UltiTalk.Com

Regional => Australasia => Topic started by: tom_brennan on April 29, 2008, 07:48:47 PM



Title: Rules questions
Post by: tom_brennan on April 29, 2008, 07:48:47 PM
No, I don't have a rules question for you. But I'm asking you for your favourite one(s).

I figure since you are all ultinerds, you must have a few good rules questions between you. I was hoping to put a quiz together that the various Australian teams (and others) can use to revise the rules for the World Champs. The level of knowledge of rules on the weekend was fairly average.

Here's a few examples (number in brackets is rough level of difficulty, out of 5)

(4) A defensive player is marking an offensive player with the disc. The offensive player calls out 'Wrapping' as the defensive player reaches a stall count of 6. The defensive player does not contest the call. What should happen?
- the marker should immediately stop wrapping the thrower and continue the stall count from 7
- the marker should immediately stop wrapping the thrower and continue the stall count from 5
- play should stop, the marker should stop wrapping the thrower, and the count should restart at 1 with a check
- play should stop, the marker should stop wrapping the thrower, and the count should restart at 5 with a check
- nothing, wrapping is not a marking violation

(2) An offensive player lays out to catch a disc, warping the disc slightly in the process. The offensive player may call a technical stoppage and ask for the disc to be replaced.
- true
- false

(2) If there is not a full second between the start of the word 'Stalling' and the start of the word 'One' in a stall count, the thrower can legitimately call 'Fast count'
- true
- false


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: littletom on April 29, 2008, 09:05:09 PM
Here are two very similar example questions:

There is a turnover in the middle of one of the endzones. This is the attacking endzone of the team picking up the disc. The new offensive team runs into a stack and one player walks to the disc, picks it up and walks back to the endzone line where his mark is waiting. As she approaches, the player with the disc sticks her foot towards the line, establishing her pivot and turns to throw the disc straight to an O-player for the score. This seems wrong to the team on D, as the thrower did not take up the expected position next to the mark. What should the defensive team do?




The pull goes up and the receiving team takes the brick. The mark waits next to the brick mark, which is clearly denoted for the thrower to begin the point. The O-team starts cutting as the thrower approaches the brick mark and the thrower, seeing an opportunity, runs the last few metres to the brick mark and belts out a great huck. The player on the mark protests as the thrower did not allow him to check the disc and calls for the disc back. What infringement has occured and what should happen?


-Tom



ps: In both cases what the O-team did was prefectly allowable in the rules, its just due to the lack of field markings at lower levels of play, either for brick marks or endzone lines, such behaviour is generally not accepted. When you go endzone lines and brick marks, use them!


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: simmo on April 30, 2008, 03:59:04 PM
Not so much rules questions as common areas of confusion I frequently see...

- Checking the disc. Rueben has been over this before (http://rjhberg-disc.blogspot.com/2008/02/stop-checking-disc.html).
- It's not a travel if you throw while you're on your knees. Used to be the case, but not any more.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: tom_brennan on April 30, 2008, 08:01:24 PM
Not so much rules questions as common areas of confusion I frequently see...

- Checking the disc. Rueben has been over this before (http://rjhberg-disc.blogspot.com/2008/02/stop-checking-disc.html).
Great - feel like writing a few questions on checking that will test people out?
- It's not a travel if you throw while you're on your knees. Used to be the case, but not any more.
Actually, it rarely used to be a travel in any case. People mostly called it incorrectly. The old rules did specify a 'pivot foot', but that just required you to have a foot on the ground. If you threw from your knees you were highly likely to have a foot on the ground anyway.
Wanna write a question on it?


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: oshep on April 30, 2008, 08:58:01 PM
Here is a challenge for an IT type.

Develop an online quiz.

Brief:
- multiple choice questions
- questions can be plugged into the quiz (or removed). use a database?
- quiz gives you your score at the end and states which questions were answered correctly or incorrectly

Optional:
- can integrate into afda.com
- can be linked to afda number (so you can label the quiz result as belonging to you)
- can reference which rule number applies for each question
- questions can be labelled by difficulty/obscurity (so a quiz can have a mix of easy and hard questions)
- questions can be labelled by rule areas (so a quiz can have mix of questions on fouls, field dimensions, picks, marking etc)

if you choose to take this challenge, let me know. Or if you can adapt an existing application/program already out there, all the better.

I have already written a couple of rules quizzes in my time, but having a large centralised database of them would be a more useful tool.

also, Singapore ultimate once had an online quiz, but I can't find it...


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Timmy D on April 30, 2008, 10:13:12 PM
Ok, here's a fairly common one, even at Nationals.  It's not a question, but an attempt at an answer to a question that was posed in a game at Nats.  Correct me if I'm wrong...

If the disc goes long and there is a contested foul on the catch, this means the disc goes back to the thrower.  My belief is that every player then returns to the position they were in WHEN THE DISC WAS THROWN, not when the foul occurred.  This is backed up by 11.3 of the rules...

11.3. If the disc was in the air when the event that caused the stoppage occurred, and the disc is returned to the thrower to restart play, players should return to the positions they held when the disc was released by the thrower.

Correct?


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: tom_brennan on April 30, 2008, 10:49:02 PM
Here is a challenge for an IT type.

Develop an online quiz.
Ok, Owen, you've pretty much outlined my eventual aim. I figured the first step was sourcing a decent supply of questions - maybe 100 would be about right?

Ultipedia has a rules quiz, but it's always the same quiz (only 16 questions) and it's based on the UPA rules, not WFDF (and yes, a couple of the answers are different because of that). But it's not bad as it shows you which questions you got right/wrong and gives a reference to the appropriate (UPA) rule(s).

So far I have written
- 17 questions
- all multiple choice
- all with references back to the rules, and occasional comments
- all roughly labelled by difficulty/obscurity

I have put them all online at http://www.afda.com/wiki/rules_quiz
This is just a holding place before putting them into a database somewhere. You can go and view, and edit this page ... but before you race off, you need to promise that if you go and visit, then you will add a new question. I don't mind if it's an easy one, or an obscure one, but please add a question!



Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tiger on April 30, 2008, 11:37:00 PM
What happens when a pick is contested?


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: tom_brennan on May 01, 2008, 01:32:50 AM
What happens when a pick is contested?
Tiger, I'm afraid I can't reveal that until you add a question!


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tiger on May 01, 2008, 05:54:49 AM
(2) While the offensive player with the disc is throwing a backhand, his defensive marker, at stall seven, calls 'travel'. The throw is released regardless and goes out of bounds without coming into contact with any players, offensive or defensive.

Does play:

a) return to the player who threw the disc on stall count seven?
b) return to the player who threw the disc on stall count five?
c) continue once acknowledged by the team who called the violation that the game should 'play on', resulting in their possession of the disc?

I don't know how to put it on the wiki without destroying everything thats already there.

So seriously, what happens when you contest a pick.

T.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: tom_brennan on May 01, 2008, 07:37:45 PM
So seriously, what happens when you contest a pick.
Nothing different to what happens on an uncontested pick. Disc back to thrower unless continuation rule was in effect and play was unaffected, defensive player catches up lost ground, stall count restarts at maximum 9.

Thanks for the question. To everyone else who's been looking at the questions (yes, I know you have) - where's your contributed question??


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Jangles on May 02, 2008, 01:31:28 AM
Quote
Quote from: simmo on Yesterday at 05:59:04
- It's not a travel if you throw while you're on your knees. Used to be the case, but not any more.

Actually, it rarely used to be a travel in any case. People mostly called it incorrectly. The old rules did specify a 'pivot foot', but that just required you to have a foot on the ground. If you threw from your knees you were highly likely to have a foot on the ground anyway.
Wanna write a question on it?
Well this rule results in what happened to us at nationals where by one on the old wiley gong boys established a pivot butt after a nice grab and landed in a seated position and threw a score. i had no problem with it but the question is if you make bid on the disc and he rethinks his throw is he allowed to stand up to continue his throw?
-yes
-no


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tassie Joe on May 04, 2008, 05:59:02 PM
I've got two, but I don't have enough time to look at the wiki, so someone else can add them.

