UltiTalk.Com
Welcome to the ULTIMATE Ultimate Frisbee forum. June 16, 2019, 06:39:17 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

The ultimate forum for talking about Ultimate Frisbee. Aimed at bringing new life to the world of Ultimate Frisbee discussions, UltiTalk.Com (UT) combines both regional and international topics in one friendly place. So say hello to UT: The International Ultimate Frisbee forum.

Register your FREE UltiTalk.Com account to reveal the members-only Shout Box, Chatroom, and more!
Are you a minimalist?  Try the UltiTalk Simple Theme by changing your Current Theme.
 
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Members Links Gallery Login Register  
Visit UltiTalk.Com on TwitterVisit UltiTalk.Com on Facebook

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down
Del.icio.us Digg FURL FaceBook Stumble Upon Reddit SlashDot Google Bookmarks Ma.gnolia MSN Live Squidoo Yahoo My Web     Bookmark  |  Print  
Author Topic: New Rules  (Read 49449 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
carlie
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 35



View Profile
« on: March 16, 2009, 05:56:16 PM »

Some interesting changes to the rules... Is it just me or have the rules got more and more complex since I started playing.  Now there are fouls, violations and infractions!


5. There is a new infraction called “Contact” for when the marker touches the
thrower or the disc but not in the act of throwing this should not be treated as a
foul as it is not affecting possession, but treated as a marking violation.

Hmm this seems very tailored to the American game. 

Also I am a little confused as per the rules there can be a foul if

"Defensive Throwing (Marking) Fouls:
17.4.1. A Defensive Throwing Foul occurs when:
11
17.4.1.1. A defensive player is illegally positioned (Section 18.1), and there is
contact with the thrower; or
17.4.1.2. A defensive player initiates contact with the thrower, or a part of their
body was moving and contacted the thrower, prior to the release"

That second one seems to be a foul and doesn't seem to say anything about having to be in act of throwing.  I don't really like the idea of "contact" since it almost encourages a player to "bump" you as there is no real disadvantage to them - count going back two the first time and the player having to call it again.

The other one that interested me was
"6. If a call during or after the throwing motion did not affect possession, then it
should be ignored. For example, if a thrower is fouled in the act of throwing, but
the disc flies perfectly to the receiver who then drops it on their chest, the
turnover should stand."

This one could cause some interesting discussions
Logged
rjhberg
Full Member
***

Karma: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 147



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2009, 09:43:19 PM »

You can still call a foul if you want to under 17.4.1.2. but then play will stop. Often throwers don't want to stop play, so don't call the foul. Now you can call "Contact", get the stall count to drop and not have to stop play.

Rueben
WFDF Ultimate Rules Committee

Logged

carlie
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 35



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2009, 12:07:10 AM »

Thanks Ruben, that makes more sense to me that you can still call a foul.

I not sure I would have the piece of mind to call "contact" instead of a foul.   If I didn't want play to stop more likely to ignore the contact since I would be too distracted trying to work out if the person had dropped the count or not rather than looking for my next cutter.  However, I can see that some people might find it useful.

Logged
Tassie Joe
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +0/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 60



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2009, 04:30:09 PM »

"6. If a call during or after the throwing motion did not affect possession, then it
should be ignored. For example, if a thrower is fouled in the act of throwing, but
the disc flies perfectly to the receiver who then drops it on their chest, the
turnover should stand."

This one could cause some interesting discussions


I agree, and it's the rule that struck me as being not well defined.  What if I throw it, and am fouled during the throw, but the disc goes to its target but is wobbling a lot.  If he drops it, is it play on?  I could say the foul caused the wobble and the wobble caused the drop, but the opposition could claim that according to the rules, it hit him in the chest, and it should be a turnover.
Logged
rjhberg
Full Member
***

Karma: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 147



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2009, 08:21:29 PM »

The rule focuses on the idea of "possession has been affected".

It is up to the team that made the call to determine if "possession has been affected".

It would be quite reasonable to say that the foul caused the wobble and thus affected possession.

However there are certainly times where it is clear the foul had no affect and in those circumstances any turnover should stand.

In the previous rules there was no allowance for this - if the team that called the foul didn't have possession after the play, the disc came back, no matter what. Now at least there is a way to have the turnover stand.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2009, 08:35:04 PM by rjhberg » Logged

Tenk283
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +11/-147
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 473



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2009, 12:53:07 AM »

Quote
However there are certainly times where it is clear the foul had no affect and in those circumstances any turnover should stand.

I am definately not convinced of that.

There are so many scenarios where a foul affects the throw, causes a turnover but still hits the reciever in the chest or goes somewhere catchable.

Coming up against an argumentative team (especially an unspirited argumentative team) could cause a massive problem when it comes to foul calls during the throw.

