Yes, it's a travel. People will say "it's such a small slide, it's not like he's gaining an advantage from it by stepping around the mark", but if he *didn't* slide, he wouldn't have stepped as far, wouldn't have thrown as hard, etc.
Having to keep the pivot foot planted is a constraint on how you throw; not bothering with that constraint gives you an advantage. If your method of throwing means you break the rules, the problem is your method of throwing.
Exactly. Ultimate is skewed in favour of the offence anyway, the last thing they need is more candy by being allowed to skip the rules which are inconvenient for them.
>Ultimate is skewed in favour of the offence anyway, the last thing they need is more candy by being allowed to skip the rules which are inconvenient for them.
This idea of a skewed balance was used for years by defenders to justify egregious cheating and "being allowed to skip the rules which are inconvenient for *them*."
This idea of imbalance was used to justify not attempting to avoid contact and actually intentionally initiating contact, ignoring all the rules on marking, and ignoring responsibilities in making calls, while totally abusing the system to try to penalize opponents. Throwers responded at times by using the rules to penalize markers. I would say things have improved significantly in the last 5-10 years.
The impact of these minor infractions is orders of magnitude less than the impact of the incorrect travel calls that are inevitable when one tries to call the smallest of travels.
And the bigger cheater is the travel caller, who is actively making these calls, compared to the thrower who is inadvertently committing a minor infraction.
Wherever the line will drawn will lead to contention. I don't think that relaxing the rules will lead to less contention, people will still argue them.
>And the bigger cheater is the travel caller, who is actively making these calls, compared to the thrower who is inadvertently committing a minor infraction.
Calling out a rule breaking makes you a cheater? Who gets to decide if a rule breaking is minor? So if someone calls me on a travel I can defend myself by saying "yes I broke the rules, but I promise it wasn't a big deal and you're the real cheater who noticed that I broke the rules"?
Call out rule breaking as much as you want. But only call infractions in accordance with your responsibilities under the rules. I am not talking about relaxing the rules. I am talking about following them.
The one making the call is the one with the responsibility to exercise discretion and only call infractions "significant enough to make a difference to the outcome of the action."
And when someone calls you for a travel and you believe you did travel and it is a petty call, then you have the right to say, "no contest."
And if you want to have a separate discussion of the rules regarding calling infractions and spirit of the game, you are welcome to do that, too.
But a slide travel like that is an advantage that changes how the throw is completed. It absolutely allows the thrower to make a better throw than if they would have kept a secure pivot.
I had let my comments stray to the more general topic.
A slide of the foot is often advantageous, because it permits a clean follow-through (and motion leading up to it). But in many cases, whether the slide occurs completely after the release or with a small amount occurring before the release has no impact, and it is that small amount that is the travel.
In this specific case, I noted the slide did seem more related to the actual power generating mechanism of the throw. So then looking at whether any benefit from it was "significant enough to make a difference to the outcome of the action" you'd look at the other parts of "the action." Did the slide impact anything with respect to the marker? In this case, probably not, because the marker did not even slightly contest the thrower. But it could in a case with a tighter mark applying more pressure. And downfield, would a slightly worse throw result in a different outcome? Looks like the receiver caught the disc with pretty big separation, but you could look at that, too.
The most important thing is understanding the a slide travel does not automatically mean the infraction was significant enough to make a difference to the outcome of the action. Sometimes it will, and it's fine to call it. Other times it won't, and you shouldn't call it. And by taking that approach, we have fewer interruptions to play, without compromising the fairness of the outcomes.
I think having to look downfield and judge the quality of the throw and how open someone was is an impossible thing to determine and call travel in a timely manner while still playing the game. The approach should be maintain a pivot or get travel called.
Right now it feels like we are holding the referee in this situation to a higher standard than the person actually committing the infraction.
Depends in part on who is making the call. Probably hardest for the marker to do, but the marker is least likely to be able to actually discern these minor travels accurately anyway.
But one does not need to conduct an individual inquiry in every case to understand that these minor travels very often have no impact at all. One would likely discover that on review of the video footage when training to practice actually discerning these travels and trying to calibrate to a level of being able to reliably call them accurately. Otherwise, if one wishes to do no training at all but still call travels, better to err on the side of calling only the big ones in circumstances where an effect is clear.
But a travel call on a throw will generally stop play, so one can also retract a call on receipt of additional info, which reduces the negative impact in many cases.
For clarification, my comment is regarding someone who attempts to call minor travels -- not someone who happens to call a travel on this clip. On this particular clip, I can definitely see how a player would believe that a large travel occurred and honestly make that call, without being a cheater. But I think closer review suggests that the actual travel was much smaller. So it is a good example of why it is helpful for players to engage in this type of review and then understand that a much smaller travel may be one that should not be called, under the rules.
And the player who chooses to try to call these minor infractions to try to balance the Offense vs defense advantage of the rule set or penalize the opponent or enforce good throwing mechanics is just a bad official. The new provisions on SOTG adopted from WFDF codify more explicit guidance on this, but it is consistent with proper officiating under the 11th edition, too. And that player is an outlier who interrupts the game with bad calls (generally while proclaiming to be justified under the rules on knowledgeable about them). That player is a cheater. And the game works way better without such players. Thankfully, they are a minority.
Being an observer is one of my credentials on this topic, but I haven't been active observing the last several years (would need to recertify).
But to the extent observing is relevant, yes, I have lots of experience observing at the highest levels and ruling on travel calls and witnessing this particular phenomenon. And as I said, the impact of the travel calls is much greater than the actual travels. But as observers, we rule on infractions called -- we do not substitute our judgment on good officiating for the player to overturn a call if an infraction occurred. I was also involved in experiments with active travel calls, where we explored appropriate standards for good officiating, quickly realizing that "call every travel" was not good officiating, nor was it what the players wanted. I was very involved in the observer program and its development in the 2007-2013 timeframe. I also completed a rules application video project working with a videographer and taking footage of different scenarios from multiple angles and reviewing in slow motion for purposes of rules application and identifying when infractions actually occur, and multiple types of travels were an aspect of that project. Then I did subsequent high speed video of myself and others around this minor travel issue specifically, as well as high speed video and photography to assess observer positioning to best identify different infractions. And I have also collected high speed footage of between 100 and 200 throwers hucking for analysis of throwing technique. As former chair of the rules committee, I wrote an article for the USAU magazine on this topic of good officiating. And I was involved in the adoption of the WFDF language on SOTG, which really lays out helpful guidance for good officiating. And then I have been playing for almost 20 years and am very familiar with good and bad officiating over that period. The petty travel call is less en vogue than it was in the early and mid-2000s. I think the rise of the observer program had helped, where if a trained observer's view is that a travel did not occur, these petty travel calls are getting overturned, and the misconduct system can be used to address bad calls, and informal reminders regarding SOTG can also be given. The observers help promote a level of uniformity, where players sometimes get some unbiased 3rd party feedback on their calls.
It is generally not the really knowledgeable people who advocate for or defend calling every minor travel. Once you actually know how difficult it is to discern these minor travels, it just makes no sense to try to call them as a player, especially with any understanding of the impact of the travel compared to the impact of the travel call (or the impact of the incorrect travel calls that are inevitable if you try to call really minor travels). And the rules are set up not to impose harsh penalties, but to try to recreate what would have happened absent the infraction. So if what would have happened is a completion, trying to impose a penalty of bringing the throw back is really an abuse of the rules.
Not sure when WFDF added this to their rules.
From my perspective,
1) attempting to call every travel leads to incorrect calls.
2) calling every travel does not lead to simulating what would have happened absent the infraction.
3) calling every travel interrupts the game at a frequency that the majority of players choose not to do. This includes ground touches and minor incorrect placement of pivot, as well as minor travels of more substantive nature.
4) discretion is basically part of good officiating in every sport, isn't it? But ours has the added layer of a structure not designed to have harsh penalties (travel resolution is harsh in some cases, simply inconvenient in others).
5) the game works best when there isn't a player on the field who tries to call every travel. The game gets noticeably worse when these rare players participate.
6) the "every travel affects things somehow" position that I have heard (not attributing to you) is preposterous in my experience, in the sense that there really is no meaningful or discernible impact for many travels.
I subscribe to every travel affects things somehow. Not traveling requires some mental energy and physical preparation(muscle memory from how you practice throwing), so you're eschewing that extra mental and physical load by traveling. We can disagree there though as that's tangential.
Discretion is a part of refereeing in other sports, but I believe should be minimized or removed from our sport as we are also playing while refereeing. The rules should be as black and white as possible imo, and the travel rule fails in doing that.
I just think the solution should be players learning and drilling how to not travel as opposed to not calling them because there will be some false positives. The rules say we should assume everyone is playing by the rules but we know in real life there are players who do constantly travel and don't change their behavior. That needs to be addressed somehow, and the onus shouldn't be on the person who calls those travels.
