Monday, July 09, 2007
The Rules Game, Part II
These comments cover Sections IX through XV of the 11th edition UPA rules.
For disclaimers on my rules comments, see "Part I" post of 7/4/05.
[Notes:
1. Apology: I tried to cut and paste the rules and intersperse my comments, but
the list format of the document completely screwed up the paragraph enumeration.
I recommend opening up a window with the rules, or actually take out the free
copy that the UPA sent you.
2. Aside: I have to remark that while the "Ultimate Talk" meta-blog is generally a good
idea, I'm not sure I'd have signed up to share billing with "god bless my underwear."]
IX. IN- AND OUT-OF-BOUNDS
IX.C & IX.C.3 If a player jumps from in-bounds to catch a disc and might land
out-of-bounds, can a teammate then CATCH THE PLAYER and bring him back
in-bounds? So far in my reading, it seems possible as 1) the teammate can stand out-of-bounds
without being part of the out-of-bounds area, and 2) the contact with teammate
does not confer the out-of-bounds status to the catcher (of the disc), and
3) XII.D.5 does not apply, i.e. the teammate did not assist in the catching (of the disc).
X END ZONE POSSESSION
XI SCORING
XI.A Presumably, Callahan scores are subsumed in this, as they are catches
of legal passes in the end zone, just not passes from your own team.
XII TURNOVERS
XII.A "other than as a result of a pull"? But when you pull (i.e. "pass") it out of
bounds, the receiving team gets the disc and possession has changed.
XII.B "before thrower regains possession" should be "before offensive team regains
possession" (here "possession is used in a non-technical sense, since possession
is not lost until the pass is complete so cannot be "regained"). I guess what is
a bit frustrating is that the level of technical writing is somewhat inconsistent
across the rules. So, some definitions have a hard-core meaning while some
are used mainly to describe what is happening. Sometimes there seems to be
overlap, and that's the most troublesome (okay, sometimes I mis-read things, too).
XII.D.3 What if the disc is thrown and contacts another player and then the
thrower catches it... BUT... in the process of catching it and in order to gain
possession the thrower intentionally deflects the disc against another player?
I'd amend this rule to say something like "unless all such contact occurs as the result of
intentional deflection by the thrower."
XII.D.5 Presumably, this should be expanded to include "assists a teammate's
in- or out-of-bounds status," or something, to address the loophole I cited above.
Or "catching" a pass can be defined to include the landing.
XII.D.5&6 Intent is always a slippery concept to introduce into law. What if
the defense knocks down a "hail mary" pass by throwing a hat? There may be
no specific intended receiver. Maybe the rule should be that the offense is
awarded possession at the point where the disc would have been caught or
last left the playing field, or something, and perhaps the offense should be able
to choose who gains possession (a slightly stiffer penalty), possibly other than
the thrower.
XIII THE THROWER
XIII.3 A disc can roll out and then back in, so the rule should state something like
"if the disc comes to rest on the playing field proper without having come into contact
with the out-of-bounds" (or some such wording)
Another wording comment: there are several instances of "the defensive player may do B...
but only after having done A" These should read "the defensive player may to A and then
B," e.g. "when the disc is on the ground, a defensive player may initiate a pre-stall then
stall by announcing 'X' after Y seconds." A separate paragraph on pre-stall would
save some redundancy in the writing.
XIII.5.B I played this weekend with a rules expert who called a violation for
failure to self-check/ground-check an in-play but not live disc. Is it widely
known that you have to self-check a disc when it is out of bounds and there
is no defender present for a check? Let alone whether it is widely known,
is it actually widely practiced? I think that there are several instances (more on
this later) of the rules preceeding convention, a move which hints
at "legislative activism."
XIV. A There is no requirement that one second elapses between the
first utterance of "stalling" and the word "one." This means that the stall count
in ultimate is actually just 9+ seconds. Is it unspirited to say "stalling-one" very
quickly?
