fast count??

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

offensive player is positioned near the end zone throws desperation put at stall 9 (very clear on that). he then proceed to call a fast count on the defensive player stating that the count sped up from 9-10, ergo the count from 1-9 was fine. offense stated that they should receive possession again. defense argued that science the violation took place after the throw that it should therefore be a turnover.

clarification please??

In the simplest case, yes, it should be a turnover, regardless of when the fast count violation occurs or when it is called.

Let me digress into a possible complication:

The thrower, in this case, is citing rule XVI.C.1.b.2 ("Continuation Rule"), which states that if a general infraction is called in the act of throwing, possession reverts to the thrower if the throw is incomplete.

However, "fast count" is a marking violation and is subject to rule XIV.B.7., which clearly states that play does not stop for this class of violations. It is not a general violation.

BUT . . . if this was at least the second instance in the same stall count that the marker had committed a marking violation, then the thrower has the option of calling a general violation.

Conclusion:
Since you tell us, Sean, that stall counts 1-9 occurred without incident, I would say that the thrower is confusing a marking violation with a general violation. The turnover stands.

I think the answer you're looking for is:

XIV.B.1.b

If a fast count occurs in such a manner that the thrower does not have a reasonable opportunity
to call fast count before the first utterance of the word ten, the play is treated as a contested
stall (XIV.A.3.b).

However, the continuation rule applies, so that if the throw made allegedly before a properly
timed "ten" is incomplete, it's a turnover. It's not clear to me from your post whether the throw
was complete or not.

On re-rereading the OP, maybe the argument is that they should regain possession after a
throw-away because a violation occurred. In that case, the answer is no. The rule cited by
atarnajuat seems to contradict this, except for XIV.3:

"If the thrower has not released the disc at the first utterance of the word ten, it is a turnover.
The marker loudly announces stall and play stops. A stall is not a violation and rule XVI.C does
not apply."

throw was incomplete landing nowhere near any players at the back of the endzone

The thrower needs to retain possession for a called marking violation to mean anything. That is, once they've thrown it away, it's too late to call fast count assuming the count hasn't yet hit 10.

So if I understand the situation under discussion properly, the disc was thrown away before the count of 10, and so the turnover would stand.

Just to check my assessment, Mortakai, would you agree that if it had been the second "fast count" call, the thrower could have called a general violation as he threw the disc?

That, I think, would give the thrower back possession.

"Just to check my assessment, Mortakai, would you agree that if it had been the second "fast
count" call, the thrower could have called a general violation as he threw the disc?"

To be clear, we're talking about a scenario where the D is not suggesting that the disc was
Stalled (that Ten was reached before the throw).

Yes, the thrower can call that violation. However, regardless of when the call is made (though
it should be as soon as the violation is recognized), if the Fast Counting (or the failure to drop
in the count) itself occurred before the thrower started the throwing motion, then the disc is
either coming back to the thrower if completed or it will remain turned over if incomplete.

Now, I do see a bit of a hole in the rules. If the Fast Counting happened after the thrower
began the throwing motion, but before the disc is released, then the thrower could make the
call and essentially get a 'free
throw', as an incomplete pass in that instance would come back to the thrower.

This shouldn't be the case, but is what is written in the rules now. It's difficult to argue that
the count speeding up after the thrower has already started throwing, but never reaching 10,
should be a violation.