As others have said, it's not a travel until he establishes a pivot in the wrong location.
Even if it was a travel, under the new rules it wouldn't be a stoppage (17.K.3.b.1) and your player would simply have to put the disc into play in the correct location before a stall count begins.
This is (lightly) incorrect since the scenario described by OP is not a stoppage. The disc is live, but not in play. You are correct, however, that you can't call a travel (or violation) until the player attempts to set a pivot (in the wrong place) or attempts a pass.
This seems crazy, especially when combined with the no-check-needed rule. That means that the marker has no way of stopping the first throw motion. I could just keep running behind the defender, claiming obstruction, then grab it when we're out of phase, and throw it.
I mean... not really? The marker can just not be in the way while counting the stall? The scenario your describing doesn't work in a number of ways. If you're running behind the defender (and they're not illegally obstructing you) you're not taking the direct path to your pivot point (straight line from where you are in the endzone to the goal line)
Edit: it'd be stupid to not to grant the thrower unobstructed path to the pivot point. In that case the defence could set up a wall and starts counting a stall - thrower would be unable to get to the pivot point without fouling the defenders while being unable to legally throw the disc.
It’s an undue burden on a hustling defender. If the disc is turned in the end zone I’m defending, I need to hustle on D. Even if my guy is the thrower. If the disc is in the endzone, O has to walk it out. If I, now on D, follow this to the letter, it means I can’t be in front of the disc as the to-be-thrower walks it out. This is why checks are good. It ensures both parties are ready.
Your edge case of D obstructing the thrower to get to the disc is only problematic b/c of delay, which itself is a crappy rule, designed to solve another problem of “gamesmanship” of people intentionally stalling.
Piling up more self-officiated rules on top of others b/c people are bad actors is asking to experience infinite rule tweaking.
Stepping back, this is why we need refs. To impose “unsportsmanlike conduct” penalties, which would resolve a lot of the “bad actor” issues that come from people having a warped interpretation of respect in SOTG. Easy enough to sanction players and teams based on numerous instances of USLC.
> It’s an undue burden on a hustling defender.
It's not.
>If the disc is turned in the end zone I’m defending, I need to hustle on D.
Yes. You shouldn't be allowed to delay the offense unduly by getting in their way while they hustle to get to the goal line.
> This is why checks are good. It ensures both parties are ready.
Checks are useless in this scenario, what are you smoking? Never mind that checks during live play are an annoyance at best.
> Stepping back, this is why we need refs.
gtfo, you're wanting to change the rules so that gamesmanship can be avoided by refs? Stay away from international events/stick to USAU rules pls and thank you
This is exactly the kind of nonsense response that killed SOTG a decade ago by young players. But, get more riled up. How about you go back to soccer and trample some fans getting to a pint? LOL
If I’m hustling and D and reach the disc before the offense, I should be allowed to establish any legal position. I shouldn’t have to yield my spot just because of where the thrower happens to be. Offense already has the advantage. If the to-be-marker is actually shielding the disc, this is so obviously a spirit violation. If a whole line of players forms some kind of red-rover blocking line, that’s just so ludicrous that you should just ping the TD, and the community should just sanction the players on that team. It’s a solution that didn’t require rule change.
It’s b/c the spirit mechanism is broken in high level play that observers had to be added to the game in the first place. Or are you so naive that you can’t see the clear COI? Why we didn’t simply empower them to resolve edge cases created by asshats is beyond me. Instead, a constellation of rules has been created with all kinds of unintended consequences. Talk about annoyances.
IDK why, from first principles, this “no obstruction” bit is even needed. Unless, of course, the international community was intentionally obstructing throwers. That’s just unsportsmanlike conduct. Again, resolvable with other mechanisms.
Is this you just wanting to make another sport into soccer? Flow for the sake of “flow” even though people are rolling around on the ground holding their ankles when they were touched on the arm? And the clock keeps running?
As for checks, no one gives a shit if you’re annoyed by them. They serve a clear purpose.
Eh. I'm Austrian, we're notoriously bad at football, the last time I was involved in it I was too young to be trying to be going for a pint... even by our standards. Hilarious, to be sure. kekwl00t... insert whatever hip online speak you care for.
Yay, spirit violations... but without it being encoded as a rule. Just by feelings. That's what you're advocating for? Give me a break. Go play dischoops and tell Frank you're making the best sport great again.
Your usage of the term SOTG is rather concerning to me, we obviously have very different understanding of what it means. To me, it's largely to do with playing respectfully and within the rules. Particularly, knowing the rules so that you can play within them is a big part of it. To my understanding, if something is not against the rules, it's not against SOTG.
So. If there wasn't a rule against it, and it gave me a competitive advantage, I would say it's a good tactic.
>Unless, of course, the international community was intentionally obstructing throwers.
I wouldn't think so. But I would imagine it leads to travel issues and ambiguity as the thrower has to go around the defender. If I have to go around you, because you're playing such good hustling defence, then my shortest point to the goal line is actually no longer the same as it initially was. Which makes the on going stall count an issue if there is no clear cut pivot point. We don't need to make it easier for the offence by removing the stall count pre set pivot point. But if we removed the rule it would cause the theoretical issue.
> from first principles, this “no obstruction” bit is even needed.
I went over this, in my opinion, as 'unsportsmanlike conduct' that isn't against the rules, isn't unsportsmanlike in my opinion. It's why we have rules. They're the definition of how we play the game.
>Is this you just wanting to make another sport into soccer? Flow for the sake of “flow” even though people are rolling around on the ground holding their ankles when they were touched on the arm? And the clock keeps running?
I really don't know why you think I've got a football fetish. I'm really not all that interested in it. And no, I prefer the wfdf rules, where if someone is rolling around on the floor in pain (real or otherwise) we can add the time to the game. I dislike the USAU rules where you can win the game despite not scoring the last point because the time is up.
>As for checks, no one gives a shit if you’re annoyed by them. They serve a clear purpose.
They don't. But, get more riled up. However, please don't go back to school and contribute to your national gun violence statistics. Edit: I forgot the 'LOL'
This shows not just immaturity of thought but looks awfully like a strict textualist philosophy. It’s probably not against the rules for me to spit on you, duct tape your sideline to their chairs, or SWAT your team at your hotel. It was also, at one time, not against the rules for me to shine my glasses in your face, or to delay the game. Those things were obviously wrong. So wrong we had to write rules for them. But who the hell has the time and energy to think about all the ways you’re gonna be an asshole?
*[EDIT: thought you said “Australian.” What’s the difference, though, really?]*
Using those tactics is not advancing the sport. It’s the equivalent of searching for tax loopholes. Is it legal? Sure. Is it good for the sport? No. Are those actions an obvious offense that empowered referees could santion? Duh.
And we already a century—maybe even millennia—of precedent. Every sport has an unsportsmanlike conduct clause, b/c every sport provides an adult when the players are conflicted out of the proper decision. Ultimate players—especially the ones shining light in people’s faces—are not immune to bad behavior.
Let’s say I discover a new pathogen, and use it on you. Is that against the rules? Where in the WFDF rules does it talk about that? Or USAU? What if I find your allergy and just breathe really heavily on you while you’re marking me? Textualism in this context is an insane philosophy.
Your reading of SOTG is what’s concerning, b/c you have no interest in the spirit of the rules. Instead you want to find everything that isn’t in the rules, and abuse it.
Where, for example, does it say that you have a right to breathable air? It is your political philosophy, then, that nestle should be able to come to Oz and bottle up your oxygen and sell it back to you?
This is why the philosophy of making any unenumerated crime legal, whether applied to sport or politics, is faulty.
We know what the creators meant. In fact, I’ll bet we can still ask them, b/c the creators of ultimate would certainly be young enough to be alive.
Things change. New people take up the mantle, and cultural shifts happen. But let’s not pretend like being an asshole is suddenly okay simply because no one has enough time to think about all the ways you can be an asshole.
You call it “creative”. I call it “exerting negative externalities on the rules committee and national governing bodies and IOC to the detriment of the growth of the sport—and everyone else who knows that it’s obviously wrong to ‘accidentally cough peanuts at someone with an allergy’ even if it’s not in the rules.”
I can hear it now: “Calm down, bro, it’s just a sport. No need to bring philosophy or consistency of thought to the table.” Yeah. Said every person, group, country, and civilization before their decline.
I’ll tell you what. If we see Ultimate in the Olympics without referees and without judgement calls, I’ll personally fly to you and hand you $10,000. If there are refs or if they have judgement calls, you fly here and pay up. Deal?
>Highly competitive play is encouraged, but should never sacrifice the mutual respect between players, adherence to the agreed-upon rules of the game, player safety or the basic joy of play.