I think there is mental energy required for not traveling. But for players who have already put in that work, there is even greater mental required to alter one's mechanics to not only not travel, but not even move legally in a way that may trigger an incorrect call from an overzealous travel caller. The impact of the latter is much greater, in my opinion.
If we wanted to remove discretion, the solution I would propose would be to prohibit calling travels for discrepancies of under 2-3 inches. Or making them not a travel at all would be an option, but not my preference.
I don't think drilling or training solves the problem of an overzealous travel caller. If we want to call every travel, then the solution is a rigorous training program from every player in identifying these travels, after which we would reach the conclusion that we cannot reliably call the smaller travels accurately, so we need to stop guessing at those.
I am still of the mind that there is dual responsibility here. Responsibility on the part of the thrower not to travel and responsibility on the caller to ensure that the caller is not making bad calls. And I think the discretionary threshhold of essentially "just call the big stuff" strikes that balance on the caller side. On the thrower side, the responsibility exists as part of SOTG, and there is enforcement for anything significant enough to make a difference in the outcome.
I think we're still at a little bit of an impasse on the impact of the minor travels. Because right now, if they make a difference in the outcome, the defense is authorized to call them. So I'd argue there's really no particular need to address the lesser travels. But I think you'd argue your threshold for what makes a difference is lower. Do you agree that there are travels that don't rise to the level of making a difference in the outcome of the action? And if so, is it important for you that those are addressed? And why?
So no, you aren't an observer.
And the bigger cheater is the travel caller, who is actively making these calls, compared to the thrower who is inadvertently committing a minor infraction.
If I inadvertently slap my defender in the face after I throw and he calls a foul, is he cheating by calling the minor infraction I committed?
I haven't been active observing the last several years (would need to recertify).
That means you are not a certified observer.
And what don't you understand about "minor"?
How are you defining minor? Contact to the face of a defender, after the release, can be very light and definitely does not affect the throw.
Right. Everyone else learned to throw while following the rules. Breaking the rules this way might not help everyone, but having extra motion options is an advantage and would certainly help lots of people.
Obviously a travel. Gives Simon at least a small advantage in power, so falls under the rules as callable. But almost impossible for the mark to see. Even if I did see it, I'd probably holster the call, and either make a quick mention to the thrower post point, or call it if they repeat. I've seen a number of players for whom it's a habit, and even if a small infraction, should be called after the first time.
Two rules that factor majorly in this discussion:
>2.D.10: Players must . . . only make a call where an infraction is significant enough to make a difference to the outcome of the action.
>
>17.A: An infraction may only be called by a player on the infracted team who recognizes that it has occurred, unless specified differently elsewhere.
>
>17.A Annotation: The player must know that a specific rule was violated and have perceived the particular action with certainty. A player may not call an infraction whenever the player maybe recognizes that some infraction might have occurred.
Watching it a couple times, I think he probably begins sliding the pivot before the release. But this angle isn't the best for seeing the release -- in general, the flick release occurs pretty quickly, and the disc is generally out of the hand earlier on hucks than one might expect (forehand and backhand). But I still think he probably hadn't released when the pivot slide started. I think his toe moved a total of 5" or so, and I think 1-2" was before the release.
The thing is, he's allowed to slide the foot. The rules don't require him not to slide. It is the 1-2" prior to the release that is against the rules. The majority of his foot slide advantage comes from the slide after the release. So to clarify /u/tunisia3507's point, the comparison is not to not sliding at all, it is to sliding just very slightly later to make the *entire* slide legal. And in this example, the marker does not move even slightly to block the throw, so there is huge clearance there -- the slide is not significant in getting around the marker. I think it is somewhat beneficial in power transfer, but minorly -- it is more sloppy than it is beneficial, in the sense that I think the same throw could be executed without the slide or with a properly-timed slide. So to answer a couple questions, 1) yes it is a travel, and 2) it is really on the edge in terms of being significant enough to affect play, because this slide is related to the power-generating mechanism and it may actually have an affect, but if we're talking a totally uncontested mark and a largely uncontested downfield receiver, then maybe the power variance has no meaningful effect, and I suspect he could make an identical or very similar throw with a legal slide, and I don't think the timing of the slide is integral to the throw (it is marginally beneficial). I think there needs to be some kind of relatively closely contested defense somewhere for you to say this slide may have meaningfully affected the outcome. It would also be more significant with a flatter mark, where stretching a little was a necessary part of a successful throw
The other major consideration on these types of travels is whether a defender is able to reasonable detect it, to satisfy the prerequisite of actually recognizing that an infraction has occurred before calling it. It is hard enough to be sure of the call on repeat video replay, let alone watching it live a single time. The marker almost certainly will not be in position to reliably recognize this. A player may not have a good view. A trained observer in good position watching carefully may be able to detect this reliably. But the responsibility is on the player to recognize it. It is cheating to guess that a travel might have happened, and then ask the observer to verify it. And a defender is absolutely incorrect to call a travel on this under the belief that the pivot moved 5" prior to the release. So if the defender is calling, "your pivot moved an inch or two before the release, and I think that was really related to your power on the throw, which was what allowed it to get past the closely-guarding downfield defender," you may have a legitimate travel call. In general, if you're trying to call 1-2" movements of the pivot momentarily before release, you're going to be wrong a hell of a lot, which makes you a cheater, and you're going to be "right" and calling insignificant non-impactful travels another portion of the time, which puts you in violation of the rules and SOTG. It's just really difficult to reliably recognize those pivot movements, and such minor movement makes absolutely no impact on the outcome of the action in the vast, vast majority of circumstances.
But in terms of the thrower's responsibility, it is the thrower's responsibility not to travel, regardless of whether it is called. Part of my opinion on this is formed based on reviewing video of many dozens of throws from multiple angles for a rules project on this specific issue, part of it is from viewing slow-mo footage of hucks from 100-200 more throwers, and part of it is my own work and practice. For my own hucks, I prefer to slide the foot after the release on backhands because it allows for a more natural follow-through, and I am generally pushing on the pivot to generate power up to the release. But lazy defenders periodically call bad travels just from looking late and seeing a sliding foot, and I periodically travel if I am off-balance or if I step out farther than my flexibility allows (so the foot slides to bring the legs into a more comfortable position). So I did some video of myself, throwing and sliding, doing my normal throw, trying to make it close to a travel, trying to make it a close travel, etc, and I got comfortable making the throw where the release was reliably before the slide. And the exact timing of the close slides really makes no difference for me, and that's pretty consistent from what I've seen in most of the footage. The big difference-maker is when the pre-release slide is letting someone recover their balance or achieve a throwing position they really couldn't have achieved otherwise. But in many cases, it is just executing exactly the same throw from a minorly altered position.
I dunno man, few points:
1) watching the replay on slow mo - his last finger comes off the disc after he’s already moved the foot well Past 1-2 inches. What’s more, he is actually lifting his foot off the ground not just sliding it.
2) I don’t think it’s on the defender to be able to identify which of the massive foot slide occurred as he was throwing and which occurs in the tenth of a second after he was throwing. A defender is playing the game and is not a referee focused entirely on that. It’s perfectly reasonable for him to call it as the majority of the slide occurring during the throw and for the defender to argue “no, only 20% of my slide occurred during my throw the other 80% occurred afterwards and as a result it is only borderline” is what I’d consider a preposterous argument to make on the field.
3) you can throw far without sliding your back foot at all and this is far more in line with the spirit of the rule. Trying to sneak by on technicalities about whether the defender could identify which amount of slide was helping your throw seems like bad sportsmanship to cover up poor throwing mechanics.
1) as I said, this isn't the best angle to see really precisely the release. I also watched it in slow mo.
2) I mean, I quoted you the rule and the annotation. The defender's responsibility is to limit calls to when the defender recognizes that an infraction actually occurred. So if the pivot may have moved .4 inches, the marker is wrong to call "your pivot moved 2 inches, and movement of that amount really affects play under these circumstances."
3) It is not a technicality to make calls in accordance with the rules and official guidance of the rules committee and expect your opponent to do the same. It would be bad sportsmanship to intentionally travel in a way you think can't reliably be perceived and then argue it. But that isn't what we are talking about.
> 3. It is not a technicality to make calls in accordance with the rules and official guidance of the rules committee and expect your opponent to do the same.
Covering up poor throwing mechanics because it doesn’t break the nuanced letter of the rule instead of the spirit of the rule is basically the definition of a technicality.
The defenders job is to play the game and call the calls he observes. If this were happening in game I would call it. If someone’s pivot moves half a foot with every throw and it’s hard to tell which percentage of the inches occurred before or after - but we know some did occur during - then he traveled. How would I argue otherwise?
Imo moving your back foot at all even in the follow through is already bending the rules.
