"check feet" call

152 posts / 0 new
Last post

Injnured, you're kidding about believing Ultimate players are the best conditioned athletes right?


I do agree that it's a pretty kick a$$ game though. The combination of raw fitness and hand to eye co-ordination (or lack thereof in my case, #$%#$ drops) required for every point is a rare thing in sports.


Matt


P.S. Random piece of info. Generally soccer players are considered the best conditioned athletes in the world (at the top level) unless you include sports that aren't team sports. Then Nordic skiers and motocross riders are considered the best conditioned athletes. Ultimate players haven't been studied yet (to my knowledge).

I'd disagree with anyone who thinks soccer players do more running than ultimate players any day. There are 22 players on a soccer field/football pitch, with *maybe* 6-8 of them running at a time. And it's usually not running 100%. The rest are standing/walking around making sand castles or, if their chumps like David Beckam, checking to make sure their diamond earrings haven't fallen out.


At the level of ultimate I play (Div 6), most of us are running around a lot. We have a tendency to fall back into the ol' "clump offence," which for a demonstration I recommend checking out a group of 5-6 year olds playing soccer. At the higher levels, where more organisation is present, there is more coordinated/better timed running, but I'd still argue that it's harder, faster, and more of it.


Totally NOT a euphimism for anything.

spoken like someone who is very ignorant about soccer.....yes, there are 22 players on the field,...but have you ever seen the size of the field they play on? its ginormous. and there is definitely way more than 6-8 people running at a time, again, you have probably never watched an entire match or you would know this. Try catching on of the upcoming world cup matches and see if you opinion changes.


you can't even compare the amount of running done in soccer as to that in ultimate.....its like comparing tennis to ping pong.


A soccer field is a postage stamp compared to an Aussie Rules field.


Of course you can compare soccer and ulty. Not that I know which one is more taxing.


I thought motocrossers HAD been crowned the undisputed kings of fitness. Although, I've heard that part of the reason they scored so well in tests is because they were pitted against each other and they basically couldn't stand the thought of one of their buds having bragging rights over who's in the best shape.


I wonder where tri-athletes stack up?

My understanding of the fitness testing done is that it looks at the efficiency of the athlete (not sure if it's completely dependent on V02 max, or also includes some lactate threshold testing) so sports that tend to have more anaerobic output (i.e. motorcross, x-country skiing, etc.) scored higher than some of the more endurance type activities (triathletes falling into this category).

There is a study I have heard about and cannot quote exactly, and every time the discussion of fitness comes up, it rears its ugly head...


Done at the Univ of Arizona more than 5 yrs ago, and showing that the ultimate players studies were more fit than the soccer players studied. Were they at comparable skill levels within their sport? I have no idea. (And rest assured that professional players in a gazillion sports are WAY fitter than almost all of us.)


All in all, I'd say that athletes who train and look after themselves are the fittest.


Me? I poach a lot and I'm not so fit. (Am I not fit because I poach a lot? Do I poach a lot becasue I'm not fit?)

Heh, people wonder why the dump on my team is 40 yards behind the play... it's because Mortakai hasn't caught up to the fast break folks yet. It's smart play, I tell ya! If they turn us over, I'm already the deepest defender and a striker will be tired by the time he gets anywhere near me! Walking during play is just smart... S...M...R...T... smart!

Actually, jeebus, I have played soccer, I have watched soccer, I have refereed soccer. I know the field is big. I remember moving up from the smaller fields to the regulation sized fields and wondering how in the hell I was going to cover all that ground. I'd argue that I am not, in fact, ignorant about soccer.


Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the game has changed in the last 8-9 years. I don't know. But last time I checked, only half the field is playing at one time, and they aren't necessarily sprinting. Ignoring the fact that us lazy bastards -- er, sorry, dumps -- are walking up the field as the fast break is happening, at the higher levels of ultimate, they always seem to be moving. A soccer striker isn't making boulder cuts to try to elude the sweeper. He'd be wasting his energy.


But let's say he's striking, his forwards are following, the defence are dropping back, and the mids on both teams are following up the rear (at a decidedly less than 100% pace). I'll grant you that's a little more than half the field, but no way are they all sprinting. And do you really think the O's and D's on the other end of the field are going to be going balls-out to get open? Hell no. I bet if you watched old tapes of Alan Shearer (sp?), he'd spend most of the game jogging at best.

In league I'm going to continue calling "Check Feet". Not when I'm in bad position, but when I have a legitimate concern that they are out. If they ignore me, fine. If they continue to be out, then I'll call OB if I believe they aren't concerned with their own In/Out status.