(4) Player A throws the disc to cutting Player B.  Disc goes out of bounds, but Player B on the offensive team does a "worlds greatest" to keep the disc in play.  The disc comes back into the field proper and Player C makes a bid on the disc but contact occurs with a defensive player.  Player C calls foul, and Player D contests the foul.  Where does the disc go back to?

- Back to Player A, in his original position.
- Back to Player A, but at the position where the disc went out.
- Back to Player B, at the position where he was last in-field (ie, the position where he last touched the ground before the "worlds greatest"
- Back to Player B, at the position on the playing field closest to where he touched the disc.
- Back to Player B, at the position where the disc came infield after the Worlds Greatest.


Oh crap, I've typed that up and forgot what my second one was.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tassie Joe on May 04, 2008, 06:02:34 PM
Oh, I remember now.

(2) A player has just laid out for the disc.  The instant they land on their chest, the defensive player says "stalling" and starts counting.  The offensive player can call 'fast count' because the defensive player didn't wait until a pivot point was established.

- True
- False


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tassie Joe on May 04, 2008, 06:13:18 PM
Also, I've noticed an error in the Wiki:

Quote
(2) The pull is thrown, hits the ground and rolls towards the back of the endzone. An offensive player tries to stop it, and while they get a foot to it, it still rolls out the back of the endzone. They pick the disc up. Where do they put the disc into play?
- on the middle of the goal line of the endzone they are defending
- at the point on the goal line of the endzone they are defending that is nearest to where they caught the disc
- at the point on the back line of the endzone they are defending that is nearest to where they caught the disc
8.11. If the disc becomes out of bounds after touching an Offensive player, or an offensive player catches the pull out-of-bounds, the disc is put into play at the point on the Field of Play closest to where the disc became out of bounds.
Field of Play: The entire area of the field that is in-bounds, including the area of the End zones

None of these are the right answer, though I think the author was trying to go for B.  It's got nothing to do with where they caught/picked up the disc, it's got to do with where it rolled out, which could be different things.


If we find errors like this, do you want us to just edit them with a note, or what?



Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: ivar on May 04, 2008, 11:02:01 PM
So far I have written
- 17 questions
- all multiple choice
- all with references back to the rules, and occasional comments
- all roughly labelled by difficulty/obscurity

I have put them all online at http://www.afda.com/wiki/rules_quiz
This is just a holding place before putting them into a database somewhere.  ;D

Hey, you are more than welcome to use the Ultipedia infrastructure to host your rules quiz.. in fact I would appreciate it very much and do my best to help you out ! ( I run Ultipedia and wrote the current UPA rules quiz there...) Many of the technical details and wishes mentioned in this thread are already taken care of... If you have any concerns or questions, please don't hesitate to ask me. Also note that we can give full accreditation (props) to AFDA for the creation of the WFDF quiz.. With worlds coming this August to my hometown (Vancouver) it'd be great to have more WFDF representation.



Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: tom_brennan on May 05, 2008, 08:44:48 AM
Also, I've noticed an error in the Wiki:

Quote
(2) The pull is thrown, hits the ground and rolls towards the back of the endzone. An offensive player tries to stop it, and while they get a foot to it, it still rolls out the back of the endzone. They pick the disc up. Where do they put the disc into play?
- on the middle of the goal line of the endzone they are defending
- at the point on the goal line of the endzone they are defending that is nearest to where they caught the disc
- at the point on the back line of the endzone they are defending that is nearest to where they caught the disc
8.11. If the disc becomes out of bounds after touching an Offensive player, or an offensive player catches the pull out-of-bounds, the disc is put into play at the point on the Field of Play closest to where the disc became out of bounds.
Field of Play: The entire area of the field that is in-bounds, including the area of the End zones

None of these are the right answer, though I think the author was trying to go for B.  It's got nothing to do with where they caught/picked up the disc, it's got to do with where it rolled out, which could be different things.

If we find errors like this, do you want us to just edit them with a note, or what?
Yeah, just go ahead and edit them with a note. That's part of the idea of a wiki.

The 'caught the disc' was copied from a previous similar question, which I then neglected to reword appropriately. It should be better now.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: thebozzman on September 15, 2008, 04:50:11 AM
A rules question from games on the weekend...

Player A (defensive player) is on the mark and Player B (offensive player) calls disc space. Player A points out there is about an inch between the disc and Player B's chest. Player B says "if you contest, it goes back to stall count of 0." Stall count was at 5.

If an incorrect disc space call is made, does it go back to 0 or continue from when the call was made?


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: rachelg on September 15, 2008, 05:33:57 AM
16.2.6. If any marking violations are contested, the stall count restarts at maximum six
(6).


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tassie Joe on October 13, 2008, 06:53:57 PM
Oooh, I love playing in a big tourney over the weekend and you come back with lots of questions about rules because of some contentious decisions.  I'm such a rule bitch, I need to ask you guys for validation.

Can someone confirm these for me please.

1) Two players attempting to catch a skied disc.  Offensive player gets fouled, calls 'foul', but manages to catch the disc anyway.  Calls "play-on" as per the continuation rule, and throws to an open receiver.  Defensive player (who commited the foul) calls for the disc back claiming that the continuation rule only applies when there is a foul on the thrower, not on the receiver, and that it cannot be applied in this situation.  Can you call play on if you were fouled while receiving, but still caught the disc?



The second has photographic evidence (with a discussion already).
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=43499&id=508102308#/photo.php?pid=1019456&id=508102308

Ash Martens was running flat out with the flight of the disc and not looking at where she was going.  Huddy saw the disc coming, and saw ash coming, but all he could do was stop and try to back peddle.  He didn't even try to make a bid on the disc..  Ash caught the disc a split second before she collided with huddy.  They both went down, he called foul.  She contested, disc went back.

I can see both people's positions here.  The run, leap and grab by Ash was spectacular.  Absolutely amazing.  And it seems unfortunate that the fact she committed a foul AFTER that grab (by colliding with huddy) would cause a turnover and give huddy the disc.  She also claims it was dangerous play by Huddy in that he saw her coming but didn't get out of the way.    What do you think should have been the end result of this?


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tenk283 on October 13, 2008, 08:28:12 PM
Quote
1) Two players attempting to catch a skied disc.  Offensive player gets fouled, calls 'foul', but manages to catch the disc anyway.  Calls "play-on" as per the continuation rule, and throws to an open receiver.  Defensive player (who commited the foul) calls for the disc back claiming that the continuation rule only applies when there is a foul on the thrower, not on the receiver, and that it cannot be applied in this situation.  Can you call play on if you were fouled while receiving, but still caught the disc?

This actually happened to me at AUGs.

I got it hucked to me whilst playing against a zone. I went up for it, got hit, called foul but caught it anyway. I then called play on and threw it to a wide open reciever to score.

There was a little bit of a discussion afterwards, the bloke who made contact with me said it definately was a foul by him and the decision was made by both sides that the score would count.

Not sure if that is exactly the rule. But that is what we came up with. Good spirit made the decision come quicker though.

In the second example, it would depend on if "huddy" was occupying the area that "ash" was going to land in. I believe the rules say something along the lines of "players may jump for the disc, so long as they don't cause contact and there is nothing occupying their area of landing". The onus is on all players to avoid contact. They also say something along the lines of you should never bid for a disc if there is a chance of contact (personally, I think that part sucks :D).

Not sure who is at fault though ;D. Seems a bit muddy to me :D .


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Brettski on October 13, 2008, 08:51:18 PM

Quote
1) Two players attempting to catch a skied disc.  Offensive player gets fouled, calls 'foul', but manages to catch the disc anyway.  Calls "play-on" as per the continuation rule, and throws to an open receiver.  Defensive player (who commited the foul) calls for the disc back claiming that the continuation rule only applies when there is a foul on the thrower, not on the receiver, and that it cannot be applied in this situation.  Can you call play on if you were fouled while receiving, but still caught the disc?