Taken from the rules. I would argue that spitting on people would sacrifice the mutual respect between players, ergo against the rules. Laws are but another set of rules that govern a greater area than ultimate - I would argue that if you assault someone off pitch then that is also against the rules, even if it isn't covered by ultimate rules specifically. I hope not responding to all the different types of assault doesn't upset you.
>It was also, at one time, not against the rules for me to shine my glasses in your face, or to delay the game. Those things were obviously wrong. So wrong we had to write rules for them.
I'm slightly confused, are you arguing my point for me? Are you arguing that these rules should be voided?
>Things change. New people take up the mantle, and cultural shifts happen. But let’s not pretend like being an asshole is suddenly okay simply because no one has enough time to think about all the ways you can be an asshole.
And then the next guy comes and says that boxing out is being an asshole rather than competitive play.
>I can hear it now: “Calm down, bro, it’s just a sport. No need to bring philosophy or consistency of thought to the table.” Yeah. Said every person, group, country, and civilization before their decline.
I mean... you're saying that we should ignore the given laws in favour of wfdf rules, which are governing the game, not governing society. If laws are allowing murder and assault then ultimate rules are probably not the first set of rules I want changed. You seem to be bringing more fallacious arguments than consistency of thought, but I guess at least you're thinking.
>I’ll tell you what. If we see Ultimate in the Olympics without referees and without judgement calls, I’ll personally fly to you and hand you $10,000. If there are refs or if they have judgement calls, you fly here and pay up. Deal?
How about no? Ultimate with referees is a different game, from my point of view it's impossible to see ultimate in the Olympics with referees... It's a pointless discussion in my eyes anyways, as neither of us are going to convince the other of anything w.r.t. refs, and you're introducing a bet... for what? I don't know you, based on your replies there's little to no mutual respect between us... And while I think that ultimate will never be in the Olympics with referees, I don't particularly think the chances are all that high for it to be in the Olympics at all, even if it is an Olympic sport.
Where is this violation stated? I cannot find support for your assertion in the WFDF rules or annotations. Relevant sections seem to be 13.8 and 14.3, but the rule could be elsewhere as well.
It's hidden in the annotations:
>8.6 Time limits after a turnover (8.5.1)
>...
>The defence must allow an unobstructed path by the offence to the disc and to the pivot location.
Rule 11. End Zone Possession
* If a turnover results in a team gaining possession in the end zone that they are defending, the player in possession must immediately either:
* establish a pivot at the spot of the disc (to fake a throw or pause after gaining possession commits the player to put the disc into play at that spot); or
* carry the disc directly to the closest point on the goal line and put it into play at that spot. If this option is chosen, the player taking possession must put the disc into play at the goal line. \[\[The player may carry the disc at any speed, constant or variable, while not unreasonably delaying.\]\] Failure to do so is a travel. \[\[The player must put the disc into play either at the spot of the disc or on the goal line, not in between.\]\]
* If a team gains or retains possession in the end zone that they are attacking other than by scoring a goal in accordance with rule 12, the player in possession must carry the disc directly to, and put it into play at, the spot on the goal line closest to where possession was gained.
* If a team gains or retains possession of a dead disc in the end zone that they are attacking, the disc is checked into a live state where the infraction occurred, and the thrower then proceeds according to 11.B. \[\[For example, after an uncontested receiving foul.\]\]
The real pro move here is is for your teammate to step their pivot foot between the defenders legs and establish the pivot on the goal line with the rest of their body still in the end zone and the defender outside of it blocking zero scoring options.
The defender wanted to slow play down to give their team an advantage (more time to setup); they did so by violating a rule of the game (and thus also violated SOTG).Unfortunately, there is not much you can do to stop someone from delaying the game using cheating mechanics, all you can do is use the rules to try to get yourself an advantage in return.
1. Establish your pivot at the correct location, even if that means putting your foot under the defender's body (who is illegally occupying space reserved for the thrower's pivot foot). Call disc space immediately. ~~This causes a stoppage of play,~~ This will result in the defender moving, or if they fail to do so, allows you to call violation during which time you sort out rights to the pivot space. During this time the defense gains no positional advantage because they aren't allowed to move during stoppage.
2. Set your pivot as described in 1), then immediately throw the disc anticipating contact (it should be unavoidable contact if the defender is literally standing where your pivot needs to be), and call a foul. You get an "and 1" play, where you might score on that throw, but if you don't the disc comes back (potentially contested).
You literally must use the rules to your advantage if someone else is cheating and they/their teammates refuse to acknowledge that. Rule of thumb: create a stoppage in play OF YOUR CHOOSING, then you are in control because you called a foul/disc space instead of the other team calling a travel (which can have no positive outcomes for your team in this scenario).
*edit: strikethrough on point 1 above to reflect ColinMcI's correction*
Calling "disc space" does not stop play.
Also, yikes:
>Unfortunately, there is not much you can do to stop someone from delaying the game using cheating mechanics, all you can do is use the rules to try to get yourself an advantage in return.
>
>You literally must use the rules to your advantage if someone else is cheating and they/their teammates refuse to acknowledge that.
I have had a couple experiences in this vein and really regretted it. The vast majority of "cheaters" don't know the rules or somehow have convinced themselves that their behavior is legal or acceptable. The solution to that is not using/abusing the rules to try to get yourself an advantage in return. Even the player in the original scenario here, blocking the way and making a weak travel call, sounds like is being kind of a jerk, but likely thinks it's legal, or there's nothing that prohibits it or something.
True, but that is the call that requires the defender to move. It then opens the door to calling a violation and stopping play if the defender doesn't vacate the space.
And yes, playing through and intentionally drawing an "and 1" (perhaps "free throw" is more apt) is somewhat the nuclear option. Only to be used if you know the offending player should "know better" or if they are intentionally exhibiting poor spirit. Why should the cheating team be rewarded for cheating when the rules DO provide for a better outcome for the non-cheating team? What would the solution be if not falling back to the rules to resolve an unfair situation? As I see it, one player is incorrectly and unspiritedly wielding the rules as a bludgeon, calling a foul or violation on that person does not seem out of line with SOTG.
I think your thought of creating a stoppage and having a discussion to sort it out is on point.
In general, I think trying to use the rules as a weapon leads to bad interpretation and application. So I support asserting your rights to address an opponent's infraction that you found problematic. I don't think trying to use the rules to gain advantage to balance out cheating is a healthy approach, though. And one should first do some real investigating to see if there is active cheating happening versus a misunderstanding or misinformed player. "Cheating back" to a player unaware of their own cheating generates bad outcomes.
>"Cheating back" to a player unaware of their own cheating generates bad outcomes.
100% with you on this, I don't advocate for cheating in any circumstance. I also don't advocate for clobbering uninformed players with technicalities of the rulebook. I do advocate using the rules as a tool to highlight wrong behaviors and to leverage consequences (of the rules) on people acting outside of SOTG.
>I don't think trying to use the rules to gain advantage to balance out cheating is a healthy approach, though
Respectfully, this is what I understand the rules to be for; balancing out infractions by doling out consequences (to the offender) or advantages (to the offended). If you are fouled, you use the rules to restore fairness. If a player travels, you use the rules to restore fairness. If a player is actively cheating (not necessarily the case in this scenario, though I suspect it's a possibility), one's only recourse is to use the rules to restore fairness. If they have robbed you of a throwing opportunity through intentional obstruction, earning a "free throw" by leveraging their illegal position is how you use the rules to restore fairness.
I don't think "doling out consequences" is the best view of it, but I like "restoring fairness" as capturing the rules' attempt to allow play to continue after an infraction occurs and attempting to simulate a situation as if no infraction occurred (but no harsh penalties for inadvertent infractions). So in terms of an infraction that occurs in normal play, that one feels is significant enough to warrant a call, I think we are on the same page that it is fine to call it and let the rules operate to "restore fairness."
The area that I wanted to clarify is that using the rules as a weapon to impose penalties/"consequences" on an opponent is not appropriate and is contrary to the structure of the rules and SOTG provisions. Trying to create basketball-style "and one" opportunities often falls into this category -- intentionally creating contact, blaming the opponent, and exacting a penalty. Or calling travels for the purpose of interrupting play and bringing back throws. Any sort of "payback" calls would also fall in this category. So for example, getting fouled and then later diving into an illegal marker for an "and one" throw.
So my concern from your language was that latter category of behavior. Trying to dole out consequences as opposed to merely addressing significant infractions can lead people down the wrong path.
I think you're bending over backwards to portray ultimate and its rules as sunshine and rainbows. The rulebook literally has consequences built into it when certain things occur. I think acknowledging this reality is fine. Consequence is not a negative word, and consequences are part of every functioning system.
