zazblog

These comments cover sections XVI through XIX in the 11th edition UPA rules.
For disclaimers, see "Part I" post of 7/4/07. Warning: these notes were written in
some haste and have not been edited for content or formatted to fit your screen.

XVI VIOLATIONS AND FOULS

XVI.A I used to think that you could call your own foul, and have done so. I guess
not. (See XIX.A, too.)

XVI.B Ahhhhh, if only life were so simple!

XVI.C Oy yi yi, the continuation rule.
I have saved this for last [I'm writing this afterr all the other stuff] because I'm afraid of it.
So much has been said. Now UPA and WFDF are worlds apart.
Has simplification begat complexity?

I think that from a jurisprudence point of view, having a continuation rule
(even one that would have disallowed continuation) that applies to many different calls
is a good aim. However, in this case I think that it runs counter to the way the
game is played today. So, should the rules be a chicken or an egg? Should our
behavior follow the rules, or should we adapt to the rules. Of course we must adapt
as players, but the question I am asking pertains to how we should write the rules.

Without answering this question, I'll say that this rule has definitely preceeded behavior.

Also (and I have read some on the UPA Rules Blog and 11th Edition Discussion Forum)
a buck seems to have been passed from point of infraction or point of call to point
of acknowledgement. Further, is it clear what constitutes acknowledgement of a call.
And what about my question about etiquette XIX.F? Is it poor etiquette to fail to
acknowledge a call? Why? If the thrower sees the infraction and judges it not
to affect his intended play, and if the rules are written not to penalize infractions
but to recreate the situation as if they hadn't occurred, then why would it be
unspirited not to acknowledge a call and therefore to take advantage of the continuation
rule?

There is more to say, but I don't think I can exhaust the issues here.

The rule is fairly clearly written if you allow that "affected the play" is clear. It seems
fairly clear except for that meddlesome word "meaningfully." Are there meaningful
ways of affecting a play other than to change the outcome of a pass from incomplete
to complete, or vice versa? Suppose you lost 10 yards on your player but he was
not involved in the play. Then "the play" was not affected, but "continued play" was
affected, in that a goal will be easy. Should this be permitted? It would seem that
the players should be lobbying for a more liberal definition of "affected the play,"
because "the play" is not what's important to them but rather the likelihood of scoring.
Any maneuver such as a pick that affects the likelihood of scoring, even if it does
not affect a play, should not be allowed to stand. I realize that one can never
quantify likelihood of scoring, but I take this as evidence for advocating a more liberal
definition of "affected the play."
(Apologies: all this was right off the cuff and unedited. May not stand up to
scrutiny.)

XVI.C.4.a Do we return to where we were when the call was made or
when the infraction occurred. (Is timeliness of calls reflected in the rules at all?
This seems an important issue, at least for the etiquette section.)
In XVI.C.4.c the time of the infraction is the relevant one. I haven't checked the
rules for consistency on this matter.

XVI.E "Advancing in any direction"? Is this the same as "increasing its speed"?
I don't know what the word "advance" is otherwise, if it can be done in any direction.

XVI.F Interesting rule. I'd have expected to see "last point of contact."
Hmm... now that I think about it, what if the thrower has caught a pass near the
endzone he is attacking and leapt to throw a goal which comes back on a
contested call? The closest part of the playing field may be in the endzone.
I guess X.B comes into play, but the applicability seems dubious, especially
since this is a specific rule which should trump a general rule (see I.E).

Would the notion of "offensive playing field proper" (playing field minus
endzone the offense is attacking) be useful for any purpose? Likewise
for the defense?

XVI.G It seems we need some guidance as to what constitutes "offsetting"?
Would not any two (or more) calls from opposing teams which "affected play"
be offsetting? If so, then it would help to say so.

XVI.H.2 The use of the term "adjacent" is funny. Why is it there. If I can imagine
such contact between "nonadjacent" players, would it not be covered by this
note? Aren't two contacting players adjacent by definition? Sorry, this is all
unnecessary, of course.

XVI.H.3.b.3 Perhaps this is heresy, but it may be time to get rid of the grandiose
"principle of verticality." Does it say anything that is not already covered
by XVI.H.3.b.1 and XVII.B (see note there, too)?

