Strip gone - why?
Kyle_W...@brown.edu
knocked from the hand of a player are technically fouls and so they are
played the same way, however calling "strip" makes clear to the
defender what is being called and will prevent reactions like "I didn't
touch you!" which will happen if "foul" is called when a player knocks
the disc out of a players hadnd. It seems that this rule is trying to
fix something that is not broken and currently works well in the game.
-Kyle
Flo.P...@googlemail.com
We eliminated the only difference between a strip and a foul by making
a foul on a player with possession in the endzone a goal. There is no
need for the strip call anymore. If you want to avoid discussions, just
call "foul" and then immediately say "strip" to your opponent. Also,
when someone else (ignorantly of the change) calls "strip", just treat
it as a foul call and tell him about the change after the game.
Why should we teach all the new players the fairly complicated
definition of a strip when it is not needed anymore?
-Flo.
Jon RB Bauman
contest a strip.
JCR...@gmail.com
was saying that they had possession of the disc, even though the
contact that knocked the disc out of the receivers hand might have been
incidental.
Under the 10th ed - if a player calls foul, I ask myself if the contact
was initiated by me, or the opposing player, whereas, if the player
calls strip, they keep the disc unless (1) I don't believe they had
possession (sustained contact); or (2) they committed a foul in making
the catch.
I haven't read the rules yet but that is a pretty important distinction
under the 10th edition that I would hate to lose.
Flo.P...@googlemail.com
contact with it to another player and lose possession due to the
contact, it's not a strip (it's an offensive foul).
the contact will never be incidental since it has immediate
consequences on the outcome of continued play (loss of possession).
Tim
some minimal (incidental in my mind) contact on the body and we both
get to the disc at nearly the same time (I'm not sure if my opponent
every had possession). Disc falls to the ground. Receiver calls foul.
I want to know if he thought he had the disc and I knocked it out of
his hand or if he thougth the contact between us prevented him from
catching it. In the first I probably don't contest (I don't know so
I'll take his word for it) in the second I'll contest as I thought the
body contact was incidental. Taking out the strip call means that now
I have to ask him which foul he is calling.
I don't think that's too much to do, just pointing out that this
requires us to be a little more civil and articulate than we had to be
before.
Jon RB Bauman
following scenario:
Throw to the end zone, disc dropped, "strip" called and contested. Now,
if the player who contested was contesting that the receiver ever had
possession, it goes back to the thrower. If they were conceding the
possession, but contesting the merits of the strip call (e.g., the
receiver initiated the contact), then it would go back to the goal
line.
Some discussion is good, I think.
jason.s...@gmail.com
we need to try and simplify for new players. I remember when I was
learning, strip was a pretty easy and clear cut notion. It is probably
going to be better in actual games, limiting the stoppage of play, to
leave "strip" where it is so that players, in the heat of a game, don't
get too fired up about a foul call that is really more easily explained
as a strip. Plus I really dont think you're going to all of a sudden
stop us veterans from calling strip all the time anyways.
Not broken, don't fix it
Mark Mortakai Moran
What about the situation of someone colliding with your elbow that
causes you to lose possession? It's *not* a strip, however it's dealt
with in exactly the same way in all respects.
Yes, it's not necessarily broken. However, in fixing another part of
the rules that *was* (i.e., non-strip foul in end zone after possession
was gained), the strip rule ceased to be necessary.
jason.s...@gmail.com
offense and player D is attempting to make a play on the disc and hits
the disc as player O catches it. Player O would call a foul, however
player D only hit the disc and argues he never made contact with player
O, but instead got all disc, it seems to me a "strip" call would be
better/more descriptive call to make for the sake of avoiding any
preliminary explosions by player D and/or his team/sideline.
Oversimplification of some things can lead to more problems on the
field and longer stoppages of play.
