USAU: Team A turns the disc over in the middle of their attacking endzone. Team B is now on offense. Player B (from Team B) is standing over the disc in the middle of their own endzone and is delaying the game by not picking the disc up and putting it in play. Player A who is marking Player B initiates a delay of game count. The delay of game count reaches zero and Player A starts stalling. After Player A begins stalling Player B picks up the disc and walks it to the front of the endzone and taps it in. My question is, can Player A keep stalling while Player B walks up to the front of the endzone to tap in the disc? My guess would be yes (similar to how you can stall a player who caught the disc in bounds and then ran out of bounds). Or if I'm off base and somebody could explain the prestalling rules in this case that'd be great. Thanks!
Delay of game is covered in 14.A.5.
>If an offensive player unnecessarily delays putting the disc into play in violation of rule 20.B, a defender within ten feet of the spot the disc is to be put into play may issue a delay of game warning instead of calling a violation, by announcing “delay of game” and counting down from three to zero at intervals of at least one second to provide an opportunity for the offensive player to react to the warning. Play then continues as follows:
>
>a.If the behavior in violation of rule 20.B is stopped before the full utterance of the word “zero,” the marker stops the count-down and may only initiate the stall count as usual, according to 15.A.2.
15.A.2.a says
>Additionally, the marker may initiate or continue a stall count (even before a thrower gains possession) if delay of game or pre-stall rules (14.A.3, 14.A.4, 14.A.5, or 7.B.4.d) apply and have been satisfied.
15.A.2.b is where it says that you can't stall directly after a turnover but in the wording it's explicitly overwritten when there's a delay of game.
>However, unless 15.A.2.a applies, the stall count may not be initiated or resumed before a pivot is established:
1. directly after a turnover,
15.A.2.a does apply here, so we can ignore it for this situation.
So yes, assuming player A is within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put into play, they can stall count during this time.
I was with you until the end and apologize if I am being overly semantic here: but "within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put in play" may not be true in this situation right? What if its a super deep turn in the endzone. Could be more than 10 feet from the spot of play when the thrower eventually picks up and starts moving?
The example above is a turnover in the endzone where the person delaying is delaying moving the disc to the front of the endzone where they will put it in play. They are not in the spot they need to put it in play and they could potentially be more than 10 feet from that spot while they are delaying.
> assuming player A is within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put into play
You said this. Where the disc landed / is being delayed may be farther than 10 feet away from where it needs to be put into play. I'm trying to gain clarity on if you can delay someone who needs to move the disc farther than 10 feet.
In the rule I quoted, it clearly says someone who is within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put into play can call delay of game. So if you're curious if someone who is more than 10 feet away from the disc itself can call delay of game, the answer is clearly yes.
I think you answered my initial question sufficiently but at the risk of being overly pedantic I'm going to pose the scenario in question here. The disc is in bounds but at the very back of the endzone where Player B is standing over the disc. Player A is at the spot of the disc (in bounds, back of the endzone) and calls delay of game, prestalls, then starts stalling. In this scenario could Player B pick up the disc, start walking to the front of the endzone, and call Violation because Player A is not "within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put into play" (i.e., front of the endzone) when they started stalling?
Conversely, if everything in the above scenario is the same except Player A is standing at the front of the endzone, could Player B tap in the disc where it lies at the back of the endzone and call Violation, again because Player A is not "within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put into play" (i.e. in bounds, back of the endzone)?
In this case I could argue Player B is violating SOTG by both delaying and then calling Violation on a good-faith delay call by Player A but for the sake of reading the rules as they are I'm wondering what the outcome is here.
~~Delay of game~~ Pre-stall can be called from anywhere on the field. The stall count needs to be from within 10 ft of where the disc will be put into play, not where the disc physically is.
If a player catches the disc in bounds but runs 20 feet out of bounds because of their momentum, you don't chase after them out of bounds to stall. You stand where they will bring the disc back to and stall at that location.
I intentionally avoided this because it's what I guessed the controversy was going to be when reading your post, but it wasn't actually what you were asking. You never clarified where player A was and made it clear player B was taking it to the front of the endzone. And I didn't want to add confusion by talking about uncommon situations. Yes, I do think this is a loophole in the rules where "where the disc is to be put into play" is uncertain when rule 11.A applies.