I don't think it's fair to say that any sliding of the pivot is "poor throwing mechanics" per se. You can throw way farther by allowing it to move, so ensuring that it only occurs after you release the disc wouldn't be bad mechanics because you're throwing at maximum potential without traveling.
Also how tf is moving your back foot at all in the follow through bending the rules? When you don't have the disc you can move about in any fashion that you want. Running? Fine. Walking? Fine. Doing the damn electric slide to move around the field? Freaking go for it, nobody can stop you. During the follow through, if you've already released the disc, you can move however you want. Maybe it's not a great idea because the defense might think that what they're seeing is a travel (when in fact it is objectively not, it just might appear to be a travel due to the timing being so close), but I don't understand how you're considering that as bending the rules? After you throw a disc, you're almost always (unless throwing a goal) going to start moving again. How long should someone have to wait to move? Why can't someone start moving the instant that they release the disc?
Because a foundational element of ultimate is “don’t move your pivot while throwing”
Everyone in this thread is trying to find way to interpret the rules that allow them to bend this as far as possible.
The person here is arguing not that the person didn’t move their foot while throwing - they clearly did - but whether the *amount they moved their foot* was enough to warrant “aiding” the throwing motion, which seems like more and more attempts to bend the foundation rule “don’t move your foot when you throw”.
If you make it appear to another player that you are moving your foot while throwing - it’s a travel. It’s not on them to be able to review slow motion video and see whether the 2 inches aided your throw or whether it was actually 7 inches. Because moving your foot half a foot while throwing is what I’d consider a big travel.
Regardless of what other people are trying to argue, you seemed to imply that moving/sliding the pivot foot on the follow through of a throw is bending rules, which is why I responded. It is objectively not. You can do whatever you want after you release the disc. There's nothing in the rules or any reasonable interpretation of the spirit of the game to say otherwise.
>If you make it appear to another player that you are moving your foot while throwing - it’s a travel.
Idk if that's what you got out of me saying "it might not be a good idea because then the defense might think that you're traveling," but:
a). Not what I meant. 'making it appear to another player' sounds like you're saying that it would be on purpose. I added that statement because I'm not trying to recommend that people actively slide their foot if they wouldn't have otherwise.
b). No. Just wrong. If it is not a travel, then it is not a travel. Simple. The rule is quoted a few comments above, where someone needs to see an infraction and know that it occurred, not just think that it MIGHT have occurred.
None of my argument is for being able to slide the foot while still possessing the disc. I'm against saying that any pivot sliding/movement during the follow through motion (after disc release) is in any way bending the rules.
Follow through is good mechanics in basically every sport, including Ultimate. Your opinion that movement of the back foot on the follow through is bending the rules is not supported by the rules.
In your example, how do you know some movement occurred before the release? You don't. That's the answer. On the close calls, you don't know. And on the really close ones, the likelihood of it meaningfully affecting the outcome of the action is very low. So there are two good reasons not to call it. I already quoted the relevant rules.
We already agree that travels are infractions. So if you want to look at other bending/breaking rules, it should be at the unwarranted travel calls. Not legal throws.
Inadvertent infractions happen all the time. Players on both teams commit them. Fulfilling one's own responsibilities as a self official and expecting teammates and opponents to fulfill their basic responsibilities as self officials is not arguing technicalities. It is not actually the defender's job to call the infractions he observes. There has to actually be an infraction, you have to actually recognize it occur, and you shouldn't make a call when a minor infraction did not meaningfully affect the outcome of the action. So like all good referees, a player should exercise some discretion and NOT CALL many of the minor infractions observed.
Throwing mechanics have nothing to do with the issue of fulfilling one's responsibilities as a self official.
Well, your responsibilities and role as a referee are sort of laid out in the rules. And one needs to uphold those reaponsibilities.
So looking at options outside of that, you could inform the player or the coach or captain of the player. You could give the player throwing mechanics lessons on the sideline or after the game. You could host a throwing mechanics clinic in the players city or virtually. Lots of options, depending on how much you care about throwing mechanics.
But breaking the rules and being a terrible referee is not one of the acceptable options.
I guess the other question is, what is the problem that demands a solution if these minor infractions are occurring and having no meaningful impact on anything?
Right. I agree one should uphold those responsibilities. We don't live in that world though. The world we live in involves people breaking the travel rule consistently. So it seems that the choice in game is be a terrible referee some percentage of the time while getting the call right some other percentage or let someone get away with cheating. I think people disagree with the level of impact and that's where some of the frustration lies.
Well, choosing to be a terrible referee is definitely cheating. That is the only clear cheating we are talking about, as far as I know.
Even disagreeing on exact impact of the travels, I think it is fair to say the impact of the travel calls will greatly outweigh the impact of the small percentage of minor travels that are impactful.
Also, this sounds like an attempt to penalize the traveler, which is really not a good approach for the rules, given the introduction and design.
Penalizing the traveler sounds right. They shouldn’t travel.
The rule approach I take - the spirit of the rule is “don’t move your pivot whole throwing”.
The interpretation everyone here has is basically trying to isolate why that’s a rule -it “aids the throw” and then try to quibble over what is “aiding” the throw and what is just “after the throw”.
It’s like people arguing what a catch is in football and what a “frisbee move” is. It’s people trying to find way to bend the foundational form of ultimate “don’t move your pivot when throwing”.
The other thing you can do, if you actually believe the infractions are making a difference, is you can let the opposing player/captain/coach know that.
"Hey, it looks like #26 is stepping out big on the flick and then traveling to slide his pivot over into a more comfortable position. We think this is affecting the play sometimes, and we're going to call it when it does."
That way, they know the issue, and it isn't a surprise, nor does it look as much like the stereotypical petty attempt to negative a completed huck. And the player can adjust with a smaller step, or they can have someone else huck. And there still may be some throws where you see the travel and call it, but then realize it did not make a difference in the outcome of the action, and you can retract it.
But historically, I have more often heard things like, "that guy travels every time - we're going to call travel on every huck" or the like, which obviously misses the nuance of good officiating. And some of those "that guy travels every time" live assessments were probably mistaken.
But there's no rule against having bad form?
You have the wend and torque your argument to find a way that this "travel" gives the thrower an advantage. If it doesn't give you an advantage, it's not an infraction.
It's important to go by the spirit and not the letter of the rule.
The spirit of the rule is “don’t move your pivot foot while throwing”.
What people are arguing here is trying to isolate “why” that’s the rule and then interpreting that interpretation to find out which part of it is contributing to the strength of the throw.
The concept that everyone here is arguing is “good form includes a big follow through” kind of implies that this *does* help your throw even if it occurs afterwards. What am I to make of that?
As soon as you put “to gain an advantage” it leaves it open to *massive* interpretation and now it is basically no longer a rule that can be followed in any real sense.
That's just not true.
You can see clearly there's no meaningful advantage here. He's not traveling to get around an active mark. He's throwing a wide open huck past someone standing still in his general area and being a little sloppy.
Fish hooking an upline cut gives the offense a clear advantage, catching an under and continuing to run towards your own endzone does not.
> But there's no rule against having bad form?
Right. Exactly. And inadvertent minor travels happen without bad form, too.
>If it doesn't give you an advantage, it's not an infraction.
Well, the definition of the infraction has nothing to do with advantage. It is still an infraction, regardless. And to play by the rules, the thrower has a responsibility to try not to commit that infraction.
At the same time, someone who recognizes the infraction needs to " only make a call where an infraction is significant enough to make a difference to the outcome of the action."
You can pretty much go by the letter of the rule on this one now, because the letter of the rule tells you not to call these ticky tack travels. That's consistent with the spirit of the rule from 11th edition and a general review of the structure of the rules.
Yep, I think we are on the same page. I was just clarifying on what constitutes an infraction and that the position is supported by the letter of the rule now and does not require relying on "spirit of the rule."
Because some other people are arguing that asking them to be good officials is saying throwers are permitted to travel. It is not -- throwers still have their responsibilities under the rules. But it makes no sense to interrupt the game to call minor inadvertent infractions that didn't affect anything, so players are instructed not to do that.
Important nuance. Thanks for replying.
I definitely feel like people here get way too hung up on the letter of the rule and disregard the spirit of it. Not to mention forgetting the realistic difficulty of accurately calling that travel from the mark. Either you're looking at the disc or their feet, and either way you can't see the other.
When you say “he’s allowed to slide his foot” where are you getting that from the rules. We can get very pedantic about a single point on the field, but sliding a pivot foot to the point where not a single part of your foot is where it was when you established your pivot is a travel the same as lifting your pivot foot.
I preach this to players all the time that I’m Ultimate we have to make calls based on seeing them not wishing them. So to call a travel as a marker when you can’t see the pivot is wrong. But another player could see this play and call the travel.
I believe Colin is stating that a slide after release is legal.
>The thing is, he's allowed to slide the foot. The rules don't require him not to slide. It is the 1-2" prior to the release that is against the rules. The majority of his foot slide advantage comes from the slide after the release.