Jon RB Bauman
"strip" call is absorbed into the "foul" call. Nothing is going to keep
players and sidelines from getting initially angry at calls they don't
understand. It seems a bad justification for keeping around an
unnecessary rule.
bsp...@gmail.com
getting initially angry at calls they don't understand." This is kind
of circularly untrue. What will keep players and sidelines from getting
angry is making sure they DO understand the call, and the foul/strip
distinction does a good job of that.
I agree with everyone who thinks that strips should stay. The only
change that really needs to be made to the current rules is to
expliticly say that a foul after a catch that causes possession to be
lost is treated like a strip (i.e. goal in the endzone). (You could
even call this a "stripping foul" if you want.)
Ben Sprung
Jon RB Bauman
> Jon, you say that "Nothing is going to keep players and sidelines from
> getting initially angry at calls they don't understand." This is kind
> of circularly untrue. What will keep players and sidelines from getting
> angry is making sure they DO understand the call, and the foul/strip
> distinction does a good job of that.
What I meant by that was there is often a reason for making a call
(e.g., contact that was not seen by everybody) that is not clear to
anyone but the caller. This will often lead to people being upset.
There's nothing we can do about it.
> I agree with everyone who thinks that strips should stay. The only
> change that really needs to be made to the current rules is to
> expliticly say that a foul after a catch that causes possession to be
> lost is treated like a strip (i.e. goal in the endzone). (You could
> even call this a "stripping foul" if you want.)
The point of removing the strip rule is that it was completely
redundant to a foul. That is, there were no strips that were not also
fouls. Now that we've made uncontested fouls that cause loss of
possession in the end zone a goal, why should we keep around a term
that has no meaning? If you want to keep calling "strip" I probably
wouldn't argue, but it would mean nothing different than calling "foul"
as far as the rules are concerned. I certainly don't want to require
people to call "strip" when "foul" cover all cases.
bsp...@gmail.com
> bsp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Jon, you say that "Nothing is going to keep players and sidelines from
> > getting initially angry at calls they don't understand." This is kind
> > of circularly untrue. What will keep players and sidelines from getting
> > angry is making sure they DO understand the call, and the foul/strip
> > distinction does a good job of that.
>
> What I meant by that was there is often a reason for making a call
> (e.g., contact that was not seen by everybody) that is not clear to
> anyone but the caller. This will often lead to people being upset.
> There's nothing we can do about it.
There IS something we can do about it: keep strip as a call. If my
teammate goes up with an opponent and comes down with the disc without
much contact and I hear "foul!" (which I would instantly think is a bad
call), I'm going to be a lot more upset than if I hear "strip!" (which
I may be prepared to accept). Of course they could immediately yell to
everyone "foul, he ripped it out of my hand!", but why not just keep
strip in the official lingo?
Here's another possible reason to keep the strip call: In sports like
basketball or football fouls are illegal but strips are not. Let's say
you're new to ultimate, coming from basketball or football. The concept
of a foul on a catch is intuitive (pass interference), but you might by
tempted to try to rip the disc out of someone's hands afterwards (as
long as you get 'all ball'). Someone can just explain to you that
strips are illegal in ultimate--seems a little easier than explaining
that the concept of a foul includes the disc in someone's hand.
Ben
Jon RB Bauman
> Jon RB Bauman wrote:
> > bsp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Jon, you say that "Nothing is going to keep players and sidelines from
> > > getting initially angry at calls they don't understand." This is kind
> > > of circularly untrue. What will keep players and sidelines from getting
> > > angry is making sure they DO understand the call, and the foul/strip
> > > distinction does a good job of that.
> >
> > What I meant by that was there is often a reason for making a call
> > (e.g., contact that was not seen by everybody) that is not clear to
> > anyone but the caller. This will often lead to people being upset.
> > There's nothing we can do about it.
>
> There IS something we can do about it: keep strip as a call. If my
> teammate goes up with an opponent and comes down with the disc without
> much contact and I hear "foul!" (which I would instantly think is a bad
> call), I'm going to be a lot more upset than if I hear "strip!" (which
> I may be prepared to accept). Of course they could immediately yell to
> everyone "foul, he ripped it out of my hand!", but why not just keep
> strip in the official lingo?
