Counting Down

[ira...@gmail.com]

Hello All,

In this thread, there is a good discussion why counting down is better
than counting up. Can we make this change in the 11th edition?

http://groups.google.com/group/UPA_11th_edition_rules/browse_frm/thread/0ea9bfcce88adebb/#

Ira

[disc...@gmail.com]

I agree, this seems much better. Especially since it makes things
easier when teams want to practice with a shorter stall count. I would
guess the only obstacle is tradition.

Douglas Baker

[colinm...@gmail.com]

I agree with the count-down. Removing "stalling" simplifies all
reinitiations of stall count, as well. It's a minor textual adjustment
with significant benefit.

Colin

[Flo Pfender]

let's summarize the pros and cons of the different possibilities:

a) 11th edition stalling

pro:
- 10 sec of stall count in theory
- tradition
con:
- in reality, often only 9.5 Ultisecs (1 Ultisec = the standard
interval between two numbers, due to "stallone" we get to 9.5 Ultisec
here)
- nothing specific, doesn't have all the pros of the others...

b) forward stalling with the first "stalling" replaced by "zero", stall
resets updated to reflect the removal of all other "stalling"s

pro:
- 10 Ultisecs of stall count

con:
- might feel/sound weird to start with "zero"

c) forward stalling starting with "one", no "stalling"s, count to
"eleven"

pro:
- 10 Ultisec of stall count

con:
- "eleven" is a bad word to hear the first utterance of
- 11? WTF?

c) forward stalling starting with "one", no "stalling"s, count to "ten"

pro:
- most natural fix of most problems

con:
- only 9 Ultisecs stall count

d) Count down from 10 to 0, no "stalling"s

pro:
- 10 Ultisecs
- fixes most problems
- may allow to let the stall go over 10 on infractions with some extra
wording (comparable to negative stall counts in the other scenarios)
- more drama
- that's what sports with shot clock do
- easier to experiment with other stall lengths

con:
- quite a big change for players to get used to
- if players use the traditional stall, the stall can not count. In all
other scenarios they just add a second to the stall...
- "zero" is not as good as "ten" to determine the end of a stall.

I personally would like to eliminate the word "stalling" (the SRC is
split on this). So many players use "stallone" or no "stalling"
currently. As a player who plays by the rules you either have to call
"fast count" (almost) every time you catch the disc and get stalled
(annoying) or live with the fact that your stalls are 0.5-1 Ultisecs
longer than most other stalls (competitive disadvantage).
Yes, in a way this is giving in to the players who don't follow the
rules. But I think in some cases, a lot of players not following a rule
may show that the rule is too complicated or counterintuitive.

I personally favor solution c. Very close to what's already done on the
field. All solutions either add or subtract 0.5 Ultisecs from the stall
count how it is currently played by the majority of players. Why should
adding 0.5 Ultisecs be better than subtracting? The count down is a
nice idea, but I don't think the minor benefits from it are worth the
big pain of totally revamping the whole procedure.

-Flo.

[Jon RB Bauman]

If "zero" is not a good word to end the stall on (I understand the more
percussive "tuh" sound is clearer), then you could always end with
"time" instead of "zero". That's still pretty intuitive.

[JD]

Jon RB Bauman wrote:
> If "zero" is not a good word to end the stall on (I understand the more
> percussive "tuh" sound is clearer), then you could always end with
> "time" instead of "zero". That's still pretty intuitive.

Or we could use the already ubiquitous "down", which is commonly used
by many as a substitute for "stall" (or sometimes, more annoyingly, as
a substitute for "ten").

[D. Smith]

How about ending the stall count with the word 'stall'?

As in: "....Three....Two....One....Stall!"

Many players already end their stall count by saying "...Nine....Ten!
Stall!" Seems pretty intuitive since the name of the violation is
already 'stall'. Would this cause extra confusion with the markers who
continue counting after the disc is already in the air (and don't
intend to actually call a stall, but continue counting out of habit,
etc)?

[Jon RB Bauman]

The reason that "stall" is a separate call from "ten" is that often
"ten" will be counted, but the marker acknowledges that the throw was
released before the first utterance of "ten". It's only when the marker
believes it's actually a stall should they call "stall".

Besides, if "zero" is a less clear initial sound than "ten", "stall"
isn't much better. My vote wolud be for "time" or "down". Both have
clear, percussive, initial sounds.

