Wednesday, July 04, 2007
The Rules Game, Part I
Here is what I mean by the rules game: try reading the rules
like a lawyer and develop hypothetical loopholes. Much of the
time, these loopholes run counter to SOTG, but this is just
an intellectual exercise, after all. Sometimes, interesting questions
arise. These comments are written purely for fun, and
to point out ambiguities, logical errors and the like (but not
trivial grammatical errors). You can view the rules at
http://www3.upa.org/ultimate/rules/11th
The longtime UPA board member Henry Thorne would say
that I'm trying to "Zazzify" the rules, a term with negative and positive (?)
connotations.
Here goes.
Disclaimers:
1. Building consistent rules is a GARGANTUAN task and these rules
function INCREDIBLY well. They (all the editions) are an awesome achievement,
and serve hundreds of thousands of games without incident.
1. This is NOT A CRITIQUE and NOT A REVIEW of these excellent rules.
2. I have NOT DONE MY HOMEWORK, i.e. I have not read all existing rules
threads.
3. I haven't read the rules thoroughly since, well... um, ever?
4. I know that it is easier to find fault than to repair.
5. This is an amateur and unofficial exercise.
6. The comments are stream of consciousness, and possibly
inconsistent with one another.
These comments (Part I) cover the Preface through Section VIII.
PREFACE
[none]
I. INTRODUCTION
I.A [none]
I.B "never at the expense of mutual respect..." So does this
mean that you are completely spirited as long as your actions
do not diminish the joy of play, etc., for the opposing team, or
does perfect spirit require that you enhance the experience
of your competitors? This was a long-ish discussion among the
committee trying to establish a standard SOTG ranking system.
I.C So we can play ultimate under the variation of the rules:
replace rulebook with the rules of poker (or Rochambeau)?
When does approval of the TD take place? Or what if a rogue
TD actually does approve? (And shouldn't "event organizer"
be replaced by "TD" or something more germaine, as the
organizer may not even know how to play ultimate?)
I.D What about logistical changes that are necessitated
AFTER competition starts (say, for a hurricane, e.g.)?
I.E Interesting "fudge factor" to cover inconsistencies.
Shall we take I.E as a general or a specific rule?
II. DEFINITIONS
II.A [none]
II.B This definition seems backwards. Don't I determine retention
of possession by whether or not a pass was complete, and not
define completeness through retaining possession?
II.C The second part of this definition is a rule, not a definition.
II.D [none]
II.E [none]
II.F [none]
II.G "Reacting"? to the offensive player. So, if I am guarding one
player when another player within three meters suddenly breaks
free of his defender and I "react" by yelling "help!" to my teammates,
I am now guarding him? So I can be guarding two or more players?
Maybe... I'll have to read on.
II.H [none]
II.I [none]
II.J This definition ALMOST does what it should. The problem on an
unlined field is the sideline. With cones at the front and backs of
endzone there are four possible line segments you could draw
by picking the front or back of one endzone and the front or back of
the other. This definition should specify something like the "shortest"
possible line segment, or some such verbiage which makes the front-front
line segment the only correct one. (The definition clarifies one point of contention.
For example, if you are on the sideline near a goal, you could draw a
line which extends the segment from the back cone to the front cone of
the endzone you are near. This extension would not technically be
a "line segment between two field markers" are therefore does not apply.)
II.K The second part of this definition is not sharp enough. There could
be several offensive players and therefore several defensive players
within three meters (and why succumb to metric with all those crazy
numbers like 23 meters? why not just say "ten feet" and suck up the
two-inch difference?).
II.L [none]
II.M "body"? not "foot"? Can I establish a pivot nose? (In my case, this
might just be possible.)
II.N "up to" fourteen? Why not just "fourteen"? 'Cause of the captain's clause?
But then there could be more than fourteen. Or maybe it's because a team is
allowed to play with fewer than seven? (Is this true?) Or, if you can't write a correct
number, don't write a number.