Also, it now makes a much greater difference how players resolve
a dispute of whether the defense reached a count of 8 before a foul is called?
Previously, the defense had either 2 or 3 seconds (50% more time).
Now, without the delay, the D has either 1.5 (say) or 2.5 seconds (67% more time).
XIV.A.3.a.2 Are these the only two options? Can't the marker (now thrower) put
the disc into play without the previous thrower becoming the marker? Option
(2) should simply state that he can retain possession of the disc and put the
disc into play with an appropriate check.
XIV.B.1.a "intervals" should be "an interval," since only one instance, and not
a pattern, constitutes a fast count (or *should*).
XIV.B.2 The metric thing, again.
XIV.B.3 "one disc diameter" This phrase should be changed. Suppose that
under the captain's clause two teams agree to play with a very small disc.
Fine, but this decision should not impact the separation distance (it could get
comical). The distance should be an absolute distance, presumably defined
by the current (2007) diameter of a Discraft Ultrastar.
XV THE RECEIVER
XV.A This paragraph should be made more clear. The "but" is a wrong choice
of words. There should be at least two sentences. At issue is purposeful bobbling
which advances the disc, but is done in order to gain control. Namely, make it
explicit that the first reason (catching) trumps the second (advancing). Occasionally,
as sort-of happened to me this weekend, one must advance the disc purposefully
in order to catch it.
XV.B I've been looking and cannot find where the pivot needs to be on the playing
field. It must be for starting play, but nowhere (that I can find) is it said for a live disc,
e.g. after coming to a stop you might be out-of-bounds.
XV.C For that matter, in part C if no pivot foot is established there is even less
reason to assume that the thrower needs to be in-bounds to release a throw.
So, if I am running toward the sideline to catch a disc, I can take two full-speed
points of contacts out-of-bounds as long as I toss the disc before the third.
If this reading is correct, it would be as exciting as the play in tennis where you
hit the ball low and *around* the net.
For disclaimers on my rules comments, see "Part I" post of 7/4/05.
[Notes:
1. Apology: I tried to cut and paste the rules and intersperse my comments, but
the list format of the document completely screwed up the paragraph enumeration.
I recommend opening up a window with the rules, or actually take out the free
copy that the UPA sent you.
2. Aside: I have to remark that while the "Ultimate Talk" meta-blog is generally a good
idea, I'm not sure I'd have signed up to share billing with "god bless my underwear."]
IX. IN- AND OUT-OF-BOUNDS
IX.C & IX.C.3 If a player jumps from in-bounds to catch a disc and might land
out-of-bounds, can a teammate then CATCH THE PLAYER and bring him back
in-bounds? So far in my reading, it seems possible as 1) the teammate can stand out-of-bounds
without being part of the out-of-bounds area, and 2) the contact with teammate
does not confer the out-of-bounds status to the catcher (of the disc), and
3) XII.D.5 does not apply, i.e. the teammate did not assist in the catching (of the disc).
X END ZONE POSSESSION
XI SCORING
XI.A Presumably, Callahan scores are subsumed in this, as they are catches
of legal passes in the end zone, just not passes from your own team.
XII TURNOVERS
XII.A "other than as a result of a pull"? But when you pull (i.e. "pass") it out of
bounds, the receiving team gets the disc and possession has changed.
XII.B "before thrower regains possession" should be "before offensive team regains
possession" (here "possession is used in a non-technical sense, since possession
is not lost until the pass is complete so cannot be "regained"). I guess what is
a bit frustrating is that the level of technical writing is somewhat inconsistent
across the rules. So, some definitions have a hard-core meaning while some
are used mainly to describe what is happening. Sometimes there seems to be
overlap, and that's the most troublesome (okay, sometimes I mis-read things, too).
XII.D.3 What if the disc is thrown and contacts another player and then the
thrower catches it... BUT... in the process of catching it and in order to gain
possession the thrower intentionally deflects the disc against another player?