Its also a hard call to make as everyone is out there running around full tilt, its hard to make an objective judgement call whilst going flat chat.
Logged
rjhberg
Full Member
***

Karma: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 147



View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2009, 01:25:43 AM »

But at the very worst you are left with a scenario that is exactly the same as it was with the previous rules: if a foul is called by the thrower and the pass is incomplete - the disc comes back.

There is now just an added option: if the person calling the foul accepts that the foul did not affect possesion - the turn over stands. It is up to the person calling the foul to decide if it did affect possession.

As always all these rules are based on the idea that people are truthful and reasonable. Sadly that isn't always the case, but that is what the system is based on, and thus the rules.
Logged

Shaunie81
Newbie
*

Karma: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 23



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2009, 02:18:02 AM »

Quote from: rjhberg date=1237353943
There is now just an added option: if the person calling the foul accepts that the foul did not affect possesion - the turn over stands. It is up to the person calling the foul to decide if it did affect possession.

In that situation, would it not be possible for the player calling the foul to retract it?
Logged
Tenk283
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +11/-147
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 473



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2009, 03:58:39 AM »

Quote
There is now just an added option: if the person calling the foul accepts that the foul did not affect possesion - the turn over stands. It is up to the person calling the foul to decide if it did affect possession.

Now that it is put that way, I can understand the reasoning behind it.

But i can't see it happening. As you say, not everyone is truthful and resonable all of the time: therefore they will claim that the foul caused the drop regardless of what the foul actually did to the flight of the disc.
Logged
Tiger
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +22/-10
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 304



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2009, 04:38:14 AM »

Now that it is put that way, I can understand the reasoning behind it.

But i can't see it happening. As you say, not everyone is truthful and resonable all of the time: therefore they will claim that the foul caused the drop regardless of what the foul actually did to the flight of the disc.

I know right? Good thing we have refs.
Logged

thoughts and stuff - sifultimate.blogspot.com
newk
Newbie
*

Karma: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 16



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2009, 07:06:41 PM »

I've been sitting here for a while trying to work out why I dont like this rule (the 'possession not being affected' one). Started writing a few posts which got edited to oblivion cos I dont want to start rounds of discussion about minor details, or one off, obscure on field scenarios.

Basically i think its a rule made up from someone's experience of that sort of thing happening and it pissing them off. If you're going to have rules dictating what is prohibited from the point of throwing (no hacking), but then make indescretions there dependent on what happens elsewhere (some numnuts dropping it, hucking to a receiver as they cut back in etc), and then leave it up to the offence to give up possession by saying 'oh no thats ok, you guys have it', sounds like a recepie for disaster.

Upon first reading the rules of frisbee you get a sense of how vague and open to interpretation a lot of the rules are. I would have thought that any rule changes would be trying like hell to clear up stuff like that instead of adding to it. Apparently a blocking foul is where you deliberately (?) assume a position 'making contact inevitable' (whatever the hell that means.) Now we have a question 'is possession affected?' You're going to get tired, desperate, fired up people making real time decisions, trying to imagine what would have happened in some meta universe where all possibilities have a chance to play out, just to see if they can somehow get the disc back.

As far as I'm concerned the best development in the rules (as the men's game is played in in oz anyway), is the pick thing. Dont know exactly where we stand with the wording on it, but if a pick is called before the throw it comes back, regardless of result. There are no discussions about whether the call 'affected play', whether the thrower has thrown a huge goal or made a howler, everyone has accepted this as the standard, cracks a smile (sometimes quite forced and accompanied with a bit of a grumble) and plays. Now people are gonna say either this is the way the rule has always been so why do i think its new, or that its wrong and the rule should be played some other way. But it works because it is evenly applicable, argument/discussion is minimised, and because (unintentionally) it occasionally penalises spurious pick calls.

This new rule does the opposite for fouls what the above does for picks, it does not discourage roughing up the thrower, every case must be viewed on its merits rather than being a blanket rule, and I believe it will advantage argumentative and agressive teams.

No need to reply with a direction for me to read the rules, I promise to do so again before next big tourney.
Likewise, no need to reply from anyone wishing to do so with some kind of variation on the 'its spirit man' argument. Go smoke some more cones instead.



Logged
simmo
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +45/-21
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 884



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2009, 07:58:43 PM »

You throw, get fouled, receiver catches it anyway - play on.
You throw, get fouled, disc goes to ground - disc comes back.
You throw, get fouled, receiver drops it under no pressure (throw is flat, no defender) - turnover, call your receiver a spastic.
You throw, get fouled, receiver has a go at catching wobbly shite anyway but drops it - disc comes back.

I'm failing to see how people aren't getting this.