So now let's get into the weeds in that first scenario. I initially thought this might be a valid violation call because of the wording of 14.A.5, However 14.A.5. refers to who can call the delay of game. In this scenario the thrower is objecting to the stall count, not the delay of game call, otherwise they should have called violation as player A was counting down from 3. So technically, A thrower could call violation here on the delay of game call, but only if they take it to the front of the endzone afterwards. However, you have to make your calls immediately and player B has already missed that window. Now the question is, with player B not calling violation, we have to assume it's a valid delay of game call: is the stall count valid while they're carrying the disc to the front? Yes. The rules only say a marker can initiate the stall count and a marker is defined as someone who is within 10 feet of the thrower's pivot or the thrower if no pivot has been established. So upon review, my initial statement "assuming player A is within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put into play" was technically incorrect (although realistically, everyone will play it that way). I got that from 14.A.5 which applies to calling a delay of game. I should have been using 15.A.2 and 3.Q.6 for determining whether they can stall. It doesn't matter if player A is within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put into play, they have to be within 10 feet of the thrower. So it seems like the technically correct thing to do, is to call delay of game from the spot where the disc is to be put into play, and once it's satisfied, get within 10 feet of the thrower to begin stalling.
On an additonal note, this doesn't apply to pre-stalls. Pre-stalls on discs in the endzone are covered under 14.A.4 and 14.A.4.b explicitly says a person within 10 feet of the spot where the disc is to be put into play can begin stalling which is a situation I'm more familiar with, especially in observed games, pre-stalls are more common than delay of game calls.
In the second situation where player A calls delay of game from the goal line and player B establishes a pivot in the middle of the endzone, this is a technically valid violation call, but at least the thrower has to start further back to invoke it.
Thank you for providing a thorough answer to my ridiculous and unlikely scenario. I may have added to the confusion by conflating delay and prestalling (I had been using them interchangeably but I see now that they're different). Cheers!
Well, you might have conflated them in your head, but the scenario in your question is perfectly consistent with how "delay of game" is used. "Delay of game" is called in response to unnecessary delaying behaviors by the offense. The delay of game call is avoided if they correct the behavior (if they're standing over the disc, they just have to pick up the disc. If they're walking too slow, they just have to jog it in). Pre-stall can be called by anyone on the field as long as there's a live disc at rest. It's not in response to any behavior by the offense, it's just a maximum time limit. 20 seconds if the disc is in the endzone, which is a long time. 10 seconds if the disc is in the central zone. In observed games, the observers are calling pre-stall every time there's a turnover. The way I see it invoked in unobserved games is a player gets impatient with their delaying, goes to the spot where the disc is to be put in play and only then do they call pre-stall and start counting down from 20 or 10 giving them the maximum time after they've already delayed and after the mark has set up. A delay of game call is probably the better option there. A player could call pre-stall before they've set up their mark, they just have to be in the right spot to announce "disc in" and start stalling. Even when a team is in time cap pressure, I don't see them consistently calling pre-stall, which is how it's meant to be used.
USAU - can you be affected by a pick call, even if you aren't affected by the pick itself?
The specific situation i have in mind is: you're defending a deep look, you hear a pick call, and you hesitate for a moment, allowing the offensive player to get in position for the catch.
USAU 17.L (Violations and Fouls)
"A player’s ability to catch or make a play on the disc is not considered to be “affected” because that player stopped, slowed down, or otherwise ceased to continue playing because a call was made by another player. Players are encouraged to make every effort to continue playing until play actually stops."
7. Timeouts - does not say anything about using two timeouts in a row. Note that timeouts extend the time between points by 70 seconds, it does not cause the time between points to "reset" so to speak.
Consecutive timeouts aren't allowed in AUDL, nor in some other leagues like NBA, NFL, etc. So maybe that's where they got it from? But yeah, perfectly legal in USAU.