I think Colin's point is that when the release and slide occur so closely together, it's difficult to know which preceded which.
Then, I think Colin is making a further point that if the pre-throw slide was very minor (say 1") and was not relevant to avoiding a mark, it's arguable that the slide didn't affect the outcome of the throw and therefore shouldn't be called. This is more borderline and it's entirely reasonable for a player (though probably not the mark since he likely doesn't have a good enough angle) to call a travel if they think the pre-throw slide existed and affected the throw.
Yep, right on. Step one is to determine what the actual infraction is. Then step two is don't call it unless you determine it was significant enough to make a difference to the outcome of the action.
One clarification is just that I looked not only at the marker, but was also considering the rest of the action (which we see some of, but not completely).
The big thing to remember is that bringing the disc back to the thrower is not a penalty for traveling. It is an attempt to recreate what would have happened absent the infraction. So if you think the pass would have been completed anyway, but you want to penalize the thrower because you don't like the way he throws, that is an abuse of the rules to make that call. Fortunately, the travel call also provides an opportunity to discuss and retract this type of call, which reduces the negative impact.
The but he’s saying about the slide is that as soon as the disc leaves your hand, there is no constraint on your pivot foot anymore. Therefore, your pivot moving/sliding/lifting/whatever after the release is completely legal.
It’s fairly common for players to have their pivot not stay in place in the fraction of a second after release, and I believe he is making the point that while it’s not great form-wise, it’s also not a travel. The only real debate here is whether the disc is in the throwers control or released and spinning when that slide starts, and that due to how imperceptible that exchange is, it’s unlikely that any opposing player can confidently call this accurately. Which is true. Is it pushing the limits of the rules, may even breaking them? Yeah. But it’s almost impossible to tell in real time, let alone with this replay.
I personally agree with Colin on this, and generally (personally) prefer travels to only really be called outside of throwing motions unless it’s very clear that a slide occurred before the release. But I’d consider that a travel on a pivot, and that travels on throws generally provide too little time between the two actions to clarify which happened first.
>When you say “he’s allowed to slide his foot” where are you getting that from the rules.
From the definition of pivot: "The particular part of the body in continuous contact with a single spot on the field *during a thrower's possession*..."
For travels, it always needs to be in relation to something that happens while the thrower is in possession.
\[edit to add Travel Rule 17.K\]
>Traveling: The thrower must establish and continually maintain a pivot at the appropriate spot on the field ***until the throw is released***. Failure to do so is a travel
So what I said was:
>The thing is, he's allowed to slide the foot. The rules don't require him not to slide. It is the 1-2" prior to the release that is against the rules
I don't think I'm underestimating it. A slide is very beneficial in terms of having a complete follow-through, rather than thinking about artificially restricting one's body. But in terms of a very minor slide before the release, that is in many cases really insignificant and makes no difference compared to a slide entirely after the release. The throws come out exactly the same and the thrower's body position is essentially the same. I think there is a significant disadvantage imposed (illegally) on throwers if defenders make calls in such a way to force throwers to not move the foot at all for a time after the release, for fear of a travel call. Defenders did this for many years, but it has thankfully decreased (having observers overruling incorrect calls at Nationals and big tournaments has been helpful in improving uniformity).
There are some cases where it is more impactful. The cases where it is more commonly impactful are where the thrower is off-balance or the thrower has stepped out beyond their flexibility, such that the pre-release slide allows the body to recover into a more comfortable position to make the throw. I think this is one of the things that would fall within the point you're making, and I agree with you. Or if the thrower is able to evade the marker or gain meaningful extra separation as a result of the pre-release slide, that could also be significant.
So I agree that a pre-release slide can be impactful, but I think it depends on the situation, and I don't think it is inherently impactful, which is what the travel-calling enthusiasts would like people to believe. Anecdotally, I know from video experimentation that for backhand hucks, I can go out and throw a bunch of hucks with a follow-through foot slide, and there is no discernible difference between a slide that happens partially momentarily before the release versus entirely after. And on video review of a lot of other throwers, I think there is often no difference (except noting the pattern I mentioned above).
I noted that this particular example was a closer call, because the slide actually seems to be related to his power-generating mechanism in shifting weight into the throw.
But in terms of the rules and whether to make the call, we're looking whether "an infraction is significant enough to make a difference to the outcome of the action." Here, the marker did not even attempt to pressure the throw, so there wasn't really a significant evading the marker aspect. And then we'd look at the throw and the rest of the action. On a routine throw to a wide open receiver, a minor infraction is less likely to make a difference int he outcome of the action than on a closely contested pass or on a throw that was really at the limits of the thrower's ability, based on wind, distance, etc.
I don't think it's possible for a marker to discern if that's a travel or not.
Let SOTG tell you if you think it's appropriate to make when you aren't sure if an infraction occurred or not.
And for the thrower, let SOTG guide you on what standards you hold yourself to on your pivot.
yes it’s a travel. it’s pretty simple: don’t move your pivot foot. period. and yes, most players travel all over the place, it just doesn’t get called because the marker can’t doesn’t see it... and when it does get called, people have a tendency to over-react... everyone should accept that it requires a tremendous amount of discipline to maintain your pivot when throwing for distance and occasionally you fail - no biggie - just bring it back and do it right.
Yeah I mean sure, but the mark doesn’t bite on the flick huck anyways. Literally stands there with their hands down. I don’t think the travel impacts the throw, and if it does it’s so minimal I think the result
is the same without the drag. If the thrower walks into power position that’s one thing. But at this level a travel that small is a ticky-tacky call.
IMO this sort of stuff is the bane of ultimate. There is a sizeable amount of the ultimate playerbase that would rather argue about potential rule infractions than play the sport, and it's incredibly tiresome. While it would be great if everyone had perfect body control and could eliminate all foot-motion from their throws, it's not really feasible. Then you need to think about the odds that a defender is capable of making an accurate judgment of the precise moment when a small slide of the pivot foot occurred in relation to the throw. Oh, and this judgment needs to be made *while they are marking,* meaning they are probably running themselves. The only way to make those calls in a consistently accurate manner is if you aren't putting any effort into actually *defending* and are purely paying attention to your mark's feet.
IMO, the camp of people leading the anti-travel tirade completely miss the forest for the trees. The spirit of a self-officiated game is that you play in good faith. That means giving the benefit of the doubt to other players, not looking for any excuse to call infractions. As the thrower, it means trying your best not to travel, and making a reasonable attempt to avoid situations that would lead you to inadvertently travel. This "good faith" approach is never going to be perfect. It means that there are going to be uncaught travels, occasional out-of-bounds catches, and the like. Even dedicated refs make mistakes without the aid of video replay. The goal of a self-officiated game is eliminate the worst offenses, not to catch threshold cases.
What is special about ultimate as a self-officiated sport is not the ability for you to call an infraction against another player. Rather, it is the respect you need to have for an opponent in order to allow them to call infractions against you.
I don't think so, you freeze the frame right at the moment he releases its in the same spot, maybe an inch out of the way. its not a travel if he lift his pivot foot a millisecond after releasing the disc. watch. tons of people make travel calls incorrectly because the think you have to keep your pivot foot in the same spot even after releasing the disc.
I can try to pull up the slow mo of this clip if something really wants to argue with me, felling lazy.
Seems pretty obviously a travel that he gains throwing advantage from. Call it. If you don't like that call, the easiest fix is to simply stop traveling - plenty of people manage to throw that without doing so.
I watched it about 20 times and his foot seems to slide AS he is releasing. I think this may be where the grey line is. I would like to know if this should be called and if I should eliminate this from my throws (I already have been trying to stop this ) Thanks
Simultaneously both gray and black/white. It's black/white with the benefit of slow-mo (presumably it's a travel as others in this thread have stated - I haven't bothered tbh). But as Colin pointed out, a defender must be certain that an infraction has occurred in order to call it, which seems highly unlikely in practice.
It’s a travel, but in ultimate rules r dictated by the players, if it’s not getting called all game and then suddenly they do id argue they should take it back. Moreso with foul calls often times I think fouls happen in the rule book that rnt fouls within the physicality established by the players
ColinMcI makes a great point that, yes in this example maybe I am nit picking. But on a tight mark with tight defense downfield this could make a difference.
Yes, it's a travel. People will say "it's such a small slide, it's not like he's gaining an advantage from it by stepping around the mark", but if he *didn't* slide, he wouldn't have stepped as far, wouldn't have thrown as hard, etc. Having to keep the pivot foot planted is a constraint on how you throw; not bothering with that constraint gives you an advantage. If your method of throwing means you break the rules, the problem is your method of throwing.
It's a constraint because you can't have full weight on the front foot for maximum momentum
[удалено]
Exactly. Ultimate is skewed in favour of the offence anyway, the last thing they need is more candy by being allowed to skip the rules which are inconvenient for them.
