Forum Search:
RSD No Spam
rec.sport.disc without the spam


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » rule myth busting...
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134574 is a reply to message #134487] Thu, 22 August 2013 13:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
shabs42
Messages: 4
Registered: September 2012
Junior Member
Quote:

--yeah, that moronic confusion came from the introduction of the most stupid rule in all of sports....
the useless, senseless, lean down, into an unathletic position to tap the thrown object of our sport onto the ground for absolutely no reason at all.


I hate it too, but there is a good reason. Pretend there is no ground check rule, and there is a turn in the endzone. I notice it's exactly 5 yards from the line, and I know my pull uses a 5 yard runup. What would stop me from just pulling the disc? My foot would land on the line in a legal position and stay on the line until I had released the disc, thus setting a pivot. Even if I had to say "Disc in" after setting a pivot, I could still get those words out before releasing the disc (just checked in my living room.)
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134576 is a reply to message #134572] Thu, 22 August 2013 14:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
"Delay" is objective, stephen. Is there delay or is there not delay? No question of reasonableness or necessity. "Unnecessarily delay" is your own phrase, isn't it?

You are taking issue with the clarifying "including" language. For further clarification,the annotation addresses your silly "standing not directly above the disc" question.

Is there delay? Yes? Then hurry up when your opponent tells you to. That is simple, not confusing.
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134587 is a reply to message #134574] Thu, 22 August 2013 20:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
> I hate it too, but there is a good reason.


---a good reason for hating the ground tap?
yes. actually, there are plenty of reasons to hate it.....and no GOOD/REAL/USEFUL reasons to like it. yes.
~~~~~~~
Pretend there is
> no ground check rule,


---sure.....
i think that about 93% of ultimate players "pretend there is no ground check".....so....why is there such a rule?
~~~~~~~~~~~
and there is a turn in the endzone. I
> notice it's exactly 5 yards from the line, and I know my
> pull uses a 5 yard runup. What would stop me from just
> pulling the disc?


---a defender being there would prevent you from pulling the disc.
and if there's not one there.......and you set a pivot foot at the proper spot....PULL AWAY!!!!
if you have good footwork....why should you be prevented from hucking with momentum?
if you run up....and stick the pivot....what's the problem?
~~~~~~~~~~~
My foot would land on the line in a legal
> position and stay on the line until I had released the disc,
> thus setting a pivot.


---i understand that some folks don't WANT the run up huck.
BUT.....if you catch a swing pass...and you're sprinting up field or across field....and you have good footwork, stick a pivot foot and huck.....that's fine and dandy....and applauded.
~~~~
Even if I had to say "Disc in" after
> setting a pivot, I could still get those words out before
> releasing the disc (just checked in my living room.)



---why in the hell would you yell disc in?
is that ANOTHER stupid rule someone's trying to come up with?
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134589 is a reply to message #134565] Thu, 22 August 2013 20:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bulb
Messages: 1093
Registered: September 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Senior Member
colinmcintyre wrote on Thu, 22 August 2013 12:28
Bulb wrote on Thu, 22 August 2013 09:16

I'm confused, isn't setting an outer limit on something a means of actively addressing it? "Hey, quit dancing around! You have to put the disc into play in (what is now) 8 seconds)."


No. You inserted that "quit dancing around" language. There's nothing at all about that in the pre-stall rules. "You have 20 seconds to put the disc into play." That does not actively address delay of game.

Sorry, that "dancing" language was an example of what someone whose team is on offense might say to the person near the disc (who is apparently dancing instead of putting the disc into play) after the opponent (or an observer) begins the pre-stall.

Also, how does "You have 20 seconds to put the disc into play" not actively address delay of game, but yet "You have 2 seconds to put the disc into play" somehow does?

colinmcintyre wrote on Thu, 22 August 2013 12:28
"No, I am not continuing play. In fact, if I continue what I am doing (standing here), play will not continue -- we'll be here all day."

...or for another 8-18 seconds, assuming someone has started the pre-stall?

colinmcintyre wrote on Thu, 22 August 2013 12:28
Bulb wrote on Thu, 22 August 2013 09:16
I considered qualifying my statement with "most of the 99% are league-only players" but I decided that being league-only doesn't mean you don't deserve the rules to be codified as simply as possible. I will adjust my statement to say that less than 20% of club players know the difference, and further, less than 50% of club players who have read the entire rulebook at least once (even if it was years ago) know the difference. That still disagree with your experience?

Yeah, I don't think any of that is relevant to whether the rule is confusing or not. The question is whether the players have carefully read the relevant rules. And reading the rulebook cover to cover is not the way to do it (if that's what "have read the entire rulebook" means). There are cross-references. It is not a novel. I bet some of them never made past Rule XVII anyway, and they probably skipped VII.B, too.

Of the players that I know who have carefully read XIII.A.4, XIII.A.5, and XIX.B, very few are confused or don't know the difference between the two.