To me it's far more important that everyone has a good time than the precise stipulations of the rules are religiously adhered to. Breaking up a flow of what might be a great point, both offensively and defensively, is not worth it to me. Who cares if it generates a turn-over?


In fact I suppose there are a number of rules that I semi-intentionally do not adhere to 100%.


1) If someone calls a pick and then proceeds to stand immediately by their check I generally don't argue. Needless to say, I believe the majority of "pick" calls are made well outside of the 10' allowance (I also don't argue this)


2) If someone puts their pivot foot anywhere reasonably close to the line if they bring in the disc at the line I'll generally not moan about it. IIRC technically their pivot is supposed to be AT that point, not their bodies width inside the line.


3) If I put up my hand to signal readiness to recieve a pull, I don't cry after 90 seconds if they haven't pulled.


4) I rarely call DoG despite numerous occasions when an offenceperson is standing immediately over it.


I'm sure there are more, but there are definitely scenarios for each of these where I'd call the rule as the rule states, and others where I'd just go with the flow. So what am I adding to the discussion you might be wondering. I just wanted to reassure Artless that he's not alone, even among those who know the rules, in that Check Feet will still be in my repertoire.


And seriously... if you've ever heard a check feet call, do you honestly go through 4 or 5 potential situations that it might mean? Nah, you're half way up a field, almost on a side-line (one way or another) and you KNOW what they mean. Fine you can ignore it, but don't pretend that in that situation you're ignorant as to the intent.




Perhaps most dissapointingly it's amazing to see some posters characterizing this as passive-aggresive. Basically it's saying that anyone who disagree's with them is already labelled in their mind. I probably find that the most frustrating part of this thread, and has kept me from voicing my opinion for this long.



Oh, and who is the best athlete? I'd vote decathalon. But honestly, it's 100% about the athlete, not the sport.

--> And seriously... if you've ever heard a check feet call, do you honestly go through 4 or 5 potential situations that it might mean? Nah, you're half way up a field, almost on a side-line (one way or another) and you KNOW what they mean. <--


Actually yes, I do need to stop and figure out what the person is really trying to tell me. Okay, maybe not always 4 or 5 potential situations, but it's normally at least 2. For example, for a catch on the run near the line, do they mean that I've caught it OB or that I've caught it IB and then run OB. In the first it's a turnover, the second means they're asking me to run to the line.


I have a fundamental problem if you firmly believe the person is OB but fail to call it. It's clearly your call to make; it's not correct to suggest it's "the receiver's call". Why wouldn't you call it? How can the receiver tell he was OB at the catch when he caught it 3 steps back and then stopped wherever near the line he is when you ask him to look?


But I think we've been over this quite a few times already... why am I explaining it yet again?


I just don't understand how that logic is expected to really work to keep the game going without delays or needless discussions. I suppose I may never understand it.

"Actually yes, I do need to stop and figure out what the person is really trying to tell me. "


Umm so what do you actually do to figure out what they are asking? Do you look at your feet to see if you are OB before you throw? Then do you think about where you were when you caught the disc to make sure you were IB when you caught it? Hmmmmmmm sounds like exactly what a CF call is expected to get....


That is the logic of it - it works - when you say check feet 90% of the time people check their feet 10% of the time they squint at you and ask why or ignore you.....based on this feedback loop a check feet request is reinforcing almost every time I call it.

--> Umm so what do you actually do to figure out what they are asking? Do you look at your feet to see if you are OB before you throw? Then do you think about where you were when you caught the disc to make sure you were IB when you caught it? <--


Yeah, then I look at the person and say, "what's the 'check feet' for? ... are you trying to call me out, or what?" And then the person may say, "yeah, I think you're out", to which I respond, "then call me out instead".


Or how about this scenario: Someone says "check feet". I look down and see that I'm 5 feet OB. I say "yes, I'm OB" and drop the disc because it's a turnover. Then the other person says, "no no, I mean that you ran OB and should bring it back to the line". So I pick up the disc to bring it to the line, and someone else on the other team says, "no, you put the disc down, it's a turnover". And now we're in a discussion about check feet and it's evils. And one team gets a spirit score of 6 and the other 7, and a whole new thread on how another team with low spirit should be run out of the league.


Wouldn't it just have been so much simpler and helped to keep the game going without the stoppage for discussion if the person had originally said "ran OB, bring it back to the line"?


we've already established that you, temple and gin-boh are in the 10%... the rest of the world seems to react 'normally'.


Ahh I remember the days when a spirit score of 6 was to be lauded...damn this metric spirit score system.