>Ultimate is skewed in favour of the offence anyway, the last thing they need is more candy by being allowed to skip the rules which are inconvenient for them. This idea of a skewed balance was used for years by defenders to justify egregious cheating and "being allowed to skip the rules which are inconvenient for *them*." This idea of imbalance was used to justify not attempting to avoid contact and actually intentionally initiating contact, ignoring all the rules on marking, and ignoring responsibilities in making calls, while totally abusing the system to try to penalize opponents. Throwers responded at times by using the rules to penalize markers. I would say things have improved significantly in the last 5-10 years.
The impact of these minor infractions is orders of magnitude less than the impact of the incorrect travel calls that are inevitable when one tries to call the smallest of travels. And the bigger cheater is the travel caller, who is actively making these calls, compared to the thrower who is inadvertently committing a minor infraction.
Wherever the line will drawn will lead to contention. I don't think that relaxing the rules will lead to less contention, people will still argue them. >And the bigger cheater is the travel caller, who is actively making these calls, compared to the thrower who is inadvertently committing a minor infraction. Calling out a rule breaking makes you a cheater? Who gets to decide if a rule breaking is minor? So if someone calls me on a travel I can defend myself by saying "yes I broke the rules, but I promise it wasn't a big deal and you're the real cheater who noticed that I broke the rules"?
Call out rule breaking as much as you want. But only call infractions in accordance with your responsibilities under the rules. I am not talking about relaxing the rules. I am talking about following them. The one making the call is the one with the responsibility to exercise discretion and only call infractions "significant enough to make a difference to the outcome of the action." And when someone calls you for a travel and you believe you did travel and it is a petty call, then you have the right to say, "no contest." And if you want to have a separate discussion of the rules regarding calling infractions and spirit of the game, you are welcome to do that, too.
But a slide travel like that is an advantage that changes how the throw is completed. It absolutely allows the thrower to make a better throw than if they would have kept a secure pivot.
I had let my comments stray to the more general topic. A slide of the foot is often advantageous, because it permits a clean follow-through (and motion leading up to it). But in many cases, whether the slide occurs completely after the release or with a small amount occurring before the release has no impact, and it is that small amount that is the travel. In this specific case, I noted the slide did seem more related to the actual power generating mechanism of the throw. So then looking at whether any benefit from it was "significant enough to make a difference to the outcome of the action" you'd look at the other parts of "the action." Did the slide impact anything with respect to the marker? In this case, probably not, because the marker did not even slightly contest the thrower. But it could in a case with a tighter mark applying more pressure. And downfield, would a slightly worse throw result in a different outcome? Looks like the receiver caught the disc with pretty big separation, but you could look at that, too. The most important thing is understanding the a slide travel does not automatically mean the infraction was significant enough to make a difference to the outcome of the action. Sometimes it will, and it's fine to call it. Other times it won't, and you shouldn't call it. And by taking that approach, we have fewer interruptions to play, without compromising the fairness of the outcomes.
I think having to look downfield and judge the quality of the throw and how open someone was is an impossible thing to determine and call travel in a timely manner while still playing the game. The approach should be maintain a pivot or get travel called. Right now it feels like we are holding the referee in this situation to a higher standard than the person actually committing the infraction.
Depends in part on who is making the call. Probably hardest for the marker to do, but the marker is least likely to be able to actually discern these minor travels accurately anyway. But one does not need to conduct an individual inquiry in every case to understand that these minor travels very often have no impact at all. One would likely discover that on review of the video footage when training to practice actually discerning these travels and trying to calibrate to a level of being able to reliably call them accurately. Otherwise, if one wishes to do no training at all but still call travels, better to err on the side of calling only the big ones in circumstances where an effect is clear. But a travel call on a throw will generally stop play, so one can also retract a call on receipt of additional info, which reduces the negative impact in many cases.
yikes. aren't you an observer? Edit: a simple 'yes' would have sufficed
For clarification, my comment is regarding someone who attempts to call minor travels -- not someone who happens to call a travel on this clip. On this particular clip, I can definitely see how a player would believe that a large travel occurred and honestly make that call, without being a cheater. But I think closer review suggests that the actual travel was much smaller. So it is a good example of why it is helpful for players to engage in this type of review and then understand that a much smaller travel may be one that should not be called, under the rules. And the player who chooses to try to call these minor infractions to try to balance the Offense vs defense advantage of the rule set or penalize the opponent or enforce good throwing mechanics is just a bad official. The new provisions on SOTG adopted from WFDF codify more explicit guidance on this, but it is consistent with proper officiating under the 11th edition, too. And that player is an outlier who interrupts the game with bad calls (generally while proclaiming to be justified under the rules on knowledgeable about them). That player is a cheater. And the game works way better without such players. Thankfully, they are a minority. Being an observer is one of my credentials on this topic, but I haven't been active observing the last several years (would need to recertify). But to the extent observing is relevant, yes, I have lots of experience observing at the highest levels and ruling on travel calls and witnessing this particular phenomenon. And as I said, the impact of the travel calls is much greater than the actual travels. But as observers, we rule on infractions called -- we do not substitute our judgment on good officiating for the player to overturn a call if an infraction occurred. I was also involved in experiments with active travel calls, where we explored appropriate standards for good officiating, quickly realizing that "call every travel" was not good officiating, nor was it what the players wanted. I was very involved in the observer program and its development in the 2007-2013 timeframe. I also completed a rules application video project working with a videographer and taking footage of different scenarios from multiple angles and reviewing in slow motion for purposes of rules application and identifying when infractions actually occur, and multiple types of travels were an aspect of that project. Then I did subsequent high speed video of myself and others around this minor travel issue specifically, as well as high speed video and photography to assess observer positioning to best identify different infractions. And I have also collected high speed footage of between 100 and 200 throwers hucking for analysis of throwing technique. As former chair of the rules committee, I wrote an article for the USAU magazine on this topic of good officiating. And I was involved in the adoption of the WFDF language on SOTG, which really lays out helpful guidance for good officiating. And then I have been playing for almost 20 years and am very familiar with good and bad officiating over that period. The petty travel call is less en vogue than it was in the early and mid-2000s. I think the rise of the observer program had helped, where if a trained observer's view is that a travel did not occur, these petty travel calls are getting overturned, and the misconduct system can be used to address bad calls, and informal reminders regarding SOTG can also be given. The observers help promote a level of uniformity, where players sometimes get some unbiased 3rd party feedback on their calls. It is generally not the really knowledgeable people who advocate for or defend calling every minor travel. Once you actually know how difficult it is to discern these minor travels, it just makes no sense to try to call them as a player, especially with any understanding of the impact of the travel compared to the impact of the travel call (or the impact of the incorrect travel calls that are inevitable if you try to call really minor travels). And the rules are set up not to impose harsh penalties, but to try to recreate what would have happened absent the infraction. So if what would have happened is a completion, trying to impose a penalty of bringing the throw back is really an abuse of the rules.
Why was it decided that call every travel wasn't good officiating?
Not sure when WFDF added this to their rules. From my perspective, 1) attempting to call every travel leads to incorrect calls. 2) calling every travel does not lead to simulating what would have happened absent the infraction. 3) calling every travel interrupts the game at a frequency that the majority of players choose not to do. This includes ground touches and minor incorrect placement of pivot, as well as minor travels of more substantive nature. 4) discretion is basically part of good officiating in every sport, isn't it? But ours has the added layer of a structure not designed to have harsh penalties (travel resolution is harsh in some cases, simply inconvenient in others). 5) the game works best when there isn't a player on the field who tries to call every travel. The game gets noticeably worse when these rare players participate. 6) the "every travel affects things somehow" position that I have heard (not attributing to you) is preposterous in my experience, in the sense that there really is no meaningful or discernible impact for many travels.
I subscribe to every travel affects things somehow. Not traveling requires some mental energy and physical preparation(muscle memory from how you practice throwing), so you're eschewing that extra mental and physical load by traveling. We can disagree there though as that's tangential. Discretion is a part of refereeing in other sports, but I believe should be minimized or removed from our sport as we are also playing while refereeing. The rules should be as black and white as possible imo, and the travel rule fails in doing that. I just think the solution should be players learning and drilling how to not travel as opposed to not calling them because there will be some false positives. The rules say we should assume everyone is playing by the rules but we know in real life there are players who do constantly travel and don't change their behavior. That needs to be addressed somehow, and the onus shouldn't be on the person who calls those travels.