Immediately after reading them, you're probably right. But not everyone reads rules like they are studying for an exam, or has an eidetic memory that will sear the difference into their brain. The fact is that pre-stalling makes you hurry up, so people come to think of it as a "delay of game" warning. It is issued for different reasons, but the effect on opponents is the same: they have to hurry up, or you will start stalling before they are ready to throw. So IMHO it's pretty understandable that many players who have carefully read those relevant rules (at one point) forget the difference after a while.

colinmcintyre wrote on Thu, 22 August 2013 12:28
The fact that there is a rule and a mechanism of enforcement allows players outside of the norm to be brought into compliance.

You mean, there are TWO mechanisms of enforcement. The pre-stall already brings players outside of the norm to be brought into compliance. Unless you are using a totalitarian definition of "compliance" because clearly 2 and 10/20 seconds are not the same. In practice, the net difference between the two will have negligible impact on how much Ultimate is actually played, at least in high level Ultimate. I'd guess the number of delay situations presented in high level club games is around 2-3. Let's be generous and say it's 10. Even if all of those are in the "disc just outside the playing field proper situation," that's still only a difference of 180 seconds, or 3 minutes of Ultimate gained. Judging by scores and cap times from recent Nationals, that's less time than average amount of time it takes to play one point. So without the redundant mechanism, we would still play about the same amount of Ultimate.

I guess I'm interested to know the *true* purpose/motivation behind having the DoG in the rules, as they exist now. Other sports have mechanisms to move the game along (shot clock in basketball, play clock in football), mostly to keep them spectator-friendly. If the SRC does not believe the pre-stall achieves this goal (moving the game along enough to keep it spectator-friendly), I suppose I'd like to discuss that specific point further. Otherwise, I'm curious what other goal the DoG achieves.


pacemaker wrote on Thu, 22 August 2013 12:58
Most top teams get the observer pre-stall; some understand the concept of the delay warning. I have not had a stoppage to deal with the delay warning as one of the players looks to me right after the delay announcement and immediately they are playing.

tl;dr The pre-stall and the delay warning can coexist as they have different purposes but similar goals.

Cool, thanks for the input. You may have helped clarify what exactly the confusion is among players. Most get the pre-stall because the observer does it actively, whereas the observer will not issue delay of game warnings. Maybe we should give observers power to issue DoG?


stephenghubbard wrote on Thu, 22 August 2013 15:39
Colin, I disagree very strongly with your assessment that "Delay of Game" issues are objective.

Is 2 feet away considered standing over the disc? 4 feet? 5? How fast should I be walking toward the disc to pick it up? Does the required speed here depend on how tired I am? Is play calling "unreasonable"? Do I earn a 10 second breather after my great layout D?

Agree 100%.

stephenghubbard wrote on Thu, 22 August 2013 15:39
I see value in the Delay Of Game rule in Dead-disc situations. "Hurry up" can be appropriate after a stoppage. But on live-disc situations, I see no need to allow subjective judgement about speed of restart when objective time limits work great.

Exactly.
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134590 is a reply to message #134576] Thu, 22 August 2013 20:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mgd.mitch
Messages: 1207
Registered: January 2009
Senior Member
colinmcintyre wrote on Thu, 22 August 2013 17:28
"Delay" is objective, stephen.
Colin, it's interesting that we've discussed this very subject in person a few years ago as a result of the Michigan game at nationals where the controversy was the result of an aggressive use of the delay rule because of it's subjective nature.

My take away was that your definition of delay was different than mine because it is subjective. For example, you said that walking comically slowly, but still making progress toards in bounds after picking up a OB turnover was delay. I felt that if progress was being made and it would fit within the prestall, it wasn't, because it meant that otherwise, the defense was dictating what an appropriate speed was, and that what the offense felt was adequate could be different. The acceptable speed is subjective since there is a a non-zero amount that is unacceptable to you. The cap the pre-stall enforces gives the two teams a very reasonable bound they have to agree to play within.

And I do disagree that the pre-stall doesn't actively curtail delay as it does actively place a reasonable cap on it. It does exactly that, infinitely more objectively than DoG as it's just two numbers (ignore case of the disc waaaaaay out of bounds). No judgement needed.... just simple counting.

I agree the DoG rule has the ability to stop some unnecessary delay more effectively, but at the cost of confusion and disagreement. In the rare times I see it applied, roughly half the time it was met with argument over whether there really was a delay, and roughly the other half was met with argument over the existence of the rule. The times it was smooth was the Ralph Nader-esque minority levels. I would bet heavily that most college and club players don't know about it's existence, thus is it not the cause of a lack of delay in general.

I'm fine with the DoG rule existing, but I would prefer it removed for simplicity as I feel the game would be cleaner without it.
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134592 is a reply to message #134590] Thu, 22 August 2013 23:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
mgd.mitch wrote on Thu, 22 August 2013 23:58
My take away was that your definition of delay was different than mine because it is subjective. For example, you said that walking comically slowly, but still making progress toards in bounds after picking up a OB turnover was delay. I felt that if progress was being made and it would fit within the prestall, it wasn't, because it meant that otherwise, the defense was dictating what an appropriate speed was, and that what the offense felt was adequate could be different.