It was strange, at my games on Monday, every time I heard a check-feet call, I thought about this thread and how many arguments -- er, discussions -- would have occurred if the people on the field had read this thread. I never noticed it before, but that call is made A LOT, even by people halfway across the field. I used to be just as guilty as the next, but I've changed my ways and kept my damn yap shut. I's is cured!

sorta proving my point - but really no discussions or arguments would have been had if EVERYONE had read the posts - many would have occurred if half had read the posts and NONE occured when only 1 or 2 had read the posts....2/30 what's that in percentages.

about 6.666667%... think 2/3 moved over by a decimal place.



I can see the future already... I'll call "Check Feet" at which time someone will say "That's not a real call" and then I'll reply "Neither was that".



"Disc Up," isn't a real call, nor is "Hi! My name is Dugly, and I'll be your check for this point." How about "Zone!" What's that mean? You're trying to eat a well proportioned diet? We know what they mean.


- To me it's far more important that everyone has a good time than the precise stipulations of the rules are religiously adhered to. Breaking up a flow of what might be a great point, both offensively and defensively, is not worth it to me. Who cares if it generates a turn-over? -


Here here Dugly, i couldn't agree more. Some people out there take adherence to the rules waaaaaaay to seriously. I can understand if it is say, an important point, or a tight game, but i've seen it when teams are being blown out, and the winning team still has people going overboard over every little rule. Personally, I would call this bad spirit. I know that last comment is going to be strongly disagreed by many of the rule junkies on this forum, but just my opinion.


are rules important? yes. is it more important to have fun? definitely. Would it be best to have both? Absolutely, but sometimes, when people take it a bit to seriously, it is hard to have both.

You guys are missing the point of what we're trying to say.


We're ALL (all, not just the supposed 10%) are saying that CF is not a call. That's a good

thing, and we're in violent agreement about that.


What the supposed 10% are trying to say is:


1) When you say nothing (which is what you should do if you're not sure), you're not going to

be taking "adherence to the rules waaaaaaay to seriously", you're not going to be making

things uncomfortable, you're playing as the rules say, and making zero waves! How is this not

the preferred way to deal with when you're not sure?!?!?


2) When you're sure the person is OB (or IB) call it! There's nothing remotely unspirited in

this. Please speak up if you feel otherwise (as I think this might be the kernel of the

disagreement). It's the same as calling Pick when you're picked, calling "foul" when you're

fouled.


3) Saying "Check Feet" as a pseudo-call like Dugly just said he is wont to do, is only adding

the possibility of conflict/confrontation:


"I'm going to continue calling "Check Feet". Not when I'm in bad position, but when I have a

legitimate concern that they are out. If they ignore me, fine. If they continue to be out, then

I'll call OB if I believe they aren't concerned with their own In/Out status."


If you're trying to tell me that this isn't passive-agressive, please tell me what is! You're

saying exactly this:


'If I see you OB, I'm going to tell you to call yourself out (which isn't a call, but I use it that

way), and if you don't even take the time to look, I'm going to call you out.'


Are you trying to tell me that if you think the person is OB, there's going to be a situation

where play continues? Say, if they look, but they decide they're in, and they play on. You're

going to let that happen, and not have it affect your feel for thier spirit? Also, you're going to

let them continue playing after you saw them OB, and still feel that it was a fair thing that

just happened?


Also, if they don't make it clear to you that they double-check their IB status when you yell

"CF" (which they absolutely don't have to), and you do call "Out", that's not going to sour

you just a little bit to their spirit? You're not going to think that they're playing just the

slightest bit unfairly?


If you absolutely don't let it affect you at all, and will let them play on knowing they're OB,

then I'd say your Check Feet is not a passive-agressive call, but I'd highly doubt you're that

Buddha-like.


--


Think about it you guys:


YOU ARE ADDING YOUR OWN IMAGINARY RULE! You're adding this "you should double-check

your IB status" rule to the WayTheGameShouldBePlayed(tm), and you're suggesting that the

people that say nothing are the ones that are adhering to the rules too closely???


--


I'll break it down Yoda/Miyagi style for you:


"OB" or no call, there is no "Check Feet"


Either you call OB immediately, or you don't. Don't think that the opponent *should* do

anything after your "Check Feet" (if this thread shows anything its that everybody has a

different definition for it, and perhaps they don't even think you're talking to them!). And do

not think that it's in any way unspirited or "too rule-conscious" to call somebody out when

you

see them out. That's our sport.

Random thoughts from the Alzheimer's corner... Isn't "check feet" pretty much synomymous with "mine is not the best perspective on the field"?


And, rather than calling "check feet', what would happen if you were to call "are you in"? (Or "is he in" / "is she in"?) Would it have the same effect in your mind and in the receiver's mind?


Just curious.

Since we are summarizing points here...I'd like to put two of your arguments together....

