-
Hi,
By rule 13.7.3, the turnover is where the thrower was located. The team becoming the offence after the turnover does not have the option of choosing to play from where the disc finishes. (Of course, if the stall-out is contested, and the throw was not caught, then the turnover location would indeed be where the disc finished [13.3.1] – but the team becoming offence cannot choose to take possession of the disc there.)
Cheers,
BenjiWhat about if the throw is not complete? I would assume that in this case the team which originally called the stall out could withdraw the call and play from where the disc landed or was intercepted. Am I wrong about this?
The rules state that it is possible to retract a foul, violation, or contest call (15.10) – which I think is what you’re getting at here. But it doesn’t say you can retract a stall-out turnover, which is defined under the ‘turnover’ section and does not constitute a foul or violation.
On the other hand, there is a reference to a retracted goal call (14.1.1), without any specific rule stating that you may retract a goal call. You could argue that this means all calls are assumed to be retractable in principle, and you ought to be able to retract a stall-out even though not specifically stated.
I don’t fully buy that argument, however. In all other cases, a retraction gives up an advantage – either you admit no foul, or you don’t contest, or you admit no goal. Retracting in order to gain an advantage for your team does not seem to me to be the same, and thus one might argue that we should stick to the letter of the rule that the turnover has happened when the stall-out happens and no further movement of the disc has any effect.
However, I accept that the rules are not completely clear and perhaps need to be tightened. It’s not for me to declare a binding judgement on whether this call can be retracted – I’ll raise it with the rules committee for an answer.
After further thought (and some helpful opinions from others on the rules group) the original interpretation stands – you cannot choose to retract the stall out, and the turnover location is where the thrower was, even if they throw it away to a position that would be advantageous to the new offence.
It is not specified who may call the stall-out, or even (technically) that anyone has to call it, merely that it happens – and it happens on the ‘t’ of ‘ten’. If the defence attempts to retract, then the offence may call that they believe it was a stall out. The relevant ‘call’ is that ‘t’ of ‘ten’ with the disc still in the thrower’s control, and it would be silly to imagine retracting that. Once that ‘t’ is pronounced, the turnover has happened (unless contested).
The actual vocalisation of ‘stall-out’ is only to inform other players, does not constitute a stoppage in itself, and therefore is pointless to retract.
Thanks for the challenging question!
Benji
Indeed, I’m making this suggestion under the assumption that a stall out is a violation. It is not defined as a foul (15.1) or infraction (15.2) but you still have
15.3 :Every other breach of the rules is a violation.
As long as you consider holding the disc for more than “10 seconds” a breach of the rules, then this assumption should hold up. However referring to it as a retraction in this case might be incorrect. If A stall-out is a violation as I suggest this would fall under continuation rule 16.2 and it’s subsections. This means that the defender would not retract the call but instead call “play on.” A subtle but perhaps important difference.
After reading your second post you also seem to be suggesting that stall-out isn’t a call at all which is an interesting way to look at it and I’d like to think about it more. Lets define a call as either a foul violation or infraction. My first impression is that this seems strange. Firstly if it’s not a call how can it be contested. Secondly, don’t we have to assign it some label otherwise we have no rules with which to govern the outcome (beyond what’s already stated in the stall-out section).
A stall-out is not a breach of the rules any more than throwing a disc into the ground would be. It’s just a turnover.
It’s a little confusing that some of those things listed under turnovers in section 8 (e.g. handover, deflection) do rather sound like breaches of the rules, containing as they do the qualifier ‘intentionally’. But a stall-out has much more in common with an incomplete pass.
The thrower will not intentionally get stalled out – there’s no advantage* – but even if they did, it’s no different to a deliberate turnover for an incomplete pass in huck-and-D. Allowing yourself to turn over is not a breach of the rules.
*(They might occasionally be glad they were stalled out and the 30-yd-backwards incomplete pass doesn’t stand. But that’s not the same as saying they would wish to get stalled out in advance. They would wish even more that they’d hucked it downfield.)
Great response Benji,
I’m fairly convinced that you’re right at this stage. The last wrinkle as far as I can see is that according to the discussion so far a stall-out call can not be retracted even if it was called mistakenly.
The sequence of events would be as follows:
“Nine”
Throw is released
“Te…”
“Stall out” called
Throw, catch and down-field marking are unaffected
Play stops
Stall out is contested (fast count)
Optional discussion… on second thought marker admits to the fast count.If we play the rules as interpreted so far, the disc goes back to thrower at stall 8. The stall-out is treated as contested because there is no option to retract it. Is there another conclusion to this scenario that I have missed?
Furthermore what are your thoughts on retracting an out of bounds call? The (previously) common use of “check-feet” is now considered taboo (it’s not in the rules). But if a defender mistakenly calls “OB” they can’t retract it, i.e. it automatically goes back to thrower?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.