II.O [none]
II.P [none]
II.Q Is this any different from "possession"? And doesn't the game start
with a pull, which is NOT a scoring attempt? Probably I am wrong and
this definition is needed to clarify some time-cap ruling.
II.R [none]
II.S [none]
II.T 1. Why this 1? The pull is a throw, but not a pass, no?
II.U [none]
III. PLAYING FIELD [none]
IV. EQUIPMENT
IV.E "unfairly"? What a strange choice of words. How do I determine
whether my assistance is fair or unfair? Why not just remove the word?
V. LENGTH OF GAME
Strangely organized section. Part A, game to goals, Part B, halftime, Part C,
overtime. No comments, otherwise.
VI. TIME-OUTS
VI.B.1 70 seconds? I thought 90. Maybe it will be 70 + 20
to restart play?
VI.B.4 Presumably the phrase "that has survived ground
contact" rules out calling a time-out in the middle of a "greatest" play?
"Survived" is a funny word. "Sustained," maybe?
"Should audibly say"? -- so that's not a requirement? I think all use of
judgment and subjective words like "should" and "unfairly" should be
omitted. Either you have to say time-out or you don't. There is enough
relaxing of the rules during the context of play that the rulebook itself need
not be soft on matters. I would require it, as an accidental formation of a
"T" with the disc does not create a time-out.
VI.B.5.b Here the time issue is mistreated. If the maximum time-out is
seventy seconds, then 20 seconds for the defense *cannot possibly* be longer than the
90-second limit, and therefore that clause should be removed. Here again
the rules are soft, implicitly acknowledging that in practice time-outs last
much longer than 70 seconds.
VI.B.5.c "over 8"? Isn't this equivalent to 9, since 10 would have been a stall?
Maybe just "but not more than 9"? Anyway, it's clear enough.
VI.B.5.d This speaks back to enforcing parts a and b, but doesn't really
clarify the issue. Anyway, how does the defense invoke the rule of making
the offense restart the disc?
VI.C How do we call an injury time-out? Are there special signals?
VI.C.4 Note that there is no penalty to a defensive team with no time-outs
remaining that calls injury time-outs for noninjured fellow members. I guess
there couldn't be a penalty, but this is conceivably something that could
be exploited against SOTG. Remember, we only set up with the same
positions before the time-out, not the same momenta!
VI.C.6 If a team calls an injury time-out between points (thinking that they
would need more time, say, due to an injury) but then does
not substitute the player (say if it was called by a teammate that did not
understand that the player only tripped) are they charged with a team time-out?
What if they have no team time-outs? Who is the team in possession of the
disc after a point? I thought that possession didn't really apply to the
team that was pulling (see definitions) since that team has not caught
a pass?
VI.D.1&2 So there is no way of dealing with an opponent who maliciously
warps the disc during play, say by spiking in anger after missing a catch? So now
you have to play with a warped disc or correct it on your own stall count?
I didn't realize this.
VI.D.4.a.2 What does it mean to be "charged" with a technical time-out?
There are no limits on them, as far as I can tell.
VII PLAYER SUBSTITUTIONS [none]
VIII STARTING AND RESTARTING PLAY
VIII.B.3 Two players on the field? Can we really play with just two?
I'm sure that I've been in point-assessing situations where the other team
had at least two players. So they could have given it a go? I thought there
was a minimum of, like, five.
VIII.B.4.d&e Seems like the off-sides penalty is worse with an observer
than without (just a repull).
VIII.B.4.e.2 So for a weak-pulling team against a very strong wind (so that they
could only throw it, say, 25 meters) in a game with observers, it is in their
advantage to wildly violate the off-sides rule so that the opposing team gets
the disc at midfield. I've actually been on decent teams where the pull went
backward (okay, that was a hurricane -- but it happens!).