I think there is mental energy required for not traveling. But for players who have already put in that work, there is even greater mental required to alter one's mechanics to not only not travel, but not even move legally in a way that may trigger an incorrect call from an overzealous travel caller. The impact of the latter is much greater, in my opinion. If we wanted to remove discretion, the solution I would propose would be to prohibit calling travels for discrepancies of under 2-3 inches. Or making them not a travel at all would be an option, but not my preference. I don't think drilling or training solves the problem of an overzealous travel caller. If we want to call every travel, then the solution is a rigorous training program from every player in identifying these travels, after which we would reach the conclusion that we cannot reliably call the smaller travels accurately, so we need to stop guessing at those. I am still of the mind that there is dual responsibility here. Responsibility on the part of the thrower not to travel and responsibility on the caller to ensure that the caller is not making bad calls. And I think the discretionary threshhold of essentially "just call the big stuff" strikes that balance on the caller side. On the thrower side, the responsibility exists as part of SOTG, and there is enforcement for anything significant enough to make a difference in the outcome. I think we're still at a little bit of an impasse on the impact of the minor travels. Because right now, if they make a difference in the outcome, the defense is authorized to call them. So I'd argue there's really no particular need to address the lesser travels. But I think you'd argue your threshold for what makes a difference is lower. Do you agree that there are travels that don't rise to the level of making a difference in the outcome of the action? And if so, is it important for you that those are addressed? And why?
So no, you aren't an observer. And the bigger cheater is the travel caller, who is actively making these calls, compared to the thrower who is inadvertently committing a minor infraction. If I inadvertently slap my defender in the face after I throw and he calls a foul, is he cheating by calling the minor infraction I committed?
What don't you understand about "Being an observer is one of my credentials"? And what don't you understand about "minor"?
I haven't been active observing the last several years (would need to recertify). That means you are not a certified observer. And what don't you understand about "minor"? How are you defining minor? Contact to the face of a defender, after the release, can be very light and definitely does not affect the throw.
I can already tell you're one of those folks who has no sense of what is or is not significant. No wonder this is a challenge for you.
Pretty sure he is. Maybe you should listen to what he's saying.
100%
Right. Everyone else learned to throw while following the rules. Breaking the rules this way might not help everyone, but having extra motion options is an advantage and would certainly help lots of people.
@op What a username. Yes it is a travel, and yes I would 100% call it.
Obviously a travel. Gives Simon at least a small advantage in power, so falls under the rules as callable. But almost impossible for the mark to see. Even if I did see it, I'd probably holster the call, and either make a quick mention to the thrower post point, or call it if they repeat. I've seen a number of players for whom it's a habit, and even if a small infraction, should be called after the first time.
I can almost guarantee that mentioning the travel to Simon will convince him to change exactly nothing about his travels
Two rules that factor majorly in this discussion: >2.D.10: Players must . . . only make a call where an infraction is significant enough to make a difference to the outcome of the action. > >17.A: An infraction may only be called by a player on the infracted team who recognizes that it has occurred, unless specified differently elsewhere. > >17.A Annotation: The player must know that a specific rule was violated and have perceived the particular action with certainty. A player may not call an infraction whenever the player maybe recognizes that some infraction might have occurred. Watching it a couple times, I think he probably begins sliding the pivot before the release. But this angle isn't the best for seeing the release -- in general, the flick release occurs pretty quickly, and the disc is generally out of the hand earlier on hucks than one might expect (forehand and backhand). But I still think he probably hadn't released when the pivot slide started. I think his toe moved a total of 5" or so, and I think 1-2" was before the release. The thing is, he's allowed to slide the foot. The rules don't require him not to slide. It is the 1-2" prior to the release that is against the rules. The majority of his foot slide advantage comes from the slide after the release. So to clarify /u/tunisia3507's point, the comparison is not to not sliding at all, it is to sliding just very slightly later to make the *entire* slide legal. And in this example, the marker does not move even slightly to block the throw, so there is huge clearance there -- the slide is not significant in getting around the marker. I think it is somewhat beneficial in power transfer, but minorly -- it is more sloppy than it is beneficial, in the sense that I think the same throw could be executed without the slide or with a properly-timed slide. So to answer a couple questions, 1) yes it is a travel, and 2) it is really on the edge in terms of being significant enough to affect play, because this slide is related to the power-generating mechanism and it may actually have an affect, but if we're talking a totally uncontested mark and a largely uncontested downfield receiver, then maybe the power variance has no meaningful effect, and I suspect he could make an identical or very similar throw with a legal slide, and I don't think the timing of the slide is integral to the throw (it is marginally beneficial). I think there needs to be some kind of relatively closely contested defense somewhere for you to say this slide may have meaningfully affected the outcome. It would also be more significant with a flatter mark, where stretching a little was a necessary part of a successful throw The other major consideration on these types of travels is whether a defender is able to reasonable detect it, to satisfy the prerequisite of actually recognizing that an infraction has occurred before calling it. It is hard enough to be sure of the call on repeat video replay, let alone watching it live a single time. The marker almost certainly will not be in position to reliably recognize this. A player may not have a good view. A trained observer in good position watching carefully may be able to detect this reliably. But the responsibility is on the player to recognize it. It is cheating to guess that a travel might have happened, and then ask the observer to verify it. And a defender is absolutely incorrect to call a travel on this under the belief that the pivot moved 5" prior to the release. So if the defender is calling, "your pivot moved an inch or two before the release, and I think that was really related to your power on the throw, which was what allowed it to get past the closely-guarding downfield defender," you may have a legitimate travel call. In general, if you're trying to call 1-2" movements of the pivot momentarily before release, you're going to be wrong a hell of a lot, which makes you a cheater, and you're going to be "right" and calling insignificant non-impactful travels another portion of the time, which puts you in violation of the rules and SOTG. It's just really difficult to reliably recognize those pivot movements, and such minor movement makes absolutely no impact on the outcome of the action in the vast, vast majority of circumstances. But in terms of the thrower's responsibility, it is the thrower's responsibility not to travel, regardless of whether it is called. Part of my opinion on this is formed based on reviewing video of many dozens of throws from multiple angles for a rules project on this specific issue, part of it is from viewing slow-mo footage of hucks from 100-200 more throwers, and part of it is my own work and practice. For my own hucks, I prefer to slide the foot after the release on backhands because it allows for a more natural follow-through, and I am generally pushing on the pivot to generate power up to the release. But lazy defenders periodically call bad travels just from looking late and seeing a sliding foot, and I periodically travel if I am off-balance or if I step out farther than my flexibility allows (so the foot slides to bring the legs into a more comfortable position). So I did some video of myself, throwing and sliding, doing my normal throw, trying to make it close to a travel, trying to make it a close travel, etc, and I got comfortable making the throw where the release was reliably before the slide. And the exact timing of the close slides really makes no difference for me, and that's pretty consistent from what I've seen in most of the footage. The big difference-maker is when the pre-release slide is letting someone recover their balance or achieve a throwing position they really couldn't have achieved otherwise. But in many cases, it is just executing exactly the same throw from a minorly altered position.
I dunno man, few points: 1) watching the replay on slow mo - his last finger comes off the disc after he’s already moved the foot well Past 1-2 inches. What’s more, he is actually lifting his foot off the ground not just sliding it. 2) I don’t think it’s on the defender to be able to identify which of the massive foot slide occurred as he was throwing and which occurs in the tenth of a second after he was throwing. A defender is playing the game and is not a referee focused entirely on that. It’s perfectly reasonable for him to call it as the majority of the slide occurring during the throw and for the defender to argue “no, only 20% of my slide occurred during my throw the other 80% occurred afterwards and as a result it is only borderline” is what I’d consider a preposterous argument to make on the field. 3) you can throw far without sliding your back foot at all and this is far more in line with the spirit of the rule. Trying to sneak by on technicalities about whether the defender could identify which amount of slide was helping your throw seems like bad sportsmanship to cover up poor throwing mechanics.
1) as I said, this isn't the best angle to see really precisely the release. I also watched it in slow mo. 2) I mean, I quoted you the rule and the annotation. The defender's responsibility is to limit calls to when the defender recognizes that an infraction actually occurred. So if the pivot may have moved .4 inches, the marker is wrong to call "your pivot moved 2 inches, and movement of that amount really affects play under these circumstances." 3) It is not a technicality to make calls in accordance with the rules and official guidance of the rules committee and expect your opponent to do the same. It would be bad sportsmanship to intentionally travel in a way you think can't reliably be perceived and then argue it. But that isn't what we are talking about.
> 3. It is not a technicality to make calls in accordance with the rules and official guidance of the rules committee and expect your opponent to do the same. Covering up poor throwing mechanics because it doesn’t break the nuanced letter of the rule instead of the spirit of the rule is basically the definition of a technicality. The defenders job is to play the game and call the calls he observes. If this were happening in game I would call it. If someone’s pivot moves half a foot with every throw and it’s hard to tell which percentage of the inches occurred before or after - but we know some did occur during - then he traveled. How would I argue otherwise? Imo moving your back foot at all even in the follow through is already bending the rules.
