance, and then decide whether to ignore a cone because it's outside that measurement, then we're going into a whole other scope of on-field discussion. And one that'd be messier than "check feet".

There's rules and then there's rules. I'm not saying that div 7 has different rules, but it is in the application of the rules, the strictness of enforcement. Hell when's the last time you called an offside on a pull?


And if you're thinking about parallax shift while you are catching then that really explains alot about your inability to catch a disc GB consistently....cue rimshot...seriously folks basing you inboundedness on parallax shift calculations (make sure you carry the one) and relying on peripheral vision sounds like alot more than I was even considering in a catching situation....but strangely you didn't say you were looking at your feet or the line while catching, and when you are doing this do you have a meter for calculating the precise moment that he disc stopped spinning?


As to the cones - you reallly truly use the two closest cones every single time even though a rational person can easily see a cone that is well out of place shouldn't be used in a line call and would then refer to the next nearest cone. Again I can understand this at a tourney level but at league...that's just ridiculous.


As to the line - what proof do you have that a person can't tell what side of a line they are on? I mean if a stationary person can't tell if they are in or out of bounds then how can someone calculating parralax shift at 20km per hour do so???

--> you reallly truly use the two closest cones every single time even though a rational person can easily see a cone that is well out of place <--


Ummm, yeah. Unless by "well out of place", you mean knocked across the teams bags and chairs, and then I contend that it's no longer being used as a "field marker". But other than that, or something obviously similar, yeah.


Even though it's out of place, that's the line I'm toeing when I reach out for the disc, because that's the only objective means I have for what the line is ... surely not that cone over half-a-field away, that's a completely different line segment that isn't extrapolated beyond it's two line markers.


If the players had a problem with the cone out of place, but it wasn't a problem when it was out of place earlier in the point/game, then the problem is *not* with the cone out of place...

<rolls eyes, gives up on a hopeless cause>

Artless, my questions weren't pedantic, you must not have read them.


Look at your argument!


'If I think they're out, It's less confrontational to suggest that the receiver calls it than to call

it myself."


That's fine if you're ok if they don't call it, but if you get upset that they didn't check their

feet, you've got the problem.


Also, I don't buy the "I think they're out, but I may not have the bestest perspective." If you

see somebody OB, you call it. Either you think they're out, or you're not sure. If you're not

sure, as GB says, shut up and play on.


BTW mort you missed one word from my quote, it was *his* definition of CF that I was

describing as blah-blah passive-aggressive. Which it certainly sounds like.


--


Dodger, if you are playing with one set of How-the-game-should-be-played-rules, don't be

upset when somebody doesn't check their feet when you say it.


"Check Feet" is a stupid thing to say if you're expecting action from the other team.


Thinking a team is unspirited in any slight way for not checking their feet when you shout

"Check Feet" is very unspirited in itself.

x front endzone



..3-4ft..x brick mark kicked out of place during the point


..0 - you catching


x center cone


You really will contend you are in? If you read the rules strictly you are correct, but if you use 1% of your brain you won't.

See my last about "How-the-game-should-be-played-rules" and try to understand that if people

are playing by different rules, then eventually somebody's going to be cheating.


Your example is extreme and not what we're taling about. Obviously if a marker cone has been

moved off the field then it's no longer marking the field (as Mort suggested). However if that

cone has been there all game, then yes absolutely it describes the shape of the field.


If you're playing with your How-the-game-should-be-played-rules set, and the other team is

playing with the real rule set, they'll call themselves in, you'll call them out. Now one of you

thinks the other is cheating. Do you see how it's you that's the one cheating? I thought you

wanted to avoid conflict?

Not to be nit-picky, but I hope everyone is on the same page with respect to which cones to use to draw your line.


II G. Line: "...the boundary is defined as an imaginary line *between* two field markers with the thickness of said markers. Line segments are not extrapolated beyond the defining markers." [emphasis mine, obviously]


So that means if you are three feet away from the brick (11 yds from endzone), you are not creating your line with the brick and top-of-endzone markers, you are creating your line with the brick and midfield/opposite brick markers.