If anything, the example within the rules is poorly worded. Instead of "...receiver who then drops it on their chest" maybe it should say "...receiver who makes an unforced error and drops the disc" or something to that effect.

newk - Did you know there's a loophole in the rules that technically means if you call a force-out foul inside the endzone you're defending, then it's a goal (it never specifies "attacking" endzone)? Doesn't mean I'm going to exploit this loophole if it ever happens to me.
Logged

Time to waste? Visit the Ballarat Ultimate blog!
AlecD
Newbie
*

Karma: +3/-2
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 35



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2009, 08:49:16 PM »

17.4.1.2. A defensive player initiates contact with the thrower, or a part of their
body was moving and contacted the thrower, prior to the release.

16.1.2.2.2. If the team that called the foul or violation believes that possession
has not been affected by the foul or violation, the play stands, they
make up any positional disadvantage caused by the foul or violation,
and restart play with a check.

15.8. If a player from the team against which the foul, infraction or violation has been called
disagrees that it occurred, they may call “Contest”.

So the opposing team can only contest whether the contact was a foul. They can't contest the foul call based upon a drop by the receiver. It's up to the offence to rule whether the contact affected the throw.
Correct?
(They can respectfully make the thrower aware of the change to the rules).

I agree with your comment on the example Simmo. I also think 'flies perfectly to the receiver' could have a few meanings. I think it should have been 'flies as the thrower intended'.

Logged
The Brucemaster
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +3/-3
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 51



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2009, 09:22:13 PM »

Alec I think 'flies as the thrower intended' is still problematic. It's very hard for an outsider to judge the intent of a throw except in general terms (i.e. forehand/backhand, short/long). I know there have been many occasions when I've intended to throw an O/I or an I/O or something like that and it hasn't come off properly so who's to say that the intended throw would have come off successfully without a foul?? Especially at the lower levels of the game where people are still becoming competent at basic throws it would be problematic to decide foul calls based on the intent of the thrower due to the frequent disparity between intent and outcome.

At the end of the day, fouls are always going to be subjective to a degree so the aim of the Rules Committee should be minimising the degree of subjectivity whilst allowing for maximum flow in the match. I think this latest rule change is a step towards that but, as has been mentioned, the wording could be tidied up a bit.   
Logged
Tenk283
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +11/-147
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 473



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2009, 04:04:21 AM »

As a handler, you are going to get roughed up. Thats all this means. Anytime there is a throw, and it comes off and goes VAGUELY in the direction of ANY reciever, the defense is well within their rights to contest the foul call.

There is always "whispers" of teams that play as hard by the rules as they possibly can.

Finals of Nats, culmination of 4 months hard training, most likely a few hundred (if not a thousand dollars) spent by players to get there and get on their team. If you honestly think they are not going to contest a situation like i've stated above, then you've gotta be nuts. Simply because: how the hell is the marker supposed to know where the throw was going? They have their back to the field. As they turn around to watch the pass, they might see it go flying at a reciever while the disc may have been going to a deeper reciever. Now, if that pass goes near that unintended reciever, the marker can and should contest the foul call. a) because the handler may just be trying to draw the foul and b) because the marker cannot know any better as to which reciever the pass was intended.

@Tiger, not sure which world you're living. But why don't you come on back to the real world. We'd love to have you.

This new rule probably won't matter much in low level matches. Spirit increases as the stakes decrease. Just the high level ones where there is alot of time, effort, training and money involved. Not to mention pride. Nobody likes getting beaten. Nobody likes getting beaten by your rivals that you really don't like (onfield). Or in general.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up
Del.icio.us Digg FURL FaceBook Stumble Upon Reddit SlashDot Google Bookmarks Ma.gnolia MSN Live Squidoo Yahoo My Web     Bookmark  |  Print  
 
Facebook Comments

Jump to:  






Advertise on UT!



Register your FREE UltiTalk.Com account to remove these ads!
Change language to English Change language to Brazilian Change language to Chinese-Simplified Change language to Danish Change language to Dutch Change language to English Change language to Finnish Change language to French Change language to German Change language to Greek Change language to Hebrew Change language to Hungarian Change language to Indonesian Change language to Italian Change language to Japanese Change language to Norwegian Change language to Polish Change language to Portuguese Change language to Romanian Change language to Russian Change language to Spanish Change language to Swedish Change language to Thai Change language to Turkish Change language to Ukranian Change language to Vietnamese

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
UltiTalk.Com is the #1 forum and bulletin board for talking about, chatting about and discussing Ultimate Frisbee.
Please help spread the word to promote an international community of Ultimate Frisbee players, coaches and teachers.


Site Design By MWM Consulting, Inc. MWM Consulting, Inc.



Google last visited this page April 30, 2019, 09:36:52 PM
SimplePortal 2.1.1