Viii.B.5 Again, it pays to mack a bad pull until it is far, since the only
penalty is re-pull (yes, I understand the penalty philosophy in ultimate,
this is just for fun).
VIII.B.6.d.2 So on a really out-of-bounds pull, say one that goes over
a fence and is not easily recoverable, I may sustain a delay-of-game
penalty because I can't call "re-pull" anymore and I can't get the disc in-play in time?
VIII.B.6.d.2.a So I can call "brick" on a really short, out-of-bounds pull, and
put it in at the brick mark if I choose. This may be useful for a team which uses
a very wide array of set plays requiring a start at the brick mark.
As far as I can assess, there's nothing unspirited about this.
Could even foil a team which is great at endzone D but not so good at
open-field D that intentionally pulls short.
VIII.B.9 So if I drop it but a teammate of mine catches it (before it hits the ground)
and then hands it back to me, we're okay? What if he dives to catch it and it hits
the ground (in his possession) before he gives it back.
What is his legal status? He is not the
"thrower" as far as I can tell, but some temporary substitute (since the rule specifies
that I am the thrower), so does that mean that the disc is NOT considered
part of him, and therefore a it is a turnover? This teammate is in some legal limbo
(can he challenge his detention?).
VIII.B.10 I recently could have benefited from knowing this rule. I was
the thrower putting the disc into play and there was a defender standing
right there while my teammate (Jim P of blog fame) was cutting deep, open.
But the opponent, for whatever reason, didn't check the disc quickly. Had
I ground-checked it immediately it would have been an easy completion. As it
was, it turned out much closer (but still complete). Would it have been unspirited
to self-check the disc on a pull even with the defender right there? I don't
think so. I don't think it is a question of spirit at all, just a question of rules.
Here is an instance where being a rule stickler could really help. Still, I'm
not sure that there would be consensus within the community on this one.
VIII.C.2 Again, if the D has to signal by 70 seconds, how can adding 20
possibly be more than 90? If these two cases are kept, there should be
a reference to a delay-of-game procedure, at least, I feel.
VIII.D.3a "whether complete or incomplete." I bet that few such incomplete
throws are re-done.
like a lawyer and develop hypothetical loopholes. Much of the
time, these loopholes run counter to SOTG, but this is just
an intellectual exercise, after all. Sometimes, interesting questions
arise. These comments are written purely for fun, and
to point out ambiguities, logical errors and the like (but not
trivial grammatical errors). You can view the rules at
http://www3.upa.org/ultimate/rules/11th
The longtime UPA board member Henry Thorne would say
that I'm trying to "Zazzify" the rules, a term with negative and positive (?)
connotations.
Here goes.
Disclaimers:
1. Building consistent rules is a GARGANTUAN task and these rules
function INCREDIBLY well. They (all the editions) are an awesome achievement,
and serve hundreds of thousands of games without incident.
1. This is NOT A CRITIQUE and NOT A REVIEW of these excellent rules.
2. I have NOT DONE MY HOMEWORK, i.e. I have not read all existing rules
threads.
3. I haven't read the rules thoroughly since, well... um, ever?
4. I know that it is easier to find fault than to repair.
5. This is an amateur and unofficial exercise.
6. The comments are stream of consciousness, and possibly
inconsistent with one another.
These comments (Part I) cover the Preface through Section VIII.
PREFACE
[none]
I. INTRODUCTION
I.A [none]
I.B "never at the expense of mutual respect..." So does this
mean that you are completely spirited as long as your actions
do not diminish the joy of play, etc., for the opposing team, or
does perfect spirit require that you enhance the experience
of your competitors? This was a long-ish discussion among the
committee trying to establish a standard SOTG ranking system.
I.C So we can play ultimate under the variation of the rules:
replace rulebook with the rules of poker (or Rochambeau)?
When does approval of the TD take place? Or what if a rogue
TD actually does approve? (And shouldn't "event organizer"
be replaced by "TD" or something more germaine, as the
organizer may not even know how to play ultimate?)