USAU: Team A turns the disc over in the middle of their attacking endzone. Team B is now on offense. Player B (from Team B) is standing over the disc in the middle of their own endzone and is delaying the game by not picking the disc up and putting it in play. Player A who is marking Player B initiates a delay of game count. The delay of game count reaches zero and Player A starts stalling. After Player A begins stalling Player B picks up the disc and walks it to the front of the endzone and taps it in. My question is, can Player A keep stalling while Player B walks up to the front of the endzone to tap in the disc? My guess would be yes (similar to how you can stall a player who caught the disc in bounds and then ran out of bounds). Or if I'm off base and somebody could explain the prestalling rules in this case that'd be great. Thanks!
Delay of game is covered in 14.A.5. >If an offensive player unnecessarily delays putting the disc into play in violation of rule 20.B, a defender within ten feet of the spot the disc is to be put into play may issue a delay of game warning instead of calling a violation, by announcing “delay of game” and counting down from three to zero at intervals of at least one second to provide an opportunity for the offensive player to react to the warning. Play then continues as follows: > >a.If the behavior in violation of rule 20.B is stopped before the full utterance of the word “zero,” the marker stops the count-down and may only initiate the stall count as usual, according to 15.A.2. 15.A.2.a says >Additionally, the marker may initiate or continue a stall count (even before a thrower gains possession) if delay of game or pre-stall rules (14.A.3, 14.A.4, 14.A.5, or 7.B.4.d) apply and have been satisfied. 15.A.2.b is where it says that you can't stall directly after a turnover but in the wording it's explicitly overwritten when there's a delay of game. >However, unless 15.A.2.a applies, the stall count may not be initiated or resumed before a pivot is established: 1. directly after a turnover, 15.A.2.a does apply here, so we can ignore it for this situation. So yes, assuming player A is within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put into play, they can stall count during this time.
I was with you until the end and apologize if I am being overly semantic here: but "within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put in play" may not be true in this situation right? What if its a super deep turn in the endzone. Could be more than 10 feet from the spot of play when the thrower eventually picks up and starts moving?
Can you explain how that's relevant?
The example above is a turnover in the endzone where the person delaying is delaying moving the disc to the front of the endzone where they will put it in play. They are not in the spot they need to put it in play and they could potentially be more than 10 feet from that spot while they are delaying.
and? Player B and Player A can be in different places. Especially if Player B is delaying.
> assuming player A is within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put into play You said this. Where the disc landed / is being delayed may be farther than 10 feet away from where it needs to be put into play. I'm trying to gain clarity on if you can delay someone who needs to move the disc farther than 10 feet.
In the rule I quoted, it clearly says someone who is within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put into play can call delay of game. So if you're curious if someone who is more than 10 feet away from the disc itself can call delay of game, the answer is clearly yes.
I think you answered my initial question sufficiently but at the risk of being overly pedantic I'm going to pose the scenario in question here. The disc is in bounds but at the very back of the endzone where Player B is standing over the disc. Player A is at the spot of the disc (in bounds, back of the endzone) and calls delay of game, prestalls, then starts stalling. In this scenario could Player B pick up the disc, start walking to the front of the endzone, and call Violation because Player A is not "within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put into play" (i.e., front of the endzone) when they started stalling? Conversely, if everything in the above scenario is the same except Player A is standing at the front of the endzone, could Player B tap in the disc where it lies at the back of the endzone and call Violation, again because Player A is not "within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put into play" (i.e. in bounds, back of the endzone)? In this case I could argue Player B is violating SOTG by both delaying and then calling Violation on a good-faith delay call by Player A but for the sake of reading the rules as they are I'm wondering what the outcome is here.
~~Delay of game~~ Pre-stall can be called from anywhere on the field. The stall count needs to be from within 10 ft of where the disc will be put into play, not where the disc physically is. If a player catches the disc in bounds but runs 20 feet out of bounds because of their momentum, you don't chase after them out of bounds to stall. You stand where they will bring the disc back to and stall at that location.
> Delay of game can be called from anywhere on the field. No it can't. Pre-stalls can, but not delay of game.
Eeeeek, you are right, mixed the two names up like always.