1. we shouldn't call OB (or CF either) unless we are sure a person is OB I would conjecture the opposite is also true - a receiver shouldn't assume they are in bounds they should know for sure they are in bounds unless they are planning on sighting a line after the catch.

2. A person on or very near to a line has, per your arguments, a nigh impossible job of telling if they are in our out of bounds.


Given the above - does it not behoove the receiver to check their fe,..IB status after a catch where there is as good a chance that they are IB or OB. Especially since in most instances you will also have run out of bounds after the catch (ie. only other circumstance is when you were standing still for the catch - which isn't likely to get CF calls anyway.) and need to reestablish your pivot foot again as well.

Temple, I think you've misinterpretted my statment about "If it continues". You are arguing against your own counter-example, which doesn't even come close to matching how I propose I use the term "Check Feet".


I don't mean if the play continues from there. I mean if the team (or player) in question continues to catch the disc in subsequent plays in what I believe to be "OUT" then during subsequent catches I'll call "OUT". Bear in mind that there is no 100% accurate mechanism for determining who has best perspective. If I reasonably believe the person to be OUT then I will start with a "CF" and if they ignore that, fine, next time (or maybe the time after) I will simply call OUT. If they choose (and I know they don't have to do so) to check if in their own opinion, or someone else on the field states "(S)He's in" then I probably won't call "OUT" next time either. I certainly am Buddha-like enough to not get worked up over it in a single play. (And over the last few years I've certainly become more buddha like than I really should)


Think of it as an implicit agreement as to how the CF call, and the game in general, will be played. If YOU (i.e. Temple) wish to ignore that, or play by the strict rule-set, that's fine too. I'm not suggesting we add this as an imaginary rule. I don't have a problem with calling OUT if that's how you wish to continue. I believe that the majority of Ulti-players out there (including higher level players during league) would rather just play the game and deal with an occasional CF call. Also, as soon as an OUT call is expressed, the ONLY outcome is a turnover, or stoppage in play while discussion ensues as to who has best perspective etc.


I completely disagree that "Check Feet" leads to more conflict in general. I believe that it leads to less.


I agree with your premise that you should NOT call "check feet" with the intention of calling "OUT" should that player do anything other than what you wish them to do.


By the way, excellent use of punctuation. I definitely felt you really are getting into it with the Question marks and Exclamation points... I can almost picture you twitching in your seat with indignation.

rattrap


"are you in" is also a non call per the rulecops. They only call they'll allow is OB.


on the topic of... - "Are you in?" is a phrase best not heard in the boudoir either.

Hmm, which is better -


Are you in?

or

Are you out?


Referring to the boudoir of course.


Matt

How to insult your lover dans la beaudoire...


She -- "Is it in?"


He -- "I can't tell..."


(My summers on the telephone cable crew were worth something after all.)

... or even worse...


*HE* -- "Is it in?"


*SHE* -- "I can't tell..."


--> "are you in" is also a non call per the rulecops. They only call they'll allow is OB. <--


Sure it's a non call, although I'm happier to hear "are you in"? I can quickly reply, "I don't have the perspective to say, am I?" At least I know what's being asked.


I'll often say, "I think you're in" (e.g., end-zone) or "I think you're out" when I'm fairly sure and I'd rather hear support or another opinion if someone is willing to agree or override with better perspective. Or more accurately when I have the best perspective of those that are willing to open their mouths to say something, and I'm attempting to have someone who *really* has better perspective to say something. I'll rarely ask the receiver to make the call though, they often have one of the worst perspectives on or off the (unlined) field.


Oh, and Dugly, I misinterpreted it too... I thought you'd switch from CF to OB a second or three later when the CF was ignored. I didn't realize you meant on a subsequent play.

Ditto, now that you explain it, it makes sense that you're not expecting an action out of CF.


Merely, you're using CF as a 'warning' of sorts? When you think the person is out, you'll let

them continue, hopefully they'll check their feet.


Am I getting this right so far?


But now there's somebody that is ignoring your pseudo-call. You must admit that there's

more than one way to interpret it, as there have been several such suggestions in this thread.

Perhaps they're purposefully ignoring you, but perhaps they think that you're yelling to your

team to check the thrower's feet (a perfectly valid possibility). What happens now that they

ignore it?


Well, you switch gears on this person and start calling "Out". Why is it spirited now, but it

wasn't spirited to call "Out" before? Even if in our scenario, the thrower thought they were IB

the whole time?


--


My real question is, and I think this is the root of the issue:


Do you think it is even the slightest, teensiest, tiniest bit unspirited to call somebody "Out"?


Follow up: same question, but what about whey you call "Not In" right near the end zone line,

is it different?