I.D What about logistical changes that are necessitated
AFTER competition starts (say, for a hurricane, e.g.)?
I.E Interesting "fudge factor" to cover inconsistencies.
Shall we take I.E as a general or a specific rule?
II. DEFINITIONS
II.A [none]
II.B This definition seems backwards. Don't I determine retention
of possession by whether or not a pass was complete, and not
define completeness through retaining possession?
II.C The second part of this definition is a rule, not a definition.
II.D [none]
II.E [none]
II.F [none]
II.G "Reacting"? to the offensive player. So, if I am guarding one
player when another player within three meters suddenly breaks
free of his defender and I "react" by yelling "help!" to my teammates,
I am now guarding him? So I can be guarding two or more players?
Maybe... I'll have to read on.
II.H [none]
II.I [none]
II.J This definition ALMOST does what it should. The problem on an
unlined field is the sideline. With cones at the front and backs of
endzone there are four possible line segments you could draw
by picking the front or back of one endzone and the front or back of
the other. This definition should specify something like the "shortest"
possible line segment, or some such verbiage which makes the front-front
line segment the only correct one. (The definition clarifies one point of contention.
For example, if you are on the sideline near a goal, you could draw a
line which extends the segment from the back cone to the front cone of
the endzone you are near. This extension would not technically be
a "line segment between two field markers" are therefore does not apply.)
II.K The second part of this definition is not sharp enough. There could
be several offensive players and therefore several defensive players
within three meters (and why succumb to metric with all those crazy
numbers like 23 meters? why not just say "ten feet" and suck up the
two-inch difference?).
II.L [none]
II.M "body"? not "foot"? Can I establish a pivot nose? (In my case, this
might just be possible.)
II.N "up to" fourteen? Why not just "fourteen"? 'Cause of the captain's clause?
But then there could be more than fourteen. Or maybe it's because a team is
allowed to play with fewer than seven? (Is this true?) Or, if you can't write a correct
number, don't write a number.
II.O [none]
II.P [none]
II.Q Is this any different from "possession"? And doesn't the game start
with a pull, which is NOT a scoring attempt? Probably I am wrong and
this definition is needed to clarify some time-cap ruling.
II.R [none]
II.S [none]
II.T 1. Why this 1? The pull is a throw, but not a pass, no?
II.U [none]
III. PLAYING FIELD [none]
IV. EQUIPMENT
IV.E "unfairly"? What a strange choice of words. How do I determine
whether my assistance is fair or unfair? Why not just remove the word?
V. LENGTH OF GAME
Strangely organized section. Part A, game to goals, Part B, halftime, Part C,
overtime. No comments, otherwise.
VI. TIME-OUTS
VI.B.1 70 seconds? I thought 90. Maybe it will be 70 + 20
to restart play?
VI.B.4 Presumably the phrase "that has survived ground
contact" rules out calling a time-out in the middle of a "greatest" play?
"Survived" is a funny word. "Sustained," maybe?
"Should audibly say"? -- so that's not a requirement? I think all use of
judgment and subjective words like "should" and "unfairly" should be
omitted. Either you have to say time-out or you don't. There is enough
relaxing of the rules during the context of play that the rulebook itself need
not be soft on matters. I would require it, as an accidental formation of a
"T" with the disc does not create a time-out.
VI.B.5.b Here the time issue is mistreated. If the maximum time-out is
seventy seconds, then 20 seconds for the defense *cannot possibly* be longer than the
90-second limit, and therefore that clause should be removed. Here again
the rules are soft, implicitly acknowledging that in practice time-outs last
much longer than 70 seconds.
VI.B.5.c "over 8"? Isn't this equivalent to 9, since 10 would have been a stall?
Maybe just "but not more than 9"? Anyway, it's clear enough.
