New proposed call for marker-thrower contact.

[colinm...@gmail.com]

As written, the rules put the thrower at a disadvantage when he stops
play by calling a foul. Any downfield defenders who were thrown off
balance by their cutters' sweet jukes get to regain their balance.
Cutters who would otherwise be open are now clogging the lane, costing
the thrower additional time and hurting a previously flowing offense.
As a result, fouls early in the stall count often go uncalled, making
many defenders less careful to avoid contact in every way possible.
Regardless of intent, an early-stall foul harms the thrower. If the
foul hadn't occurred, a throw could have been made, but the foul
stopped the throw and the foul wasn't called because calling the foul
created a bigger disadvantage than missing the throw. An unintentional
foul occurs and the rules fail to recreate what would have happened,
had the foul not occurred.

Therefore, I propose a new call. Every time a thrower is fouled, he
may call the foul, as before, or he may make the new call, which I'll
call "stop that". When "stop that" is called:
Play continues, just as with a "fast count" call..
The marker must reinitiate the stall at count reached minus three.
If the count is at three or lower, the marker counts down the
difference to zero before counting forward to ten again.
"Stop that" may be called again for each additional infraction.

For example:

"Stalling...one...two"
"Stop that"
"Stalling one ... zero ... one ... two"

This proposed rule better simulates what would have happened, had a
foul not occurred. The decrease in stall count provides time for the
offense to reset and by allowing the count to essentially become
negative, the effect of the infraction does not change, based on when
it occurs in the stall count.

Think of the instances when a defender is sprinting to catch up to a
receiver, who catches the disc. As the defender closes and realizes he
doesn't have a play at the disc, he often runs into the now-thrower,
not anticipating the thrower stopping and resulting in a foul call and
stoppage of play (or a disadvantaged thrower). However, if the
defender had been more aware and avoided contact, he would have run
significantly past the thrower, and it would take him a few seconds to
return to the mark. The proposed rule recreates what would have
happened, had the infraction not occurred.

I think I've captured the positive aspects of this rule alright. Other
than introducing a new call that wasn't in the rules before (like "disc
space"), what are the negative aspects of this rule?

-Colin

Note: just as with an erroneous "fast count" call, the marker may stop
play and dispute under XVI.D.

[Jon RB Bauman]

Under the 11th currently, a thrower could legitimately call "disc
space" rather than "foul" for any contact initiated by the marker. Is
the only difference in your proposal that the stall is reduced further?

I like "stop that", but maybe "quit it" would be even better. :)

[colinm...@gmail.com]

You are correct, but it requires more interpretation than the average
player is willing/able to do, especially in the middle of play. I
would rather have it defined explicitly in the fouls section. This
will allow the marker to only think, "yes, I fouled the thrower and he
doesn't want to stop play" as opposed to "My hand touched the thrower,
which means the endpoint of the line segment between my hand and
another part of my body touched the thrower, so I'm in violation of the
disc space rule", which is what a player providing disc space under the
10th edition, but slapping the thrower's hand would need to process..

But yeah, reducing the stall further and allowing it to go negative is
another big difference that I think is important. The contact has a
bigger effect on play than a non-contact encroachment on disc space, so
the rule-imposed counterbalance should be larger.

-Colin

[Jon RB Bauman]

colinmcint...@gmail.com wrote:
> But yeah, reducing the stall further and allowing it to go negative is
> another big difference that I think is important. The contact has a
> bigger effect on play than a non-contact encroachment on disc space, so
> the rule-imposed counterbalance should be larger.

This sounds like it might go well with the idea I've been championing
for awhile: inverting the stall. I think people would have a much
easier time counting down from 11 or 12 than slipping into negative
numbers. A couple other benefits of counting down:

- Start at "ten", stall at the "z" in "zero". No need to start with
"stalling"
- Since there's no "stalling", there's no "stallingOne" fast count
- People tend to count down slower than they count up
- More similar to other sports (shot clocks & play clocks count down)
- More dramatic

Thoughts?

