Now that we've gone through the biggest differences in the marking violations, being the resolution when called and disc-space, we can blast through the rest of these. Which (in reverse alphabetical order by last letter) are: fast count, double-team, and vision blocking.
Fast count ... nothing difficult about this, right? ... if you count fast, it's a fast count.
Well sure, that in itself is correct, but it's more than that. Not only does it cover the speed of the count, but it also covers doing a count wrong [11th Ref: XIV.B.1.a)]. The rule gives three options:
(1) The marker doesn't start or continue the count with "stalling". This includes Sylvester's favorite, "StallOne", and starting the count with just "One" (i.e., no "stalling", no "stall", no anything). Also remember from reading an earlier post (Marking Violations - Part 1), that "stalling" is not required when a marking violation is called by name and you're dropping the count by one and continuing; so don't call a fast count here.
(2) The marker counts faster than one second. The requirement is one second between the first sound of each number--that's from the 'wuh' in "one" to the 'tuh' in "two"--not one second of silence between each number [11th Ref: XIV.A.1.a)]. And for those of you who did it correctly under the 10th, this second is no longer needed between the 'ess' in "stalling" and the start of the next number. So starting the count with "StallingOne" is perfectly valid; and there's also nothing wrong with saying it as quickly as you can; there is no cadence requirement. However, even said very quickly, it still needs to sound like "StallingOne"; so if it sounds instead like "stlwn", don't be surprised if someone calls you for a 'fast count'.
(3) The marker skips a number. That one's pretty obvious. There have been discussions about someone who starts a brand-new count with "StallingNineTenSTALL"? Not only did they skip a number, they skipped an entire place of significance in the octal number system. Just laugh real hard at them when they claim it's appropriate to come in at StallingEight under the contested stall because of a fast count rule. In fact, say you laughed so hard that you popped a rib and need an injury substitution. Best... joke... ever.
That brings up the rest of the fast count rule--the contested stall because of a fast count part--so let's move on to this.
There are two reasons that you, as the thrower, will contest a stall. These are: (1) you believe the disc was released before the 't' in "ten" [11th Ref: XIV.A.3.b)]; and (2) the marker fast counted such that you didn't have time to say "fast count" before ten [11th Ref: XIV.B.1.b)].
It's this second reason that the fast count rule covers, including an added consideration with a repeated contested stall.
Here's how it works.
Normally after a contested stall, the count comes back in at "StallingEight" [11th Ref: XIV.A.5.b)(3)(a)]. If further contested stalls are because of the first reason--i.e., throw got off before ten--then the count keeps coming back in at "StallingEight".
However, if contested stalls after the first are because of a fast count, then the count comes back in at "StallingSix". And this is the case regardless of the reason for the first contested stall. [11th Ref: XIV.A.5.b)(3)(b), XIV.B.1.c)]
Why the difference?
How many times have you seen a number of contested stalls in a row that then end up in a turnover? Some markers naturally and subconsciously speed up at higher counts; it's often difficult to control one's excitement or adrenaline when the count is high. So, even though this speed-up might be a natural and honest mistake, it's still unfair to make the thrower go through this multiple times.
Consider the case where the thrower repeatedly makes a throw at ten--but would have been before ten if not a fast count. Every throw needs to be completed or else it's a turnover. Giving the extra couple of seconds is certainly fair in this context. And certainly helps to keep heads calm and cool on the field.
A couple of last words... Of course, we're assuming that this fast counting is unintentional, and this premise needs to hold. If you find that you're being called a lot for fast counting, you may wish to work on your cadence.
Conversely, the thrower is also responsible for the other half of the honesty. That is, even though a second/subsequent contested stall because of a fast count will set the count back 2 more seconds than contesting it because of a believed release before ten, this is not a reason to choose which of the two types of contests the thrower should be choosing. This choice needs to be based on fact and honest belief... as always.
And that's pretty much it for fast counts. We'll cover the rest of the marking violations (double-team and vision blocking) in a day or two.
See you on the field.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I thought that Observers were instructed to rule that a pass that would have been thrown in time except for the fast count is counted as having gotten off in time. And if I was marking and that happened, I would consider the pass off. Has that changed?
No, that hasn't changed. Observers will still be instructed to overrule a "stall" if the stall occurred solely due to a fast count. And if you're a marker and you're called for a fast count, and decide that you probably did fast count, and that that thrower would have gotten the throw off if you hadn't fast counted, then you should take back your "stall" call and consider the pass completed.
Interesting situation: I have disc, a player further than 10 feet begins a stall count as they approach. I call 'Fast count' as by the time they are within the legal marking distance they are now at stall 3. AFTER the fast count call I throw the disc to an open player. The marker calls a violation claiming that he was contesting the fast count call and I am not permitted to throw at this point. What is the solution?
Michael, if the actions happened in the order you've written them (i.e., fast count call, then the throw, then the marker's violation/contest call), then the throw and its result stands.
From a similar recent conversation on the USAU Rules board, "[...] if the throwing motion begins after the contest, the disc is subject to turnover but any completed pass returns to the thrower. If the contact call is before the throwing motion but the contest is during the throwing motion, then the result of the play stands whether it is a turnover or a completion [...]". (Full thread here: http://boards.usaultimate.org/showthread.php?1043-Contact-call-and-the-continuation-rule )
While this is in reference to the 'contact' call, I suggest that the logic is the same for any marking violation.
So, if in the order that you say, then the result of the throw stands. If, however, they contested before your throw started, I suggest the disc comes back if completed.
Post a Comment