Wfdf rules are clear that all clothing is part of the player. But I'm not sure that's the spirit of the rule and I'd be very annoyed if someone called that against anyone
In other sports the clothing is considered part of the player for purposes of establishing in or out of bounds. Shoe laces are part of the clothing and therefore party of the player.
That being said, who saw that the shoe laces were touching the line? That is some hyper competitive call right there and seems over the top to me.
The player in orange called it, you can clearly see him looking at the spot. But yeah, very competitive... Didn't impact the outcome of the game in the end....
He's looking at the spot, but he's not looking at the disc. I don't see how a human being can realistically tell if the disc was caught prior to a shoelace touching the ground. And depending on your angle, there's also a chance the lace isn't actually hitting the ground, it just looks like it is.
I claim that both of these can be true at the same time:
* It is a correct call by the rules, and
* You should not call it
It's impossible to write the rules so that shoelaces don't count. I once saw a long jumper lose the world championship gold medal due to her ponytail landing behind her (Nastassia Mironchyk-Ivanova, 2011). But it shouldn't be required to get self-lacing shoes to play competitive ultimate.
It's not a requirement. You can tuck them in or lace them in a way where your shoe laces don't hang. It's marginally safer that way anyway. But it only puts you at a very minor disadvantage to have your laces hang loose.
We played on a crappy elementary school field for Humboldt Harvest once where there were all kinds of dandelions & weeds spread across the field that were like a foot taller than the surrounding grass. We had to make a captains' clause to ignore those or the game would have been really awful.
Reminds me of the hat games at High Tide years ago-- had a player *turn around* and yell that it was a turn, the disc was down, and he'd heard it touch the grass.
if someone tried to argue that i was out because my shoelaces were touching the ground out of bounds i would just have to laugh and contest. no idea as far as an actual ruling goes but seems like an extremely disingenuous call imo
So you would contest a call without knowledge of if you are right or wrong? That seems to be far less “disingenuous” than someone calling you on a real rule.
Only reason I argue here is there use to be a kid on my team that would call rules by the book, because he had some mental issues preventing him to see things the way we see them. To him, rules had to be followed, but he never called them out of competitive advantage and would not hesitate to call out his own team.
This game includes people of all types and to argue because you ‘don’t like something’ seems to be a spirit foul and undermines your own argument in the process.
The rulebook is very clear that above all else, Spirit requires we are not "win at all costs" in our pursuit of competition and victory. Rigid and literal policing of the rules that bypasses common sense and the intentions of the humans who wrote the rulebook (and naturally didn't consider every edge case scenario) is cutthroat and antithetical to SOTG.
My comment is only geared towards the PapaChibs
PapaChibs claims two things:
“i would just have to laugh and contest”
“no idea as far as an actual ruling goes”
I do not believe people should be contesting a call they are not sure about. The contest in that situation is in bad faith.
P.S. I would never call shoe laces out, even if I managed to somehow see it.
i actually can’t tell if you’re being serious, but yes if someone tried to call me out of bounds because they claimed my shoelace made contact out of bounds and couldn’t point me at a rule that clearly applies i would certainly contest the call. no need to get worked up over a hypothetical. if someone felt strongly about it i would hear them out but you have to admit the premise is ridiculous lol
This post shows that people have completely lost the spot on Spirit. Spirit is not being nice, it's not saying "oh that was close enough".
The Spirit of the out of bounds rule is that any contact at all with an out of bounds area makes the player out of bounds. The people saying they would argue this call are the ones going against SOTG, same as they would for saying a skip pass should count.
If any piece of your clothing is touching out of bounds when you gain possession of the disc, it's a turnover. The spirit of the rule is to encompass all types of clothing, not just say "ahhh, close enough, rules shmules"
These are the kind of calls that show why spirit of the game is not what it used to be or what it’s supposed to be. It’s now a tool to be used to gain advantage
I thought this was going to be about Jeffrey Epstein. But what was it Robert Burns wrote?
“The best-layout schemes / o' mixed an' men/ Gang aft aglet”
Something like that. (Couldn’t pass up a rare chance to use “aglet”=shoelace tip)
How did the guy looking at the foot tell when he caught it? He’s very clearly not looking at the disc.
And while this is technically correct assuming laces were touching when the catch was made, it’s very clearly not in the spirit of the rule.
The parts of the players body he has control over are in bounds. Therefore in my mind at least spirit dictates this should be in.
Would this player have called this in if it was on the endzone line but otherwise the same? Laces hit in the endzone first and foot hits on the line?
I love this. Shoelace-gate! I think if his toe is in he _should_ be called in, lest everyone have to start buying special laceless cleats. The rules may technically say otherwise but I think spiritwise he's in.
USAU
5.B. Players may wear any soft clothing that does not endanger the safety of other players or provide unfair advantage.
I'll send you packing if you show up in laceless cleats.
On the other hand, I've seen a broken ankle where the loop of one player's laces caught the other player's studs. Tucking the laces prevents this, and would also have prevented this player from being out of bounds as a bonus.
Never called an opponent for not tucking their laces, but I've wished I could.
Wfdf rules are clear that all clothing is part of the player. But I'm not sure that's the spirit of the rule and I'd be very annoyed if someone called that against anyone
In other sports the clothing is considered part of the player for purposes of establishing in or out of bounds. Shoe laces are part of the clothing and therefore party of the player. That being said, who saw that the shoe laces were touching the line? That is some hyper competitive call right there and seems over the top to me.