--


Personally I've never noticed somebody getting upset at an OB call (I've seen plenty of

people get sullen when they said check feet and the play continued), it's a purely Objective

call, and it's one of the fewer contested calls you'll see.


Oh, and the superfluous punctuation was an attempt at stressing the importance of the question,

and the supposition that there's only one good answer.


I'm not really squirming, but rather shaking my head in disbelief that some people honestly

believe that you'll cause less problems on the field by expecting people to adhere to a made-up

subset of the rules than by expecting people to adhere to the rules. I believe you'll cause even

less problems if you don't expect people to adhere to any rules, but most people out there that

argue fall into one of the former two camps (the majority in the first).

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

My real question is, and I think this is the root of the issue:


Do you think it is even the slightest, teensiest, tiniest bit unspirited to call somebody "Out"?


Follow up: same question, but what about whey you call "Not In" right near the end zone line, is it different?

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

Yes, very different. The not in call generally allows play to continue flowing. (Somewhat OT, but as a marker, can you continue the stall count while someone is confirming whether there in the end zone or not?)


I think the issue might be compounded by the belief that an OB call is similar to a foul call (i.e. play must be stopped, call confirmed, check disc back in, etc.) so the belief is that the CF (or some similar 'non-call') allows play to continue.


Matt

Temple - CF isn't really about spirit....strangely it's about getting a person to look at their feet.


It's a pretty normal reaction from most people if they hear check feet , AND they just caught the disc, to look at their feet....nobody else's feet matter so most assume they are being talked to (not the CF callers teammates as you posit - yes it's possible but not likely).


When the look at their feet they will then notice one of a few things - either they are clearly OB, OB but took a few steps and they will step back to where they were and recheck their position (and or needed to to play the disc without a travel call), they are on the line and need help with an IB call, they are IB and sure of it.


Whatever the result is the receiver will have properly established their position and the game will move on. If the CF request is ignored, only a doofus would get pissed and have it impact their 'spirit' meter of the other player. Just like you shouldn't get PO'd if a person contests a blatant foul because they interpret the situation differently.

--> Somewhat OT, but as a marker, can you continue the stall count while someone is confirming whether there in the end zone or not? <--


Yes you can. You can also initiate and/or continue the stall count when the person is standing near the line taking time to look at their feet after CF is requested. Not that I'm suggesting that the defense could use CF to shorten the effective time available for the thrower, just pointing out that the effect might be the same.

It's sad that this is still going, though admittedly several posts were way OT.


I think a key point that is being missed is that 99% of the time CF is called, the person saying it is either saying "you're OB" in a way that they think is more gentle, or else they're saying "from over here on the other side of the field it looks like you might be close to the line and I don't trust that you know your ass from a hole in the ground, let alone the rules of this fine game." In the first case, I really don't understand why there's anything remotely wrong with simply saying "OB." In the second case, rely on the others on the field. You'd probably achieve greater benefits towards getting others to consistently check where they are on the field if you took a moment after the point to remind people that they should pay attention to the line.

It took me a while to decide whether or not to further add to this beast, but I wanted to add something to Gin-Boh's post.


I think a lot of people also call "check feet" because they only sorta know the rules and want somebody that actually knows them to call something. Or, they know that the people with Best Perspective only sorta know the rules and the call is to remind them that they can call someone out.


Let's just have referees and then forget all about this way too long topic.

"Let's just have referees and then forget all about this way too long topic."


Heh. As if THIS topic isn't long...

... clearly a troll... and it's already too easy to get us going *without* resorting to that ;p

I think there's still value in this thread, as we're not just going in circles, we're getting to the

underlying difference in opinions, so I'll continue.


I think the kernel of the disagreement was identified by the only answer to my questions. He

didn't answer the first question (is calling "OB" poor spirited at all?), but I think I can deduce

his answer...


Matt believes that there's a big difference between calling "OB" and calling "Not In". I'm

guessing those on the 'pro-Check Feet' side would feel the same (please pipe-up if you

disagree).


He dances around the real reason for it by saying "The not in call generally allows play to

continue flowing." While this is a poor distinction, as A) There's no Stoppage on an "OB" call,

and B) While play continues after an OB call, you don't want O flow to continue after they're

OB.


However, I suspect the real reason Matt uses that as the distinction is because not allowing

flow

to continue would be considered in some small way poor spirit. Somehow, it is in some way

unsportsmanlike or unfair for the O to be called OB when they are OB.


I disagree with that sentiment entirely, and I think you've got the wrong idea of SOTG if you

agree with it.


--


Seriously think about the frequency of these three occasions:


1) Somebody calls a BTT (back to thrower) after an OB call?


2) Somebody gets upset at being called OB, when they

were OB?