[Rodney Jacobson]

I suspect that ending with a word other than "ten" or "zero" will
result in more unintentional fast-counts in the final second.

I don't think ending with "zero" would be a problem.

[joy...@gmail.com]

Is it REALLY that hard for people to READ and PLAY by the rules?
Stallingone ... TuhStall.

or
... ... eight ... foul ... stallingsix ... seven .. eight

I think the 10th is sufficient in the stall count section.

[Jon RB Bauman]

Just from reading the rules, one would not think it should be so hard,
but the fact is that about 95% of players (maybe more) start with
"stall[ing]one" rather than "stalling...one", which is unfair to the
players who do it correctly. I think this is too ingrained
institutionally to be fixed without a somewhat major change (i.e.,
emphasizing what the current rule says in the new edition won't cut
it). Also, I think we can realize several other benefits (as described
above) if we were to make this change.

[nanot...@gmail.com]

It seems it is REALLY that hard for you. The correct stall count would
be
Stalling ... one... and end with nine... tenStall!
If you don't leave a second between "stalling" and "one", it's a fast
count. and if you don't say "ten", people might (and will) contest your
stall call.

Also,

eight... foul. Stoppage of play. Contest or no, contest? ok.
Stalling... six... seven...

Nano

[ira...@gmail.com]

Any word on whether or not Counting Down will be included in the 11th?
There seems to be general consensus that counting down would be a good
change.

Start at 10, go to 0.

Ira

[colinm...@gmail.com]

under (d), I think Jon Bauman has pointed out that the con you've
listed of "quite a big change for players to get used to" may actually
be beneficial, as this slightly unnatural counting would likely result
in a slower count --10 seconds instead of 10 Ultiseconds. But perhaps
this is a temporary enough effect that it isn't a big deal. Or might
it not be so temporary? I don't have any qualification to guess on the
prospects of that.

I also like Jon's suggestion of ending on "time".

So I vote for (d). Does that mean 100% of explicitly stated votes are
for (d)?

[fifthstr...@gmail.com]

Any updates from the rules committee?

Ira

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

We'll have to wait until after the Club series is over to get back to
you. Some of us are playing down there... some of us are observing down
there... some of us are spectating and partying...

Transfer your suspense-energy towards the team(s) you're supporting for
the next few days... less than 36 hours to first pull.

[ira...@gmail.com]

Mark -Mortakai- Moran wrote:
> We'll have to wait until after the Club series is over to get back to
> you. Some of us are playing down there... some of us are observing down
> there... some of us are spectating and partying...

What's the timeline for that? Sorry I don't know. :)

I hope everyone is having fun!
Ira

[ira...@gmail.com]

> > > Any word on whether or not Counting Down will be included in the 11th?
> > > There seems to be general consensus that counting down would be a good
> > > change.
> > >
> > > Start at 10, go to 0.

Any update from the rules committee?

Ira

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

Won't be for a few weeks yet on this issue.

To at least throw you a bone in the meanwhile... it's unlikely to end
up as a count-down.

[colinm...@gmail.com]

I like removing "stalling" but I worry that without some additional
change, it may lead to faster counts. And the counts are already fast
enough that I see no reason to shorten them even slightly. I think
counting from zero to ten is better than one to eleven. I am also in
favor of the count-down.

But if zero to ten doesn't work (it might not slow people down much), I
think counting from thirty to forty would add some syllables and slow
down the counts. So my order of preference (not that we're voting) is:

1) Countdown
2) 0-10
3) 30-40
4) 1-11
5) stalling 1-10
6) 1-10

[pkur...@gmail.com]

here's where the src currently is regarding this issue (although a
final discussion/vote will take place in a few weeks):

counting down, 0-10, 1-11 and all other crazy and wacky ideas are out.
:) The consensus is that there isn't a demonstrated need or a
groundswell call for a rule change that would involve all players
having to relearn how to stall count.

also, getting rid of the word "stalling" is out because it is useful as
a clear initiator of the count (and for the reason mentioned above).

we're down to deciding on whether we should leave the rule as it is
(e.g. "stalling...one..."), or get rid of the requirement for a pause
between "stalling" and the first number in the stall count.

the latter option would in effect re-write the rule to be more in line
with what a majority of players currently do ("stallingone..."), but
would also shorten the official length of the stall count to 9+
seconds. (in addition, we would change the count for coming in after a
contested stall from 9 to 8.) the benefit is that most people wouldn't
have to change what they currently do, and those of us that currently
stall correctly (to our disadvantage) could join the masses with a
clear conscience. the downside is that a) we're officially shortening
the stall count from 10 to 9+ seconds and b) we might be seen as
"giving in" to people that don't follow the rule correctly.

all that being said, it's looking like, given this option, a majority
of the src members are now in favor of keeping the stall count rule as
it currently is, and just waging a big PR campaign to try to get people
to follow the rule correctly (and put that pause in after "stalling").