The main thing that could be an issue here was whether the person who fouled actually stopped playing, and if the rest of the field also stopped. A foul is a stoppage of play, however the continuation rule can still apply. So if you call the foul and 'play on' straight away, there is no problem.

If you call 'foul' and your mark stops, perhaps signals to the rest of his team that there was a call etc, and you do a schneaky 'play on' a few seconds later and throw to score, it should come back.

17.1. Whenever a call is made other than the first call of a marking violation, play stops
immediately unless 17.2 or 17.3 applies. Once play has stopped, no turn over is possible.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: rjhberg on October 13, 2008, 10:21:13 PM
1)

Quote
17.3. If a foul or violation is called
17.3.3. when the disc is in the air,
then play continues until possession has been established.

17.4. If the team that called the foul or violation gains or retains possession as a result of the pass, play shall continue unhalted. Players recognizing this should call “Play on” immediately to indicate that this rule has been invoked.

The "Play On" call is just an advisory call. There is no stoppage.

So you can definetely call a foul in attempting to catch the disc, catch it , and then play on immediatly.

Moral: O should never be disadvantaged because the other team stuffed up



Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Brettski on October 13, 2008, 10:32:38 PM
The "Play On" call is just an advisory call. There is no stoppage.

I always thought that you needed to call 'play on' to invoke the continuation rule! Wow, glad I found that out now. Thanks!


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tenk283 on October 13, 2008, 10:39:31 PM
Cool ;D . So what happened was what was supposed to happen  ;D . Thats sweet.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: AlecD on October 13, 2008, 11:05:30 PM
1) Yes, I particularly agree with Rueben.

2) is trickier in my view, I’ve come across it a bit (and been involved in a couple of similar incidents) and discussion with different people usually end in different interpretations.

I think Joe’s comments on the facebook group for the second photo were about right. By the rules, the offensive players generally have more right to not be interfered with when contesting a disc and attempting a catch. However, there are also ‘safety clauses’ that help protect the rights of defensive players in established positions making a play on the disc (just cos Huddle didn’t jump into Ash to try and contest the catch doesn’t mean he wasn’t making a play for the disc), and ensuring the safety of all involved.

I think Huddle’s actions in avoiding a worse collision were in the Spirit of the rules, and his call was fair. But I also think there was not much particularly wrong with Ash’s actions, as an offensive player it’s very hard to not focus 100% on catching the disc. Sometimes this is to the exclusion of not being aware of surroundings, but in my view it is borderline as to whether it is “reckless disregard”, particularly if you don’t know the player was there. She retained possession of the disc for her team, however it was at the expense of the defender being able to provide a ‘safe contest’ from a legally established position. Hence I think it’s fair that this contest be allowed to “happen again” on safer terms. I think a contested foul, where Ash’s team retains possession of the disc, but not to the detriment of Huddle’s actions in the contest, is a fair outcome, and in general is a fair outcome for these situations.


In future versions of the rules, I think it would be nice to have them changed/rewritten to enable players (particularly defenders) to put more emphasis on protecting the ‘safety of the contest’ from a fairly established position, and enable the contest to be reset, rather than say potentially penalising an offensive player for giving their all in retaining possession of the disc for their team (i.e. a turnover if a “reckless disregard” foul is uncontested). I think if extremely dangerous contact is about to ensue, players (defensive or offensive) should have more clearly stated right to withdraw from a contest, where they are in a well established position that is about to be encroached upon dangerously by another player, with something like a “safety” reset call. In my mind, “reckless disregard” is highly subjective, and a foul call in this respect will almost always be contested (particularly if it is made by a defender and the catch is completed by the offence), whereas a “safety” call and reset would usually be readily accepted by both teams. Calling “safety” in the moments before a contest may also make the offending player aware of the imminent collision, pull themselves out of the contest, and help to decrease the chances of serious injury. Many players DON'T stop if a “foul” call is made, as they know that the disc is potentially still up for grabs when it is airborne.

It’s also a little off-putting being accused of displaying “reckless disregard” when you are blind-sided or otherwise not aware of surroundings.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: tom_brennan on October 14, 2008, 02:32:08 AM
I can see both people's positions here.  The run, leap and grab by Ash was spectacular.  Absolutely amazing.  And it seems unfortunate that the fact she committed a foul AFTER that grab (by colliding with huddy) would cause a turnover and give huddy the disc.  She also claims it was dangerous play by Huddy in that he saw her coming but didn't get out of the way.    What do you think should have been the end result of this?

Foul. Obviously I'm just going on your narrative. But if you can't get the disc without causing (significant) contact, then that's your bad luck. The way you reported it, Huddy was in a legal position and did his best to get out of the way of contact, to the point of giving up an opportunity to contest the disc. Just because he saw Ash, and she didn't see him doesn't make her position any stronger.

I'm surprised no-one has quoted the rules yet, since they're pretty important in working out what's right ...
12.6. A player in an established position, who has not moved to that position to intentionally
block another player while not making a play on the disc, is entitled to remain in that
position and should not be contacted by an opposing player.
12.7. Every player is entitled to occupy any position on the field not occupied by any opposing
player, provided that they do not cause contact in taking such a position.
12.8. When the disc is in the air, all players must attempt to avoid contact with other players,
and there is no situation where a player may justify initiating contact. “Making a play for
the disc” is not a valid excuse for initiating contact with other players.
12.9. Some incidental contact, not affecting the outcome of the play or safety of players, may
occur as two or more players move towards a single point simultaneously. Incidental
contact should be minimized but is not considered a foul.
12.10. The Principle of Verticality:
12.10.1. All players have the right to the space immediately above them. An opponent
may not obstruct a player from occupying this space.
12.10.2. A player who jumped is entitled to land without hindrance by opponents,
assuming that no opposing player occupied any space between and including the
point of take off and the receiver's eventual landing spot at the initiation of the
jump.

A few comments
By the rules, the offensive players generally have more right to not be interfered with when contesting a disc and attempting a catch.
Really?? Which rules are you reading? The only difference between O and D players when the disc is in the air is for a simultaneous catch.
But I also think there was not much particularly wrong with Ash’s actions, as an offensive player it’s very hard to not focus 100% on catching the disc.
Well, if it's that hard, then it's something that people need to practise. Just because it's hard doesn't make it right not to do it. The rules are pretty clear that it's a no-no.
It’s also a little off-putting being accused of displaying “reckless disregard” when you are blind-sided or otherwise not aware of surroundings.
If others are aware of their surroundings and you aren't, then it should be to your disadvantage, not theirs. Part of good offensive positioning is avoiding having to move into your blind spot. If you need to do so, then you should look first. If you don't, and you collide with someone, then is it "reckless disregard"? Yes.

Read rule 12.8. It's pretty clear in this instance


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: AlecD on October 14, 2008, 04:58:14 AM
Thanks for the comments Tom, sorry for the opinion-based post.

You've corrected my understanding on the meaning of “reckless disregard,” cos I didn’t use to apply it to people inadvertently causing contact because they were unaware of another player’s position, rather only those who enter a contest strongly and dangerously while knowing other players were in the vicinity (i.e. knowing there’s a high possibility of contact but not caring). Some definitions I’ve (only now) looked up:
reckless: careless or heedless
disregard: give little or no attention to

I’ve been trying to come up with words to explain my thoughts on receiver culpability, i.e. talking about errant throws, but then a receiver’s legs are always under control by the receiver’s brain… so I’ll just shut my trap, grow a brain and try and play more responsible Ultimate  :)


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: ash_5 on October 14, 2008, 05:57:51 AM
I've got one,
Defensive player is marking the player with the disc and steps across to make a hand block. As the offensive player throws the disc the follow through makes contact with the marker who calls foul. The throw is incomplete (i.e. the offensive team fails to make the catch).
so i.e. it's the defence calling a foul on the offensive player

Does the continuation rule apply?


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tiger on October 14, 2008, 06:31:41 AM
It's a turnover. The defence has called a foul to their own benefit, first person to recognise this calls 'play on'. Follow through is not part of the 'throwing motion', which I believe was roughly defined (maybe on RSD? maybe in my dreams I have about ultimate legislature?) as the action which imparts spin to the disc (ie the snap of the wrist).