3) Somebody gets upset after calling CF that the O plays

on?


I think the third is by far the most frequent. What does that say about the CF-prevents-

conflict argument?

the answer to both is about the same and close to never...


As to 'There's no Stoppage on an "OB" call" - yes there's not official stoppage in play requiring a check - but play most certainly will stop for the offense either it will be a turnover or it will be a discussion/assessment of the OB status. It won't be 'OB'-'no IB'-throw it will be 'OB'-'I disagree'-look to others to apply another/better perspective on the line call - obtain agreement (or send it back to thrower) and play restarts without a check. Sounds like play stopped.


When you last got called OB and disagreed - how long did it take to resolve?


When you last had a person utter CF at you - how long did it take to resolve? (not counting time after the point esplainin' to everyone that it's not a valid call.)

hmm temple edited out his questions as I posted. I'd disagree with his assumptions on the 3 scenarios as to which is most common - I'd also say he missed a scenario, likely the most common - an OB call when a person actually disagrees.

I have no idea whether this is actually true or not... however, I'll say it and suggest that it might be true.


It's possible that part of the reason that CF is used is that people will often get *upset* at *any* call that is made that they don't agree with. Almost as if they think a bad call is being made against them on purpose. (Really, if I *wanted* to get someone upset, I don't need to make a call to do it... I think I've demonstrated that many times recently :) )


So then, assuming that's true, perhaps the less-intrusive CF statement is thought to reduce the risk of the receiver getting upset because they don't agree with the out call, because this call is not being made.


Does this then mean we're using CF to minimize this risk, rather than actually dealing with the *real* problem... which is people getting upset at calls in the first place?


... just a thought... plus it's a segue into a statement that people really shouldn't be getting upset on the field at *any* calls being made. Disagreements will and should naturally occur, and then just simply follow the rules for resolving them (e.g., contest and back to thrower, move to sight down a line, etc.). Just because you and I disagree on what we saw/believe happened in a play, does not mean that one of us is right or wrong, or win or lose, we just interpret them differently, back to thrower and move on.

Damn work interfering with my forum time!


OK Temple, back to answering post from the 7th (has it been that long? almost 2 days!)


First, I'll apologize for my initial description of what I'd do. I see that it's not very clear. My intent was always that I'd not confuse the two calls in the same play, but that in subsequent plays I might call OUT.


So now your questions. "Merely, you're using CF as a 'warning' of sorts? Am I getting this right so far?" Yes (but not emphatically)



Question 2 (or 3): "What happens now that they ignore it?"


Play continues. (Note this is different than calling OUT. Out ALWAYS ends up with either a turnover, or a stoppage in play. If Out is called, and play continues then you have a real issue and a discussion ensues)



Question 4: "Do you think it is even the slightest, teensiest, tiniest bit unspirited to call somebody "Out"?"


Nope.


Question 5: ""Not In" right near the end zone line, is it different? "


No different.



As for not having seen anyone get upset at an OB call, I certainly have seen this. And I've seen it with far more frequency than someone getting upset with a CF call. In fact, I can't think of any occasion when someone has been upset with a CF call (even when they're the one that has called it, and been ignored).



There are TONNES of communication cue's on the field that aren't covered in the rule-book (and shouldn't be). These include "Disc UP!". When's the last time someone brought out a rule-book and said "Hey, Disc-up isn't in the rules!!!?!?!?!!!!!!!"


Other things I have said that aren't in the rule-book include "Hi, my name is Dugly", various songs I've sung (by all accounts poorly). "STRIKE!" (When is there going to be a union team? For all the striking they could do! Come on Stump, I'll join) "POACH" etc.


Many things occur in league that I don't argue with, like when someone calls Pick and walks all the way up to their check. Regardless of the fact that they were 30' away when the "pick" occured (yes, I know it's not a pick, but how many times have you seen this called in league?)


So other things to note: The BEST games I've ever been involved with (in the VUL) have had zero calls with the exception of a couple of Check-Feet calls. I remember one game at Memorial O last year that was brilliant. High level of play, SUPER spirited play. The one contact that would have been called a FOUL was resolved BEFORE a call even happened (a defender picked up a disc that he'd knocked out of someone's hand accidently and handed it back). And a couple of CF calls were made, which had various results (turn-over or continue)


If ANY of those CF calls were OUT, then the game wouldn't have been as fun. Which is to say that much of the spirit was in the flow of the game. So while calling "OUT" isn't (and shouldn't) be considered a disservice to SotG, it can certainly be less fun.



League is different than a tourney, with different ettiquette. CF isn't going to stop being called any time soon.