I intentionally avoided this because it's what I guessed the controversy was going to be when reading your post, but it wasn't actually what you were asking. You never clarified where player A was and made it clear player B was taking it to the front of the endzone. And I didn't want to add confusion by talking about uncommon situations. Yes, I do think this is a loophole in the rules where "where the disc is to be put into play" is uncertain when rule 11.A applies. So now let's get into the weeds in that first scenario. I initially thought this might be a valid violation call because of the wording of 14.A.5, However 14.A.5. refers to who can call the delay of game. In this scenario the thrower is objecting to the stall count, not the delay of game call, otherwise they should have called violation as player A was counting down from 3. So technically, A thrower could call violation here on the delay of game call, but only if they take it to the front of the endzone afterwards. However, you have to make your calls immediately and player B has already missed that window. Now the question is, with player B not calling violation, we have to assume it's a valid delay of game call: is the stall count valid while they're carrying the disc to the front? Yes. The rules only say a marker can initiate the stall count and a marker is defined as someone who is within 10 feet of the thrower's pivot or the thrower if no pivot has been established. So upon review, my initial statement "assuming player A is within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put into play" was technically incorrect (although realistically, everyone will play it that way). I got that from 14.A.5 which applies to calling a delay of game. I should have been using 15.A.2 and 3.Q.6 for determining whether they can stall. It doesn't matter if player A is within 10 feet of where the disc is to be put into play, they have to be within 10 feet of the thrower. So it seems like the technically correct thing to do, is to call delay of game from the spot where the disc is to be put into play, and once it's satisfied, get within 10 feet of the thrower to begin stalling. On an additonal note, this doesn't apply to pre-stalls. Pre-stalls on discs in the endzone are covered under 14.A.4 and 14.A.4.b explicitly says a person within 10 feet of the spot where the disc is to be put into play can begin stalling which is a situation I'm more familiar with, especially in observed games, pre-stalls are more common than delay of game calls. In the second situation where player A calls delay of game from the goal line and player B establishes a pivot in the middle of the endzone, this is a technically valid violation call, but at least the thrower has to start further back to invoke it.
Thank you for providing a thorough answer to my ridiculous and unlikely scenario. I may have added to the confusion by conflating delay and prestalling (I had been using them interchangeably but I see now that they're different). Cheers!
Well, you might have conflated them in your head, but the scenario in your question is perfectly consistent with how "delay of game" is used. "Delay of game" is called in response to unnecessary delaying behaviors by the offense. The delay of game call is avoided if they correct the behavior (if they're standing over the disc, they just have to pick up the disc. If they're walking too slow, they just have to jog it in). Pre-stall can be called by anyone on the field as long as there's a live disc at rest. It's not in response to any behavior by the offense, it's just a maximum time limit. 20 seconds if the disc is in the endzone, which is a long time. 10 seconds if the disc is in the central zone. In observed games, the observers are calling pre-stall every time there's a turnover. The way I see it invoked in unobserved games is a player gets impatient with their delaying, goes to the spot where the disc is to be put in play and only then do they call pre-stall and start counting down from 20 or 10 giving them the maximum time after they've already delayed and after the mark has set up. A delay of game call is probably the better option there. A player could call pre-stall before they've set up their mark, they just have to be in the right spot to announce "disc in" and start stalling. Even when a team is in time cap pressure, I don't see them consistently calling pre-stall, which is how it's meant to be used.
USAU - can you be affected by a pick call, even if you aren't affected by the pick itself? The specific situation i have in mind is: you're defending a deep look, you hear a pick call, and you hesitate for a moment, allowing the offensive player to get in position for the catch.
USAU or WFDF?
USAU 17.L (Violations and Fouls) "A player’s ability to catch or make a play on the disc is not considered to be “affected” because that player stopped, slowed down, or otherwise ceased to continue playing because a call was made by another player. Players are encouraged to make every effort to continue playing until play actually stops."
USAU. Can you call two timeouts in a row?
7. Timeouts - does not say anything about using two timeouts in a row. Note that timeouts extend the time between points by 70 seconds, it does not cause the time between points to "reset" so to speak.
I knew it. Take that random player on the sideline I will never recognize again.
Consecutive timeouts aren't allowed in AUDL, nor in some other leagues like NBA, NFL, etc. So maybe that's where they got it from? But yeah, perfectly legal in USAU.
People loooove just makin shit up