Hello all,
We had a situation tonight where a player caught a disc 'near' the endzone (there were a number of players with good perspective who concluded that the catch was short of the endzone). Upon catching the disc, the receiver tossed the disc to the ground (assuming a goal was scored) as the calls of 'not in' were being made.
My immediate interpretation of this situation is that the play resulted in a turnover (a live disc was thrown to the ground). There was some confusion on the field (this is not the UPA championships so our team indicated we were happy to accept 'repossession' at the endzone line) and the turnover stood.
Having had the chance to review the rules, my conclusion still leads me to a turnover being the appropriate call. From the 11th Edition:
XV.The Receiver
E.If it is unclear whether a catch was made before the disc contacted the ground (grass is considered part of the ground), or whether a player's first point of ground contact after catching the disc was in- or out-of-bounds or in or out of the end zone, the player with the best perspective makes the call.
Since there were a number of people with good perspective indicating 'not in' (assuming that the receiver rarely has best perspective due to their focus on the catch and not their feet), do you conclude that a turnover ensued when the disc was tossed to the ground?
I'd certainly be interested in hearing any affirmation, other interpretations or rules references that would come to another conclusion.
Turnover
Very clear cut situation (in my mind).
Should have been a turnover. Play would not have stopped by the calls of 'not in'.
My interpretation doesn't
My interpretation doesn't come down to who made the call, but rather the continuation rule. Every interpretation and scenario contained within assumes that the result of the play before the foul is still a live disc and the rule itself doesn't cover a dead disc/score scenario. Should it be applied at all I wonder?
I don't think this is as much an issue with anyone's interpretation of the rules as it is with a shortcoming of the rules. I mean by the rules I think the correct call was made, however and I can't stress my view of this enough, if no foul was called the result would have been a point. So in this case, absent the foul, there is no continuation so why should continuation rules apply? I can't find a rule in the 11th edition covering this.
Again, absent the foul, there is no continuation.
As far as this play goes, the only issue we had was from players on the sidelines, not knowing was was going on. What we saw was 1) point, people starting towards the sidelines 2) a not in call 3) expecting to get possession back as has probably happened on every single 'not in' call we've probably seen.
When we heard was was going on it sounded like someone was trying to game the rules. And that a 'not in' call could be made after any person drops a disc after an assumed point near the end zone line. This is the big reason why I think there is not a sufficient rule for this situation. Not because a call didn't go our way, like I stated I think the correct call was made based on available rules. But because there is a hole for someone to take advantage of because as soon as the defense calls the foul, continuation rules apply, and there is no recourse if someone genuinely scored a point, even if it was by the slimmest of margins.
Because of this, this should be the only situation where continuation rules do not apply. Where absent the foul/call/disagreement there is no continuation, and possession goes back to the catcher. But that's a broader issue altogether.
Endzone Turnover
That is an interesting writeup and I had not really contemplated the continuation rule. My thoughts are that the continuation rule would not apply since it is designed to define how to restart play when a stoppage has taken place (ie. travel, pick, foul, etc). In this situation, the turnover ruling results from the fact that a stoppage has not taken place?
For example, a player catching a disc inbounds near a sideline (but mistakenly believes they are out of bounds) throws the disc to the ground. This should result in a turnover regardless of their 'actual' status (ie. best perspective calling them in bounds) because they grounded a live disc and there was no stoppage in play. Had they paused to consider a 'close call', possession could have been retained once best perspective determined their in/out state.
I do agree 100% that this is league play and the spirited call was made on the field to allow repossession back at the endzone line. This offer was declined by the player and the turnover stood. I am hopeful that the sideline players would not have concluded that a team was trying to "game the rules" once they understood that the offer of repossession was made to their team but declined.
"In this situation, the
"In this situation, the turnover ruling results from the fact that a stoppage has not taken place?" I thought it was a foul, a walk in is a travel. Has to be stopped and disc checked before restarting, does it not? And yeah we found out that he was offered possession after the game. It's all good.
Stoppage
I agree that in league you should return the disc to the player at the line.
The technical rules answer though, depends on whether the disc was live or not at the time it was dropped. If the player did not acknowledge a goal then it is a turnover. If the player acknowledges the goal, then I think that the disc is dead and no longer subject to a turn over. Notice I say "I think" because the rules are not clear on this. The closest thing in the rules is:
XVI.D "If a dispute arises concerning an infraction or the outcome of a play (e.g., a catch where no one had a good perspective), and the teams cannot come to a satisfactory resolution, play stops, and the disc is returned to the thrower and put into play with a check (VIII.D), with the count reached plus one or at six if over five."
This might suggest that play only stops after it is decided that the teams cannot come to a satisfactory resolution, but if they've had enough time to discuss it and realize they can't come to a satisfactory resolution, then play stopped long ago. So my view is that if there is a dispute about the outcome, even if it is resolved, then play has stopped. If one player acknowledges a goal, while another calls "Not In", that is a dispute and thus a stoppage.
If you have Observers making active line calls, then it will always be a turnover if the Observer calls "Not In", of course.
No turnover
I agree with Yaacov, it can't be a turnover because essentially the player has called themselves in and then dropped/tosse/spiked the disc, then another player must have come in and challenged that call, which means that an agreement must be reached on the position of the feet on the catch but the subsequent drop is inconsequential.
I am surprised at Higy's answer!
Endzone Turnover: Another Reference
The discussion about "acknowledging" the point led me to go over the rules relating to scoring once again (and identify the topic for another post...). There does not appear to be any mention or requirement of acknowledging a point. I did find a reference indicating that a 'pass' being made, when it is disputed whether the player was in the endzone or not, has the results of that pass stand. So, if you assume that tossing the disc to the ground is the equivalent of a pass, and the point is disputed without resolve, the results of the pass stand.
XI.C: If a player scores according to XI.A, but then unknowingly throws another pass, a goal is awarded to that player, regardless of the outcome of the pass. However, if it is unclear if the player scored according to XI.A (i.e., there is no agreement on the player who had best perspective, and there are opposing view points on the play), the result of the pass stands.
I realize that this assumes tossing the disc to the ground is the equivalent of a pass. In a situation less obvious than the one that led to this query, it might be somewhat subjective whether the disc was tossed to the ground or was intended as a pass if other offensive players are in the vicinity.
Overall, it is interesting to see the different viewpoints, interpretations, and sections of the rules that are being applied to the question in this post. The rules of Ultimate are often intentionally vague so there is possibly not a specific reference to deal with this particular issue.