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: rachelg on October 14, 2008, 07:55:46 AM
I've got one,
Defensive player is marking the player with the disc and steps across to make a hand block. As the offensive player throws the disc the follow through makes contact with the marker who calls foul. The throw is incomplete (i.e. the offensive team fails to make the catch).
so i.e. it's the defence calling a foul on the offensive player

Does the continuation rule apply?
The rules seem pretty clear... see below particularly 17.1, 17.3, 17.4. I assume you read the rules before you posted the question so maybe I'm missing something in the subtlety of your scenario?

17. Continuation after a Call
17.1. Whenever a call is made other than the first call of a marking violation, play stops
immediately unless 17.2 or 17.3 applies. Once play has stopped, no turn over is possible.
17.2. If a marking violation is called during the throwing motion or when the disc is in the air,
the call has no consequences.
17.3. If a foul or violation is called
17.3.1. against the thrower and the thrower subsequently attempts a pass, or
17.3.2. when the thrower is in the act of throwing, or
17.3.3. when the disc is in the air,
then play continues until possession has been established.
17.4. If the team that called the foul or violation gains or retains possession as a result of the
pass, play shall continue unhalted. Players recognizing this should call “Play on”
immediately to indicate that this rule has been invoked.
17.5. If the team that called the foul or violation does not gain or retain possession as a result
of the pass, play shall be stopped and the disc will be returned to the thrower for a
check.
17.6. If the team that called the foul or violation believes that play has not been affected by
the foul or violation, they should decline the foul or violation, make up any positional
disadvantage caused by the foul or violation, and restart play with a check.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: tom_brennan on October 14, 2008, 08:01:15 AM
Thanks for the comments Tom, sorry for the opinion-based post.

Sorry if I was being rather blunt. I was a little frustrated that the discussion up to that point hadn't referenced the rules at all, and yours was the lucky post that caught my ire!

Just in case anyone needs to know where to find the rules, see
http://wfdf.org/index.php?page=rules/index.htm
The latest version is 2008. With Mixed Nats around the corner, now's as good a time as any to get familiar...


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: ash_5 on October 14, 2008, 09:49:14 AM
yeah..thats what i thought..but apparently
15.6.2: Incidental contact occuring during the thrower's follow through is not sufficient grounds for a foul, but should be avoided.

when the call was made i called play on, continuation rule because effectively if the team that calls the foul gains possesion of the disc then its basically play on because play was not effected.



Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: rachelg on October 14, 2008, 04:34:04 PM
so 15.6.2 tells us the foul shouldn't have been called in the first place... but since it was called then the the continuation rule applies.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tenk283 on October 14, 2008, 04:50:56 PM
 ;D I can't count the amount of times i've been bitchslapped by people following through on the throw.... Its not a foul either.

Quote
15.6.2 tells us the foul shouldn't have been called in the first place

(I've bitch slapped some people too.... nothing i'm proud of, but it does happen when you have people in close proximity to swinging arms)

You might wanna let the person who called it know that....



Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Brettski on October 14, 2008, 07:18:51 PM
Twice I have been clocked in the face on a follow through - once by Tarn which resulted in a black eye for two weeks, and once by Calan 'Kurt Russel' Spielman. Both ended with me on the ground wondering what just happened.

Still not a foul?


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Stafman on October 14, 2008, 07:58:16 PM
Twice I have been clocked in the face on a follow through - once by Tarn which resulted in a black eye for two weeks, and once by Calan 'Kurt Russel' Spielman. Both ended with me on the ground wondering what just happened.

Still not a foul?

I thought that came under 15.6.3 where any contact with Brett results in a bonus score and a free round at the bar.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tassie Joe on October 14, 2008, 09:00:01 PM
I was a little frustrated that the discussion up to that point hadn't referenced the rules at all, and yours was the lucky post that caught my ire!

The rules were quoted by me in the original discussion on Facebook, which I linked to.  I probably should have quoted them here in the original question post too.



Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tassie Joe on October 14, 2008, 09:02:12 PM
Twice I have been clocked in the face on a follow through - once by Tarn which resulted in a black eye for two weeks, and once by Calan 'Kurt Russel' Spielman. Both ended with me on the ground wondering what just happened.

Still not a foul?


(http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v353/11/0/508102308/n508102308_1019458_516.jpg)

Still not a foul.
(Yep, that's a fist to the face on a follow-through)


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tenk283 on October 14, 2008, 10:44:00 PM
Twice I have been clocked in the face on a follow through - once by Tarn which resulted in a black eye for two weeks, and once by Calan 'Kurt Russel' Spielman. Both ended with me on the ground wondering what just happened.

Still not a foul?

No dice. Still no foul.

I got flogged in the face by Greeny one day. Gave me a bleeding nose. But it shows I was doing the right thing on a straight up force.... I forced him wayyyy wide ;D .

One of the better ones was at youth nats though. Playing against the South Australian team, I faked a huck and my marker laid out to try and block it. I then wound up and hucked it for real, except my marker was getting to his feet. I backhanded him so hard he was knocked over backwards. It was one hell of a smack. He had to go sit down for a couple of points. (Ironically enough, his nickname was dusty.....)

Of course, if they don't apologize to you, then I might be claiming that they buy me a few drinks later....



Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tiger on October 15, 2008, 01:46:53 AM
War stories:

Tim Booth made my face bleed and also clotheslined me, he'd gotten the disc up the line and I was arcing around him on the force side but his backhand follow-through decked me. Any GB readers: this is probably the one guy you don't pick fights with.

Dale Grixti nearly died on follow through from a backhand at a junior's camp - as far as I can recall it rearranged the cartilage around his trachea and was an inch or so away from permanently closing his windpipe. He was in hospital for a few days and will never be able to speak or sing at certain pitches/volumes.

Non contact sport, fuck yeah.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tenk283 on October 15, 2008, 02:29:52 AM
Quote
Dale Grixti nearly died on follow through from a backhand at a junior's camp

 :o

I conceed defeat.... Wow.... thats crazy.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: gref on October 15, 2008, 09:49:30 AM
I had two teeth broken in half when someone tried to backhand huck through my face.
He was wearing a watch at the time (on his right hand).

I went off to the dentist and got my teeth temporarily capped (although apparently I'll still eventually need root canal done), and got back in time to see the introductory night for UQ League.

Moral of the story: don't let someone you're marking where a watch while they play, even if it's just pickup.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: The Brucemaster on October 15, 2008, 10:18:47 AM
I copped an elbow from Tarn to the nose which rearranged the bone slightly (I swear it's still not quite straight). It wasn't even on a throw either, he was just pivoting and swung his arm across to try and get a quick flick away and dropped me in the process. I think that was around the same time as Brett's black eye too! Must have been a stressful time for Tarny...


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tenk283 on October 15, 2008, 05:37:44 PM
I doubt it.

Look at him.

Tarn is all nice and quiet on the outside.... But we all know his is a bruiser on the inside.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: rjhberg on October 15, 2008, 05:41:34 PM
Sorry to get back to the actual rule in question here  :)

but...

Quote
Still not a foul.

I think we might be being a bit liberal here in our definition of "Incidental Contact" (Any contact which is not dangerous in nature and does not affect the outcome of play.)

To me punching someone in the face is dangerous in nature.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tiger on October 15, 2008, 06:33:35 PM
To me punching someone in the face is dangerous in nature.

I'd agree, not that it's dangerous in nature - the contact is not malicious, people are not doing it on purpose/frequently - but I would say that it affects play.

Even if it's not hurtful enough to call injury or start bleeding, there is always a second or two of downtime on the field while the recipient is stunned and checks to see that they have all their limbs.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: DaveR on October 15, 2008, 08:49:31 PM
if there is a foul on a follow through on a complted pass...would that make it a turn over?  Can you lose possesion of the disc when in possesion and there is no contest from a foul call? I suppose that would be incidental, but its certainly dangerous...how do the rules resolve the tension between those two?