I'd amend this rule to say something like "unless all such contact occurs as the result of
intentional deflection by the thrower."
XII.D.5 Presumably, this should be expanded to include "assists a teammate's
in- or out-of-bounds status," or something, to address the loophole I cited above.
Or "catching" a pass can be defined to include the landing.
XII.D.5&6 Intent is always a slippery concept to introduce into law. What if
the defense knocks down a "hail mary" pass by throwing a hat? There may be
no specific intended receiver. Maybe the rule should be that the offense is
awarded possession at the point where the disc would have been caught or
last left the playing field, or something, and perhaps the offense should be able
to choose who gains possession (a slightly stiffer penalty), possibly other than
the thrower.
XIII THE THROWER
XIII.3 A disc can roll out and then back in, so the rule should state something like
"if the disc comes to rest on the playing field proper without having come into contact
with the out-of-bounds" (or some such wording)
Another wording comment: there are several instances of "the defensive player may do B...
but only after having done A" These should read "the defensive player may to A and then
B," e.g. "when the disc is on the ground, a defensive player may initiate a pre-stall then
stall by announcing 'X' after Y seconds." A separate paragraph on pre-stall would
save some redundancy in the writing.
XIII.5.B I played this weekend with a rules expert who called a violation for
failure to self-check/ground-check an in-play but not live disc. Is it widely
known that you have to self-check a disc when it is out of bounds and there
is no defender present for a check? Let alone whether it is widely known,
is it actually widely practiced? I think that there are several instances (more on
this later) of the rules preceeding convention, a move which hints
at "legislative activism."
XIV. A There is no requirement that one second elapses between the
first utterance of "stalling" and the word "one." This means that the stall count
in ultimate is actually just 9+ seconds. Is it unspirited to say "stalling-one" very
quickly?
Also, it now makes a much greater difference how players resolve
a dispute of whether the defense reached a count of 8 before a foul is called?
Previously, the defense had either 2 or 3 seconds (50% more time).
Now, without the delay, the D has either 1.5 (say) or 2.5 seconds (67% more time).
XIV.A.3.a.2 Are these the only two options? Can't the marker (now thrower) put
the disc into play without the previous thrower becoming the marker? Option
(2) should simply state that he can retain possession of the disc and put the
disc into play with an appropriate check.
XIV.B.1.a "intervals" should be "an interval," since only one instance, and not
a pattern, constitutes a fast count (or *should*).
XIV.B.2 The metric thing, again.
XIV.B.3 "one disc diameter" This phrase should be changed. Suppose that
under the captain's clause two teams agree to play with a very small disc.
Fine, but this decision should not impact the separation distance (it could get
comical). The distance should be an absolute distance, presumably defined
by the current (2007) diameter of a Discraft Ultrastar.
XV THE RECEIVER
XV.A This paragraph should be made more clear. The "but" is a wrong choice
of words. There should be at least two sentences. At issue is purposeful bobbling
which advances the disc, but is done in order to gain control. Namely, make it
explicit that the first reason (catching) trumps the second (advancing). Occasionally,
as sort-of happened to me this weekend, one must advance the disc purposefully
in order to catch it.
XV.B I've been looking and cannot find where the pivot needs to be on the playing
field. It must be for starting play, but nowhere (that I can find) is it said for a live disc,
e.g. after coming to a stop you might be out-of-bounds.
XV.C For that matter, in part C if no pivot foot is established there is even less
reason to assume that the thrower needs to be in-bounds to release a throw.
So, if I am running toward the sideline to catch a disc, I can take two full-speed
points of contacts out-of-bounds as long as I toss the disc before the third.
If this reading is correct, it would be as exciting as the play in tennis where you
hit the ball low and *around* the net.
# posted by Eric Zaslow @ 7/09/2007 09:29:00 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Re you XV.B and XV.C thoughts - check out IX.C.1, which covers these cases:
"If momentum carries a player out-of-bounds after landing in-bounds....The disc is put into play at the spot on the perimeter line of the playing field where the player first went out-of-bounds".
