Strip-fouls

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Strip is a call that was removed from the rules a while ago, however, it's still mentioned in the rules and making the call is habit for many players. Strip describe a specific type of foul. The call is 'foul', the receiver is then asserting that they had control of the disc before the foul caused control to be lost. In most places on the field, the distinction would not matter. In the scoring end-zone however, what would have happened had the foul not occurred is a point. A regular receiving foul in the end-zone that is not contested would have the receiver tap the disc in at the front of the end-zone.

So how does this scenario play out: Offensive receiver catches the disc and is about to land in the end-zone for a score. Contact from a defender with either the disc, or the receiver, causes them to drop the disc (or it's ripped from their hand). Receiver calls 'foul"....

The defender can 'contest' the foul, claiming that the contact wasn't caused by them or was incidental - here the disc is returned to the thrower.

The defender can agree that they committed a foul, 'no contest'. 

The receiver is also saying the pass was complete and the outcome should be a point. It is possible for the defender to say the pass was incomplete (despite fouling them) and the outcome would be treated as an ordinary 'non-strip' foul. The result would be the receiver gets the disc at the front of the end-zone. If the defender agrees that the receiver caught the disc, and therefore the foul was a strip - it's a point.

Have I read this right? First you establish whether there was contact that constitutes a foul.  If D disagrees and contests then the disc goes back to the thrower.  If D agrees, THEN you have to decide whether O first had control of the disc before the foul. If D disagrees then O gets the disc on the goal line; if D agrees that O did have control, then it's a point.

So there are (potentially) two separate discussions, and whether or not O had control of the disc is not a factor in the first discussion?

I'm pretty confused by this as well. Is the distinction that you're trying to make that the call of "strip" isn't a real call? Like how "check feet" isn't a real call?

Whether the disc is caught or not only affects how the foul is resolved. Whether your opponent will get a point should not affect your call about whether you fouled them or not. Therefore, these should be two different discussions. In practice, the receiver usually just calls 'foul' and says they had it in hand, which is fine - the important thing is that only what you think happened should affect your contest/no contest call, not what will result.

And yes, 'strip' is NOT officially a call.

What's a good resource for official field calls?

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

Which would imply that I can call any specific infraction which is clearly defined in the rulebook. I thought maybe this is because there's no instance in which the rulebook instructs the players to call "strip", but there's similarly no instance in which the rulebook instruct the players to call "travel", which, unless I'm mistaken, is a valid call.

Hi KFunk,

A good point, and I would emphasise that if a player does call 'strip' it should be treated as if they called 'foul'. As for the calls that you can make, you point out correctly that there isn't an explicit list. "Violation" covers everything - it stops play and then the reason the rules were violated can be explained. For example, you can call a travel without using the word 'travel': 'violation...' (play stops) 'you ran out and should come back into play here' (pointing at where their foot should be before restarting play).

I also believe that in the interest of spirit of the game, if a player calls 'check-feet', it should be treated the same as being called 'out-of-bounds' and the rule explained. Please don't just play on while an opponent is just standing there not knowing why their call is being ignored. 

If there's no list of official field calls, then why did you say earlier that "strip" is not a valid call?

The part I'm having trouble with is that if "strip" is an acceptable call, then the entire second conversation that you outlined above to establish whether or not the pass was complete should be redundant. By calling "strip" the receiver is saying, as defined in the rulebook, that they believe the pass was complete - that is, that they had the disc firmly their hands, and were in control of the disc (ie, not fumbling).

If the completion of the pass may be contested, then surely it can only be contested by whoever has best perspective, and I find it hard to think of a situation in which the receiver feeling the disc firmly in their hands might have worst perspective than someone else on the field. That is, unless the receiver is an un-spirited liar.

A lot to unpack here without getting too detailed.

1) Foul and Violation are the calls that EVERY player should recognise to stop play. Any conversation after that is legitimate for resolving rules violations with adequate knowledge of the rules.

2) Throwing foul, receiving foul, blocking foul and strip, are all subsets of fouls with additional stipulations. Most people know what strip means, so it's usually fine to make as a call, but the first thing out of a players mouth after contact on a catch doesn't need to be 'receiving foul' (that would confuse me). Calling 'foul' is all that is needed, and yes, it is fine to explain that it was a strip immediately after. 

3) I can think of situations where you could contest the completion and it's not calling the person a liar. Both players should be honest. If a player didn't see the catch then you are correct in assuming their perspective is very poor. But it's also very possible to believe you are sensing a disc in your hand when you are not.

Yes, I agree with (one of) your points, which is perhaps combined with several others in your description...

 

People should keep in mind that "strip" can apply only after the player has posession / control over the disc. 

There is no list of valid field calls, because there is no need for one.  The only valid field calls are explicit in the rules.  The resource is the rulebook itself.

https://www.usaultimate.org/resources/officiating/rules/11th_edition_rules.aspx

Everything in "Violations and Fouls" (section XVI) is a valid call and each one has a specific name.  So, for example, you can choose to yell "foul" (XVI.H.3) and then later explain that it was a receiving foul (XVI.H.3.b), and of the sub-variety that your vertical space was encroached upon (XVI.H.3.b.3).  Or, you can yell "Receiving Foul" outright, and then get into details.  If you're feeling especially breathy, you could yell "Principle of Verticality" but that's unnecessarily specific and frankly, confusing.

This is likewise true of Violations.  You can yell "Violation" (XVI.A) and then explain that it was a pick, or you can yell "Pick" (XVI.I).  Similarly, you can yell "Travel" (XVI.J), and sundry others. 
 

Where a specific name of the foul/violation rule does not exist, you just default to the next most general category, and then explain.

I would argue that you *can* call "Strip" because it's a specifically named foul subtype (XVI.H.3.d).

"Check Feet" on the other hand, makes no appearance in the rules, but notably, being out-of-bonds is *not* a violation or an infraction of any kind and so is not covered by rule XVI.A   It's just a state of being.  That is a different matter.  Even so, you would be well-advised to call "out" and make a clear decision in ambiguous cases if you think you have best perspective rather than resort to the additionally ambiguous "check feet."