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: AlecD on October 15, 2008, 10:08:35 PM
15.6 Doesn't state an offensive throwing foul results in a turnover (which is different to offensive receiving fouls).

17.5 (disc return to thrower) applies, however

If I was the whacked marker I'd generally apply 17.6 (decline the foul), cos in my view the foul wouldn't interfere with defensive efforts to block the pass, therefore doesn't affect the play.
I would call the foul though, as if I was dazed for a couple of moments that would affect my ability to be involved in the next play, particularly if the thrower takes advantage and decides to run off. Hopefully this would give me the time required to regain composure, at which point I can apply 17.6 and play can continue from the receiver.

What defines "play"?
Is it only the immediate play, or could future play come into account? i.e. if the whacked has to go off with an injury, then they could argue this may effect future play (on a team with not many subs, or if it was a gun player)


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: gref on October 16, 2008, 09:38:20 AM
I agree... Getting whacked in the face, even when not delibrate can potentially be dangerous and affect the play, and the team causing that contact should not be in a position to gain.

I'd call a foul, get my bearings or call an injury and then depending on the situation, either 17.5 or 17.6 are valid.

Quote
17.5. If the team that called the foul or violation does not gain or retain possession as a result
of the pass, play shall be stopped and the disc will be returned to the thrower for a
check.
17.6. If the team that called the foul or violation believes that play has not been affected by
the foul or violation, they should decline the foul or violation, make up any positional
disadvantage caused by the foul or violation, and restart play with a check.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Brettski on October 20, 2008, 09:20:14 PM
Good stuff.

Does play stop on a contested double team?


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tassie Joe on October 20, 2008, 09:29:49 PM
Yep!

Quote
16.2.2. A marking violation may be contested by the defence, in which case play stops.


and then:

Quote
16.2.6. If any marking violations are contested, the stall count restarts at maximum six (6).



Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: ash_5 on October 21, 2008, 12:57:19 AM
for double team to be called as a foul does it need to be in the same point?
i.e. if a team zones and player with the disc calls double team and they back off, then get a turn and then they turn it over (so the team that was initially on O is back on O) and they call double team again then that would then make it a foul?

cause double team needs to be called twice for it to be a foul?


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: rachelg on October 21, 2008, 01:11:00 AM
for double team to be called as a foul does it need to be in the same point?
i.e. if a team zones and player with the disc calls double team and they back off, then get a turn and then they turn it over (so the team that was initially on O is back on O) and they call double team again then that would then make it a foul?

cause double team needs to be called twice for it to be a foul?

emphasis mine...
Quote
16.2.5. For any subsequent marking violation call during the same stall count, play stops,
and, if uncontested, the count is reset to one (1) and play is continued with a
check.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: ash_5 on October 21, 2008, 11:43:58 AM
ok just wasn't sure if it was same stall count or the same point...


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tassie Joe on November 03, 2008, 10:42:55 PM
Wheeee!  More rules dilemmas to argue about after a heated game in Spring League Div 1 last night. 

Situation: Player A is a receiver going for the disc, but she misses it.  The disc goes out of bounds.  Player B was defending on player A, and catches the disc out of bounds.  He realises he's out of bounds, thinks that he doesn't need to take possession and drops the disc...  Now, player A states that he took possession of the disc, and then dropped it, resulting in another turnover, and concludes it should be her disc again.  This would be the case if Player B was in the field when he caught it, but since he was out-of-bounds when he caught it, does it change anything?

Answer: Yes it does.

8.1 The disc is dead, and no turnover is possible, specifically:
8.1.2: After the pull or after a turnover when the disc must be carried to the location of the correct pivot point, until a pivot is established,

So, my understanding is that while Player B is walking back to the correct place, if he drops the disc then he can pick it up again without resulting in a turnover.  Is this correct? 
But he can't drop it and let someone else (on his team) take possession, can he?




As an aside, what do you do if you're on the sideline, and you know the rules, but your team-mate on the field isn't sure, and he gets told something that is blatantly incorrect by an opponent?  He basically got told "No, that's a turnover, you took possession then dropped it.  My disc" and was still umming and ahhing when the opponent took the disc out of his hands and played on.  Blatant intimidation, we gave them a very poor spirit score, but what do you do about that when it happens? (as a player on the sideline?)







Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: rachelg on November 04, 2008, 12:02:55 AM
So, my understanding is that while Player B is walking back to the correct place, if he drops the disc then he can pick it up again without resulting in a turnover.  Is this correct? 
But he can't drop it and let someone else (on his team) take possession, can he?

The disc is dead until it is put into play so it is not possible for a turnover to occur until the new thrower puts the disc into play at the correct pivot point. So, yes Player B can drop the disc while out-of-bounds and there is no turnover.

I assume this rule would be the applicable one for your second question
8.3. The thrower may not transfer possession of a dead disc to another player.
By catching the disc Player B has become the thrower. Therefore they can not give the disc (either by dropping it or passing it) to another player.

As an aside, what do you do if you're on the sideline, and you know the rules, but your team-mate on the field isn't sure, and he gets told something that is blatantly incorrect by an opponent?  He basically got told "No, that's a turnover, you took possession then dropped it.  My disc" and was still umming and ahhing when the opponent took the disc out of his hands and played on.  Blatant intimidation, we gave them a very poor spirit score, but what do you do about that when it happens? (as a player on the sideline?)

I think this depends a lot on the level of the game, your position on the team and the experience of both players involved in the call out there. Those of us who know the rules love to butt in and correct those on the field but the rules explicitly state:
1.10. Rules should be interpreted by the players directly involved in the play, or by players who had the best perspective on the play. Players not actively playing the current point, apart from the captain, should refrain from getting involved.
If you are the captain then I think you have some argument for stepping in.
Also if both players involved are novices then
1.8. In the case where a novice player commits an infraction out of ignorance of rules, experienced players are obliged to explain the infraction.
If you are not captain, and the player's involved are not novices then I would be finding my captain (or spirit captain!?!) and getting them to discuss the rules with the opposing team's captain.... Of course the rules are written with the assumption that those 'interpreting' them on the field actually know what they're talking about!

I'm not really sure what the 'best' course of action is? Others thoughts?


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Brettski on November 04, 2008, 07:49:04 AM
I would be all for stopping the play if you saw it happen, or at least informing the player that didn't know the rule post-point/game (even if they are on the other team). Especially if they are novices, the last thing you would want is both players thinking this was the rule and then making the same call some other time!


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tassie Joe on November 04, 2008, 05:22:17 PM
1.8. In the case where a novice player commits an infraction out of ignorance of rules, experienced players are obliged to explain the infraction.
If you are not captain, and the player's involved are not novices then I would be finding my captain (or spirit captain!?!) and getting them to discuss the rules with the opposing team's captain.... Of course the rules are written with the assumption that those 'interpreting' them on the field actually know what they're talking about!

Yeah, it was a Div 1 game, so it's fair to say these players were NOT novices.  But the annoying thing is that the player who was more experienced was the one who got the rules wrong, but didn't give anyone a chance to argue.  I was the captain in that situation, but it still would have been pretty nasty of me to stop play (from the sideline) and explain why the player on the field was wrong.  Perhaps I had a right to (according to the rules) but it's not something I'd do.  In the end there was another turnover and we scored the point, so the frisbee gods knew what was going on.

The annoying thing is that the offending player buggered off straight after the game, so I didn't get a chance to talk to her about the rules.  Oh well, I'll have a chat to their captain next week.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Stafman on November 04, 2008, 05:49:08 PM
Quick question, which I think is obvious but want confirmation on.

Can a player lying/kneeling on the ground pass the disc? Rules for Travel are below and I think 16.3.3 and 16.3.4 say they can.

However we had game last night where our player passed from the kneeling position (while stationary) to a team mate with next pass a short throw to score. Opposition captain didn't call foul, but as they were returning to other end, told our player that they can't do that and just to take note for next time. (appreciated the method considering it was div3 and also a close game-but also want to make sure that when I said the rules don't actually say that, I was correct).