Explicitly not allowing a throw from out of bounds.
"If momentum carries a player out-of-bounds after landing in-bounds....The disc is put into play at the spot on the perimeter line of the playing field where the player first went out-of-bounds".
Explicitly not allowing a throw from out of bounds.
Thinking again on this, presumably a receiver
whose momentum is carrying him out of bounds,
can, before the third point of contact, hop/stride into
the air (without speeding up or changing direction)
out-of-bounds and throw the disc.
Call it a "not-so-greatest."
Have I missed something again?
-zaz
whose momentum is carrying him out of bounds,
can, before the third point of contact, hop/stride into
the air (without speeding up or changing direction)
out-of-bounds and throw the disc.
Call it a "not-so-greatest."
Have I missed something again?
-zaz
XIII.3 A disc can roll out and then back in, so the rule should state something like
"if the disc comes to rest on the playing field proper without having come into contact
with the out-of-bounds" (or some such wording)
I think it says what we mean. All we really care about is where the disc has come to rest in terms of how long it should take to retrieve. It doesn't matter how it got there.
XIII.5.B I played this weekend with a rules expert who called a violation for
failure to self-check/ground-check an in-play but not live disc.
If you're talking about Sandblast (and you must, because I saw you there), then it doesn't strictly apply because we were playing under BULA, not the 11th.
Nonetheless, this is not a self check situation (those only happen on dead discs) and I try to discourage the use of the term "ground check" in favor of "ground touch" because there is no check in this situation (i.e., no need to wait for the defense to be ready).
Whether this is the rules preceding convention is debatable, but in the absence of the thrower offering the disc to the marker (which they are not required to do), there needs to be an action to indicate that the thrower has reached the appropriate place and is putting the disc into play.
XIV. A There is no requirement that one second elapses between the
first utterance of "stalling" and the word "one." This means that the stall count
in ultimate is actually just 9+ seconds. Is it unspirited to say "stalling-one" very
quickly?
*sigh*
This was a change that was made to follow convention that I was very disappointed with. Under the 10th, there was supposed to be a one second pause, but almost nobody did it that way. My preferred solution was to eliminate the "stalling" altogether and count from 10 to 0 instead. The arguments for and against are pretty well covered here.
To answer your question, I do not believe it is unspirited to say "stalling-one" quickly.
Can't the marker (now thrower) put
the disc into play without the previous thrower becoming the marker?
It doesn't say the previous thrower has to become the marker, just that they have to check it in. I suppose that's not even really necessary. It should simply say that play should be restarted with a check (possibly a self check).
XIV.B.3 "one disc diameter" This phrase should be changed. Suppose that
under the captain's clause two teams agree to play with a very small disc.
Then they should agree to modify the "one disc diameter" as well. Having it defined this way ensures that you have a ready measurement at hand.
XV.A This paragraph should be made more clear.
How do you feel about getting rid of this rule altogether? That's what I'd like to see.
"if the disc comes to rest on the playing field proper without having come into contact
with the out-of-bounds" (or some such wording)
I think it says what we mean. All we really care about is where the disc has come to rest in terms of how long it should take to retrieve. It doesn't matter how it got there.
XIII.5.B I played this weekend with a rules expert who called a violation for
failure to self-check/ground-check an in-play but not live disc.
If you're talking about Sandblast (and you must, because I saw you there), then it doesn't strictly apply because we were playing under BULA, not the 11th.
Nonetheless, this is not a self check situation (those only happen on dead discs) and I try to discourage the use of the term "ground check" in favor of "ground touch" because there is no check in this situation (i.e., no need to wait for the defense to be ready).
Whether this is the rules preceding convention is debatable, but in the absence of the thrower offering the disc to the marker (which they are not required to do), there needs to be an action to indicate that the thrower has reached the appropriate place and is putting the disc into play.