-peri

[ira...@gmail.com]

Hello Peri (and rules committee),

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on this issue.

> all that being said, it's looking like, given this option, a majority
> of the src members are now in favor of keeping the stall count rule as
> it currently is, and just waging a big PR campaign to try to get people
> to follow the rule correctly (and put that pause in after "stalling").

If you're going to wage a big PR campaign, why not change the rules to
something that will permanently fix the problem, like counting down? :)

If you leave the rule as it is, people will still inadvertently do
stallingOne, and those who follow the rule put themselves at a
disadvantage.

If you change to counting down, everyone will adapt to the change, and
it will be very obvious when someone is doing it wrong. This is much
more fair for everyone.

In addition, counting down has several other benefits:
People tend to count down slower than they count up

More similar to other sports (shot clocks & play clocks count down)

Easier for new players to understand

More dramatic

More flexibility to implement penalities above 10 stall count if
desired

There are a lot of good rules changes that are coming from the 11th,
and I urge the rules committee to add this one to the list. It has a
lot of benefits; the only drawback (people having to learn a new rule)
is short term, and we'll end up with a long-term better rule.

Thanks for your consideration,

Ira

[Joa'quine (Joaq)]

I agree with Ira on all counts :)
I haven't posted on this group before, but I think it is worth letting
the SRC know that there is support out there.
-Joaquin

[ultimatep...@gmail.com]

B. i vote for B.
the fact that zero is a number (well sort of)
makes the zero to one as a second make
more sense as part of the cadence.
stalling is confusing because you have
to pay attention to the rule to understand
it.

i'm going to say that again. you have to
pay attention to the rule to understand it.

the reason that i printed that twice is a warning
to the SRC. remember, regardless of how
CLEAR the statement in the ruels is, and here,
the second between stalling and one is clear,
has been communicated, etc. people aren't going
to play something unless there are other parts of
it that make sense.

so if you make changes assuming that people will follow
them just because there's clarity, remember the stalling
problem, which i think most of us can agree exists.

people will fail to do what you want, as they are
currently failing to do what is written.

which is a reason why the UPA should require
a test for all people who can make calls in its
playing body (i.e. all players). hmmmn.

[phal...@yahoo.com]

"> people will fail to do what you want, as they are
currently failing to do what is written.

which is a reason why the UPA should require
a test for all people who can make calls in its
playing body (i.e. all players). hmmmn. "

---

Short of that, we could make significant progress by requiring one
member of each sectionals or regionals team to pass a rules test. It
would go a long way towards countering the common misconceptions that
always crop up ('it's his call', etc).

Todd

[doyl...@gmail.com]

pkur...@gmail.com wrote:
> we're down to deciding on whether we should leave the rule as it is
> (e.g. "stalling...one..."), or get rid of the requirement for a pause
> between "stalling" and the first number in the stall count.
>
> the latter option would in effect re-write the rule to be more in line
> with what a majority of players currently do ("stallingone..."), but
> would also shorten the official length of the stall count to 9+
> seconds. (in addition, we would change the count for coming in after a
> contested stall from 9 to 8.)

I like this. Change to rule to have a pause after each number (i.e. no
pause after 'stalling'). On contested stall restart play at 8 (i.e.
"stallingeight...nine...ten).

You'll have close to 10 seconds, and on a contested stall, there's a
full two seconds to make a play.

Matt

[benb...@gmail.com]

I agree with putting a rules test into place for each team in the
series. Not that that person is to be gone to like an observer on
rules, but the idea is that at least someone knows the rules well
enough to actually know what should happen in certain situations (like
an uncontested recieving foul on the offense) that many times currently
no one is saying the correct rule. I also agree with having a contested
stall come in at 8, and keeping the stalling rules the way they are
with an explicit rule that states something like
"One second must elapse between the beginning of each word (stalling
included). If a marker fails to do this in the beginning of a stall
count (i.e stallOne/stallingOne/One) a fast count can be called and the
stall count re-initiated from the beginning without play stopping."
-ben