Any help?



16.3. Travel violation.
16.3.1. After catching the disc, the thrower must come to a stop as quickly as possible,
without changing direction.
16.3.2. After stopping their forward momentum, the player may pivot in any direction
as long as one part of their body remains in constant contact with a certain spot
on the playing field, called the “pivot point”.
16.3.3. A thrower who is lying down or kneeling does not need to establish a pivot.
16.3.3.1. Once stopped, their centre of mass determines their pivot point, and they
should not move away from that point while lying down or kneeling.
16.3.3.2. If they stand up, they must establish their pivot at that point.
16.3.4. The thrower may attempt a pass at any time as long as they are entirely inbounds
or have established an in-bounds pivot.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Brettski on November 04, 2008, 06:11:58 PM
16.3.3. A thrower who is lying down or kneeling does not need to establish a pivot.

The player on your team is permitted to throw from their knees as long as they have not first established a pivot foot.

If they first established a pivot foot, then lift that foot to be on their knees, it's a travel.

This is a new change in the rules so the opposition might not have been informed.



Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Stafman on November 04, 2008, 06:40:07 PM
Cheers.

I suppose it makes it easy when I have only ever read the 2008 Rules. No need to worry about old rules!


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tenk283 on November 05, 2008, 03:43:54 PM
@Tassie Joe: wow... that other player really wanted the disc... Amazing what can happen when the blood is pumping.

Following on from that situation, how could the captain step in here and get the call right? Joe said he was on the sideline and saw everything, but how could he step in and say something? How would you go about it?



Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Brettski on November 05, 2008, 06:19:01 PM
It should be encouraged that the players resolve the issue themselves, but in my opionion it would depend on the level of the game. If there was a stoppage of play over it, in an important game, the captain should step in. Otherwise, after the point/game would be sufficient.

If there was no stoppage of play, unfortunately it's too bad for the person that dropped the disc, for not knowing the rules (in my opinion).


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Pallen on November 06, 2008, 10:21:45 AM
It happens alot where the more experienced player intimidates the other players into thinking they have made a wrong call without knowing the rules. How do we stop it? Blanket examinations on peoples knowledge of the rules :D Then we'll know who has read them and who just thinks they know them. Imagine failing a frisbee test...


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: richie on November 06, 2008, 06:30:14 PM
I have a stall count question/observation.

The other night playing mixed league, I was called for a stall which I contested because the marker said "stalling... eight, stalling... nine, ten, stall". They left the stalling out from in between nine and ten, and I got the disc off as they were saying ten. We had a discussion after the point and I was under the impression that if you started saying stalling, you had to keep saying it. I read the rules and apparently you only need to announce "Stalling" at the start of the count, and then leave a second in between each number.

Not saying "Stalling", especially in between nine and ten seems to invite a fast count or contested stall anyway.

Here's the relevent rule.

9.1. The marker administers a stall count on the thrower by announcing “Stalling” and then
counting from one (1) to ten (10). The interval between the first utterances of each
word in the stall count must be at least one (1) second.

I think perhaps the rule should require a "Stalling" in between each count to avoid situations such as I experienced. What do others think?


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Brettski on November 06, 2008, 06:49:54 PM
That's an interesting question. Personally, I'm opposed to saying "stalling" between each count mainly because it's just too much talking, especially when you are completely buggered on the field (which I often am).

Someone can probably confirm, but they took something like this out of the rules in '07 I think. You could either say "stall" at the beginning, or instead of "10", it was really ambiguous...

As for you league question, as far as the rules are concerned, as long as there was a second between 9 and 10 it would be a stall, however it would have probably seemed like a fast count to me as well and would have called it. Could have been an idea to tell the marker to be careful otherwise it might happen again...


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: ash_5 on November 06, 2008, 08:46:51 PM
personally i dont say "stalling" between my counts. i feel its a bit of a waste of breath....
but from what you've described it looks like it was a fast count.
hahaha come to think of it i had some one commit the biggest fast count ive ever seen on me the other week,
he went from stall 5 to stall 9 in about the time it normally takes to get from 5 to 6...
hahaha


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Henry on November 07, 2008, 02:00:31 AM
I've always thought saying 'stalling' was your 0 count in your stall.  Otherwise you're counting from 1 to 10 which is 9 seconds instead of 10.  Same thing if the disc comes in after a stoppage, if the disc is coming in at count 5 you start with "stalling 6" etc.

So saying "stalling" in between each count might help someone make sure it's a second (just like saying 1 one thoussand 2 one thousand etc.) but i can't see why you would HAVE to say it for any count other than 0.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tenk283 on November 07, 2008, 09:02:41 PM
As henry said, its just to keep the timing right. You don't have to put "stalling" between each number.

I don't actually say "stalling"... I say "throwing 1.... 2... 3... 4..." Which is just to set myself up and make sure i'm counting at the right pace.

What you describe is a "fast count".... I was speaking to someone about this, I had it happen to me at uni games.

guy was on the mark, and he was counting:

six...seven.... eightnineten stall!

I threw it, trying to get rid of it... Unfortunately, because I didn't know the rules, it was a turn over.

I believe what should have happened was:

I call "fast count" and the disc comes back in 2 counts before when the fast count happened. Clearly, I had no chance to call fast count before he hit ten, so regardless, the count would go back to six and he started counting mega fast on eight (i'm talking ridiculously fast).

If it happened again (another fast count), the stall is reset to zero.

That is what I believe should have happened... I can't remember exactly what I was told though... Can someone confirm whether this is right or wrong?

Quote from: brett
Someone can probably confirm, but they took something like this out of the rules in '07 I think. You could either say "stall" at the beginning, or instead of "10", it was really ambiguous...

You used to be able to say "stall" instead of "ten" for it to be a "stall out". However,i believe it now says that you have to say "ten" and you have to complete the word for it to be a stall out... So if you throw before they finish "ten", its play on.

[quot=richie]9.1. The marker administers a stall count on the thrower by announcing “Stalling” and then
counting from one (1) to ten (10). The interval between the first utterances of each
word in the stall count must be at least one (1) second.

I think perhaps the rule should require a "Stalling" in between each count to avoid situations such as I experienced. What do others think?[/quote]

Well, its fairly obvious that they aren't counting slow enough. Call "fast count". But having "stalling" in between every number is a waste of breath.... Especially when you don't have much to spare :D .


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Brettski on November 07, 2008, 10:24:55 PM
However,i believe it now says that you have to say "ten" and you have to complete the word for it to be a stall out... So if you throw before they finish "ten", its play on.

You don't have to complete the word, it is only the first utterance of 'ten', ie. the 't'

"eight...nine....t-<throw>" is a stall out.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: rjhberg on November 07, 2008, 10:36:34 PM
Quote
However,i believe it now says that you have to say "ten" and you have to complete the word for it to be a stall out... So if you throw before they finish "ten", its play on.

13 Turnovers
13.1.7. the thrower has not released the disc before the marker first utters the word “ten” in the stall count (a “stall-out”);

But on second thought this is a lot less clear than I thought it was.

Back in 2002 to rule used to be:
404.11B If the thrower has not released the disc by the first sound of the word "ten", then a change of possession with a check shall result

The wording was changed in 2007, I think to make it more in line with UPA which says:
XIVA3. If the thrower has not released the disc at the first utterance of the word “ten,” it is a turnover.

The use of utterance compared to utter is much clearer in my mind about how the stall count works, but it is currently generally accepted in Ultimate that the disc must be released before the T of Ten.

On a side note, it seems alot of people on this thread are guessing at what the rules are rather than actually looking them up.

Not that I want to become a rec.sport.disc post Nazi, but LOOK THEM UP FIRST!!  :)

http://www.wfdf.org/rules/WFDF%20Ultimate%20Rules%202008%20-%20Official%20Version.pdf


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: rjhberg on November 07, 2008, 11:01:57 PM
Quote
I believe what should have happened was: I call "fast count" and the disc comes back in 2 counts before when the fast count happened. Clearly, I had no chance to call fast count before he hit ten, so regardless, the count would go back to six

13.2. If it is unclear whether a turnover occurred, the player(s) with the best perspective quickly makes the call. If either team disagrees they may call "contest" and:
     13.2.1. the disc is returned to the previous thrower; and
     13.2.2. any stall count restarts at maximum nine (9).
13.3. If a fast count occurs in such a manner that the offence does not have a reasonable opportunity to call fast count before a stall-out, the play is treated as a contested stallout (13.2).