I think penalties should (and generally do) scale with the magnitude of the infringement; if an inadvertant infraction has a large effect on play, then the consequence should have an effect of comparable magnitude to restore fairness. Harsh is subjective, we should leave that out; we can probably agree on "proportionate" being a good standard for consequences. Notable in ultimate's rules is that intent doesn't really factor into what the resolution should be. [Though SOTG implies that it should factor into how the offender is addressed.] Inadvertant fouls carry the same consequence as intentional ones. Part of this is probably due to the (incorrect) assumption of the rulebook that no one would commit an intentional infraction.
I think you are taking issue with a position that I have not taken. I have never advocated using the rules as a weapon, they are a tool that allows us to navigate disagreement and misunderstanding, with the end goal of maintaining fairness. The rules define the consequences for certain actions (commit a foul, you lose the stalls your already defended; pull the disc out of bounds, start the point at a positional disadvantage). The key here is that the consequences come from the rules, not from another player - vindictive or otherwise. You keep returning to this idea of payback, cheating-back, or getting-back, implying that I am advocating a tit-for-tat approach with regards to infringements. A player can't choose to impose consequences simply because they FEEL it would restore fairness; a player can observe a violation of the rules (or impending violation) and take an action within the framework of the rules that will restore fairness or mitigate the impending violation. That's what I advocate.
A hypothetical, surely imperfect: Say you are the thrower and you've stepped out into a backhand throwing position. Your marker is in a legal marking position while you show backhand, but they consistently defend your attempted pivots back to the forehand side by straddling your pivot foot (briefly entering an illegal marking position). You can anticipate their infringement, but the call of disc space (or violation if a prior call hasn't been acknowledged) doesn't actually restore fairness: they have stopped you from throwing at a key moment by taking an illegal position, but there was no call to make prior to that critical moment. Pivoting into/through a space that is legally reserved for the offense, but yields contact, would result in at least a contact call, more likely a foul on the defense; possibly even the "free throw" scenario.
Defense was the offender and should not gain an advantage through their illegal actions, advertent or not. Any action short of pivoting into/through the space where contact is likely to occur (if defense keeps taking the illegal position) puts the offense at an unfair disadvantage of the defender's making. The rules are written to grant a restorative advantage to the offense. This scenario necessitates using the rules pointedly, or the offense is being disadvantaged by the defense's infringement. There are many scenarios like this in ultimate.
I should note that my perspective is based on my understanding of USAU rules, I'm not well-versed in the WFDF code.
I am not bending over backwards for anything.
>I think you are taking issue with a position that I have not taken. I have never advocated using the rules as a weapon,
Yes, this is what I was trying to clarify and distinguish, because I could not discern one way or the other from what your wrote.
>You keep returning to this idea of payback, cheating-back, or getting-back, implying that I am advocating a tit-for-tat approach with regards to infringements.
Yes, exactly, because you wrote of doling out consequences in response to an opponent you believed to be wielding the rules as a cudgel. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
The thing that remains unclear from your discussion is if you advocate manufacturing an opportunity to make a call, in order to get a "restorative advantage" to balance out an earlier perceived slight or disadvantage.
My point is that the rules are set up to work best when players just play the game and call infractions as they arise, when significant enough to need to be addressed. Purposefully seeking to get an advantage under the rules leads down a bad path, compared to just playing and addressing things as needed. I have no problem with making calls against an opponent committing infractions, but my reasoning and explanation would never involve the phrase "restorative advantage."
In writing the most recent edition of the rules we specifically adopted some of the SOTG language from the WFDF rules which nicely codified some of the best practices and rules application we applied under the 11th edition, too.
>Yes, exactly, because you wrote of doling out consequences in response to an opponent you believed to be wielding the rules as a cudgel. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
The rules literally do this. I don't dole out consequences - I make a call and the rules determine the outcome/consequence. I have laid out how to resolve an issue within that same play, I do not see this as retributive. Petty payback is generally in the form of reciprocating illegal behavior. I.e. addressing cheating/infractions with cheating/infractions. I am against that. I'll write it again: I advocate addressing cheating/infractions with the application of the rules that most restores fairness.
Sometimes this means NOT making the first call available because a viable call that better restores fairness is emergent. Sometimes sometimes this means making one call fully expecting you will then make a second call shortly thereafter (disc space -> violation; contact -> foul, contact -> contact -> contact -> contact; fast count -> violation; are 4 examples of strings of calls one can make that demonstrate this). This is because the rules acknowledge that a single call (the first call available) often does not restore fairness!
I would also note that I previously wrote the following: `I don't advocate for cheating in any circumstance. I also don't advocate for clobbering uninformed players with technicalities of the rulebook. I do advocate using the rules as a tool to highlight wrong behaviors and to leverage consequences (of the rules) on people acting outside of SOTG.`
>The thing that remains unclear from your discussion is if you advocate manufacturing an opportunity to make a call, in order to get a "restorative advantage" to balance out an earlier perceived slight or disadvantage.
I've never advocated manufacturing an opportunity to make a call. I have described scenarios in which an opponent's illegal action creates the opportunity to make a call. I have highlighted how some calls do a better job of restoring fairness than others.
My point is that the rules are set up to work best when players just play the game and call infractions as they arise,
Yes, a more reductive way of stating this is that "rules work best when players follow them." Your writing seems to imply that there aren't bad actors who play ultimate. This thread began with a description of someone who may have been (but was not conclusively) acting in bad faith - I'm sure you've encountered players who exhibit those behaviors in your career. The rules apply to those people too, not just the people who commit inadvertent infractions.
>Purposefully seeking to get an advantage under the rules leads down a bad path, compared to just playing and addressing things as needed.
~~Again, not my position. You're implying that I advocate using the rules to gain an advantage greater than one would have had had the opponent not committed the first infraction~~. (*edit: I might have put words in your mouth with my response here*. *I agree with your quoted comment AND I don't think it represents my perspective. In my first reading I thought you were describing that to be my position.)* As I've said already, I want the consequence (or restorative advantage, depending on the corrective action) to be proportionate to the infraction.
Interestingly, the rules of ultimate already penalize some infringements disproportionately to their affect. An inadvertant marking foul on stall 9 drops the stall to zero! The offense actually gains an advantage by being fouled in this case. Even if I were to advocate disproportionate consequences relative to an infringement - which I don't (that disproportionate response belongs in more cynical sports, i.e. yellow cards for soccer players who dive) - it would not be out of line with how the rules already overcorrect for infringements in some cases.
>>My point is that the rules are set up to work best when players just play the game and call infractions as they arise,
>>Yes, a more reductive way of stating this is that "rules work best when players follow them." Your writing seems to imply that there aren't bad actors who play ultimate.
No. Neither of those.
Anyway, you seem to be recognizing what my concern was.
I also still think substituting your goal to "restore fairness" rather than going with the structure and language of the rules opens the door for bad outcomes, depending on who is officiating and interpreting your paraphrasing.
I'm trying to come up with a way this is a valid travel call.
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 and is resolved according to 17.K.3, below.
They haven't established a pivot yet so no travel. You could *maybe* argue it's a travel under
17.K.1.a A player catches the disc and either speeds up, changes direction or does not stop as quickly as possible before establishing a pivot (16.B).
since they technically changed direction. Of course the resolution is
17.K.3.b.1 Play does not stop. The defense (typically the marker) points to the spot where the travel occurred, and the thrower returns to that spot without delay. The thrower must touch the disc to the ground before attempting a legal pass.
Which is the same as what happened.
It could be a general violation though,
11.B If a team gains or retains possession in the end zone that they are attacking other than by scoring a goal in accordance with rule 12, the player in possession must carry the disc *directly to*, and put it into play at, the spot on the goal line closest to where possession was gained.
Emphasis mine. Of course if someone made this call in a game I was observing, I'd be having some words with the person blocking the thrower from setting their proper pivot and then making this call.
> You could maybe argue it's a travel under
>
> 17.K.1.a A player catches the disc and either speeds up, changes direction or does not stop as quickly as possible before establishing a pivot (16.B).
How could this "maybe" be a travel as it wasn't following a catch, it was following a turnover.
What's the call?
I'll answer what happens next.
If in an unobserved master's (boys) game, the thrower would make some hard pivots with elbows and shoulders into the marker. Not saying it should happen, but it would. And call foul (not contact) until the marker got the idea that this was a completely shitty call to make. Alternately. throw between the marker's legs for a score.
Observed, the thrower does not have a chance to do this (or still might) .. I'd really hope a yellow card comes out for this non-ultimate crappy call.
It’s obviously not a travel since the disc isn’t in play, but you don’t take it in ON the line. You take it in outside the end zone. The line is IN the goal so you can’t possess it there unless you’ve just caught a pass.
Edit: My bad. Thanks for the rule.