So it's not necessarily the two closest markers; in this example, using the brick and endzone markers would result in extrapolating beyond the defining markers.

Good point.


When people say two nearest cones, they mean and should really say the nearest cone in each

direction down the line.

It's not cheating when any rational person would go 'this cone is obviously out of place".....you also presume that everyone on every team actually knows the rules which I think has been established as a falsehood in the VUL anyway. In this case a little common sense actually goes a long way to eliminating conflict.


And no I don't think everyone is on the same page on which cones to use...in the forum yes we all seem to agree. But that leaves 2988 of 3000 poor souls who still have a variety of thoughts on this matter. Thus a rational discussion needs to ensue.

Could not a rational discussion go like this?


"But I'm in by this cone and that telephone pole over there."


"The rules state that you draw a line between the two cones on either side of you. You are out by that line."


"That's not how I've always played it." [see How To Incite Arguments on the Field]


"Well, for future reference, that is the rule."


"Well, I'm calling myself in."


"I have a good perspective on where you caught the disc. I think you were out. Back to thrower?"




I think it's fair to expect that those 12 people who know the rules have another job on the field (and here in the forum) aside from having fun: teaching. If your team signed up for Div 4, but you got stuck in Div 6, your job is not to demolish the other teams. That may happen, but your job should then become more instructional. Show players how to play the game by the rules, so that they may in turn pass on *correct* information to others who don't know any better, rather than the incorrect information that seems much more prevalent. That way, over time the wrong rules will be shifted out and replaced by the right rules.


Just in time for the UPA 12th edition.

Very well put, Ninja. That is an example of how to resolve a contested call very well, without hard feelings (I would hope) and without it escalating into a 'dispute'. (-sighs-) ...if only they *all* went so smoothly.


You missed the first line, which was either, "Check Feet", or "You're Out". I'm guessing it was the second, because if the first I think the discussion would've gone in a different direction.


--> BTW mort you missed one word from my quote... <--


Oh no, I caught that, which is actually why I updated his definition that you so eloquently documented, and was taken directly from my interpretation of his first post on the topic.

If your using a telephone pole as a marker for the field then you must be playing at General Brock....otherwise you have poorly positioned the field. But if you were to be addressed with this situation


"You're OB by 6 of seven cones on this sideline - this cone is obviously out of place"

"Hmm you're right I am OB - TO and lets fix this cone now so it doesn't happen again"


If it's only inches that a person is out by using the whole sideline vs. the two cones on either side of you then I am not going to bitch but if you're feet out of bounds by all other cones....being a rules cop not worth the effort in this case - I'll save my breath for arguments about blocking fouls.

--> "You're OB by 6 of seven cones on this sideline - this cone is obviously out of place" <--


Well then, we'll be sending the disc back to the thrower a lot. I see cones out of line by 1, 2, or even 3 feet all the time. And we use them all for lines.


The SRC's primary reason for putting the line definition into the 10th edition was to stop/clarify discussions like this. If the two line markers say the line is there (i.e., between them), then that's where the line is, regardless of whether those two markers are in line with the rest of the markers or not.


Previous to this definition, many people used this argument. The definiton was intended to clarify that it's not a valid argument, without coming right out and saying it wasn't a valid argument.


I guess it didn't work.

Why not specifically define what two cones (points) will define the line. Perhaps the the front of

each endzone or the back of each endzone since there are cones at these points in all fields.

Because that will make sighting down a line between those two cones even harder.


--


Art, your 'point' such as it were has been migrating around the topic almost as bad as our

favourite Poli-troll.


First you say that if you think the person's out, don't call it, just make a passive-aggressive

pseudo-call and expect them to take the time to acknowledge it with actions, as this will

prevent conflicts.