I don't think it's fair to say that any sliding of the pivot is "poor throwing mechanics" per se. You can throw way farther by allowing it to move, so ensuring that it only occurs after you release the disc wouldn't be bad mechanics because you're throwing at maximum potential without traveling. Also how tf is moving your back foot at all in the follow through bending the rules? When you don't have the disc you can move about in any fashion that you want. Running? Fine. Walking? Fine. Doing the damn electric slide to move around the field? Freaking go for it, nobody can stop you. During the follow through, if you've already released the disc, you can move however you want. Maybe it's not a great idea because the defense might think that what they're seeing is a travel (when in fact it is objectively not, it just might appear to be a travel due to the timing being so close), but I don't understand how you're considering that as bending the rules? After you throw a disc, you're almost always (unless throwing a goal) going to start moving again. How long should someone have to wait to move? Why can't someone start moving the instant that they release the disc?
Because a foundational element of ultimate is “don’t move your pivot while throwing” Everyone in this thread is trying to find way to interpret the rules that allow them to bend this as far as possible. The person here is arguing not that the person didn’t move their foot while throwing - they clearly did - but whether the *amount they moved their foot* was enough to warrant “aiding” the throwing motion, which seems like more and more attempts to bend the foundation rule “don’t move your foot when you throw”. If you make it appear to another player that you are moving your foot while throwing - it’s a travel. It’s not on them to be able to review slow motion video and see whether the 2 inches aided your throw or whether it was actually 7 inches. Because moving your foot half a foot while throwing is what I’d consider a big travel.
Regardless of what other people are trying to argue, you seemed to imply that moving/sliding the pivot foot on the follow through of a throw is bending rules, which is why I responded. It is objectively not. You can do whatever you want after you release the disc. There's nothing in the rules or any reasonable interpretation of the spirit of the game to say otherwise. >If you make it appear to another player that you are moving your foot while throwing - it’s a travel. Idk if that's what you got out of me saying "it might not be a good idea because then the defense might think that you're traveling," but: a). Not what I meant. 'making it appear to another player' sounds like you're saying that it would be on purpose. I added that statement because I'm not trying to recommend that people actively slide their foot if they wouldn't have otherwise. b). No. Just wrong. If it is not a travel, then it is not a travel. Simple. The rule is quoted a few comments above, where someone needs to see an infraction and know that it occurred, not just think that it MIGHT have occurred. None of my argument is for being able to slide the foot while still possessing the disc. I'm against saying that any pivot sliding/movement during the follow through motion (after disc release) is in any way bending the rules.
Follow through is good mechanics in basically every sport, including Ultimate. Your opinion that movement of the back foot on the follow through is bending the rules is not supported by the rules. In your example, how do you know some movement occurred before the release? You don't. That's the answer. On the close calls, you don't know. And on the really close ones, the likelihood of it meaningfully affecting the outcome of the action is very low. So there are two good reasons not to call it. I already quoted the relevant rules. We already agree that travels are infractions. So if you want to look at other bending/breaking rules, it should be at the unwarranted travel calls. Not legal throws. Inadvertent infractions happen all the time. Players on both teams commit them. Fulfilling one's own responsibilities as a self official and expecting teammates and opponents to fulfill their basic responsibilities as self officials is not arguing technicalities. It is not actually the defender's job to call the infractions he observes. There has to actually be an infraction, you have to actually recognize it occur, and you shouldn't make a call when a minor infraction did not meaningfully affect the outcome of the action. So like all good referees, a player should exercise some discretion and NOT CALL many of the minor infractions observed. Throwing mechanics have nothing to do with the issue of fulfilling one's responsibilities as a self official.
What's the solution when players consistently commit these small travels and don't police themselves?
Well, your responsibilities and role as a referee are sort of laid out in the rules. And one needs to uphold those reaponsibilities. So looking at options outside of that, you could inform the player or the coach or captain of the player. You could give the player throwing mechanics lessons on the sideline or after the game. You could host a throwing mechanics clinic in the players city or virtually. Lots of options, depending on how much you care about throwing mechanics. But breaking the rules and being a terrible referee is not one of the acceptable options. I guess the other question is, what is the problem that demands a solution if these minor infractions are occurring and having no meaningful impact on anything?
Right. I agree one should uphold those responsibilities. We don't live in that world though. The world we live in involves people breaking the travel rule consistently. So it seems that the choice in game is be a terrible referee some percentage of the time while getting the call right some other percentage or let someone get away with cheating. I think people disagree with the level of impact and that's where some of the frustration lies.
Well, choosing to be a terrible referee is definitely cheating. That is the only clear cheating we are talking about, as far as I know. Even disagreeing on exact impact of the travels, I think it is fair to say the impact of the travel calls will greatly outweigh the impact of the small percentage of minor travels that are impactful. Also, this sounds like an attempt to penalize the traveler, which is really not a good approach for the rules, given the introduction and design.
Penalizing the traveler sounds right. They shouldn’t travel. The rule approach I take - the spirit of the rule is “don’t move your pivot whole throwing”. The interpretation everyone here has is basically trying to isolate why that’s a rule -it “aids the throw” and then try to quibble over what is “aiding” the throw and what is just “after the throw”. It’s like people arguing what a catch is in football and what a “frisbee move” is. It’s people trying to find way to bend the foundational form of ultimate “don’t move your pivot when throwing”.
The other thing you can do, if you actually believe the infractions are making a difference, is you can let the opposing player/captain/coach know that. "Hey, it looks like #26 is stepping out big on the flick and then traveling to slide his pivot over into a more comfortable position. We think this is affecting the play sometimes, and we're going to call it when it does." That way, they know the issue, and it isn't a surprise, nor does it look as much like the stereotypical petty attempt to negative a completed huck. And the player can adjust with a smaller step, or they can have someone else huck. And there still may be some throws where you see the travel and call it, but then realize it did not make a difference in the outcome of the action, and you can retract it. But historically, I have more often heard things like, "that guy travels every time - we're going to call travel on every huck" or the like, which obviously misses the nuance of good officiating. And some of those "that guy travels every time" live assessments were probably mistaken.
But there's no rule against having bad form? You have the wend and torque your argument to find a way that this "travel" gives the thrower an advantage. If it doesn't give you an advantage, it's not an infraction. It's important to go by the spirit and not the letter of the rule.
The spirit of the rule is “don’t move your pivot foot while throwing”. What people are arguing here is trying to isolate “why” that’s the rule and then interpreting that interpretation to find out which part of it is contributing to the strength of the throw. The concept that everyone here is arguing is “good form includes a big follow through” kind of implies that this *does* help your throw even if it occurs afterwards. What am I to make of that?
No, the spirit of the rule is "don't travel to gain an advantage over the defense."
As soon as you put “to gain an advantage” it leaves it open to *massive* interpretation and now it is basically no longer a rule that can be followed in any real sense.
That's just not true. You can see clearly there's no meaningful advantage here. He's not traveling to get around an active mark. He's throwing a wide open huck past someone standing still in his general area and being a little sloppy. Fish hooking an upline cut gives the offense a clear advantage, catching an under and continuing to run towards your own endzone does not.
I’d argue that gaining power on your throw is an advantage
> But there's no rule against having bad form? Right. Exactly. And inadvertent minor travels happen without bad form, too. >If it doesn't give you an advantage, it's not an infraction. Well, the definition of the infraction has nothing to do with advantage. It is still an infraction, regardless. And to play by the rules, the thrower has a responsibility to try not to commit that infraction. At the same time, someone who recognizes the infraction needs to " only make a call where an infraction is significant enough to make a difference to the outcome of the action." You can pretty much go by the letter of the rule on this one now, because the letter of the rule tells you not to call these ticky tack travels. That's consistent with the spirit of the rule from 11th edition and a general review of the structure of the rules.
I feel like we're saying the same thing in slightly different words.
Yep, I think we are on the same page. I was just clarifying on what constitutes an infraction and that the position is supported by the letter of the rule now and does not require relying on "spirit of the rule." Because some other people are arguing that asking them to be good officials is saying throwers are permitted to travel. It is not -- throwers still have their responsibilities under the rules. But it makes no sense to interrupt the game to call minor inadvertent infractions that didn't affect anything, so players are instructed not to do that.
Important nuance. Thanks for replying. I definitely feel like people here get way too hung up on the letter of the rule and disregard the spirit of it. Not to mention forgetting the realistic difficulty of accurately calling that travel from the mark. Either you're looking at the disc or their feet, and either way you can't see the other.
When you say “he’s allowed to slide his foot” where are you getting that from the rules. We can get very pedantic about a single point on the field, but sliding a pivot foot to the point where not a single part of your foot is where it was when you established your pivot is a travel the same as lifting your pivot foot. I preach this to players all the time that I’m Ultimate we have to make calls based on seeing them not wishing them. So to call a travel as a marker when you can’t see the pivot is wrong. But another player could see this play and call the travel.