I don't remember that discussion in detail, but your comments are refreshing my recollection a little, and what you've said sounds accurate. I think "delay" is objective and I think "continuing play" is pretty clear. Walking slowly to the disc, continuing play -- doesn't trigger delay of game. Walking "comically slow," essentially pretending to continue play, but actually just delaying, would violate XIX.B because it is not actually "continuing play.". And the annotations clarify that. Maybe we envisioned different things with "comically slow."

I think I agree with your general point that if the player's behavior is physically making progress toward the game continuing, then that is continuing play and not a violation of XIX.B, and therefore not triggering XIII.A.5 delay of game stuff. I just leave open the possibility of addressing blatant and intentional rules violation -- in the same way that when someone counts 1-10 in two seconds, I don't say, "ok, well I guess the stall is resuming at 8 because that was a fast count;" I say, "that's not even a legitimate attempt at a stall count, so we're not going to try to fit your cheating into the framework of the stall count rules." So instead of just sitting down and unreasonably delaying, a player takes a single comically slow step spanning 5 seconds, I'm not going to say, "Oh, looks like you're walking to the disc and continuing play, so I can't tell you to hurry up."

I see Stephen was quoting XIII.A.5 with "unnecessarily delay" and I had jumped to the "in violation of XIX.B" part, which I think is really the determining factor in these situations. My fault on that -- a quick reply without the rulebook handy to skim for the source of the quotation.

Anyway, I still don't think the language is confusing or problematic. One issue is that players don't read the rules -- that doesn't mean the language is confusing. Another issue is that certain types of players in a very small minority create disputes and stoppages with their behavior. I call them "rules weenies," but "self-righteous cheaters" is also descriptive.

I don't think changing the rules really does anything for the players who don't read them anyway. And honestly, I don't think it does much regarding the rules weenies, who are not playing by the rules anyway. From time to time a rules amendment may help clarify that a rules weenie's totally silly interpretation is in fact unreasonable and illegal. For example, the 11th edition helped clarify and eliminate one unreasonable position taken by some rules weenies; players who unreasonably delayed but argued that they were not occupying the cylinder of space "over the disc" or perhaps delayed while "sitting over the disc."

I do think a defined and uniform procedure may be helpful for the delay of game. Just like the check, the rules list some requirements, and it is not difficult to do it right. But defining the procedure even more specifically doesn't hurt.

colinmcintyre wrote on Thu, 22 August 2013 17:28

And I do disagree that the pre-stall doesn't actively curtail delay as it does actively place a reasonable cap on it. It does exactly that, infinitely more objectively than DoG as it's just two numbers (ignore case of the disc waaaaaay out of bounds). No judgement needed.... just simple counting.


I didn't say the pre-stall doesn't "curtail" delay. I just said it doesn't actively address it. It passively addresses it in many cases, in that the pre-stall time limits may sometimes make delay of game impossible. That is a valuable and useful aspect of the pre-stall -- I think we agree on this part. But nothing in the pre-stall rules makes illegal 19 seconds of intentional and unnecessary delay in putting an O.B. disc into play. That's where XIX.B is a good rule, and I think it makes sense to match it with at least some kind of enforcement mechanism (XIII.A.5). In the same way that the pre-stall has an enforcement procedure of sorts.

-Colin
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134606 is a reply to message #134404] Fri, 23 August 2013 11:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
donovd
Messages: 241
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
@Bulb-
Basketball also has multiple 5 second rules and a 3 second rule, so ultimate is not unique with multiple mechanisms to keep the game moving. Basketball's are basically there with the goal to keep the game interesting, and that is how I view the delay of game rule, at least in it's most common usage.

The delay of game rule prevents the other team from getting to pick which 10 seconds matter. Without a delay of game call a smart thrower would make that first stall count effectively 10-20 seconds depending on when I started the pre-stall. They don't need to pick up the disc till their offense is starting to get moving while defensively we have to play that whole time honest.

Also the pre-stall is only effective in observed games or if used from the time of the turnover. I would guess less than 95% of turnovers get pre-stalled at all, and much much less than that get pre-stalled from the beginning.
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134620 is a reply to message #134606] Fri, 23 August 2013 17:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mgd.mitch
Messages: 1207
Registered: January 2009
Senior Member
donovd wrote on Fri, 23 August 2013 14:56
@Bulb-
Basketball also has multiple 5 second rules and a 3 second rule, so ultimate is not unique with multiple mechanisms to keep the game moving.
The three second rule has nothing to do with keeping the game moving. The 5 and 10 second rules (and shot clock) are rules structured around fixed amounts of time to prevent delay rather than the defense dictating a desired pace.... exactly what Bulb has suggested.
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134622 is a reply to message #134620] Fri, 23 August 2013 18:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
On Friday, August 23, 2013 8:47:03 PM UTC-4, mgd. mitch wrote:
> The three second rule has nothing to do with keeping the
> game moving.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---however, he did continued on to say...."with the goal to keep the game interesting"....
which i hoped meant....'not letting a super gigantic center stand in the lane catching lop after lop after lop and dunking on a bunch of real short guys who can't guard him'
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134628 is a reply to message #134620] Sat, 24 August 2013 04:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
On Friday, August 23, 2013 8:47:03 PM UTC-4, mgd. mitch wrote:

> The three second rule has nothing to do with keeping the
> game moving. The 5 and 10 second rules (and shot clock) are
> rules structured around fixed amounts of time to prevent
> delay rather than the defense dictating a desired pace....
> exactly what Bulb has suggested.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---actually...the closely guarded 5 second rule.....sort of does....help the D dictate a desired pace.
if the D drops back.....then the O certainly controls the pace.....but if the D gets into a closely guarded situation, THEY start to dictate a more upbeat pace....or at least a more frantic/ball moving pace for the offense.

maybe i'm reading what you offered wrong....
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134640 is a reply to message #134404] Sat, 24 August 2013 17:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
simonfrist80
Messages: 2
Registered: August 2013
Junior Member
I missed the discussion about the brick mark call. Here is what I read in the 11th edition:

d) If the disc initially hits an out-of-bounds area, the receiving team may put the disc into play:
(1) at the spot determined by IX.H; or
(2) after signaling for a brick or middle by fully extending one hand overhead and calling “brick” or “middle” before gaining possession of the disc, either at
(a) the brick mark closest to the end zone that the receiving team is defending if “brick” was called, or .....


At best this is a confusing wording of the rule. I can see where the interpretation can go either way. For instance does it mean that every receiving team member must raise one hand overhead and call Brick? Does the receiving team take 'possession' when one player picks it up? Or does the player picking it up take 'possession'?

For instance, Definitions section O.4 states:
"The team whose player is in possession, or whose players may pick up the disc, is considered the team in possession"

which implies that the receiving team already has possession prior to anyone picking up the disc. So why does the rule state "before gaining possession"?

So I say the jury is out.
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134692 is a reply to message #134404] Mon, 26 August 2013 06:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
suncho
Messages: 16
Registered: February 2013
Junior Member
One I see all the time that not very many people seem to care about is "coming in on zero" and other confusion about when the stall count resumes after a stoppage. There's no zero in the stall count. "coming in on" comes from some historical thing about extrapolating the count to the moment the disc is tapped and announcing that the disc is "coming in on" that number and then saying then resuming with the subsequent number. So "coming in on zero" would mean "stalling... one" and "coming in on five" would mean "stalling... six."

This kinda sorta made sense in pre-11th edition when there was a second between the first utterance of the word "stalling" and the first utterance of the first number in the count. But it was still confusing enough to be annoying even back then.

The numbers listed in the rulebook are the numbers that the count is *RESUMED* with, and I've seen people announce things like, "coming in on 8, so stalling 9." But, most of the time (except with zero), when people announce "coming in on," they're announcing the number they're going to resume with (e.g. "Coming in on four! Stalling... four") The whole "coming in on" mindset is bizarre and there's very little consistency.

To avoid confusion, we should be announcing the number that the count resumes with. Everybody knows what you're saying when you say "count resumes with one" or "count resumes with eight!"
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134694 is a reply to message #134692] Mon, 26 August 2013 07:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
> One I see all the time that not very many people seem to
> care about is "coming in on zero" and other confusion about
> when the stall count resumes after a stoppage.
~~~~~~~~~~


---seems like most folks, myself included, say, "stall's at zero".....which is different than "stall's coming IN at zero"

'stall's at zero' implies, no stall count, starting over, yes i fouled him.....
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134695 is a reply to message #134694] Mon, 26 August 2013 07:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
suncho
Messages: 16
Registered: February 2013
Junior Member
I don't know if that's any better.

If "stall's at zero" means that the stall count has been reset, and will be resumed with "one," what do the following mean?

Stall's at zero.
Stall's at one.
Stall's at two.
...
Stall's at nine.

"No stall count" is fine. That doesn't lead to confusion further up the number line. The numbers we talk about in the game should be the numbers described by the rules.
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134696 is a reply to message #134695] Mon, 26 August 2013 08:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
> If "stall's at zero" means that the stall count has been
> reset, and will be resumed with "one,"



---well...if the stall's at zero....do you think any player on the planet would fail to guess that the next count will be one?
do you think it's easier or quicker to announce "the stall has been reset?" or simpler and quicker to announce "the stall count will resume at the count of one"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
what do the following
> mean?
>
> Stall's at zero.


---there is no count, the next stall count number will be one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Stall's at one.


----that the stall is AT one, one has been said....the next count will be 2, since the count is already at one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Stall's at two.



---i've reached 2 and the next count will be 3.
or....SAYING 3.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Stall's at nine.



---i've said 9, the next count will be 10.
~~~~~~~~~~~
> "No stall count" is fine. That doesn't lead to confusion



---whoa!....you're not going to count...alright!

sometimes i don't count after someone makes a bs 'fast count' call
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134697 is a reply to message #134696] Mon, 26 August 2013 08:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
suncho
Messages: 16
Registered: February 2013
Junior Member
Okay. So any time we're unsure about the appropriate stall count to resume with after a stoppage of play, we should go to the rulebook, find the number, then subtract one, and announce *that* number? Is that intuitive to you? Do you believe it's intuitive for others? Do you feel that it's intuitive for people learning the game?

By the way, the count never resumes with 10. The highest you can go is 9.