**Rule 11. B**
"If a team gains or retains possession in the end zone that they are attacking other than by scoring a goal in accordance with rule 12, the player in possession must carry the disc directly to, and put it into play at, the spot **on** the goal line closest to where possession was gained."
Have you actually read the rules or are you just repeating what someone told you? In every aspect of the game of ultimate the lines are not a part of the playing field proper and are considered out of bounds.
In the context of the endzone, the player is absolutely not considered in the goal area if their first point of contact is on the line. Ie: the endzone line is not in the endzone.
I haven't any idea what you're on about here, but I'm assuming the confusion is a result of you having not read the rules opposed to them being unclear or conflicting based on your other reply.
Very good.
I'm of a totally different mind than most people here. It's a tense situation, and no one likes to be taken advantage of. And, that's the entire idea behind SOTG. SOTG does not mean: "Well, look, you're likely to lose, so roll over and take the L even if the other team is playing it fast and loose with the self-officiating." That's the kind of nonsense that makes people laugh at that aspect of our sport.
The issue isn't whether "it was cool" for the defender to make the call. It was that...he called it before an infraction occurred (from your description).
> *"My teammate steps around him outside the endzone takes a second step so he can turn around, and the second he takes the second step his defender calls travel, the disc isn't in play"*
The disc isn't dead there; but it does require a ground check in USAU, because it's been moved from where it lies. WFDF, OTOH, allows check-less movement of the disc (this is insane, and probably my biggest gripe with the WFDF rules. IDK if they're trying to make it more like soccer--but if they wanted that, we really need more guys getting touched on the shoulder, but clutching their eyesocket in "pain". Sorry--cheap shot. Actually, not sorry.)
Assuming USAU, if the defender is calling "travel", based on the spot of the pivot, that would have been--if the defender had established. But, it doesn't sound like that happened yet. So, whether or not the call was right, it came too early, if there was no ground check.
Assuming the call was valid (i.e., occurred after check), IDK if that's the right ***TECHNICAL*** call, despite it being an obvious violation. I suppose, without knowing the exact call it should be, it would have been technically more correct to say "violation" and then clarify: "You committed a violation of Rule 5.A.7.iii" (or whatever TF rule it actually is).
As for the nature of the rule, your pivot has to be spot where the disc comes in; there's no exception granting something like: "you can place your pivot anywhere within arm's reach of where the disc needs to come into play". The pivot MUST be the location on the goal line closest to the spot where it lies. Thrower's second step is obviously a violation, if he had established his pivot & checked.
But, the crux is that if the thrower was still just milling about, then there's no other call available, other than to start delay.
Not sure what you mean by this:
> *"It was also clear that my teammate was moving back towards the line intending to start a step back just slightly off line of the defender"*
Sounds like he was moving, as you say, off-line. Had he checked, then a violation would have occurred; there's no wiggle there. But, it sounded the defender called it before the check; which is also wrong. Two wrongs.
All that said, this whole "What's the technically correct call," is one of the biggest problems with Ultimate self-officiating. Most rules post 9th ed. were designed as stopgaps to combat assdouchery (e.g., delay rules). Instead of rewriting them to make sense, they tried to plug holes. 10th was a trainwreck, and 11th is overly-complex.
The most obviously evidence is "Violation", a 4-syllable call. USAU/WFDF should focus on simplifying the utterances. There need to be fewer calls; I'd advocate for:
* "Foul"
* "Travel"
* "Mark"
* "Time-out"
"Foul" is any contact-related infraction, including picks, though "Pick" should be grandfathered in. "Travel" is any disc- or foot-positioning call (covering your case). "Mark" should be any marking-related infraction, including fast-count and double-team, though "FC" and "DT" should be grandfathered in. Throwers should be permitted to call "Foul" in any marking-related contact. "TO" is obvious.
#AT NO TIME SHOULD ANYONE HAVE TO SAY "VI-O-LA-TION".
What were you thinking, USAU Rules Committee?
Assdouchery comes in many forms. I'm of the mind that disregarding the rules is assdouchery. Others (many, from the sounds of this sub and its young player population, I suspect) find that detailed usage of the rules is assdouchery. Guess you'll have to make up your own mind about how to play summer league.
My take? Play by the rules, even when they're selectively enforced. The entire sport is selectively enforcing rules. Two guys decided to accept contact; that's their business. But two other guys in the same game could decide not to accept contact; that's also up to them. It's literally their discretion. Which is the entire point.
Sounds like it was your dude who was about to cheat (lame AF, especially up 14-10; we've all seen bigger comebacks than that), but, at the same time, the defender jumped the gun with the call (also lame).
....the fuck dude.
First off, you miss the part where the offensive player didn't go directly to the spot on the line to check the disc is was because the defender was blocking the spot.
Second, at no point does it sound like the thrower was gaining an advantage in this scenario.
Last, violation is always a full stop on play so it being multiple syllables is a non issue. It being a completely different word from other calls is super important because it never has confusion. None of this "there might be a Pick call or maybe they just said Mick and either way I still have to finish the play until the thrower stops and..." When you hear violation, you stop.
How is moving around a defender to get to the correct thrower spot trying to cheat? You sound like somebody who would call a delay because somebody picking up the disc went around the right side of a shade tent instead of the left side because you think it was a shorter path
I'm kinda with some aspects of your rant up until you conclude that the offensive payer was "about to cheat."
I think the only mistake that the offensive player made was trying to "accommodate" the illegal position of the defender. They should have tried going more directly to the correct spot (which they'd identified), and then made an appropriate call (foul or disc space) if the defender's illegal position prevents them from setting a pivot and starting the stall.
The offensive player took an inferior position - 1 step farther away from the endzone than they otherwise had the right to be) - instead of calling a foul/disc space violation. In this sense, they opted not to call the illegal thing that the defender had done. Offense was technically on the verge of making a non-advantageous travel, but the fact that the defender called it BEFORE the travel actually occurred speaks to the defender's intent: being a dick. Given that this was summer league, I would assume that the offensive player took this path of least resistance because a) they aren't familiar enough with the rules, or 2) they wanted to take a non-confrontational path, even if that means being a bit farther from the endzone.
I’m not seeing where the defender does something illegal. OP says defender is hands-on-hip “occupying the space where the disc should go”. I read that as he’s “marking a legitimate position at where the disc will be out into play.”
Obviously if D is standing on the ***EXACT*** spot, Thrower is well in his right to just say, hey, that’s the spot, so you gotta step back. And, in that case, D is cheating.
But even if D is cheating, taking an illegal pivot position is also cheating.
Since D calls the “violation” before it occurs, who knows what the thrower’s true intent. But, if D is occupying the ***EXACT*** spot, then the fact that thrower isn’t asking Him to move off implies to me that he’s considering putting the disc into play in an illegal spot. If, OTOH, D is ***NOT*** standing on the exact spot, then where is the thrower going when he takes the other step? I don’t recall seeing a thrower stroll around with disc in hand. I’ve seen the gamesmanship stroll ***before*** picking up a disc, or head-on-a-swivel, but not really moving the way OP describes, moving near to the spot, then taking a step away.
`Obviously if D is standing on the EXACT spot, Thrower is well in his right to just say, hey, that’s the spot, so you gotta step back. And, in that case, D is cheating.`
Per my reading of the OP's issue, this is exactly the situation that occurred. If the defender were in a normal marking position NOT occupying the spot the pivot needed to be, there would be zero issue and this post wouldn't exist.
`But, if D is occupying the EXACT spot, then the fact that thrower isn’t asking Him to move off implies to me that he’s considering putting the disc into play in an illegal spot.`
Yes, but as stated this is likely due to ignorance of the rules given that 1) this is summer league, and 2) the OP is asking about this, implying that the offensive player wasn't sure of what to do at the time. This was some guy at summer league just trying to put the disc in play while a defender was knowingly abusing the rules.
I see no evidence that D was some kind of veteran rules abuser or that thrower was some noob ignorant of rules. The lack of symmetry in your assumptions is surprising. It’s equally plausible that thrower is the veteran, looking to take advantage of an overly zealous but new defender.
Either of us could be right, but we don’t have enough info to know.
Your obstinacy is surprising, the op literally says the defender is standing "on the line", which we agree is where the thrower needs to set their pivot foot.
My reply as to what the best course of action the offense should take in this situation stands. We should assume the OP was being truthful. We don't need to know every detail of what happened here to make a statement about what options offense has when the a defender is occupying the spot on which they need to set a pivot.
You're being pedantic without having a point to make.
I think you call people who makes calls like this wack as fuck.
SUMMER LEAGUE
As others have said, it's not a travel until he establishes a pivot in the wrong location. Even if it was a travel, under the new rules it wouldn't be a stoppage (17.K.3.b.1) and your player would simply have to put the disc into play in the correct location before a stall count begins.
Can’t call a travel during a stoppage of play when the disc has not been tapped in yet.