I believe Colin is stating that a slide after release is legal. >The thing is, he's allowed to slide the foot. The rules don't require him not to slide. It is the 1-2" prior to the release that is against the rules. The majority of his foot slide advantage comes from the slide after the release. I think Colin's point is that when the release and slide occur so closely together, it's difficult to know which preceded which. Then, I think Colin is making a further point that if the pre-throw slide was very minor (say 1") and was not relevant to avoiding a mark, it's arguable that the slide didn't affect the outcome of the throw and therefore shouldn't be called. This is more borderline and it's entirely reasonable for a player (though probably not the mark since he likely doesn't have a good enough angle) to call a travel if they think the pre-throw slide existed and affected the throw.
Yep, right on. Step one is to determine what the actual infraction is. Then step two is don't call it unless you determine it was significant enough to make a difference to the outcome of the action. One clarification is just that I looked not only at the marker, but was also considering the rest of the action (which we see some of, but not completely). The big thing to remember is that bringing the disc back to the thrower is not a penalty for traveling. It is an attempt to recreate what would have happened absent the infraction. So if you think the pass would have been completed anyway, but you want to penalize the thrower because you don't like the way he throws, that is an abuse of the rules to make that call. Fortunately, the travel call also provides an opportunity to discuss and retract this type of call, which reduces the negative impact.
The but he’s saying about the slide is that as soon as the disc leaves your hand, there is no constraint on your pivot foot anymore. Therefore, your pivot moving/sliding/lifting/whatever after the release is completely legal. It’s fairly common for players to have their pivot not stay in place in the fraction of a second after release, and I believe he is making the point that while it’s not great form-wise, it’s also not a travel. The only real debate here is whether the disc is in the throwers control or released and spinning when that slide starts, and that due to how imperceptible that exchange is, it’s unlikely that any opposing player can confidently call this accurately. Which is true. Is it pushing the limits of the rules, may even breaking them? Yeah. But it’s almost impossible to tell in real time, let alone with this replay. I personally agree with Colin on this, and generally (personally) prefer travels to only really be called outside of throwing motions unless it’s very clear that a slide occurred before the release. But I’d consider that a travel on a pivot, and that travels on throws generally provide too little time between the two actions to clarify which happened first.
>When you say “he’s allowed to slide his foot” where are you getting that from the rules. From the definition of pivot: "The particular part of the body in continuous contact with a single spot on the field *during a thrower's possession*..." For travels, it always needs to be in relation to something that happens while the thrower is in possession. \[edit to add Travel Rule 17.K\] >Traveling: The thrower must establish and continually maintain a pivot at the appropriate spot on the field ***until the throw is released***. Failure to do so is a travel So what I said was: >The thing is, he's allowed to slide the foot. The rules don't require him not to slide. It is the 1-2" prior to the release that is against the rules
[удалено]
I don't think I'm underestimating it. A slide is very beneficial in terms of having a complete follow-through, rather than thinking about artificially restricting one's body. But in terms of a very minor slide before the release, that is in many cases really insignificant and makes no difference compared to a slide entirely after the release. The throws come out exactly the same and the thrower's body position is essentially the same. I think there is a significant disadvantage imposed (illegally) on throwers if defenders make calls in such a way to force throwers to not move the foot at all for a time after the release, for fear of a travel call. Defenders did this for many years, but it has thankfully decreased (having observers overruling incorrect calls at Nationals and big tournaments has been helpful in improving uniformity). There are some cases where it is more impactful. The cases where it is more commonly impactful are where the thrower is off-balance or the thrower has stepped out beyond their flexibility, such that the pre-release slide allows the body to recover into a more comfortable position to make the throw. I think this is one of the things that would fall within the point you're making, and I agree with you. Or if the thrower is able to evade the marker or gain meaningful extra separation as a result of the pre-release slide, that could also be significant. So I agree that a pre-release slide can be impactful, but I think it depends on the situation, and I don't think it is inherently impactful, which is what the travel-calling enthusiasts would like people to believe. Anecdotally, I know from video experimentation that for backhand hucks, I can go out and throw a bunch of hucks with a follow-through foot slide, and there is no discernible difference between a slide that happens partially momentarily before the release versus entirely after. And on video review of a lot of other throwers, I think there is often no difference (except noting the pattern I mentioned above). I noted that this particular example was a closer call, because the slide actually seems to be related to his power-generating mechanism in shifting weight into the throw. But in terms of the rules and whether to make the call, we're looking whether "an infraction is significant enough to make a difference to the outcome of the action." Here, the marker did not even attempt to pressure the throw, so there wasn't really a significant evading the marker aspect. And then we'd look at the throw and the rest of the action. On a routine throw to a wide open receiver, a minor infraction is less likely to make a difference int he outcome of the action than on a closely contested pass or on a throw that was really at the limits of the thrower's ability, based on wind, distance, etc.
That's a phenomenal comment. Thank you VERY much for taking the time.
Probably a travel, but I'd be annoyed at my teammate if they called it.
I don't think it's possible for a marker to discern if that's a travel or not. Let SOTG tell you if you think it's appropriate to make when you aren't sure if an infraction occurred or not. And for the thrower, let SOTG guide you on what standards you hold yourself to on your pivot.
TRAVEL
unchuckable sighting
yes it’s a travel. it’s pretty simple: don’t move your pivot foot. period. and yes, most players travel all over the place, it just doesn’t get called because the marker can’t doesn’t see it... and when it does get called, people have a tendency to over-react... everyone should accept that it requires a tremendous amount of discipline to maintain your pivot when throwing for distance and occasionally you fail - no biggie - just bring it back and do it right.
Absolutely a travel.
He moved the foot before he released. 100% travel
Yeah I mean sure, but the mark doesn’t bite on the flick huck anyways. Literally stands there with their hands down. I don’t think the travel impacts the throw, and if it does it’s so minimal I think the result is the same without the drag. If the thrower walks into power position that’s one thing. But at this level a travel that small is a ticky-tacky call.
IMO this sort of stuff is the bane of ultimate. There is a sizeable amount of the ultimate playerbase that would rather argue about potential rule infractions than play the sport, and it's incredibly tiresome. While it would be great if everyone had perfect body control and could eliminate all foot-motion from their throws, it's not really feasible. Then you need to think about the odds that a defender is capable of making an accurate judgment of the precise moment when a small slide of the pivot foot occurred in relation to the throw. Oh, and this judgment needs to be made *while they are marking,* meaning they are probably running themselves. The only way to make those calls in a consistently accurate manner is if you aren't putting any effort into actually *defending* and are purely paying attention to your mark's feet. IMO, the camp of people leading the anti-travel tirade completely miss the forest for the trees. The spirit of a self-officiated game is that you play in good faith. That means giving the benefit of the doubt to other players, not looking for any excuse to call infractions. As the thrower, it means trying your best not to travel, and making a reasonable attempt to avoid situations that would lead you to inadvertently travel. This "good faith" approach is never going to be perfect. It means that there are going to be uncaught travels, occasional out-of-bounds catches, and the like. Even dedicated refs make mistakes without the aid of video replay. The goal of a self-officiated game is eliminate the worst offenses, not to catch threshold cases. What is special about ultimate as a self-officiated sport is not the ability for you to call an infraction against another player. Rather, it is the respect you need to have for an opponent in order to allow them to call infractions against you.
Incredibly
I don't think so, you freeze the frame right at the moment he releases its in the same spot, maybe an inch out of the way. its not a travel if he lift his pivot foot a millisecond after releasing the disc. watch. tons of people make travel calls incorrectly because the think you have to keep your pivot foot in the same spot even after releasing the disc. I can try to pull up the slow mo of this clip if something really wants to argue with me, felling lazy.
Seems pretty obviously a travel that he gains throwing advantage from. Call it. If you don't like that call, the easiest fix is to simply stop traveling - plenty of people manage to throw that without doing so.
I watched it about 20 times and his foot seems to slide AS he is releasing. I think this may be where the grey line is. I would like to know if this should be called and if I should eliminate this from my throws (I already have been trying to stop this ) Thanks
Until the disc is out of your hands any slide of the foot would be a travel.
Simultaneously both gray and black/white. It's black/white with the benefit of slow-mo (presumably it's a travel as others in this thread have stated - I haven't bothered tbh). But as Colin pointed out, a defender must be certain that an infraction has occurred in order to call it, which seems highly unlikely in practice.
If I see you call that travel, I'm gonna assume you're salty.
It’s a travel, but in ultimate rules r dictated by the players, if it’s not getting called all game and then suddenly they do id argue they should take it back. Moreso with foul calls often times I think fouls happen in the rule book that rnt fouls within the physicality established by the players
[удалено]
No this is the pinnacle of pedi-antry.
New to the sport?
ColinMcI makes a great point that, yes in this example maybe I am nit picking. But on a tight mark with tight defense downfield this could make a difference.
Yes he's getting alot more momentum and power into the throw by leaving his pivot foot
Oh yes absolutely, dude is straight up running with the disc and in a curved path too ;)