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tenk283 on November 08, 2008, 03:28:38 AM
Much easier to guess.

Too hard to go trawling through the rules. Besides, I learn from my mistakes much more efficiently than learning by just reading something.

It also makes conversation where you get to correct/heckle the person that said the incorrect thing :D .

So in summary: if they count really quickly and say ten before you have a chance to throw it, things are treated like a "contested stall-out". Which means the count restarts on nine (9).

eg:

Disc in.... 9..... 10

Which doesn't make alot of sense if the person counted really quickly from say 7....  Nevertheless, those are the rules.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: thebozzman on November 08, 2008, 04:52:58 AM
The way I read it, it comes in at a maximum of 9. If the fast count occurred on 7 and you did not get a chance to say it (or you did and the marker did not respond) i'd be pushing for it to be back at 7.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: rachelg on November 08, 2008, 05:29:03 AM
As henry said, its just to keep the timing right. You don't have to put "stalling" between each number.

I don't actually say "stalling"... I say "throwing 1.... 2... 3... 4..." Which is just to set myself up and make sure i'm counting at the right pace.


Well you should say 'stalling'. That is what the rules require:
9.1. The marker administers a stall count on the thrower by announcing “Stalling” and then counting from one (1) to ten (10). The interval between the first utterances of each word in the stall count must be at least one (1) second.

Quote
Much easier to guess.

Too hard to go trawling through the rules. Besides, I learn from my mistakes much more efficiently than learning by just reading something.

So you expect someone else to do it for you!? That is lazy and a cop-out. It is your responsibility as a player to know the rules.

1.3. Players should be mindful of the fact that they are acting as referees in any arbitration between teams. In such situations, players must:
1.3.1. know the rules;
1.3.2. be fair-minded and objective;
1.3.3. be truthful;
1.3.4. explain their viewpoint clearly and briefly;
1.3.5. allow opponents a reasonable chance to speak;
1.3.6. resolve disputes as quickly as possible; and
1.3.7. use respectful language.



Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tenk283 on November 08, 2008, 05:47:00 PM
The rules do not require you to say stalling between each count.
Quote
9.1. The marker administers a stall count on the thrower by announcing “Stalling” and then counting from one (1) to ten (10). The interval between the first utterances of each word in the stall count must be at least one (1) second.

Key wording:

"stalling and then counting fom one to ten"

Quote
1.3. Players should be mindful of the fact that they are acting as referees in any arbitration between teams. In such situations, players must:
1.3.1. know the rules;
1.3.2. be fair-minded and objective;
1.3.3. be truthful;
1.3.4. explain their viewpoint clearly and briefly;
1.3.5. allow opponents a reasonable chance to speak;
1.3.6. resolve disputes as quickly as possible; and
1.3.7. use respectful language.


Knowing the rules isn't going to help you if you are subjective, lie, argue, don't let the other person speak and swear.

No, I don't expect someone else to do it for me. If I do not know a rule, thats human. I don't eat and breathe WFDF2008 edition. I know alot of the rules and i'm learning all the time. However, so long as you make sure the last 6 are top notch, number 1.3.1 is secondary. I figured it was important to get my attitude right before the rules.

As I said, I learn much more efficiently from discussing thing and making mistakes then rote learning some bit of boring paper.

@Bozz; that is what I was getting at....



Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: rachelg on November 08, 2008, 09:20:46 PM
The rules do not require you to say stalling between each count.
Quote
9.1. The marker administers a stall count on the thrower by announcing “Stalling” and then counting from one (1) to ten (10). The interval between the first utterances of each word in the stall count must be at least one (1) second.

Key wording:

"stalling and then counting fom one to ten"

I wasn't referring to saying stalling between each point. You said you don't say "stalling" you say "throwing 1..2..3..4". And I was pointing out that saying "throwing" wasn't a legitimate way to start your stall count - it needs to start with "stalling". I may have misunderstood your original post.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: DaveR on November 09, 2008, 02:12:13 AM
dan stop being lazy and go study the rules...ill give you a rules quiz next week...if you dont get 100% you can tplay ultimate any more (its in the rules)


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: tom_brennan on November 09, 2008, 02:51:02 AM
Quote
1.3. Players should be mindful of the fact that they are acting as referees in any arbitration between teams. In such situations, players must:
1.3.1. know the rules;
1.3.2. be fair-minded and objective;
1.3.3. be truthful;
1.3.4. explain their viewpoint clearly and briefly;
1.3.5. allow opponents a reasonable chance to speak;
1.3.6. resolve disputes as quickly as possible; and
1.3.7. use respectful language.


Knowing the rules isn't going to help you if you are subjective, lie, argue, don't let the other person speak and swear.

And not knowing the rules is going to make you incapable of half of the remaining obligations. How can you be truthful if you don't even know what the truth is? How can you resolve a dispute quickly when you yourself don't know the rule?

Seriously, go and read the rules once. It won't kill you. You're not allergic to them. They don't bite. You may even learn something.

Then, when you have a rules question, first go to the rules and try and find the answer yourself. When you post the question to Ultitalk, post the section of the rules that you think applies and ask if your interpretation is correct. You will still learn something, and those of us who are rule nazis will feel like we are helping someone who has put the effort in in the first place, and is not simply using this thread out of laziness.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Brettski on November 09, 2008, 06:06:03 AM
For Dan:

http://www.afda.com/wiki/rules_quiz


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tenk283 on November 09, 2008, 08:12:05 PM
 ;D

I was a soccer referee for 5years... I have read the rules many times. My ability as a referee was certainly officiating games, rather than sitting in a class room writing about it... or a forum for that matter. I couldn't get 100% in a rules test no matter how hard I studied, trust me. I have sat enough rules tests in enough sports to know that I cannot put my interpretation of the rules onto paper.

My apologies rachel, it did read like the marker needs to say stalling inbetween each count.

Quote from: daveR
dan stop being lazy and go study the rules...ill give you a rules quiz next week...if you dont get 100% you can tplay ultimate any more (its in the rules)
*cough*
16.3. Travel violation.

16.3.2. After stopping their forward momentum, the player may pivot in any direction
as long as one part of their body remains in constant contact with a certain spot
on the playing field, called the “pivot point”.

 ;)

*/cough*

Quote from: tom_brennan
And not knowing the rules is going to make you incapable of half of the remaining obligations. How can you be truthful if you don't even know what the truth is? How can you resolve a dispute quickly when you yourself don't know the rule?

Seriously, go and read the rules once. It won't kill you. You're not allergic to them. They don't bite. You may even learn something.

Then, when you have a rules question, first go to the rules and try and find the answer yourself. When you post the question to Ultitalk, post the section of the rules that you think applies and ask if your interpretation is correct. You will still learn something, and those of us who are rule nazis will feel like we are helping someone who has put the effort in in the first place, and is not simply using this thread out of laziness.

- Believe it or not, i've read the rules
- Someone else posted the rule and I was commenting on that.


@Brettski....

 ;D I got one wrong.

Quote
(3) An defensive player lays out and gets a solid block, warping the disc slightly in the process. The player who picks up the disc may call a technical stoppage and ask for the disc to be replaced.
- true
- false
20.2.2. The thrower may call a technical stoppage during play to replace a cracked, torn, deeply gouged, creased or punctured disc; a warped, wet or dirty disc does not qualify.

I said true....


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: DaveR on November 10, 2008, 01:21:28 AM
Quote from: daveR
dan stop being lazy and go study the rules...ill give you a rules quiz next week...if you dont get 100% you can tplay ultimate any more (its in the rules)
*cough*
16.3. Travel violation.