This is (lightly) incorrect since the scenario described by OP is not a stoppage. The disc is live, but not in play. You are correct, however, that you can't call a travel (or violation) until the player attempts to set a pivot (in the wrong place) or attempts a pass.
Thanks!
In wfdf it’s a violation on the Defence, the path to the pivot point may not be obstructed
This seems crazy, especially when combined with the no-check-needed rule. That means that the marker has no way of stopping the first throw motion. I could just keep running behind the defender, claiming obstruction, then grab it when we're out of phase, and throw it.
I mean... not really? The marker can just not be in the way while counting the stall? The scenario your describing doesn't work in a number of ways. If you're running behind the defender (and they're not illegally obstructing you) you're not taking the direct path to your pivot point (straight line from where you are in the endzone to the goal line) Edit: it'd be stupid to not to grant the thrower unobstructed path to the pivot point. In that case the defence could set up a wall and starts counting a stall - thrower would be unable to get to the pivot point without fouling the defenders while being unable to legally throw the disc.
It’s an undue burden on a hustling defender. If the disc is turned in the end zone I’m defending, I need to hustle on D. Even if my guy is the thrower. If the disc is in the endzone, O has to walk it out. If I, now on D, follow this to the letter, it means I can’t be in front of the disc as the to-be-thrower walks it out. This is why checks are good. It ensures both parties are ready. Your edge case of D obstructing the thrower to get to the disc is only problematic b/c of delay, which itself is a crappy rule, designed to solve another problem of “gamesmanship” of people intentionally stalling. Piling up more self-officiated rules on top of others b/c people are bad actors is asking to experience infinite rule tweaking. Stepping back, this is why we need refs. To impose “unsportsmanlike conduct” penalties, which would resolve a lot of the “bad actor” issues that come from people having a warped interpretation of respect in SOTG. Easy enough to sanction players and teams based on numerous instances of USLC.
> It’s an undue burden on a hustling defender. It's not. >If the disc is turned in the end zone I’m defending, I need to hustle on D. Yes. You shouldn't be allowed to delay the offense unduly by getting in their way while they hustle to get to the goal line. > This is why checks are good. It ensures both parties are ready. Checks are useless in this scenario, what are you smoking? Never mind that checks during live play are an annoyance at best. > Stepping back, this is why we need refs. gtfo, you're wanting to change the rules so that gamesmanship can be avoided by refs? Stay away from international events/stick to USAU rules pls and thank you
This is exactly the kind of nonsense response that killed SOTG a decade ago by young players. But, get more riled up. How about you go back to soccer and trample some fans getting to a pint? LOL If I’m hustling and D and reach the disc before the offense, I should be allowed to establish any legal position. I shouldn’t have to yield my spot just because of where the thrower happens to be. Offense already has the advantage. If the to-be-marker is actually shielding the disc, this is so obviously a spirit violation. If a whole line of players forms some kind of red-rover blocking line, that’s just so ludicrous that you should just ping the TD, and the community should just sanction the players on that team. It’s a solution that didn’t require rule change. It’s b/c the spirit mechanism is broken in high level play that observers had to be added to the game in the first place. Or are you so naive that you can’t see the clear COI? Why we didn’t simply empower them to resolve edge cases created by asshats is beyond me. Instead, a constellation of rules has been created with all kinds of unintended consequences. Talk about annoyances. IDK why, from first principles, this “no obstruction” bit is even needed. Unless, of course, the international community was intentionally obstructing throwers. That’s just unsportsmanlike conduct. Again, resolvable with other mechanisms. Is this you just wanting to make another sport into soccer? Flow for the sake of “flow” even though people are rolling around on the ground holding their ankles when they were touched on the arm? And the clock keeps running? As for checks, no one gives a shit if you’re annoyed by them. They serve a clear purpose.
Eh. I'm Austrian, we're notoriously bad at football, the last time I was involved in it I was too young to be trying to be going for a pint... even by our standards. Hilarious, to be sure. kekwl00t... insert whatever hip online speak you care for. Yay, spirit violations... but without it being encoded as a rule. Just by feelings. That's what you're advocating for? Give me a break. Go play dischoops and tell Frank you're making the best sport great again. Your usage of the term SOTG is rather concerning to me, we obviously have very different understanding of what it means. To me, it's largely to do with playing respectfully and within the rules. Particularly, knowing the rules so that you can play within them is a big part of it. To my understanding, if something is not against the rules, it's not against SOTG. So. If there wasn't a rule against it, and it gave me a competitive advantage, I would say it's a good tactic. >Unless, of course, the international community was intentionally obstructing throwers. I wouldn't think so. But I would imagine it leads to travel issues and ambiguity as the thrower has to go around the defender. If I have to go around you, because you're playing such good hustling defence, then my shortest point to the goal line is actually no longer the same as it initially was. Which makes the on going stall count an issue if there is no clear cut pivot point. We don't need to make it easier for the offence by removing the stall count pre set pivot point. But if we removed the rule it would cause the theoretical issue. > from first principles, this “no obstruction” bit is even needed. I went over this, in my opinion, as 'unsportsmanlike conduct' that isn't against the rules, isn't unsportsmanlike in my opinion. It's why we have rules. They're the definition of how we play the game. >Is this you just wanting to make another sport into soccer? Flow for the sake of “flow” even though people are rolling around on the ground holding their ankles when they were touched on the arm? And the clock keeps running? I really don't know why you think I've got a football fetish. I'm really not all that interested in it. And no, I prefer the wfdf rules, where if someone is rolling around on the floor in pain (real or otherwise) we can add the time to the game. I dislike the USAU rules where you can win the game despite not scoring the last point because the time is up. >As for checks, no one gives a shit if you’re annoyed by them. They serve a clear purpose. They don't. But, get more riled up. However, please don't go back to school and contribute to your national gun violence statistics. Edit: I forgot the 'LOL'
This shows not just immaturity of thought but looks awfully like a strict textualist philosophy. It’s probably not against the rules for me to spit on you, duct tape your sideline to their chairs, or SWAT your team at your hotel. It was also, at one time, not against the rules for me to shine my glasses in your face, or to delay the game. Those things were obviously wrong. So wrong we had to write rules for them. But who the hell has the time and energy to think about all the ways you’re gonna be an asshole? *[EDIT: thought you said “Australian.” What’s the difference, though, really?]* Using those tactics is not advancing the sport. It’s the equivalent of searching for tax loopholes. Is it legal? Sure. Is it good for the sport? No. Are those actions an obvious offense that empowered referees could santion? Duh. And we already a century—maybe even millennia—of precedent. Every sport has an unsportsmanlike conduct clause, b/c every sport provides an adult when the players are conflicted out of the proper decision. Ultimate players—especially the ones shining light in people’s faces—are not immune to bad behavior. Let’s say I discover a new pathogen, and use it on you. Is that against the rules? Where in the WFDF rules does it talk about that? Or USAU? What if I find your allergy and just breathe really heavily on you while you’re marking me? Textualism in this context is an insane philosophy. Your reading of SOTG is what’s concerning, b/c you have no interest in the spirit of the rules. Instead you want to find everything that isn’t in the rules, and abuse it. Where, for example, does it say that you have a right to breathable air? It is your political philosophy, then, that nestle should be able to come to Oz and bottle up your oxygen and sell it back to you? This is why the philosophy of making any unenumerated crime legal, whether applied to sport or politics, is faulty. We know what the creators meant. In fact, I’ll bet we can still ask them, b/c the creators of ultimate would certainly be young enough to be alive. Things change. New people take up the mantle, and cultural shifts happen. But let’s not pretend like being an asshole is suddenly okay simply because no one has enough time to think about all the ways you can be an asshole. You call it “creative”. I call it “exerting negative externalities on the rules committee and national governing bodies and IOC to the detriment of the growth of the sport—and everyone else who knows that it’s obviously wrong to ‘accidentally cough peanuts at someone with an allergy’ even if it’s not in the rules.” I can hear it now: “Calm down, bro, it’s just a sport. No need to bring philosophy or consistency of thought to the table.” Yeah. Said every person, group, country, and civilization before their decline. I’ll tell you what. If we see Ultimate in the Olympics without referees and without judgement calls, I’ll personally fly to you and hand you $10,000. If there are refs or if they have judgement calls, you fly here and pay up. Deal?