[colinm...@gmail.com]

I agree with all the benefits you mention for inverting the stall count
and it would definitely make increasing the stall after fast counts,
"stop it", etc easier. I am unsure if I want to couple my grand
suggestion with your sinking ship, but I do like your idea. :)

In fact, I fully support inverting the stall. Make the major change of
procedure to simplify the more complicated rules and issues.

Also worth noting is that the confusion of having to subtract 3 and
convert to negative numbers for a "stop it" call would further slow the
count of the infractor (and I find that this type of infractor
typically has a fast stall, too).

[ira...@gmail.com]

> This sounds like it might go well with the idea I've been championing
> for awhile: inverting the stall. I think people would have a much
> easier time counting down from 11 or 12 than slipping into negative
> numbers. A couple other benefits of counting down:
>
> - Start at "ten", stall at the "z" in "zero". No need to start with
> "stalling"
> - Since there's no "stalling", there's no "stallingOne" fast count
> - People tend to count down slower than they count up
> - More similar to other sports (shot clocks & play clocks count down)
> - More dramatic
>
> Thoughts?

I support a count-down stall count for all the reasons you mention.
Definitely a good change!

Ira

[Rodney Jacobson]

> - Start at "ten", stall at the "z" in "zero". No need to start with
> "stalling"
> - Since there's no "stalling", there's no "stallingOne" fast count

I like this a lot.
It makes the rules simpler, and gets back the lost second in most stall
counts.

[colinm...@gmail.com]

It's also a little bit less concrete to call "disc space" if you pivot
towards the thrower (encroaching on disc space) and past them and then
they lean down on you, fouling you. I mean, by pivoting into the space
between their arm and their leg, you are the sole reason that the
segment connecting their finger to their toe intersects your body. So,
having created the disc space encroachment, I don't think "disc space"
is an appropriate call here. "Foul" would be appropriate, since the
leaning onto you is a foul, but I think "stop that" is much more
fitting than "disc space".

So my case for "stop that" is that I don't think "disc space" applies
well to all instances of fouls, but I do think that "stop that" does
(after all, it's defined to).

[colinm...@gmail.com]

Contact resulting from thrower and marker simultaneously vying for the
same space. I think using the new "disc space" call is technically
correct, but is unclear enough that a distinct "stop that" call is
better. Only minor additional text and much, much, much greater
clarity.

Plus, introducing the new call allows greater freedom in editing the
"disc space" rule to make it less cumbersome, not having to worry about
this very important tied-in meaning.

[colinm...@gmail.com]

I wonder what changes might make this more palatable. I can only think
of two:

name change. "stop that" is silly. "contact"?
count reduction. Fouls have greater effect on play, so it seems
reasonable that they require a greater adjustment to compensate for
them. if not 4 seconds, 3? 5?

Then to reiterate the benefits:
- resolves inherent defensive advantage to fouling currently in the
rules.
- removes apparent necessity to "throw through it" to make a foul call
worthwhile
- removes feeling of necessity to stop the "free throw" if initially
light contact occurs
- promotes continuous game play
- fits within the terms of the preface.
- reduces fan/player/organizer-unfriendly "downtime"
- simple to incorporate into rules with no tangled meanings
- remainder omitted to avoid redundancy

Downsides:
- learn a new call
- ?

[Flo Pfender]

I like "contact" much better than "stop that", anyone got any (even)
better suggestions? "touch" (well, I don't know if this is better)?

I think 2 secs is enough of a reduction. It's simpler and better fits
in with other marking infractions. I don't think the extra complexity
is warranted, you get most of the benefits with the 2 secs as well.

The fine line is the question if the marking violation section gets out
of hand if we blow it up further and further.
Maybe, we should reconsider taking "vision blocking" out of this
section, and make it a general violation that stops play (it is so
rarely done in practice, these few extra stoppages -- once every 50
games -- are easily balanced by one fewer call to learn). All other
marking violations occur pretty frequently.