I'm not sure I understand what you said at the end there.
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134698 is a reply to message #134692] Mon, 26 August 2013 08:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
suncho wrote on Mon, 26 August 2013 09:08

The numbers listed in the rulebook are the numbers that the count is *RESUMED* with, and I've seen people announce things like, "coming in on 8, so stalling 9." But, most of the time (except with zero), when people announce "coming in on," they're announcing the number they're going to resume with (e.g. "Coming in on four! Stalling... four") The whole "coming in on" mindset is bizarre and there's very little consistency.

To avoid confusion, we should be announcing the number that the count resumes with. Everybody knows what you're saying when you say "count resumes with one" or "count resumes with eight!"


I think "coming in on" and "count resumes at" are interchangeable, and that is pretty standard. But I agree with you, there are some non-standard folks who seem to use "coming in on" and "count reached is" interchangeably, and I don't understand where that comes from or any logical support for it.

But yes, following the language of the rulebook, "count reached was 5, so the stall count resumes at 6" or, more commonly, "I said 5, so coming on on 6."
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134699 is a reply to message #134697] Mon, 26 August 2013 08:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
> Okay. So any time we're unsure about the appropriate stall
> count to resume with after a stoppage of play, we should go
> to the rulebook, find the number, then subtract one, and
> announce *that* number?



---i was only answering your question.
you asked about someone saying...."stall's at one"....that would imply that the stall is at one...and the next number would be two. right?
personally...i'd probably say...."saying 2" IF the stall was already AT one.
that's just me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is that intuitive to you? Do you
> believe it's intuitive for others? Do you feel that it's
> intuitive for people learning the game?


---you're asking me....that if i don't know what the stall count will be coming back in at....should i go to the rule book to find the number and subtract one and announce that number?
well...i would just KNOW what the stall was coming back in at....
is the rule book keeping track of the games i'm playing in?
~~~~~~~~~~~

> By the way, the count never resumes with 10. The highest
> you can go is 9.


---it never does?
what if i call a time out after you say 9?
will it come back in at 9 again?
or will it go back to 8?
or 6?

if i were marking you and you call a time out after i say 9...i'd announce...coming in at 10.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I'm not sure I understand what you said at the end there.


---if you had included what i wrote...rather than leaving us guessing....i'd be able to reply about it.
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134700 is a reply to message #134699] Mon, 26 August 2013 09:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
anakin gerics wrote on Mon, 26 August 2013 11:55
>
> By the way, the count never resumes with 10. The highest
> you can go is 9.

---it never does?
what if i call a time out after you say 9?
will it come back in at 9 again?
or will it go back to 8?
or 6?

if i were marking you and you call a time out after i say 9...i'd announce...coming in at 10.
~~~~~~~~~~~~


"the marker resumes the stall count with the word "stalling" followed by the last number uttered before the time-out plus one or 9 if over 8"

VI.B.5)(c)
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134701 is a reply to message #134699] Mon, 26 August 2013 09:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
suncho
Messages: 16
Registered: February 2013
Junior Member
If you call a timeout after I say 9, the count resumes with 9. The count never resumes with 10 after a stoppage.

I was asking you about the rulebook because the rules should concisely, correctly, and completely describe the game of ultimate. Someone who's never heard of ultimate should be able to step on the field and play without any problem after reading the rules.
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134703 is a reply to message #134700] Mon, 26 August 2013 09:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
On Monday, August 26, 2013 12:06:03 PM UTC-4, Colin wrote:
> anakin gerics wrote on Mon, 26 August 2013 11:55
>
> > >
>
> > > By the way, the count never resumes with 10. The
>
> > > highest
>
> > > you can go is 9.
>
> >
>
> > ---it never does?
>
> > what if i call a time out after you say 9?
>
> > will it come back in at 9 again?
>
> > or will it go back to 8?
>
> > or 6?
>
> >
>
> > if i were marking you and you call a time out after i
>
> > say 9...i'd announce...coming in at 10.
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
> "the marker resumes the stall count with the word "stalling"
>
> followed by the last number uttered before the time-out plus
>
> one or 9 if over 8"
>
>
>
> VI.B.5)(c)
>
> --
>
> Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com

DAMN THESE RULES!!!!
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134704 is a reply to message #134700] Mon, 26 August 2013 09:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
> "the marker resumes the stall count with the word "stalling"
>
> followed by the last number uttered before the time-out plus
>
> one or 9 if over 8"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



---UOA Rules....
Rule 8---Rule Eight: Time Outs and Substitutions
II. Team Time Outs
3. Play shall be restarted with the player who called ‘time out’ with the disc at the spot of the Time Out, with the stall count resuming at the count reached plus 1

UOA rules....time out at 9....count comes back in with 10 as the next count..

the game official is counting the stall.....which i guess is why it can be more accurate and void of cheating and fast counts and the like.....no need to come back in on a count already passed.

yet another reason why the UOA is ultimate....the way it should be.
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134705 is a reply to message #134704] Mon, 26 August 2013 10:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
suncho
Messages: 16
Registered: February 2013
Junior Member
You might want to look over those UOA rules again before touting them as some great solution to all of ultimate's rule problems. I recently read them the whole way through. They're an interesting first draft and they're certainly better than the AUDL rules were when I read those last Summer. But the language is still pretty confused. The UOA rules don't completely describe the game of ultimate. And they don't properly amend the USAU or WFDF rules either. In some parts, they omit information presumably under the assumption that the reader already knows how to play ultimate and in other parts, they read as if they're defining ultimate.