XIV. A There is no requirement that one second elapses between the
first utterance of "stalling" and the word "one." This means that the stall count
in ultimate is actually just 9+ seconds. Is it unspirited to say "stalling-one" very
quickly?
*sigh*
This was a change that was made to follow convention that I was very disappointed with. Under the 10th, there was supposed to be a one second pause, but almost nobody did it that way. My preferred solution was to eliminate the "stalling" altogether and count from 10 to 0 instead. The arguments for and against are pretty well covered here.
To answer your question, I do not believe it is unspirited to say "stalling-one" quickly.
Can't the marker (now thrower) put
the disc into play without the previous thrower becoming the marker?
It doesn't say the previous thrower has to become the marker, just that they have to check it in. I suppose that's not even really necessary. It should simply say that play should be restarted with a check (possibly a self check).
XIV.B.3 "one disc diameter" This phrase should be changed. Suppose that
under the captain's clause two teams agree to play with a very small disc.
Then they should agree to modify the "one disc diameter" as well. Having it defined this way ensures that you have a ready measurement at hand.
XV.A This paragraph should be made more clear.
How do you feel about getting rid of this rule altogether? That's what I'd like to see.
Thanks for the comments, Jon.
Regarding XIII.3, where the disc comes to rest
determines how long the offense has to put it
into play (in --> 10 sec, out --> 20 sec), but
since the disc may roll out of bounds and then
come back in, it could come to rest conceivably
95 yards or more from where it is to be put into
play. So the distinction, while logically correct,
does not seem true to what the rule should be.
The point is that if the disc ever went out of
bounds, then there is some distance to travel
before putting it into play, and that extra
distance, unknown but possibly significant,
should lead to the allotment of extra time.
Regarding the next point, yes I should have said
"ground touch". I also probably mis-used "live"
or "in play". The situation was a turnover and
a walk-up to the goal line, where there needs
to be a ground touch before proceeding. I
thought it was a good call, but as you point out,
the rules may be preceeding convention
on this one.
(True it was Sandblast hence BULA rules, but
in practice most players on competitive teams
were UPA players, and rules issues were
settled according to UPA rules [which few have
actually read, but much more so than have
read BULA rules]. Please introduce yourself
next time we cross paths, if only so that I
can begin excusing my poor play due to illness
and children-induced sleep deprivation!)
The pro/con arguments for the stalling rule
are as expected. I'm in the camp of
requiring a one-second
interval between the start of "stalling" and the
first utterance of "one"? This seems the smallest
alteration to the rules and no concession
to the "stallingone" cheaters (or former cheaters).
Is this so unenforceable?
I agree that disallowing intentional self-macs
entirely would make the rules simpler,
but I don't think this is true to the game.
I think that you should be able to do whatever
(self-mac, bobble, jumping off your teammate's
back, etc.) in order to gain control of the disc
in-bounds.
Not to write the rules like this, I feel, forsakes
the very essence of the sport. In the long run,
I'm sure that rules evolve toward the
simple/enforeable/objective, but I don't
want to rush to that point ahead of the playing
curve. I'll try to reserve further "global" comments
until I'm done with my reading exercise first.
Regarding XIII.3, where the disc comes to rest
determines how long the offense has to put it
into play (in --> 10 sec, out --> 20 sec), but
since the disc may roll out of bounds and then
come back in, it could come to rest conceivably
95 yards or more from where it is to be put into
play. So the distinction, while logically correct,
does not seem true to what the rule should be.
The point is that if the disc ever went out of
bounds, then there is some distance to travel
before putting it into play, and that extra
distance, unknown but possibly significant,
should lead to the allotment of extra time.
Regarding the next point, yes I should have said
"ground touch". I also probably mis-used "live"
or "in play". The situation was a turnover and
a walk-up to the goal line, where there needs
to be a ground touch before proceeding. I
thought it was a good call, but as you point out,
the rules may be preceeding convention
on this one.