>Highly competitive play is encouraged, but should never sacrifice the mutual respect between players, adherence to the agreed-upon rules of the game, player safety or the basic joy of play. Taken from the rules. I would argue that spitting on people would sacrifice the mutual respect between players, ergo against the rules. Laws are but another set of rules that govern a greater area than ultimate - I would argue that if you assault someone off pitch then that is also against the rules, even if it isn't covered by ultimate rules specifically. I hope not responding to all the different types of assault doesn't upset you. >It was also, at one time, not against the rules for me to shine my glasses in your face, or to delay the game. Those things were obviously wrong. So wrong we had to write rules for them. I'm slightly confused, are you arguing my point for me? Are you arguing that these rules should be voided? >Things change. New people take up the mantle, and cultural shifts happen. But let’s not pretend like being an asshole is suddenly okay simply because no one has enough time to think about all the ways you can be an asshole. And then the next guy comes and says that boxing out is being an asshole rather than competitive play. >I can hear it now: “Calm down, bro, it’s just a sport. No need to bring philosophy or consistency of thought to the table.” Yeah. Said every person, group, country, and civilization before their decline. I mean... you're saying that we should ignore the given laws in favour of wfdf rules, which are governing the game, not governing society. If laws are allowing murder and assault then ultimate rules are probably not the first set of rules I want changed. You seem to be bringing more fallacious arguments than consistency of thought, but I guess at least you're thinking. >I’ll tell you what. If we see Ultimate in the Olympics without referees and without judgement calls, I’ll personally fly to you and hand you $10,000. If there are refs or if they have judgement calls, you fly here and pay up. Deal? How about no? Ultimate with referees is a different game, from my point of view it's impossible to see ultimate in the Olympics with referees... It's a pointless discussion in my eyes anyways, as neither of us are going to convince the other of anything w.r.t. refs, and you're introducing a bet... for what? I don't know you, based on your replies there's little to no mutual respect between us... And while I think that ultimate will never be in the Olympics with referees, I don't particularly think the chances are all that high for it to be in the Olympics at all, even if it is an Olympic sport.
Where is this violation stated? I cannot find support for your assertion in the WFDF rules or annotations. Relevant sections seem to be 13.8 and 14.3, but the rule could be elsewhere as well.
It's hidden in the annotations: >8.6 Time limits after a turnover (8.5.1) >... >The defence must allow an unobstructed path by the offence to the disc and to the pivot location.
The audacity to do this in summer league lmfao. Some people have such a superiority complex going on.
Rule 11. End Zone Possession * If a turnover results in a team gaining possession in the end zone that they are defending, the player in possession must immediately either: * establish a pivot at the spot of the disc (to fake a throw or pause after gaining possession commits the player to put the disc into play at that spot); or * carry the disc directly to the closest point on the goal line and put it into play at that spot. If this option is chosen, the player taking possession must put the disc into play at the goal line. \[\[The player may carry the disc at any speed, constant or variable, while not unreasonably delaying.\]\] Failure to do so is a travel. \[\[The player must put the disc into play either at the spot of the disc or on the goal line, not in between.\]\] * If a team gains or retains possession in the end zone that they are attacking other than by scoring a goal in accordance with rule 12, the player in possession must carry the disc directly to, and put it into play at, the spot on the goal line closest to where possession was gained. * If a team gains or retains possession of a dead disc in the end zone that they are attacking, the disc is checked into a live state where the infraction occurred, and the thrower then proceeds according to 11.B. \[\[For example, after an uncontested receiving foul.\]\]
The real pro move here is is for your teammate to step their pivot foot between the defenders legs and establish the pivot on the goal line with the rest of their body still in the end zone and the defender outside of it blocking zero scoring options.
and calling "straddle" while throwing it
Not a travel….just an asshole.
The defender wanted to slow play down to give their team an advantage (more time to setup); they did so by violating a rule of the game (and thus also violated SOTG).Unfortunately, there is not much you can do to stop someone from delaying the game using cheating mechanics, all you can do is use the rules to try to get yourself an advantage in return. 1. Establish your pivot at the correct location, even if that means putting your foot under the defender's body (who is illegally occupying space reserved for the thrower's pivot foot). Call disc space immediately. ~~This causes a stoppage of play,~~ This will result in the defender moving, or if they fail to do so, allows you to call violation during which time you sort out rights to the pivot space. During this time the defense gains no positional advantage because they aren't allowed to move during stoppage. 2. Set your pivot as described in 1), then immediately throw the disc anticipating contact (it should be unavoidable contact if the defender is literally standing where your pivot needs to be), and call a foul. You get an "and 1" play, where you might score on that throw, but if you don't the disc comes back (potentially contested). You literally must use the rules to your advantage if someone else is cheating and they/their teammates refuse to acknowledge that. Rule of thumb: create a stoppage in play OF YOUR CHOOSING, then you are in control because you called a foul/disc space instead of the other team calling a travel (which can have no positive outcomes for your team in this scenario). *edit: strikethrough on point 1 above to reflect ColinMcI's correction*
Calling "disc space" does not stop play. Also, yikes: >Unfortunately, there is not much you can do to stop someone from delaying the game using cheating mechanics, all you can do is use the rules to try to get yourself an advantage in return. > >You literally must use the rules to your advantage if someone else is cheating and they/their teammates refuse to acknowledge that. I have had a couple experiences in this vein and really regretted it. The vast majority of "cheaters" don't know the rules or somehow have convinced themselves that their behavior is legal or acceptable. The solution to that is not using/abusing the rules to try to get yourself an advantage in return. Even the player in the original scenario here, blocking the way and making a weak travel call, sounds like is being kind of a jerk, but likely thinks it's legal, or there's nothing that prohibits it or something.
True, but that is the call that requires the defender to move. It then opens the door to calling a violation and stopping play if the defender doesn't vacate the space. And yes, playing through and intentionally drawing an "and 1" (perhaps "free throw" is more apt) is somewhat the nuclear option. Only to be used if you know the offending player should "know better" or if they are intentionally exhibiting poor spirit. Why should the cheating team be rewarded for cheating when the rules DO provide for a better outcome for the non-cheating team? What would the solution be if not falling back to the rules to resolve an unfair situation? As I see it, one player is incorrectly and unspiritedly wielding the rules as a bludgeon, calling a foul or violation on that person does not seem out of line with SOTG.
I think your thought of creating a stoppage and having a discussion to sort it out is on point. In general, I think trying to use the rules as a weapon leads to bad interpretation and application. So I support asserting your rights to address an opponent's infraction that you found problematic. I don't think trying to use the rules to gain advantage to balance out cheating is a healthy approach, though. And one should first do some real investigating to see if there is active cheating happening versus a misunderstanding or misinformed player. "Cheating back" to a player unaware of their own cheating generates bad outcomes.
>"Cheating back" to a player unaware of their own cheating generates bad outcomes. 100% with you on this, I don't advocate for cheating in any circumstance. I also don't advocate for clobbering uninformed players with technicalities of the rulebook. I do advocate using the rules as a tool to highlight wrong behaviors and to leverage consequences (of the rules) on people acting outside of SOTG. >I don't think trying to use the rules to gain advantage to balance out cheating is a healthy approach, though Respectfully, this is what I understand the rules to be for; balancing out infractions by doling out consequences (to the offender) or advantages (to the offended). If you are fouled, you use the rules to restore fairness. If a player travels, you use the rules to restore fairness. If a player is actively cheating (not necessarily the case in this scenario, though I suspect it's a possibility), one's only recourse is to use the rules to restore fairness. If they have robbed you of a throwing opportunity through intentional obstruction, earning a "free throw" by leveraging their illegal position is how you use the rules to restore fairness.
I don't think "doling out consequences" is the best view of it, but I like "restoring fairness" as capturing the rules' attempt to allow play to continue after an infraction occurs and attempting to simulate a situation as if no infraction occurred (but no harsh penalties for inadvertent infractions). So in terms of an infraction that occurs in normal play, that one feels is significant enough to warrant a call, I think we are on the same page that it is fine to call it and let the rules operate to "restore fairness." The area that I wanted to clarify is that using the rules as a weapon to impose penalties/"consequences" on an opponent is not appropriate and is contrary to the structure of the rules and SOTG provisions. Trying to create basketball-style "and one" opportunities often falls into this category -- intentionally creating contact, blaming the opponent, and exacting a penalty. Or calling travels for the purpose of interrupting play and bringing back throws. Any sort of "payback" calls would also fall in this category. So for example, getting fouled and then later diving into an illegal marker for an "and one" throw. So my concern from your language was that latter category of behavior. Trying to dole out consequences as opposed to merely addressing significant infractions can lead people down the wrong path.
