2 Questions to come out of U.S. Open

[kawilson830]

1. We had a hell point with Riot on double game point on Saturday. Near the beginning of the point, a Riot player called an injury and took a sub. I also decided to take a sub at that point. Later in the same point, a second Riot player took an injury sub. One of my teammates wanted to sub out at that time. Neither observer knew whether or not I was allowed to sub back in. I discussed with Riot, and we agreed it seemed weird, so I didn't sub in. However, I would like to know the official rule on it. Also, would the person who took the first injury sub have been allowed to sub back in as well?

2. I had an observer tell me during one of our games that an uncontested offensive receiver foul should go back to the thrower. However, an earlier thread on this board says that it should have been a turnover. Is there any way that players are allowed to dispute an observer call when observers don't know the rules? (fyi: this observer was great all weekend, except for this one call). It seems like there should be a way to prove that the rule is more important than the observer, but i don't know if it's allowed. (also had an opponent call fast count on an observer as she walked the disc to the line. is that allowed??? ).

[commitch]

1. We had a hell point with Riot on double game point on Saturday. Near the beginning of the point, a Riot player called an injury and took a sub. I also decided to take a sub at that point. Later in the same point, a second Riot player took an injury sub. One of my teammates wanted to sub out at that time. Neither observer knew whether or not I was allowed to sub back in. I discussed with Riot, and we agreed it seemed weird, so I didn't sub in. However, I would like to know the official rule on it. Also, would the person who took the first injury sub have been allowed to sub back in as well?

There is nothing in the rules about not being able to come back in during the same point. If the rules don't disallow it, it is allowed.

2. I had an observer tell me during one of our games that an uncontested offensive receiver foul should go back to the thrower. However, an earlier thread on this board says that it should have been a turnover. Is there any way that players are allowed to dispute an observer call when observers don't know the rules? (fyi: this observer was great all weekend, except for this one call). It seems like there should be a way to prove that the rule is more important than the observer, but i don't know if it's allowed.

There is nothing official you can do other than have a copy of the rules handy and show the observer how embarrassed they should be. Personally, I would tell the observer that they have the rule wrong, quickly ask the opponent (or captain of opposing team) if they agree the rule (not ruling, but actual rule) is being applied incorrectly to give the observer pause to double check him or herself. Mistakes happen.

(also had an opponent call fast count on an observer as she walked the disc to the line. is that allowed??? ).

No.

[ultimatesamwood]

Hi, KA --

I was one of the observers to work this game.

Regarding the injury substitution situation: we got that one wrong. Sorry about that. (That said, it doesn't seem kosher that a player taking an injury sub can come back in during the same point. Would love to have the rules committee revisit this.)

Regarding the uncontested offensive receiver foul: my fellow observer dealt with that, so my explanation might not be spot on. I believe your situation had to do with when the foul was called in relation to where the disc was. That is, an uncontested offensive foul committed prior to the throw (XVI C 2) has a different set of outcomes than an uncontested offensive foul committed during the throwing motion (or when the disc is in the air) (XVI H 3 b). The other observer will have to clarify that, though, as I think it was her to whom you were speaking.

Regarding the fast count on walking a disc to the line: you'd be surprised how quickly 20 (and 10) seconds elapse. I've had people time my "chop", and I'm usually spot on. 10 seconds is plenty of time to deliver a disc when being stalled because you're in the heat of the moment, but when there is a pause in the action, such as a turnover, 10 (and 20, when in the endzone or out-of-bounds) seconds goes by very quickly when a team has to 1) recognize that there is a turn; 2) figure out who is going to pick up the disc; 3) have said person get to the disc; and 4) actually get the disc to the proper pivot spot. I really believe my prestall was accurate, not fast, but I always appreciate feedback.

For what it's worth, that game was one of the best I worked all weekend. Hell of a showing by Ozone & Riot.

[bigg.nate]

That said, it doesn't seem kosher that a player taking an injury sub can come back in during the same point. Would love to have the rules committee revisit this.

As long as it's the other team calling the injuries, why shouldn't you be allowed to sub out and then sub back in the same point?

[ultimatesamwood]

For the same reasons we don't substitute players because they're tired or for favorable O/D match-ups.

The way the rules are written now, a team can effectively substitute the same O/D player(s) whenever they want within a given point citing any "injury" that might occur. Certainly this was not the case in Riot/Ozone, but I can easily see some less spirited teams doing this (and some college open teams most certainly did in prior years).

If someone can't (or chooses not to) continue to play a point for whatever reason, then sit out the rest of that point. That's not the way the rules are written, but, in my opinion, it should be.

[bigg.nate]

I think you misunderstood. In this case, the OPPONENTS took an injury sub. When that happens, you're absolutely allowed to substitute an equal number of players because they're tired, to get an O/D player in the game, or for any other reason.

If YOU call injury, it makes sense to have more restrictions on who can replace you and when you can sub back in. Personally, I think you should have to sit a couple points and the other team should get to choose your replacement. But when the OPPONENTS call injury, I don't see why there should be any restrictions.

Thanks,
- Nate

[lmmeyer]

In response to the original question #2. I believe I was the observer you asked this question of. There appears to have been a misunderstanding.

This was the situation as I remember it. This question occurred after a play that happened across the field from me in which I believe (but was not near enough to know for sure) there was an offensive foul called away from the disc before the throw. I also believe the players resolved this foul themselves, but after the point a player came to me to ask if an uncontested offensive foul goes back to the thrower. Assuming we were discussing what I thought was the previous offensive foul before the disc was thrown, I responded that the disc should go back (XVI.C.2.b). Had I clarified, as I should have, or had the player indicated that this was a receiving foul, then I would most definitely indicated that the rules state the disc would be awarded to the defensive player (XVI.H.b.2)

I am sorry that this caused confusion for the player. This again shows how important it is to have full explanations of situations in order to get correct interpretations, rulings, and resolutions.

[kawilson830]

Hey,

Thanks for taking the time to answer back.

Just to clarify, these 2 things actually happened in different games. I don't remember the offensive foul in the riot game. I'm pretty sure we had the same female observer for both games, and i think i asked her to clarify in both situations. But the offensive foul I was remembering (or perhaps misremembering, as i do sometimes...) was when a receiver caught the disc and didn't contest that she had fouled her player.

[mdmoran62]

... coming in really late to the party, but I'd like to hear reasons why a re-substitution of the same player shouldn't be allowed (assuming the injury call itself is valid). I can't personally think of any reason why a subbed-out player shouldn't be allowed to return on a future substitution. Same point or future point or x number of minutes all seem like arbitrary times that do not increase or reduce level of fairness.