VI.B.5.d This speaks back to enforcing parts a and b, but doesn't really
clarify the issue. Anyway, how does the defense invoke the rule of making
the offense restart the disc?
VI.C How do we call an injury time-out? Are there special signals?
VI.C.4 Note that there is no penalty to a defensive team with no time-outs
remaining that calls injury time-outs for noninjured fellow members. I guess
there couldn't be a penalty, but this is conceivably something that could
be exploited against SOTG. Remember, we only set up with the same
positions before the time-out, not the same momenta!
VI.C.6 If a team calls an injury time-out between points (thinking that they
would need more time, say, due to an injury) but then does
not substitute the player (say if it was called by a teammate that did not
understand that the player only tripped) are they charged with a team time-out?
What if they have no team time-outs? Who is the team in possession of the
disc after a point? I thought that possession didn't really apply to the
team that was pulling (see definitions) since that team has not caught
a pass?
VI.D.1&2 So there is no way of dealing with an opponent who maliciously
warps the disc during play, say by spiking in anger after missing a catch? So now
you have to play with a warped disc or correct it on your own stall count?
I didn't realize this.
VI.D.4.a.2 What does it mean to be "charged" with a technical time-out?
There are no limits on them, as far as I can tell.
VII PLAYER SUBSTITUTIONS [none]
VIII STARTING AND RESTARTING PLAY
VIII.B.3 Two players on the field? Can we really play with just two?
I'm sure that I've been in point-assessing situations where the other team
had at least two players. So they could have given it a go? I thought there
was a minimum of, like, five.
VIII.B.4.d&e Seems like the off-sides penalty is worse with an observer
than without (just a repull).
VIII.B.4.e.2 So for a weak-pulling team against a very strong wind (so that they
could only throw it, say, 25 meters) in a game with observers, it is in their
advantage to wildly violate the off-sides rule so that the opposing team gets
the disc at midfield. I've actually been on decent teams where the pull went
backward (okay, that was a hurricane -- but it happens!).
Viii.B.5 Again, it pays to mack a bad pull until it is far, since the only
penalty is re-pull (yes, I understand the penalty philosophy in ultimate,
this is just for fun).
VIII.B.6.d.2 So on a really out-of-bounds pull, say one that goes over
a fence and is not easily recoverable, I may sustain a delay-of-game
penalty because I can't call "re-pull" anymore and I can't get the disc in-play in time?
VIII.B.6.d.2.a So I can call "brick" on a really short, out-of-bounds pull, and
put it in at the brick mark if I choose. This may be useful for a team which uses
a very wide array of set plays requiring a start at the brick mark.
As far as I can assess, there's nothing unspirited about this.
Could even foil a team which is great at endzone D but not so good at
open-field D that intentionally pulls short.
VIII.B.9 So if I drop it but a teammate of mine catches it (before it hits the ground)
and then hands it back to me, we're okay? What if he dives to catch it and it hits
the ground (in his possession) before he gives it back.
What is his legal status? He is not the
"thrower" as far as I can tell, but some temporary substitute (since the rule specifies
that I am the thrower), so does that mean that the disc is NOT considered
part of him, and therefore a it is a turnover? This teammate is in some legal limbo
(can he challenge his detention?).
VIII.B.10 I recently could have benefited from knowing this rule. I was
the thrower putting the disc into play and there was a defender standing
right there while my teammate (Jim P of blog fame) was cutting deep, open.
But the opponent, for whatever reason, didn't check the disc quickly. Had
I ground-checked it immediately it would have been an easy completion. As it
was, it turned out much closer (but still complete). Would it have been unspirited
to self-check the disc on a pull even with the defender right there? I don't
think so. I don't think it is a question of spirit at all, just a question of rules.
Here is an instance where being a rule stickler could really help. Still, I'm
not sure that there would be consensus within the community on this one.