XVI.H.3.b.4 I'm confused by the phrase "or out of the end zone instead of
in the end zone," in the first sentence. Let's consider the two possible end zones
involved in that phrase. If it's the end zone being attacked, then the second
sentence applies. If it's the end zone that the offense is defending (that
"offensive playing field proper" concept is useful here), then why should being
in it or out of it have any bearing on the play whatsoever? From the point of
view of the offense, the goal line separating the defended end zone from the
playing field proper has no meaning. I'd remove this phrase and not try to group
the end zone situation with the out-of-bounds situation. This seems more accurate
and clearer.

I'm amused by the fantasy scenario of a huge bump sending a player
flying through the air from one end zone to the other. Then what?

XVI.H.3.c.1 I said I wouldn't carp on grammar, but this run on sentence really
hinders comprehension. Let's replace the "and" by a period and a new sentence:
"Any resulting non-incidental contact constitutes a receiving foul on the blocking
player (XVI.H.3.b)."

But we have a new problem: the word "solely" may be too strong. It is easy to argue
that you rarely, if ever, do anything in ultimately "solely" for a certain effect.
And yet these blocking fouls are a very gray area, and it's impossible to avoid
controversy. For example, if I recommend "primarily" instead of "solely," then
this may be more accurate to what should be called, but the language
is more slippery. Still, I think I prefer "primarily." I wonder what others have said
about this.

XVI.H3.c.2 I think replacing "that is unavoidable by"
by "that renders unavoidable contact with" makes this rule more readable
(people will probably prefer "creates" to "renders," but not me).

XVI.H.3.d Hmmm... the disc in a player's possession is part of that player, so
isn't any such contact already subject to rules forbidding initiating contact
with the thrower? (So is it time to remove the strip from our lexicon?)
The reason I point this out is that it is still a foul whether or not you drop the
disc, no? So why the special call?

XVI.I I like this writing.

XVI.J.1.c Here again we have the phrase "advance in any direction," and here
again it is confusing. If I bobble the disc to catch it, I am purposefully redirecting
it so that I might catch it. If I purposefully redirect it as such, then surely I am
purposefully advancing the disc in *some* direction. Here the replacement
by "decreasing the speed of the disc" doesn't seem to help at all.

I guess it's the same group of words being problematic. If we write "solely" to
advance the disc, then we have other issues. Again, "primarily" may be the
best way out? I don't know.

XVI.K This is a doozy, but I have nothing to say about how it is written. It is
clear.


XVII POSITIONING

XVII.A Can five players on a team form a ring around a very strong player
and obstruct his movement (but without moving themselves), in the chance
that the other two against the other six gives them better odds of winning? Of
course not. And yet it is not a blocking foul or a pick or, as far as I can tell,
addressed anywhere else. This section should define obstruction more broadly.

XVII.B The second scenario subsumes the first. The rule should simply state,
"A player who jumps is entitled to land without hindrance by opponents
provided that the landing spot and the direct path between the take-off
and landing spots were not already occupied at the time of take-off."
In the event of a purely vertical jump, it is clear that the provision applies.

However, this rule is self-contradictory, as you can see from the case of
two opposing players running from opposite directions who jump so as to land on
top of each other. Neither path was occupied at the time of take-off, but both
players' landings were hindered by the other. What we need is some kind of
right-of-way. (Presumably, it goes to the offense? But what if these jumps were
not to catch a disc, for some reason?)

Also, there is throughout the rules a kind of awkward treatment of kinetic
situations, where position is not as important as momentum (or more precisely
the combination of the two). I don't have a great solution for this. I would like
to see what is written in the rules of similar team sports like soccer, lacrosse
and field hockey.


XVIII OBSERVERS

If observers are mentioned in the rules, the so should the rules governing
the interaction between players and (especially on-field) observers.
So the rules which say that the observers are in- or
out-of-bounds, the rules which govern obstruction of play by observers (picks),
and whether or not an observer can adjudicate a call in which he himself
was involved (say, by lingering in front of the thrower) should be there (or at the
very least referenced).

XIX ETIQUETTE

XIX.F This piece of etiquette is somewhat at odds with the continuation rule.
My understanding of the current rules is that it is okay for the offense to
ignore a call in favor of the continuation of play. This says that it is a failure of
etiquette. Also, "call" should be clarified, as some "calls" (such as "fast count")
patently DO NOT stop play.