(True it was Sandblast hence BULA rules, but
in practice most players on competitive teams
were UPA players, and rules issues were
settled according to UPA rules [which few have
actually read, but much more so than have
read BULA rules]. Please introduce yourself
next time we cross paths, if only so that I
can begin excusing my poor play due to illness
and children-induced sleep deprivation!)
The pro/con arguments for the stalling rule
are as expected. I'm in the camp of
requiring a one-second
interval between the start of "stalling" and the
first utterance of "one"? This seems the smallest
alteration to the rules and no concession
to the "stallingone" cheaters (or former cheaters).
Is this so unenforceable?
I agree that disallowing intentional self-macs
entirely would make the rules simpler,
but I don't think this is true to the game.
I think that you should be able to do whatever
(self-mac, bobble, jumping off your teammate's
back, etc.) in order to gain control of the disc
in-bounds.
Not to write the rules like this, I feel, forsakes
the very essence of the sport. In the long run,
I'm sure that rules evolve toward the
simple/enforeable/objective, but I don't
want to rush to that point ahead of the playing
curve. I'll try to reserve further "global" comments
until I'm done with my reading exercise first.
You make a good point about XIII.3, I hadn't considered that. Though, in practice, I've never actually seen a disc that rolled a long ways come back in-bounds, it certainly could happen. However, if anything like this were to happen, you can always request a new disc under XIII.A.4.a.
You're also right that people haven't read/weren't playing by BULA. Lorne will be furious.
I'm in the camp of requiring a one-second interval between the start of "stalling" and the first utterance of "one"? This seems the smallest alteration to the rules and no concession to the "stallingone" cheaters (or former cheaters). Is this so unenforceable?
I can't see this ever being enforcable, no. It would require a large group of people consistently calling people on doing it wrong, and considering that most players aren't rules pedants and that except in the case of a near stall it doesn't actually matter (which you don't know right at the beginning of the count) it's rarely worth it.
My philosophy is to write the rules such that people who don't follow them are at a disadvantage and let things work themselves out naturally.
I think you misunderstood my intentions about XV.A. I want to strike the rule, thereby making all self MACs legal. I don't think it would change the game much because it's an inherently risky maneuver. I dislike the rule because it involves intent and is awfully tricky to get right, especially with the continuation rule.
You're also right that people haven't read/weren't playing by BULA. Lorne will be furious.
I'm in the camp of requiring a one-second interval between the start of "stalling" and the first utterance of "one"? This seems the smallest alteration to the rules and no concession to the "stallingone" cheaters (or former cheaters). Is this so unenforceable?
I can't see this ever being enforcable, no. It would require a large group of people consistently calling people on doing it wrong, and considering that most players aren't rules pedants and that except in the case of a near stall it doesn't actually matter (which you don't know right at the beginning of the count) it's rarely worth it.
My philosophy is to write the rules such that people who don't follow them are at a disadvantage and let things work themselves out naturally.
I think you misunderstood my intentions about XV.A. I want to strike the rule, thereby making all self MACs legal. I don't think it would change the game much because it's an inherently risky maneuver. I dislike the rule because it involves intent and is awfully tricky to get right, especially with the continuation rule.
Regarding applying XIII.4.a to the case of a
disc which rolled out and back in far away
(this does happen on very windy days),
the issue is retrievability within TEN seconds,
not TWENTY, as addressed in that rule.
Oh, you want to make all macs legal? You are
right that I didn't understand. Still, it seems
dubious as well, since this opens up the
door to running with the disc spinning on your
fingers.
Post a Comment
disc which rolled out and back in far away
(this does happen on very windy days),
the issue is retrievability within TEN seconds,
not TWENTY, as addressed in that rule.
Oh, you want to make all macs legal? You are
right that I didn't understand. Still, it seems
dubious as well, since this opens up the
door to running with the disc spinning on your
fingers.
<< Home