16.3.2. After stopping their forward momentum, the player may pivot in any direction
as long as one part of their body remains in constant contact with a certain spot
on the playing field, called the “pivot point”.

 ;)

*/cough*

thats less of a rule and mroe of a suggestion though...pivot foot is such a vague and nebulous concept anyway...i wouldnt worry to much about that rule dan


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: rjhberg on November 10, 2008, 11:03:06 PM
Quote
Calling all rules aficionados (otherwise know as pedants :-),

WFDF is commencing a quick process to update the WFDF Ultimate Rules for
2009. In order to make that update as robust as possible, WFDF Ultimate
Rules Committee would like to hereby invite the global ultimate community
to suggest improvements and identify bugs in the current rules.

To that end, I have started up a public forum on google groups.
http://groups.google.com/group/wfdf-rules-2009

I think you can also subscribe by sending an email to
[email protected]

When starting a thread, please use the numbering (and headings if
appropriate) from the 2008 Rules, so we can track suggestions and avoid
doubling up if someone else has also suggested it.

Feel free to also debate the pros and cons of the change or offer
alternative solutions, but the aim of this group is mainly to gather
suggestions - the WFDF Rules Committee will discuss the suggestions fully
and decide what will be included in the 2009 Rules.

Thanks for your input. I guarantee that all suggestions will be treated
seriously and considered this year or noted for future changes if we can't
include this year.

We'll stop collecting suggestions on 25 November 2008.

Please pass this on to members or associates who you think would be
interested.

--
Jonathan Potts
Chair, WFDF Ultimate Rules Committee
[email protected]
0405 188 599


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tassie Joe on November 10, 2008, 11:22:43 PM
Ok, this is a complex one to describe that happened recently that it would be great to get a clarification to:

Player A has the disc.  Player B is stalling him.  A pick is called.  It takes a while for some players to hear it, so a few players are out of position.  They're walking back to position.  Player B checks the disc in, Player A throws the disc to player C who catches a goal.  Player D was marking player C, complains that he hadn't got back to his correct position when the disc was checked in, and that he would have been able to make a play on the disc and the throw should go back.  However, Player A (the thrower) is adamant that it is up to Player B (the marker) to check that everyone is ready before checking the disc in, and that if he doesn't check then it's the defenses own fault if they're not ready/in position.


Now, I looked this up in the rules, and there's not much to state this explicitly.

Quote
10. The Check
10.1. Whenever play stops during a point for a time-out, foul, disputed possession, violation,
safety stoppage or injury stoppage, play is restarted with a check.
10.2. All players should return to the positions they held when the event that caused the
stoppage occurred, and remain there until play is restarted, except in the case of a time-
out.
.
.
.
10.5. With the permission of the offence, the defender nearest to the thrower restarts play
by touching the disc and calling "Disc In".

So, basically.  10.5 happened before 10.2.  One interpretation is that it's the defender's responsibility to ensure that 10.2 happens, and if not, bad luck, but that's not how I'd read the rules.  My interpretation if that if the disc in checked in when a player is still returning to position, that player has cause for complaint, whether they're on offence or defence.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: ash_5 on November 11, 2008, 12:00:27 AM
In my opinion i think the disc should go back, yes bad luck that it happened, but the thrower should have a view of the field and players on and probably should have seen the defender moving back to position.

Saying that whenever theres a stoppage and i'm on the mark i usually look around and ask my team "Defence: Ready?" and then count 3,2,1 and then check the disc in, this just gives everyone a little bit more time to set themselves


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: rjhberg on November 11, 2008, 12:08:38 AM
The disc should go back:
Quote
10.8. If the thrower attempts a pass before the check, or a violation of 10.2 is called, the pass
does not count regardless of whether it is complete or incomplete, and possession
reverts back to the thrower.



Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Tenk283 on November 11, 2008, 05:10:11 PM
Quote from: daveR
thats less of a rule and mroe of a suggestion though...pivot foot is such a vague and nebulous concept anyway...i wouldnt worry to much about that rule dan

You clearly don't  ;D . But I like to, because being called on a travel after you throw a goal is no fun.... Except for the person calling it and everyone else if its on you ;D .

@Tassie Joe: technically, because 10.2 was violated the disc should be returned to the thrower and the score discounted. However, as ash said, its mostly the marker's problem to check that all his/her downfield defenders are ready. If I was marking the person that scored, I would say it was a goal and realize that I should have been ready.....

Furthering on from that: is it bad spirit to get that goal discounted? Playing by the rules is spirited, however what is everyone's take on the "spirit" on this?


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: AlecD on November 11, 2008, 07:03:35 PM
I agree that 10.8 suggests the disc goes back.

However my query is over the part of 10.8: "or a violation of 10.2 is called". Does this define the player out of position as having committed a violation, as per 16 (Violations)? If so:
16.1.2. Any opposing player may claim a violation, by calling the specific name of the
violation or "Violation", unless specified otherwise by the particular rule.

You can't call a violation on yourself.
In this case it is the defender's responsbility to restart play:
10.5. With the permission of the offence, the defender nearest to the thrower restarts play
by touching the disc and calling "Disc In".

Hence, combining 16.1.2 and 10.5:
The out of position defender cannot call a violation on himself, particularly as it would advantage his team, and the offence was not at fault in either case (positioning or restarting play before players had taken position). The only player I think who would be able to 'complain' about being out of position before the check by the defence is the defender who was picked and unable to move to their adjusted position before played was called back in.

WANT LONGER LASTING CHECKS?
Don't we all... or at least not premature ones.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: Henry on November 11, 2008, 10:40:50 PM
haha I tip my hat to you good sir. Nice call!

I've always thought (probably incorrectly granted) that checking the disc in means that the defense agrees that everything is in place (eg. throwers pivot point is correct and everyone is in position). I don't think that's necessarily in the rules but it would make sense.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: richie on November 12, 2008, 12:57:16 AM
You can't call a violation on yourself.

Why is this? I've called quite a few fouls on myself when I've gone up for a contested disc and fouled somebody. I consider it good spirit, but it would technically be bad spirit as I am "intentionally violating the rules" (1.2).

Personally, I think you should be able to call fouls on yourself. In the lower divisions, newer players are sometimes hesitant to call fouls and it's a good way for them to learn if you call the foul on yourself and then explain why.


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: AlecD on November 12, 2008, 01:48:54 AM
I guess the rules as they are v.2008 help the game flow better, and reduce the amount of bogus calls that might stop or slow the game to the disadvantage of a team (i.e. the opposition).

The 2002 rules were different:
404.16 Violations: B. ...A violation may be called by any player who recognizes that a violation has occurred.

But in the 2008 rules there are various definitions as to who can call infractions, (I think these are the only relevant references):
15.1.3. Only the player fouled may claim a foul, by calling “Foul”.
16.1.2. Any opposing player may claim a violation, by calling the specific name of the
violation or "Violation", unless specified otherwise by the particular rule.
16.4.1. If a defensive player is within five (5) metres of an offensive player they are
actively covering and they are prevented from moving towards/with that player
by another player, that defensive player may call “Pick”.

But players must:
1.3.2. be fair-minded and objective;
1.3.3. be truthful;

And this could include informing a opposition player you just fouled them or whatever, and then it's up to them to 'call it' (the game shouldn't stop until they do though).  I doubt anyone would EVER label you poor Spirited Richie  :)


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: mattdowle on November 12, 2008, 02:02:41 AM
You are brave people disagreeing with Rueben. My interpretation of the rules read that the disc goes back irrespective of whether you called a violation of travel on yourself. You weren't set, therefore disc can't be checked in.

16.1.2 just says, that any opposing player may claim a violation.

It doesn't specify that you who committed the violation can't call it. Where as in 16.1.1, it clearly states the only person able to claim a foul


Title: Re: Rules questions
Post by: AlecD on November 19, 2008, 06:26:31 PM
I followed up the last discussion on the google forum, because I think the words used in the rules in relation to this are a bit ambiguous.
http://groups.google.com/group/wfdf-rules-2009

cheers


SimplePortal 2.1.1