-Dugly


p.s. Gin-Boh, when you say something like this: "It's sad that this is still going" are you trying to imply that you're sad that not everyone agrees with your interpretation of how people should interact? Or what exactly is sad?

Hey Dug --


One thing I'll note is that "Disc Up" or "Poach" or "Go To!" are all types of communication within your team. "Check feet" is more likely from one team to the other.


Excuse me for using a hypothetical 'you' in the following example, but...


If you call "Check feet" and I don't do it (maybe because I didn't see it necessary), and I try to continue the play uninterrupted, is your next recourse going to be "Whoa! Wait wait wait. I said Check Feet!" If so, now you're stopping play to discuss a non-call.


Dugly, I said it was sad because so much effort was being expended in defending such a flawed (in my opinion) action.


In that game, you remember so fondly, why would it have been so much less fun for a player who was OB to have "OB" called instead of "CF?" If they were out, they were out and presumably didn't realise it, so should reasonably have responded with "Oh, am I? Damn. Time to play some D." There should be no hard feelings. If there are, it's likely because some people don't understand the game.


If they weren't out, then why was CF called? If the caller couldn't see the situation, why were they calling anything rather than let those who could see make the call? If you have a reason other than those already posted, please explain it.


Yes, league is different than a tournament. The schedule is different. The results are interpreted differently (in that each league game counts for less). And more importantly, most people who will play in a tournament have played more and have a better understanding for the game. There is no reason that the way the game is played on the field should be any different.


The big problem is that a lot of people have a passing acquaintance with the rules (which are not the be-all and end-all, but do define the game that we've agreed to play), and as long as people are ok with perpetuating practices like this, it will continue, and people will continue to be distracted or interrupted by players 30m away with no idea.

First, Art, I think I've clearly explained how *I* would interpret someone ignoring me saying "CF" and yes, I realize you aren't refering to me specifically, but I'm only supporting my own use, not those cases where people mistakenly believe it is a real call.


Gin-Boh, I think you're confusing your opinion with the right way things should be. You are, indeed, entitled to your opinion. Obviously in terms of the strict interpretation of the rules you're often bang on. However in terms of Ultimate as it's played, I think you're out to lunch. I'm not expecting you to respond if I were to say CF to you. But I won't get upset about it, as you seem to get upset about it being used at all.


This isn't a discussion about a rule. Period. You might try to rephrase it as such, but you're absolutely wrong.

I agree that 'people mistakenly believe it is a real call'. I also agree that 'this isn't a discussion about a rule'.


so...Check you bag, sir?

Dug, maybe it would be a good exercise for you to try to paraphrase my (Mort's, GB's, Rat's)

point...


Not one of us are saying you shouldn't say Check Feet.


Here, I'll do it for you:


We're all saying A) You had better not expect any action out of "Check Feet" (or you're

cheating), and B) You had better not have even the slightest hard feelings, or think any less

of somebody when somebody completely ignores "Check Feet" (or you're cheating).


If you disagree with either of A) or B), then I think that most people who understand SOTG

would think you've got a problem.


From your answer "Nope" to my question: "Do you think it is even the slightest, teensiest,

tiniest bit unspirited to call somebody "Out"?", it sounds like you dont' disagree with either A)

or B) (which is a good thing).


But I have to ask, since you say that there's not the slightest, teensiest, tiniest bit of

unspiritedness in calling "Out", remind us again how calling "Out" isn't a good thing?


Are you suggesting something that is *wholly* spirited (by your admission) is somehow not

the preferred way to play?



I don't know if I can be more clear about my agreement.


What seems to be lacking is an understanding that there is more than one way to be spirited. The presumption that you and Gin-Boh are making (I don't actually think Art is making this presumption) is that it's necessarily unspirited or wrong to say "Check Feet".


I disagree that it's necessarily unspirited or wrong.

"The presumption that you and Gin-Boh are making (I don't actually think Art is making this

presumption) is that it's necessarily unspirited or wrong to say "Check Feet"."


I understand that I write several paragraphs sometimes, but it may be helpful, if you're going

to devote so much time to following this thread anyway, to actually take 90 seconds to read

them.


Here I'll highlight:


"Not one of us are saying you shouldn't say Check Feet."


That means it's perfectly fine and spirited to say "Check Feet"


What *isn't* fine or spirited is to expect *any* action out of that statement, or to think *any*

less of a person's spirit for completely ignoring that statement, as I said in the following line.

It's the gist of what we're saying:


"We're all saying A) You had better not expect any action out of "Check Feet" (or you're

cheating), and B) You had better not have even the slightest hard feelings, or think any less

of somebody when somebody completely ignores "Check Feet" (or you're cheating)."