Everybody quite verbosely described how terrible an idea that is. Then you switched your

point only subtly to be that if you *do think* that the person is out, that you should make

that passive-aggressive pseudo-call and expect them to take the time to acknowledge it with

actions.


This was an even worse idea.


Now you're saying that *IF* a cone gets knocked *WAY* out of place *DURING* a point, then

you shouldn't use it as a marker. Well we've all agreed with that statement, obviously if you

take a marker off the field, it's no longer a marker. Yes a modicum of common sense

is required here to determine when a cone is moved from its spot marking the field, but I'd

suggest that if a cone is moved accidentally, it's no longer a marker (this is very reasonable),

until it is placed intentionally back on the field.


But if that cone's been sitting 'out of place' the whole time, then by definition, it's actually in

place, and defines the line. This is fair for both teams, and is how it should be played.


If you're so concerned that the actual rule should be that the IB area is defined as a

rectangle, take the time to correct the setup of the field, and stop trying to get everybody to

accept the version of the rules that exist only in your head.

Temple - I was where my WWSD (what would stump do) button last week and you know it does feel good to push people's buttons. I know CF is a non-call - I know you can ignore me - I still use it - I get ignored 10% of the time(the people who know the rules) - I get my expected response the remainder - does it hurt me or the game to call it out when I think a person needs to confirm their IB/OB status - I don't think so - should I just call OB and start an argument/discussion - yes - will I change after more than 10 years of playing just because three people on the forum think I'm a nimrod - nahhh.


side note: Most of the calls in ultimate are passive-aggressive ie. letting a foul be contested is super passive agressive (you can call a foul but if someone disagrees with you then we'll just back off and send it back to thrower but grumble under our breath about 'spirit') - the game is passive agressive (you can compete but you have to bake each other cakes to make sure everyone has fun) - it was made up by a bunch of passive-agressive types (couldn't make the other team sports in school so they made up a new game and called it 'ultimate') - so one more psuedo-PA call won't hurt us too much.

"(couldn't make the other team sports in school so they made up a new game and called it 'ultimate')"


I'm not trying to start an argument or anything (your-deity-of-choice knows we've had enough in this thread alone), but...


I've played a lot of sports/games in my admittedly short lifetime, on fields, courts, courses, rinks, tables and who knows what else, and ultimate is far and above the most energetically demanding game I have ever played. Hockey is the only thing I can think of that comes close, but there you get to sub off every 90 seconds. When was the last time you heard of a 10 minute shift?


People who play ultimate, at least at the higher levels, are probably some of the most physically well-conditioned folks this side of the armed forces. They likely *could* play most other sports if they wanted (aside from getting broken in half if they played football or rugby), but choose to play this game.


And as far as the passive-aggressive thing goes, ultimate players can be just as competitive as the next group of high-energy, high-stakes players. To say otherwise would be to say that you've never watched UPA college or club regionals/sectionals/nationals. The difference is that inherent in our sport is a respect for the other team, the fans, and the game itself. We don't argue [as much], we don't cheat [I hope], we don't fight [I really hope]. Personally, I happen to think that SOTG and all things related are the best part of this game; when I see someone make a spectacular diving bid and both teams cheer, it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.


Kinda like gas, except happier.


$0.02

Temple:


"You have to form the habit of not wanting to have been right for very long. If I still believe something after five years, I doubt it."


-- Marvin Minsky


"Do not cherish the unworthy desire that the changeable might become the unchanging."


-- Gautama Buddha



And if we were to ask Alice....


The Caterpillar and Alice looked at each other for some time in silence: at last the Caterpillar took the hookah out of its mouth, and addressed her in a languid, sleepy voice.


`Who are YOU?' said the Caterpillar.


This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation. Alice replied, rather shyly, `I--I hardly know, sir, just at present-- at least I know who I WAS when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then.'



Change is good. Changing one's mind is awesome.


Discussion or debate? I prefer discussion.

Pistols at dawn please. And I wish you both a loaded pistol and good aim...


:p

Pages