VIII.C.2 Again, if the D has to signal by 70 seconds, how can adding 20
possibly be more than 90? If these two cases are kept, there should be
a reference to a delay-of-game procedure, at least, I feel.
VIII.D.3a "whether complete or incomplete." I bet that few such incomplete
throws are re-done.
# posted by Eric Zaslow @ 7/04/2007 08:43:00 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I think there are a number of good points in here that we should consider when doing 11.1.
I thought you might be interested in some of the rationale behind some of the things you commented on:
II.B This definition seems backwards. Don't I determine retention
of possession by whether or not a pass was complete, and not
define completeness through retaining possession?
There were a lot of terms like this that we had discussion about whether they were so obvious as to obviate definition. The reason for this one was that "completed pass" was used several places in the rules and we wanted to make sure that this was distinct from a "complete" pass to a defender. Most people think of a disc falling to the ground when they think "incomplete pass".
II.M "body"? not "foot"? Can I establish a pivot nose? (In my case, this
might just be possible.)
This is totally legit. I've thrown from my butt and my knees. There's no reason to disallow it.
II.N "up to" fourteen? Why not just "fourteen"? 'Cause of the captain's clause?
But then there could be more than fourteen. Or maybe it's because a team is
allowed to play with fewer than seven? (Is this true?) Or, if you can't write a correct
number, don't write a number.
You can play with any number between 2 and 7 (inclusive). I'm in favor of making that 1 and 7, since it only takes one person to score a callahan.
II.T 1. Why this 1? The pull is a throw, but not a pass, no?
A pull is both a pass and a throw in the lexicon of the rules, it's just not a legal throw for scoring. We just have this so we can use the terms interchangeably.
"Should audibly say"? -- so that's not a requirement? I think all use of
judgment and subjective words like "should" and "unfairly" should be
omitted. Either you have to say time-out or you don't. There is enough
relaxing of the rules during the context of play that the rulebook itself need
not be soft on matters. I would require it, as an accidental formation of a
"T" with the disc does not create a time-out.
You make a good point about avoiding words like "should" in general. Here's what the 10th said about time outs:
The player must form a "T" with one hand and the disc and audibly say "time-out". The time-out begins at the moment the first of these actions is performed.
The problem is, what happens when a player does one of the action, but not the other? It's much clearer to have one action be definitive, but for the sake of clarity, we encourage both.
In the choice between which action is the "one", it seemed to make more sense that we choose the one that is less likely to be taken accidentally. Uttering the phrase "do we have any time-outs left?" should not cause a time-out. I'm not too concerned about people accidentally making a "T".
VI.B.5.b Here the time issue is mistreated. If the maximum time-out is
seventy seconds, then 20 seconds for the defense *cannot possibly* be longer than the
90-second limit, and therefore that clause should be removed. Here again
the rules are soft, implicitly acknowledging that in practice time-outs last
much longer than 70 seconds.
The issue here is that the defense has the option of calling a violation against the offense for moving past the end of the time out, or invoking delay-of-game procedures to start the stall count.
VI.C.4 Note that there is no penalty to a defensive team with no time-outs
remaining that calls injury time-outs for noninjured fellow members.
The "injured" player would have to leave the game, or the team would be assessed a team time-out. If they didn't have any team time-outs remaining, it would be a turnover.
VI.D.1&2 So there is no way of dealing with an opponent who maliciously
warps the disc during play, say by spiking in anger after missing a catch? So now
you have to play with a warped disc or correct it on your own stall count?
I didn't realize this.
This happened in a (surprise, masters) game I was observing at central regionals last year. I allowed the disc to be replaced, but I think this is an exceptional circumstance that probably doesn't deserve the complexity necessary to correctly address it in a formal rule.
VI.D.4.a.2 What does it mean to be "charged" with a technical time-out?
There are no limits on them, as far as I can tell.
It changes the stall resumption. There's a citation.