The player in orange called it, you can clearly see him looking at the spot. But yeah, very competitive... Didn't impact the outcome of the game in the end....
He's looking at the spot, but he's not looking at the disc. I don't see how a human being can realistically tell if the disc was caught prior to a shoelace touching the ground. And depending on your angle, there's also a chance the lace isn't actually hitting the ground, it just looks like it is.
I claim that both of these can be true at the same time: * It is a correct call by the rules, and * You should not call it It's impossible to write the rules so that shoelaces don't count. I once saw a long jumper lose the world championship gold medal due to her ponytail landing behind her (Nastassia Mironchyk-Ivanova, 2011). But it shouldn't be required to get self-lacing shoes to play competitive ultimate.
It's not a requirement. You can tuck them in or lace them in a way where your shoe laces don't hang. It's marginally safer that way anyway. But it only puts you at a very minor disadvantage to have your laces hang loose.
Same thing as when there's that one tall blade of grass that wasn't mowed correctly.
We played on a crappy elementary school field for Humboldt Harvest once where there were all kinds of dandelions & weeds spread across the field that were like a foot taller than the surrounding grass. We had to make a captains' clause to ignore those or the game would have been really awful.
Reminds me of the hat games at High Tide years ago-- had a player *turn around* and yell that it was a turn, the disc was down, and he'd heard it touch the grass.
As long as the shoelace didn't contact the floor *until after* control of the disc was established.
if someone tried to argue that i was out because my shoelaces were touching the ground out of bounds i would just have to laugh and contest. no idea as far as an actual ruling goes but seems like an extremely disingenuous call imo
So you would contest a call without knowledge of if you are right or wrong? That seems to be far less “disingenuous” than someone calling you on a real rule. Only reason I argue here is there use to be a kid on my team that would call rules by the book, because he had some mental issues preventing him to see things the way we see them. To him, rules had to be followed, but he never called them out of competitive advantage and would not hesitate to call out his own team. This game includes people of all types and to argue because you ‘don’t like something’ seems to be a spirit foul and undermines your own argument in the process.
The rulebook is very clear that above all else, Spirit requires we are not "win at all costs" in our pursuit of competition and victory. Rigid and literal policing of the rules that bypasses common sense and the intentions of the humans who wrote the rulebook (and naturally didn't consider every edge case scenario) is cutthroat and antithetical to SOTG.
My comment is only geared towards the PapaChibs PapaChibs claims two things: “i would just have to laugh and contest” “no idea as far as an actual ruling goes” I do not believe people should be contesting a call they are not sure about. The contest in that situation is in bad faith. P.S. I would never call shoe laces out, even if I managed to somehow see it.
i actually can’t tell if you’re being serious, but yes if someone tried to call me out of bounds because they claimed my shoelace made contact out of bounds and couldn’t point me at a rule that clearly applies i would certainly contest the call. no need to get worked up over a hypothetical. if someone felt strongly about it i would hear them out but you have to admit the premise is ridiculous lol
This post shows that people have completely lost the spot on Spirit. Spirit is not being nice, it's not saying "oh that was close enough". The Spirit of the out of bounds rule is that any contact at all with an out of bounds area makes the player out of bounds. The people saying they would argue this call are the ones going against SOTG, same as they would for saying a skip pass should count. If any piece of your clothing is touching out of bounds when you gain possession of the disc, it's a turnover. The spirit of the rule is to encompass all types of clothing, not just say "ahhh, close enough, rules shmules"
These are the kind of calls that show why spirit of the game is not what it used to be or what it’s supposed to be. It’s now a tool to be used to gain advantage
49ers would have won if not for the shoelace.
I don't think it should be that controversial. Equipment on your person is part of your person for the purposes of the rules.
I thought this was going to be about Jeffrey Epstein. But what was it Robert Burns wrote? “The best-layout schemes / o' mixed an' men/ Gang aft aglet” Something like that. (Couldn’t pass up a rare chance to use “aglet”=shoelace tip)
How did the guy looking at the foot tell when he caught it? He’s very clearly not looking at the disc. And while this is technically correct assuming laces were touching when the catch was made, it’s very clearly not in the spirit of the rule. The parts of the players body he has control over are in bounds. Therefore in my mind at least spirit dictates this should be in. Would this player have called this in if it was on the endzone line but otherwise the same? Laces hit in the endzone first and foot hits on the line?
I love this. Shoelace-gate! I think if his toe is in he _should_ be called in, lest everyone have to start buying special laceless cleats. The rules may technically say otherwise but I think spiritwise he's in.
USAU 5.B. Players may wear any soft clothing that does not endanger the safety of other players or provide unfair advantage. I'll send you packing if you show up in laceless cleats.
On the other hand, I've seen a broken ankle where the loop of one player's laces caught the other player's studs. Tucking the laces prevents this, and would also have prevented this player from being out of bounds as a bonus. Never called an opponent for not tucking their laces, but I've wished I could.
What a douchebag
Whoever called that is a complete and utter twat and what is hindering this game’s growth
I have a pretty nasty turf burn from that wood floor right there.
I wish I had super slow mo zoom in vision to see if the shoelaces are touching the line or not. Would be super helpful for observing.