You can't do "stalling 10" in 11th edition because there's no one second wait between the "s" in stalling and the "t" in ten. I could say "stallingten" all in one breath. This is one of the changes from 10th to 11th edition that I didn't like and it's actually been adopted by WFDF too as of this year. Blah. The change more accurately reflects what people were already doing in the game, but it makes the rules a little more complex and a little less intuitive to understand.

It's especially annoying that "What stall count are we playing with?" and "How long is the stall count?" are now two different questions with two different answers. The answer two the first is "ten" and the answer to the second is, "We count to ten, so it's technically nine seconds." But sometimes people answer the question wrong too. I recently saw a tournament where the rules specified the stall count as "ten seconds." I'm sure they didn't mean we should count to 11, but taken literally, that's what it means. Blah. Yucky.
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134706 is a reply to message #134620] Mon, 26 August 2013 10:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bulb
Messages: 1093
Registered: September 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Senior Member
donovd wrote on Fri, 23 August 2013 14:56
The delay of game rule prevents the other team from getting to pick which 10 seconds matter. Without a delay of game call a smart thrower would make that first stall count effectively 10-20 seconds depending on when I started the pre-stall. They don't need to pick up the disc till their offense is starting to get moving while defensively we have to play that whole time honest.

That's a fair point, and one I hadn't considered yet. I have not personally ever come across that happening, but I can definitely agree it's within the realm of reasonable strategy (or "rules manipulation" if you will). I could argue there are defensive counters to this type of behavior (e.g. decoy defenses) but I'd have no evidence whatsoever to back up any such argument.

donovd wrote on Fri, 23 August 2013 14:56
Also the pre-stall is only effective in observed games or if used from the time of the turnover. I would guess less than 95% of turnovers get pre-stalled at all, and much much less than that get pre-stalled from the beginning.

I would rephrase that as, the pre-stall is used in less than 1% of unobserved games. However, in games where I've decided to use the pre-stall (because e.g. a team is habitually walking to put the disc into play), I start counting immediately after every turnover. I don't consider walking to the disc to be a "delay of game" but I do want to keep the game moving at a reasonable pace (and simultaneously capitalize on my team's endurance advantage, if one exists).


mgd.mitch wrote on Fri, 23 August 2013 20:46
donovd wrote on Fri, 23 August 2013 14:56
@Bulb-
Basketball also has multiple 5 second rules and a 3 second rule, so ultimate is not unique with multiple mechanisms to keep the game moving.
The three second rule has nothing to do with keeping the game moving. The 5 and 10 second rules (and shot clock) are rules structured around fixed amounts of time to prevent delay rather than the defense dictating a desired pace.... exactly what Bulb has suggested.

I'll slightly disagree with this. The shot clock and 10-second rule (back court clock?) are always in effect, regardless of what the defense does. The 5-second clock requires a defensive player to be applying pressure. (I agree that the "3 seconds in the paint" rule is not really relevant at all.) So, the 5-second clock is somewhat analogous to the DoG call in Ultimate. The defense has to be where the disc/ball is in both cases.

I'll say again, if there is a purpose behind the DoG other than keeping the game spectator-friendly (e.g. enabling the defense to force turnovers against a tired offense, or preventing the "extended first stall count" situation as described above), then I'm ok with the rule existing (although I'm entirely in favor of changing the wording/name of the rule). But having it just to keep the game moving along is pointless, IMHO.


colinmcintyre wrote on Mon, 26 August 2013 11:40
suncho wrote on Mon, 26 August 2013 09:08

The numbers listed in the rulebook are the numbers that the count is *RESUMED* with, and I've seen people announce things like, "coming in on 8, so stalling 9." But, most of the time (except with zero), when people announce "coming in on," they're announcing the number they're going to resume with (e.g. "Coming in on four! Stalling... four") The whole "coming in on" mindset is bizarre and there's very little consistency.

To avoid confusion, we should be announcing the number that the count resumes with. Everybody knows what you're saying when you say "count resumes with one" or "count resumes with eight!"


I think "coming in on" and "count resumes at" are interchangeable, and that is pretty standard. But I agree with you, there are some non-standard folks who seem to use "coming in on" and "count reached is" interchangeably, and I don't understand where that comes from or any logical support for it.

But yes, following the language of the rulebook, "count reached was 5, so the stall count resumes at 6" or, more commonly, "I said 5, so coming on on 6."

Ditto. Saying both numbers eliminates all confusion.
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134707 is a reply to message #134628] Mon, 26 August 2013 11:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jed
Messages: 175
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
anakin gerics wrote on Sat, 24 August 2013 07:26
...

maybe i'm reading what you offered wrong....