VIII.B.6.d.2 So on a really out-of-bounds pull, say one that goes over
a fence and is not easily recoverable, I may sustain a delay-of-game
penalty because I can't call "re-pull" anymore and I can't get the disc in-play in time?
No, you can request a new disc (XIII.A.4.a).
VIII.B.10 I recently could have benefited from knowing this rule.
You snooze you lose. Also, I try to discourage people using the term "ground check" because there's no "check" invovled (i.e., you don't have to check that the defense is ready before continuing). Call it a "ground touch" as a "self check" is quite different.
Personally, I never offer the disc for a check when the rules prescribe a ground touch, I touch it to the ground at the appropriate spot and go. Nothing unspirited about it.
I hope you continue with this. It's interesting.
I thought you might be interested in some of the rationale behind some of the things you commented on:
II.B This definition seems backwards. Don't I determine retention
of possession by whether or not a pass was complete, and not
define completeness through retaining possession?
There were a lot of terms like this that we had discussion about whether they were so obvious as to obviate definition. The reason for this one was that "completed pass" was used several places in the rules and we wanted to make sure that this was distinct from a "complete" pass to a defender. Most people think of a disc falling to the ground when they think "incomplete pass".
II.M "body"? not "foot"? Can I establish a pivot nose? (In my case, this
might just be possible.)
This is totally legit. I've thrown from my butt and my knees. There's no reason to disallow it.
II.N "up to" fourteen? Why not just "fourteen"? 'Cause of the captain's clause?
But then there could be more than fourteen. Or maybe it's because a team is
allowed to play with fewer than seven? (Is this true?) Or, if you can't write a correct
number, don't write a number.
You can play with any number between 2 and 7 (inclusive). I'm in favor of making that 1 and 7, since it only takes one person to score a callahan.
II.T 1. Why this 1? The pull is a throw, but not a pass, no?
A pull is both a pass and a throw in the lexicon of the rules, it's just not a legal throw for scoring. We just have this so we can use the terms interchangeably.
"Should audibly say"? -- so that's not a requirement? I think all use of
judgment and subjective words like "should" and "unfairly" should be
omitted. Either you have to say time-out or you don't. There is enough
relaxing of the rules during the context of play that the rulebook itself need
not be soft on matters. I would require it, as an accidental formation of a
"T" with the disc does not create a time-out.
You make a good point about avoiding words like "should" in general. Here's what the 10th said about time outs:
The player must form a "T" with one hand and the disc and audibly say "time-out". The time-out begins at the moment the first of these actions is performed.
The problem is, what happens when a player does one of the action, but not the other? It's much clearer to have one action be definitive, but for the sake of clarity, we encourage both.
In the choice between which action is the "one", it seemed to make more sense that we choose the one that is less likely to be taken accidentally. Uttering the phrase "do we have any time-outs left?" should not cause a time-out. I'm not too concerned about people accidentally making a "T".
VI.B.5.b Here the time issue is mistreated. If the maximum time-out is
seventy seconds, then 20 seconds for the defense *cannot possibly* be longer than the
90-second limit, and therefore that clause should be removed. Here again
the rules are soft, implicitly acknowledging that in practice time-outs last
much longer than 70 seconds.
The issue here is that the defense has the option of calling a violation against the offense for moving past the end of the time out, or invoking delay-of-game procedures to start the stall count.
VI.C.4 Note that there is no penalty to a defensive team with no time-outs
remaining that calls injury time-outs for noninjured fellow members.
The "injured" player would have to leave the game, or the team would be assessed a team time-out. If they didn't have any team time-outs remaining, it would be a turnover.
VI.D.1&2 So there is no way of dealing with an opponent who maliciously
warps the disc during play, say by spiking in anger after missing a catch? So now
you have to play with a warped disc or correct it on your own stall count?
I didn't realize this.
This happened in a (surprise, masters) game I was observing at central regionals last year. I allowed the disc to be replaced, but I think this is an exceptional circumstance that probably doesn't deserve the complexity necessary to correctly address it in a formal rule.