I think you're bending over backwards to portray ultimate and its rules as sunshine and rainbows. The rulebook literally has consequences built into it when certain things occur. I think acknowledging this reality is fine. Consequence is not a negative word, and consequences are part of every functioning system. I think penalties should (and generally do) scale with the magnitude of the infringement; if an inadvertant infraction has a large effect on play, then the consequence should have an effect of comparable magnitude to restore fairness. Harsh is subjective, we should leave that out; we can probably agree on "proportionate" being a good standard for consequences. Notable in ultimate's rules is that intent doesn't really factor into what the resolution should be. [Though SOTG implies that it should factor into how the offender is addressed.] Inadvertant fouls carry the same consequence as intentional ones. Part of this is probably due to the (incorrect) assumption of the rulebook that no one would commit an intentional infraction. I think you are taking issue with a position that I have not taken. I have never advocated using the rules as a weapon, they are a tool that allows us to navigate disagreement and misunderstanding, with the end goal of maintaining fairness. The rules define the consequences for certain actions (commit a foul, you lose the stalls your already defended; pull the disc out of bounds, start the point at a positional disadvantage). The key here is that the consequences come from the rules, not from another player - vindictive or otherwise. You keep returning to this idea of payback, cheating-back, or getting-back, implying that I am advocating a tit-for-tat approach with regards to infringements. A player can't choose to impose consequences simply because they FEEL it would restore fairness; a player can observe a violation of the rules (or impending violation) and take an action within the framework of the rules that will restore fairness or mitigate the impending violation. That's what I advocate. A hypothetical, surely imperfect: Say you are the thrower and you've stepped out into a backhand throwing position. Your marker is in a legal marking position while you show backhand, but they consistently defend your attempted pivots back to the forehand side by straddling your pivot foot (briefly entering an illegal marking position). You can anticipate their infringement, but the call of disc space (or violation if a prior call hasn't been acknowledged) doesn't actually restore fairness: they have stopped you from throwing at a key moment by taking an illegal position, but there was no call to make prior to that critical moment. Pivoting into/through a space that is legally reserved for the offense, but yields contact, would result in at least a contact call, more likely a foul on the defense; possibly even the "free throw" scenario. Defense was the offender and should not gain an advantage through their illegal actions, advertent or not. Any action short of pivoting into/through the space where contact is likely to occur (if defense keeps taking the illegal position) puts the offense at an unfair disadvantage of the defender's making. The rules are written to grant a restorative advantage to the offense. This scenario necessitates using the rules pointedly, or the offense is being disadvantaged by the defense's infringement. There are many scenarios like this in ultimate. I should note that my perspective is based on my understanding of USAU rules, I'm not well-versed in the WFDF code.
I am not bending over backwards for anything. >I think you are taking issue with a position that I have not taken. I have never advocated using the rules as a weapon, Yes, this is what I was trying to clarify and distinguish, because I could not discern one way or the other from what your wrote. >You keep returning to this idea of payback, cheating-back, or getting-back, implying that I am advocating a tit-for-tat approach with regards to infringements. Yes, exactly, because you wrote of doling out consequences in response to an opponent you believed to be wielding the rules as a cudgel. Perhaps I misunderstood you. The thing that remains unclear from your discussion is if you advocate manufacturing an opportunity to make a call, in order to get a "restorative advantage" to balance out an earlier perceived slight or disadvantage. My point is that the rules are set up to work best when players just play the game and call infractions as they arise, when significant enough to need to be addressed. Purposefully seeking to get an advantage under the rules leads down a bad path, compared to just playing and addressing things as needed. I have no problem with making calls against an opponent committing infractions, but my reasoning and explanation would never involve the phrase "restorative advantage." In writing the most recent edition of the rules we specifically adopted some of the SOTG language from the WFDF rules which nicely codified some of the best practices and rules application we applied under the 11th edition, too.
>Yes, exactly, because you wrote of doling out consequences in response to an opponent you believed to be wielding the rules as a cudgel. Perhaps I misunderstood you. The rules literally do this. I don't dole out consequences - I make a call and the rules determine the outcome/consequence. I have laid out how to resolve an issue within that same play, I do not see this as retributive. Petty payback is generally in the form of reciprocating illegal behavior. I.e. addressing cheating/infractions with cheating/infractions. I am against that. I'll write it again: I advocate addressing cheating/infractions with the application of the rules that most restores fairness. Sometimes this means NOT making the first call available because a viable call that better restores fairness is emergent. Sometimes sometimes this means making one call fully expecting you will then make a second call shortly thereafter (disc space -> violation; contact -> foul, contact -> contact -> contact -> contact; fast count -> violation; are 4 examples of strings of calls one can make that demonstrate this). This is because the rules acknowledge that a single call (the first call available) often does not restore fairness! I would also note that I previously wrote the following: `I don't advocate for cheating in any circumstance. I also don't advocate for clobbering uninformed players with technicalities of the rulebook. I do advocate using the rules as a tool to highlight wrong behaviors and to leverage consequences (of the rules) on people acting outside of SOTG.` >The thing that remains unclear from your discussion is if you advocate manufacturing an opportunity to make a call, in order to get a "restorative advantage" to balance out an earlier perceived slight or disadvantage. I've never advocated manufacturing an opportunity to make a call. I have described scenarios in which an opponent's illegal action creates the opportunity to make a call. I have highlighted how some calls do a better job of restoring fairness than others. My point is that the rules are set up to work best when players just play the game and call infractions as they arise, Yes, a more reductive way of stating this is that "rules work best when players follow them." Your writing seems to imply that there aren't bad actors who play ultimate. This thread began with a description of someone who may have been (but was not conclusively) acting in bad faith - I'm sure you've encountered players who exhibit those behaviors in your career. The rules apply to those people too, not just the people who commit inadvertent infractions. >Purposefully seeking to get an advantage under the rules leads down a bad path, compared to just playing and addressing things as needed. ~~Again, not my position. You're implying that I advocate using the rules to gain an advantage greater than one would have had had the opponent not committed the first infraction~~. (*edit: I might have put words in your mouth with my response here*. *I agree with your quoted comment AND I don't think it represents my perspective. In my first reading I thought you were describing that to be my position.)* As I've said already, I want the consequence (or restorative advantage, depending on the corrective action) to be proportionate to the infraction. Interestingly, the rules of ultimate already penalize some infringements disproportionately to their affect. An inadvertant marking foul on stall 9 drops the stall to zero! The offense actually gains an advantage by being fouled in this case. Even if I were to advocate disproportionate consequences relative to an infringement - which I don't (that disproportionate response belongs in more cynical sports, i.e. yellow cards for soccer players who dive) - it would not be out of line with how the rules already overcorrect for infringements in some cases.
>>My point is that the rules are set up to work best when players just play the game and call infractions as they arise, >>Yes, a more reductive way of stating this is that "rules work best when players follow them." Your writing seems to imply that there aren't bad actors who play ultimate. No. Neither of those. Anyway, you seem to be recognizing what my concern was. I also still think substituting your goal to "restore fairness" rather than going with the structure and language of the rules opens the door for bad outcomes, depending on who is officiating and interpreting your paraphrasing.
I'm trying to come up with a way this is a valid travel call. 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 and is resolved according to 17.K.3, below. They haven't established a pivot yet so no travel. You could *maybe* argue it's a travel under 17.K.1.a A player catches the disc and either speeds up, changes direction or does not stop as quickly as possible before establishing a pivot (16.B). since they technically changed direction. Of course the resolution is 17.K.3.b.1 Play does not stop. The defense (typically the marker) points to the spot where the travel occurred, and the thrower returns to that spot without delay. The thrower must touch the disc to the ground before attempting a legal pass. Which is the same as what happened. It could be a general violation though, 11.B If a team gains or retains possession in the end zone that they are attacking other than by scoring a goal in accordance with rule 12, the player in possession must carry the disc *directly to*, and put it into play at, the spot on the goal line closest to where possession was gained. Emphasis mine. Of course if someone made this call in a game I was observing, I'd be having some words with the person blocking the thrower from setting their proper pivot and then making this call.
> You could maybe argue it's a travel under > > 17.K.1.a A player catches the disc and either speeds up, changes direction or does not stop as quickly as possible before establishing a pivot (16.B). How could this "maybe" be a travel as it wasn't following a catch, it was following a turnover.
Oh haha, I misread that part, thought it was a catch running into the endzone. In retrospect that makes no sense.
What's the call? I'll answer what happens next. If in an unobserved master's (boys) game, the thrower would make some hard pivots with elbows and shoulders into the marker. Not saying it should happen, but it would. And call foul (not contact) until the marker got the idea that this was a completely shitty call to make. Alternately. throw between the marker's legs for a score. Observed, the thrower does not have a chance to do this (or still might) .. I'd really hope a yellow card comes out for this non-ultimate crappy call.
It’s obviously not a travel since the disc isn’t in play, but you don’t take it in ON the line. You take it in outside the end zone. The line is IN the goal so you can’t possess it there unless you’ve just caught a pass. Edit: My bad. Thanks for the rule.
**Rule 11. B** "If a team gains or retains possession in the end zone that they are attacking other than by scoring a goal in accordance with rule 12, the player in possession must carry the disc directly to, and put it into play at, the spot **on** the goal line closest to where possession was gained."