Did anyone else catch this? An RSD first?
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134720 is a reply to message #134707] Mon, 26 August 2013 19:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
> > maybe i'm reading what you offered wrong....
~~~~~~~~
> Did anyone else catch this? An RSD first?
~~~~~~~~

---well...i don't think i read it wrong, because there was no reply about it.

and....what would the 'first' be?
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134721 is a reply to message #134705] Mon, 26 August 2013 20:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
On Monday, August 26, 2013 1:20:05 PM UTC-4, Alex Howlett wrote:
> You might want to look over those UOA rules again before
> touting them as some great solution to all of ultimate's
> rule problems.


---UOA rules make ultimate the way everyone wants it to be.
UOA rules don't turn ultimate into something that folks aren't used to.
It ultimate....exactly as you know it.
If you don't know....simply ask those who do.

or....at least...offer an example of a rule i might need to look over again.
and....you've probably only read the original version....they've been updated...and there are some rules in the middle of being edited(those are in blue in my copy)
Some rules....the UOA is considering getting rid of all together(disc space)

~~~~~~~~~~~~
I recently read them the whole way through.



---nice work.
you'd love to play under the UOA rules.
it's the way ultimate should be.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
> They're an interesting first draft


---like i said above....
~~~~~~~~~~
But the language is still pretty confused.



---an example would be sweet.
and.....the UOA rules are written to be easily understood and not refer to other rules within rules and point you to rules that are rules about other rules when combined with a rule.

if find the language to be easy to understand...and cool to read.
~~~~~~~~~
The UOA
> rules don't completely describe the game of ultimate.


---doesn't completely describe the game of ultimate?
let me know what you mean...
i wonder....does a rule set completely describe any sport?
i mean...i'm just wondering...
and when you let me know what you mean, i'm going to compare it to other rule sets.


you keep making awesome statements....but don't let the reader know to what you're referring...
talk about language being pretty confused!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And
> they don't properly amend the USAU or WFDF rules either.


---i don't even know what that means?
i don't work for those guys....so why would i amend their rules?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In
> some parts, they omit information presumably under the
> assumption that the reader already knows how to play
> ultimate and in other parts, they read as if they're
> defining ultimate.


---omit information assuming the reader knows how to play?
and....here you say they're defining ultimate...
you wrote that the UOA rules don't describe...but they define?
sincerely...the UOA wants the rules to be perfect, so please let me know what you mean.
~~~~~~~~~~~

> You can't do "stalling 10" in 11th edition because there's
> no one second wait between the "s" in stalling and the "t"
> in ten. I could say "stallingten" all in one breath.


---check.
got it.
weird that the defense isn't rewarded for getting to 9 before a time out.

it seems like....if the marker is saying....'defense set...3-2-1 disc' and tapping the disc....that there would be a second between the word DISC and the tapping of the disc.....and the first utterance of the T in ten......right?

3-2-1-disc(thrower can pivot and/or throw at the first utterance of the D in disc, i'd say) stalling ten.
......just sayin.

i'd say....there's your second....from the utterance of the D in disc to the utterance of T in ten.
~~~~~~~~~~~
This
> is one of the changes from 10th to 11th edition that I
> didn't like and it's actually been adopted by WFDF too as of
> this year. Blah.


---reward the D....stalling 10.
uhm......the D already said NINE...so why should the O GET a full second anyway????
word.
should just be a UOA official there restarting play and chopping the stall and whistling the violations.
~~~~~~~~~~~
> It's especially annoying that "What stall count are we
> playing with?" and "How long is the stall count?" are now
> two different questions with two different answers. The
> answer two the first is "ten" and the answer to the second
> is, "We count to ten, so it's technically nine seconds."


---i don't follow this.

when i officiate basketball, if i'm the trail counting the back court 10 seconds...i start visually chopping the 10 seconds...and when i get to 10, it's 10, not 9.
so...what's the difference?
i count the back court just like i do when i'm on the mark....and i count the back court just like i do when i'm officiating ultimate.....and when i go to camp and the counselors time my 10 seconds with a stop watch.....it's 10 seconds.

when ya get to 1, it's been 1 second.....etc etc....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> But sometimes people answer the question wrong too. I
> recently saw a tournament where the rules specified the
> stall count as "ten seconds." I'm sure they didn't mean we
> should count to 11, but taken literally, that's what it
> means. Blah. Yucky.



---i'm not sure what you're talking about.
my 10 second count on the basketball court is pretty spot on....10 seconds.
and i count the same on the ultimate field.
where does the second disappear?
doesn't verbalizing 'stalling' give us 10 seconds?
i thought that's why it was there...
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134733 is a reply to message #134721] Tue, 27 August 2013 08:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
alanh
Messages: 59
Registered: October 2010
Member
Rules myth:

The marker has to say "3-2-1-disc in" before touching the disc and saying "Stalling"

Rules reality:

VIII.D.3.a "The marker restarts play by touching the disc in the thrower's possession."

The marker's "3-2-1 announcement" is common practice, but is not a requirement.


Alan Hoyle
alan@tfda.org
http://www.tfda.org/
Re: rule myth busting... [message #134981 is a reply to message #134733] Sun, 01 September 2013 21:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
simonfrist80
Messages: 2
Registered: August 2013
Junior Member
When the backhand follow through makes contact with the face it is *always* a foul on the defense.