--


Here's another question for you to avoid:


How can you say that your method is the better/preferred way to play to avoid conflict

without suggesting that saying "OB" is unspirited?


As soon as you say that your unwritten method is the way we should play, then you're

suggesting that the official way is not the preferred way, and that people playing that way are

somehow less spirited.


Understand that your unwritten way is not better, it's only easier.

avoid? What question of yours have I avoided at all? I have, on numerous occasions, quoted your questions, and answered them directly. I'll do so again now:


"How can you say that your method is the better/preferred way to play to avoid conflict without suggesting that saying "OB" is unspirited?"


It's not necessarily universally better. It's better for me. I'd rather just continue playing than have frequent tunrovers or stoppages, or returns to thrower. Your mileage obviously varies. I hope you continue to play your style, and I'll play mine.


I'm sure you'll consider me far less spirited than you, but I suppose I'll live with that. Good luck, and see you on the field.


Hey, if you want less turn-overs when people go OB, that's up to you. I'd argue that you're

probably doing more to foster poor play, and actually causing conflicts for those people down

the road, when they meet somebody who does call them "Out" when they go OB.


I guess I just don't know why you'd want it. You've said it's completely spirited to call

somebody OB, and that if somebody thinks calling somebody OB is in any slight way

unspirited, that they're wrong and actually being unspirited themselves. After saying all that,

how could something be better than that? Unless you think different ideas of the rules are not

harmful... Here's another couple questions:


Do you believe that when people have different ideas of HowTheGameShouldBePlayed, that

conflicts will inevitably arise? Do you think less conflicts arise when people play under slightly

different flavours of HowTheGameShouldBePlayed?



Should people have 5 strikes in baseball? Does that make baseball 'more fun' or 'less

confrontational'? If you gave a new person 5 strikes and they think they will get 5 strikes,

what happens when they play somebody that calls them out after 3 strikes?


I think you should remember that "nice" is not the same thing as "spirited" or

"sportsmanlike". Being 'nice' by letting people play on after they're OB isn't spirited, people

have to be able to accept being called OB, or they're not going to be spirited ultimate

players. It's a lot harder for them to accept an OB call if they've "always played the way

that...".

Well Temple, why not answer these questions for me:


Do you think that league play is different than tournament play?


Do you think that there are different levels of contact that might be cconstrued as "incidental" depending on the skill of the players?


When someone is going for the disc, and is close to the line, and you know that an OUT call is going to stop play to 1) determine BEST perspective, 2) determine OUTNESS 3) determine OUTCOME, and you KNOW that the stoppage, however short will happen. Do you a) ALWAYS call out, if, in your opinion they're out. b) NEVER call out, even if you believe them to be out. c) Call CF, and let the play go on.


In my experience, I do c.


Despite your assertions that you have to think about what's being communicated, the VAST majority of players I've encountered have known what was meant, and the majority of them have had a glance at where they believe they landed, and of those, many have played on, and many have turned it over. No discussion, no prolonged debate about who has better perspective. Just play continues (one way or another)



So while I agree that there is nothing disspirited with calling OUT, the inevitable and ensuing discussion (however spirited) is a pointless waste of time in a game in which I could not care less if we even bothered to count points. OUT has never been resolved as quickly as Check Feet. In your experience, what percentage of OUT calls go back to thrower? In my experience 0% of CF calls do. So every time that happens, a CF call manages to avoid that much time off of the clock.



As for spirited vs. sportsmanlike, I think this is a common misconception. I agree they're not the same.



If I might recap what I think we agree with


a) Out is a real call, CF is not.


b) if you call CF, don't _expect_ anyone to react in any particular way


c) Spirit != Nice


Since you agree that people can continue to call CF, then I guess that's fine. Since you haven't considered my questions to be worth answering, while rehashing your questions that I've clearly answered then I can assume you'll continue to ask your questions again and again. I suggest that you assume I'll continue to answer them the same way.


I don't believe that CF results in faster resolution than OUT.


Since I believe that, as receiver, I often don't have best or even good perspective, then the "out" call will result in a faster resolution, at least with me as the receiver near the line. When I hear that, I'll quickly look around to see if someone else is going to be offering a different perspective, and quickly seeing none, I'll be agreeing and putting the disc down... no stoppage, no discussion required.


However, when I hear a CF in my direction, I normally look at the person and have to ask them what they're *trying* to tell me (see my many earlier responses as to the unclear message from CF), and then assuming it's because they thought there was a catch near the line that they're unwilling to call "out" on, I then need to do the same things as if it was an "out" call, and actually will need to spend more time to try to find someone actually willing to "call it as they see it".


I don't follow where CF is actually faster... it certainly isn't when thrown in my direction.

Pages