Should we really be writing the rules to quell the rage of uninvolved
players' anger more than to be simple and non-redundant? Maybe so, but
I'm inclined the other way.
I still think that the distinction between a legitimate foul (hand
contact) and legitimate strip (disc contact) can be very subtle. So,
might people even get mad at "foul" calls that are legitimately fouls
and not strips?
> Here's another possible reason to keep the strip call: In sports like
> basketball or football fouls are illegal but strips are not. Let's say
> you're new to ultimate, coming from basketball or football. The concept
> of a foul on a catch is intuitive (pass interference), but you might by
> tempted to try to rip the disc out of someone's hands afterwards (as
> long as you get 'all ball'). Someone can just explain to you that
> strips are illegal in ultimate--seems a little easier than explaining
> that the concept of a foul includes the disc in someone's hand.
And this is something that clearly can be explained to new players. It
doesn't mean that we have to use the strip terminology in the rules.
I'm worried we're going around in circles at this point. Let me know if
you have a question for me, otherwise I'm probably not going to reply
to this thread anymore.
bsp...@gmail.com
not trying to build up a consistent theory from first principles; we're
trying to make the rules of the game we play easy to understand, and to
minimize arguments on the field. "Strip" is really easy to understand
and having it as a call can prevent some tension. I think it's
intuitively obvious that ripping a disc out of someone's hand after
they caught it is different from hitting their hand before they catch
it. I agree that at this point neither of us is going to change the
other's mind; hopefully the SRC will take everyone's opinion into
account, because I'll bet that a strong majority of players want to
keep "strip" in the rules.
Last thing I'll say: I do think it's a good idea to define a strip (or
even a "stripping foul") as any contact on the receiver or disc after a
catch has been completed that causes a loss of possession.
Josh
(already technically a "stripping foul") into the unified "foul" call.
It does indeed make the rules less redundant & more concise.
In practice, players can still explain their "foul" call by using the
word "strip" as much as they'd like, even before the word "foul," which
might prevent the outbursts of uncontrolled adolescent rage (receiver
loudly yells, "STRIP! FOUL!" and everyone will probably react they same
way they do under the current "STRIP!" calling).
In teaching new players, rules-savvy instructors can continue to use
the concept of a strip as an example of a type of foul - any physical
contact initiated by the opponent that prevents OR negates the
controlled possession of the disc, such as slapping the hand(s) before
the disc can be caught the disc or stripping it out of the hand(s)
after it is caught.
The value of the word "strip" in any scenario is solely in its
effective communication. Regardless of what words the rules direct to
be actually uttered (whether "strip" or "foul"), it is most effective
if communication is as clear & effective as possible. The best argument
to leave the word "strip" in the rules is for better communication on
the field, but that is not an inherent goal of the rules heretofore. It
is left up to the players that play the game to be clear & effective in
their communication of their calls.
ultimatep...@gmail.com
this is a good change, i think, because it does make things
better. and by better i mean it simplifies things, as you
have noted.
in many cases, simpler is better.
so good job.
colinm...@gmail.com
players only call strips in the endzone, as the foul is more inclusive
and avoids the "I fouled you, but I didn't strip you" contest.
Additionally, but removing the strip call, I think the SRC reinforces
the necessity of possession and eliminates a bunch of myths that have
developed. I also think the new rule puts emphasis on the necessity of
possession, eliminating the strip calls where a player has closed his
hand on the disc and it is knocked out of his hand before he gains
possession. "Strip, you hit the disc out of my hand" is different than
"Foul. I had possession of the disc and then you hit the disc (loss of
possession is irrelevant)."