No matter how many chiclets are involved.
Re: rule myth busting... [message #135112 is a reply to message #134721] Tue, 03 September 2013 05:34 Go to previous message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
Alex, any reply?.....any suggestions?....any offerings?...any help?
anything else??


~~~~~~~~


On Monday, August 26, 2013 11:02:08 PM UTC-4, ager...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 26, 2013 1:20:05 PM UTC-4, Alex Howlett wrote:
>
> > You might want to look over those UOA rules again before
>
> > touting them as some great solution to all of ultimate's
>
> > rule problems.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---UOA rules make ultimate the way everyone wants it to be.
>
> UOA rules don't turn ultimate into something that folks aren't used to.
>
> It ultimate....exactly as you know it.
>
> If you don't know....simply ask those who do.
>
>
>
> or....at least...offer an example of a rule i might need to look over again.
>
> and....you've probably only read the original version....they've been updated...and there are some rules in the middle of being edited(those are in blue in my copy)
>
> Some rules....the UOA is considering getting rid of all together(disc space)
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> I recently read them the whole way through.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---nice work.
>
> you'd love to play under the UOA rules.
>
> it's the way ultimate should be.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > They're an interesting first draft
>
>
>
>
>
> ---like i said above....
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
> But the language is still pretty confused.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---an example would be sweet.
>
> and.....the UOA rules are written to be easily understood and not refer to other rules within rules and point you to rules that are rules about other rules when combined with a rule.
>
>
>
> if find the language to be easy to understand...and cool to read.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> The UOA
>
> > rules don't completely describe the game of ultimate.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---doesn't completely describe the game of ultimate?
>
> let me know what you mean...
>
> i wonder....does a rule set completely describe any sport?
>
> i mean...i'm just wondering...
>
> and when you let me know what you mean, i'm going to compare it to other rule sets.
>
>
>
>
>
> you keep making awesome statements....but don't let the reader know to what you're referring...
>
> talk about language being pretty confused!
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> And
>
> > they don't properly amend the USAU or WFDF rules either.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---i don't even know what that means?
>
> i don't work for those guys....so why would i amend their rules?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> In
>
> > some parts, they omit information presumably under the
>
> > assumption that the reader already knows how to play
>
> > ultimate and in other parts, they read as if they're
>
> > defining ultimate.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---omit information assuming the reader knows how to play?
>
> and....here you say they're defining ultimate...
>
> you wrote that the UOA rules don't describe...but they define?
>
> sincerely...the UOA wants the rules to be perfect, so please let me know what you mean.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> > You can't do "stalling 10" in 11th edition because there's
>
> > no one second wait between the "s" in stalling and the "t"
>
> > in ten. I could say "stallingten" all in one breath.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---check.
>
> got it.
>
> weird that the defense isn't rewarded for getting to 9 before a time out.
>
>
>
> it seems like....if the marker is saying....'defense set...3-2-1 disc' and tapping the disc....that there would be a second between the word DISC and the tapping of the disc.....and the first utterance of the T in ten......right?
>
>
>
> 3-2-1-disc(thrower can pivot and/or throw at the first utterance of the D in disc, i'd say) stalling ten.
>
> .....just sayin.
>
>
>
> i'd say....there's your second....from the utterance of the D in disc to the utterance of T in ten.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> This
>
> > is one of the changes from 10th to 11th edition that I
>
> > didn't like and it's actually been adopted by WFDF too as of
>
> > this year. Blah.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---reward the D....stalling 10.
>
> uhm......the D already said NINE...so why should the O GET a full second anyway????
>
> word.
>
> should just be a UOA official there restarting play and chopping the stall and whistling the violations.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > It's especially annoying that "What stall count are we
>
> > playing with?" and "How long is the stall count?" are now
>
> > two different questions with two different answers. The
>
> > answer two the first is "ten" and the answer to the second
>
> > is, "We count to ten, so it's technically nine seconds."
>
>
>
>
>
> ---i don't follow this.
>
>
>
> when i officiate basketball, if i'm the trail counting the back court 10 seconds...i start visually chopping the 10 seconds...and when i get to 10, it's 10, not 9.
>
> so...what's the difference?
>
> i count the back court just like i do when i'm on the mark....and i count the back court just like i do when i'm officiating ultimate.....and when i go to camp and the counselors time my 10 seconds with a stop watch.....it's 10 seconds.
>
>
>
> when ya get to 1, it's been 1 second.....etc etc....
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > But sometimes people answer the question wrong too. I
>
> > recently saw a tournament where the rules specified the
>
> > stall count as "ten seconds." I'm sure they didn't mean we
>
> > should count to 11, but taken literally, that's what it
>
> > means. Blah. Yucky.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---i'm not sure what you're talking about.
>
> my 10 second count on the basketball court is pretty spot on....10 seconds.
>
> and i count the same on the ultimate field.
>
> where does the second disappear?
>
> doesn't verbalizing 'stalling' give us 10 seconds?
>
> i thought that's why it was there...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
Previous Topic:USA Ultimate Pro Flight Finale - photos
Next Topic:University of Maryland Brodown
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Oct 19 20:13:16 PDT 2019
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.0RC2.
Copyright ©2001-2009 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software