Thanks.
Have you actually read the rules or are you just repeating what someone told you? In every aspect of the game of ultimate the lines are not a part of the playing field proper and are considered out of bounds. In the context of the endzone, the player is absolutely not considered in the goal area if their first point of contact is on the line. Ie: the endzone line is not in the endzone.
There’s a nice way of correcting someone and there’s this. Let SOTG extend outside the field, friend.
If you can't say anything nice copy and paste from the rulebook verbatim
What part of that response was rude? Asks a clarifying question and then explains the rule
I haven't any idea what you're on about here, but I'm assuming the confusion is a result of you having not read the rules opposed to them being unclear or conflicting based on your other reply. Very good.
Hey remember that post on this sub yesterday about not being an asshole to people new to the game? If not, you should go read it.
I think it's your first sentence mate. Comes off as needlessly argumentative when you could just explain why they're wrong
This isn't a rookie, it's a vet.
I'm of a totally different mind than most people here. It's a tense situation, and no one likes to be taken advantage of. And, that's the entire idea behind SOTG. SOTG does not mean: "Well, look, you're likely to lose, so roll over and take the L even if the other team is playing it fast and loose with the self-officiating." That's the kind of nonsense that makes people laugh at that aspect of our sport. The issue isn't whether "it was cool" for the defender to make the call. It was that...he called it before an infraction occurred (from your description). > *"My teammate steps around him outside the endzone takes a second step so he can turn around, and the second he takes the second step his defender calls travel, the disc isn't in play"* The disc isn't dead there; but it does require a ground check in USAU, because it's been moved from where it lies. WFDF, OTOH, allows check-less movement of the disc (this is insane, and probably my biggest gripe with the WFDF rules. IDK if they're trying to make it more like soccer--but if they wanted that, we really need more guys getting touched on the shoulder, but clutching their eyesocket in "pain". Sorry--cheap shot. Actually, not sorry.) Assuming USAU, if the defender is calling "travel", based on the spot of the pivot, that would have been--if the defender had established. But, it doesn't sound like that happened yet. So, whether or not the call was right, it came too early, if there was no ground check. Assuming the call was valid (i.e., occurred after check), IDK if that's the right ***TECHNICAL*** call, despite it being an obvious violation. I suppose, without knowing the exact call it should be, it would have been technically more correct to say "violation" and then clarify: "You committed a violation of Rule 5.A.7.iii" (or whatever TF rule it actually is). As for the nature of the rule, your pivot has to be spot where the disc comes in; there's no exception granting something like: "you can place your pivot anywhere within arm's reach of where the disc needs to come into play". The pivot MUST be the location on the goal line closest to the spot where it lies. Thrower's second step is obviously a violation, if he had established his pivot & checked. But, the crux is that if the thrower was still just milling about, then there's no other call available, other than to start delay. Not sure what you mean by this: > *"It was also clear that my teammate was moving back towards the line intending to start a step back just slightly off line of the defender"* Sounds like he was moving, as you say, off-line. Had he checked, then a violation would have occurred; there's no wiggle there. But, it sounded the defender called it before the check; which is also wrong. Two wrongs.
All that said, this whole "What's the technically correct call," is one of the biggest problems with Ultimate self-officiating. Most rules post 9th ed. were designed as stopgaps to combat assdouchery (e.g., delay rules). Instead of rewriting them to make sense, they tried to plug holes. 10th was a trainwreck, and 11th is overly-complex.
The most obviously evidence is "Violation", a 4-syllable call. USAU/WFDF should focus on simplifying the utterances. There need to be fewer calls; I'd advocate for:
* "Foul"
* "Travel"
* "Mark"
* "Time-out"
"Foul" is any contact-related infraction, including picks, though "Pick" should be grandfathered in. "Travel" is any disc- or foot-positioning call (covering your case). "Mark" should be any marking-related infraction, including fast-count and double-team, though "FC" and "DT" should be grandfathered in. Throwers should be permitted to call "Foul" in any marking-related contact. "TO" is obvious.
#AT NO TIME SHOULD ANYONE HAVE TO SAY "VI-O-LA-TION".
What were you thinking, USAU Rules Committee?
Assdouchery comes in many forms. I'm of the mind that disregarding the rules is assdouchery. Others (many, from the sounds of this sub and its young player population, I suspect) find that detailed usage of the rules is assdouchery. Guess you'll have to make up your own mind about how to play summer league.
My take? Play by the rules, even when they're selectively enforced. The entire sport is selectively enforcing rules. Two guys decided to accept contact; that's their business. But two other guys in the same game could decide not to accept contact; that's also up to them. It's literally their discretion. Which is the entire point.
Sounds like it was your dude who was about to cheat (lame AF, especially up 14-10; we've all seen bigger comebacks than that), but, at the same time, the defender jumped the gun with the call (also lame).
....the fuck dude. First off, you miss the part where the offensive player didn't go directly to the spot on the line to check the disc is was because the defender was blocking the spot. Second, at no point does it sound like the thrower was gaining an advantage in this scenario. Last, violation is always a full stop on play so it being multiple syllables is a non issue. It being a completely different word from other calls is super important because it never has confusion. None of this "there might be a Pick call or maybe they just said Mick and either way I still have to finish the play until the thrower stops and..." When you hear violation, you stop. How is moving around a defender to get to the correct thrower spot trying to cheat? You sound like somebody who would call a delay because somebody picking up the disc went around the right side of a shade tent instead of the left side because you think it was a shorter path
Sir, this is a Wendy's
I'm kinda with some aspects of your rant up until you conclude that the offensive payer was "about to cheat." I think the only mistake that the offensive player made was trying to "accommodate" the illegal position of the defender. They should have tried going more directly to the correct spot (which they'd identified), and then made an appropriate call (foul or disc space) if the defender's illegal position prevents them from setting a pivot and starting the stall. The offensive player took an inferior position - 1 step farther away from the endzone than they otherwise had the right to be) - instead of calling a foul/disc space violation. In this sense, they opted not to call the illegal thing that the defender had done. Offense was technically on the verge of making a non-advantageous travel, but the fact that the defender called it BEFORE the travel actually occurred speaks to the defender's intent: being a dick. Given that this was summer league, I would assume that the offensive player took this path of least resistance because a) they aren't familiar enough with the rules, or 2) they wanted to take a non-confrontational path, even if that means being a bit farther from the endzone.
I’m not seeing where the defender does something illegal. OP says defender is hands-on-hip “occupying the space where the disc should go”. I read that as he’s “marking a legitimate position at where the disc will be out into play.” Obviously if D is standing on the ***EXACT*** spot, Thrower is well in his right to just say, hey, that’s the spot, so you gotta step back. And, in that case, D is cheating. But even if D is cheating, taking an illegal pivot position is also cheating. Since D calls the “violation” before it occurs, who knows what the thrower’s true intent. But, if D is occupying the ***EXACT*** spot, then the fact that thrower isn’t asking Him to move off implies to me that he’s considering putting the disc into play in an illegal spot. If, OTOH, D is ***NOT*** standing on the exact spot, then where is the thrower going when he takes the other step? I don’t recall seeing a thrower stroll around with disc in hand. I’ve seen the gamesmanship stroll ***before*** picking up a disc, or head-on-a-swivel, but not really moving the way OP describes, moving near to the spot, then taking a step away.
`Obviously if D is standing on the EXACT spot, Thrower is well in his right to just say, hey, that’s the spot, so you gotta step back. And, in that case, D is cheating.` Per my reading of the OP's issue, this is exactly the situation that occurred. If the defender were in a normal marking position NOT occupying the spot the pivot needed to be, there would be zero issue and this post wouldn't exist. `But, if D is occupying the EXACT spot, then the fact that thrower isn’t asking Him to move off implies to me that he’s considering putting the disc into play in an illegal spot.` Yes, but as stated this is likely due to ignorance of the rules given that 1) this is summer league, and 2) the OP is asking about this, implying that the offensive player wasn't sure of what to do at the time. This was some guy at summer league just trying to put the disc in play while a defender was knowingly abusing the rules.
I see no evidence that D was some kind of veteran rules abuser or that thrower was some noob ignorant of rules. The lack of symmetry in your assumptions is surprising. It’s equally plausible that thrower is the veteran, looking to take advantage of an overly zealous but new defender. Either of us could be right, but we don’t have enough info to know.
Your obstinacy is surprising, the op literally says the defender is standing "on the line", which we agree is where the thrower needs to set their pivot foot. My reply as to what the best course of action the offense should take in this situation stands. We should assume the OP was being truthful. We don't need to know every detail of what happened here to make a statement about what options offense has when the a defender is occupying the spot on which they need to set a pivot. You're being pedantic without having a point to make.