VI.D.4.a.2 What does it mean to be "charged" with a technical time-out?
There are no limits on them, as far as I can tell.
It changes the stall resumption. There's a citation.
VIII.B.6.d.2 So on a really out-of-bounds pull, say one that goes over
a fence and is not easily recoverable, I may sustain a delay-of-game
penalty because I can't call "re-pull" anymore and I can't get the disc in-play in time?
No, you can request a new disc (XIII.A.4.a).
VIII.B.10 I recently could have benefited from knowing this rule.
You snooze you lose. Also, I try to discourage people using the term "ground check" because there's no "check" invovled (i.e., you don't have to check that the defense is ready before continuing). Call it a "ground touch" as a "self check" is quite different.
Personally, I never offer the disc for a check when the rules prescribe a ground touch, I touch it to the ground at the appropriate spot and go. Nothing unspirited about it.
I hope you continue with this. It's interesting.
Thanks, jon, for interpreting my comments in the spirit in which they were intended. I traced your blog profile to learn, if not your last name, that there was a UPA Standing Rules Committee blog, too. Though I didn't do much homework before writing, I did make a half-hearted effort to find such a site. I'll try to read more before writing my next installment.
I think that you and I may agree that close adherence to the rules is always spirited. More than this, many people feel that measures of SOTG should be tied to knowledge of the rules. Nevertheless, I harbor a sneaking suspicion that applying some of the more obscure rules without some kind of on-field explanation would be seen by many (some of the same) as unspirited -- the self-check on a pull, for example, or the case of the dropped walk-up caught by a teammate, or the issue of which line segment defines in or out.
I am saying that I think that that a number of people who couple SOTG with rules knowledge implicitly employ a double standard: most rules, spirited; obscure rules, possibly unspirited. I wonder how others feel about this issue. (I expect more fodder for such deliberations after reviewing the "meatier" parts of the rules, which I hope to do shortly.)
-zaz
I think that you and I may agree that close adherence to the rules is always spirited. More than this, many people feel that measures of SOTG should be tied to knowledge of the rules. Nevertheless, I harbor a sneaking suspicion that applying some of the more obscure rules without some kind of on-field explanation would be seen by many (some of the same) as unspirited -- the self-check on a pull, for example, or the case of the dropped walk-up caught by a teammate, or the issue of which line segment defines in or out.
I am saying that I think that that a number of people who couple SOTG with rules knowledge implicitly employ a double standard: most rules, spirited; obscure rules, possibly unspirited. I wonder how others feel about this issue. (I expect more fodder for such deliberations after reviewing the "meatier" parts of the rules, which I hope to do shortly.)
-zaz
Hey Zaz, I'm pretty sure the play you mentioned was after a turnover that you walked up to the line.
Instead of "unspirited", can I use the phrase "pussy call"? For instance, if the marker is right there when the thrower walks the disc up and is in no way hampered or confused by the player not ground checking it, then calls travel for the lack of ground check, I would label that a pussy call/unspirited. Basically, anything where the offender did not try to gain an advantage and did not gain an advantage qualifies.
Another thing you can exploit is if the thrower forms something other than a "T" (maybe a lambda or a J with a hat), or forms it with his hands instead of the hand and disc. (But I pointed this out somewhere else.)
Post a Comment
Instead of "unspirited", can I use the phrase "pussy call"? For instance, if the marker is right there when the thrower walks the disc up and is in no way hampered or confused by the player not ground checking it, then calls travel for the lack of ground check, I would label that a pussy call/unspirited. Basically, anything where the offender did not try to gain an advantage and did not gain an advantage qualifies.
Another thing you can exploit is if the thrower forms something other than a "T" (maybe a lambda or a J with a hat), or forms it with his hands instead of the hand and disc. (But I pointed this out somewhere else.)
<< Home