Colin
Flo Pfender
colinm...@gmail.com schrieb:
> Additionally, but removing the strip call, I think the SRC reinforces
> the necessity of possession and eliminates a bunch of myths that have
> developed. I also think the new rule puts emphasis on the necessity of
> possession, eliminating the strip calls where a player has closed his
> hand on the disc and it is knocked out of his hand before he gains
> possession. "Strip, you hit the disc out of my hand" is different than
> "Foul. I had possession of the disc and then you hit the disc (loss of
> possession is irrelevant)."
>
YES!
this is exactly what is broken with the strip call currently. It is
called many times when O and D contact the disc (nearly)
simultaneously. Not that the 10th edition rules define the strip any
other way, but the everyday meaning of "stripping an object out of
someones hands" gets in the way of applying the rule correctly.
Flo.
bsp...@gmail.com
whether the offensive player had possession first. How does changing
the name of this call from a strip to a foul make it easier to resolve?
Flo Pfender
call "strip" because the disc was stripped (in the common use sense of
the word) from their hands when they never had sustained contact and
control of the disc before the defender hit it (think sandwich catch
while the defender hits the side of the disc).
Taking the word strip out of the situation may help to get rid of this
misconception of the rule.
Flo.
JCR...@gmail.com
simultaneously vie for the same unoccupied position, the contact is
considered incidental and is not a foul." XVII (H)(8).
As a result, there can be contact between players that most players
would not consider to be a foul under the 10th edition. However, if
one of the players caught the disc first, they could call a strip if
the contact resulted in dropping the disc.
Regardless, my point [and it seems many others as well] is that in the
above situation, calling a foul instead of strip is far more
confrontational. Fouls are emotionally charged calls, whereas strips
are less often so. Hearing the word "Foul" yelled in an emotionally
charged, contested game, may result in arguments that make the game
less enjoyable to both play and watch.
In a game with observers, perhaps it makes no difference, but that is
still a minority of games being played.
Kyle_W...@brown.edu
I understand that Strip and Foul are played exactly the same in the
rules. The problem with taking away the strip call is that the strip
is a call about a different violation than a foul.
A strip call typically requires a discussion about whether the receiver
had established possession before an opponent knocked the disc away.
A foul call on a reception typically requires discussion about whether
there was contact and if that contact affected play on a disc.
In the 11th draft, the rule is simplified (becuase the outcome is the
same), but the play on the field has been made more complicated by
adding the extra step of players having to explain exactly what they
are calling.
As the rules are written (with the clarification for what Ben called
"stripping fouls") it is clear and still simple. Taking away the call
of "strip" will make it more complicated on the field.
-Kyle Weisbrod
bsp...@gmail.com
If you want to get rid of this "misconception," then why don't you just
modify the strip rule? Right now it says:
(10th ed) Strip: No defensive player may touch the disc while it is in
possession of an offensive player. If a defensive player initiates
contact with the disc, and the offensive player loses possession as a
result, it is a strip. A strip is handled in the same manner as a foul,
but an uncontested strip in the end zone is a goal.
You could just tack on a sentence like "If the offensive player is in
the process of establishing possession of the disc but has not yet done
so when the defender contacts the disc, then it is not a strip." That's
pretty clunky, but you see my general point: if you want the rules to
impy something, why not just come right out and say it?
Jeeves
> You could just tack on a sentence like "If the offensive player is in
> the process of establishing possession of the disc but has not yet done
> so when the defender contacts the disc, then it is not a strip."
Since the 10th ed rule states "loss of possession," it implies that the
player had posession in the first place, which covers what you wrote.
My opinion is that the strip rule was the cause of a lot of erroneous
calls made by people who didn't get the possession part, so getting rid
of it is good.
To all those who use anger at a misunderstood foul call as a reason why
strip should remain, I'd argue that you miss the point. I know you
don't like people who point to the preface to justify rules, but in the
interest of sportsmanship (or "spirit" if you want to call it that) why
are you assuming that as soon as someone makes a call you don't
understand/agree with, particularly when you're across the field from
the incident and can't really see, that they're cheating?