Losing a second on the stall count
Hoosch
The defender starts the stall by saying "stall one ... two ... three"
(whereas "stall one" is more like one word than two, and "..."
represents a one-second interval). This method only allows for nine
seconds, as opposed to saying "stalling ... one ... two ... three",
which allows ten seconds.
Wouldn't the first of these two methods be considered a fast count?
Also, I've always heard that when resuming the stall count after a
stoppage of play, the count starts where it left off if the count was
below five, but if it was over five it goes back down to five. This
is of course assuming the one word "stall-five" starts the count, with
the first one-second interval coming after "five". The rules state
"the count is resumed with the word "stalling" followed by the number
listed below after a one second interval." The "number listed below"
in this example is either count reached plus one, or six. Aren't
these two interpretations basically the same? The only difference I
see is that in example #1 the two syllables are 'stall-five', and in
example #2 the two syllables are 'stall-ing'.
Mike Gerics
---to begin with....."stall" isn't the way to start a stall count.
in the above situation, since you are asking about losing seconds...you have
lost 3 seconds.
STALLING...is the word to start the stall count, right?
Elizabeth Murray
"Mike Gerics" <des...@digitizing4embroidery.com> wrote:
XIV. C. 1. The count consists of the marker loudly announcing łstalling˛
and counting from one to ten loudly enough for the thrower to hear.
ringer
well... read rule XIV C and i believe that it answers all of your
questions. basically, yes- in every instance described you could call
a fast count since [according to rule XIV C 6] the marker must start
the count with the word "stalling" and in rule XIV C 1 a it says that
there must be a one second interval between all words. however in
spirit of the game, i feel that the call might be somewhat petty since
it was basically made in order to gain the extra amount of time it
takes to say "-ing." it is a fair and legitimate call, but in my
opinion is is better to just dump it once the stall count gets around
6 or so. shake things up. dont hold on to the disc.
Garrett Dyer
>Is this as common as I think it is, or am I just imagining it?
Check out the r.s.d. post on 6/16/04 titled "Dealing with fast
counters"
Same topic covered there.
Jon Bauman
I started that thread, and the advice I got was pretty much to call
fast count every time. However, I just don't think I can abide by it.
Even players who posted in that thread telling me to call it don't
call it themselves. Finally, at Mars this past weekend I swear I heard
Jim Parinella call "stallingone...two...". If he doesn't do it right,
what hope to I have of convincing other people to change? I don't
really want to get into arguments and piss off all the people I play
against even if they're wrong and I'm right, so I guess I just give
up. I'm certainly going to contest any stall call when people count
this way though.
Peter Washington
> fast count every time. However, I just don't think I can abide by it.
> Even players who posted in that thread telling me to call it don't
> call it themselves. Finally, at Mars this past weekend I swear I heard
> Jim Parinella call "stallingone...two...". If he doesn't do it right,
> what hope to I have of convincing other people to change? I don't
> really want to get into arguments and piss off all the people I play
> against even if they're wrong and I'm right, so I guess I just give
> up. I'm certainly going to contest any stall call when people count
> this way though.
If you don't call the violation when it happens (at "stall-one") then you
lose your right to use it as the basis for your contest later on. If you're
too worried about other people liking you to call the violation, then you're
going to have to learn to deal with a nine-second (okay, more like
six-second) stall.
Garrett Dyer
>Finally, at Mars this past weekend I swear I heard
>Jim Parinella call "stallingone...two...". If he doesn't do it right,
>what hope to I have of convincing other people to change?
Maybe that's your answer right there...maybe one that you don't want
to hear, though: it just isn't worth fighting over. You're really
only talking about a fraction of an arbitrary second. I would think
that as long as you're getting your full one second during the rest of
the count, you should have plenty of notice that your 9.5 seconds is
coming to an end.
Personally, the difference between 9 and 10 seconds isn't worth
fighting over, especially considering that it seems most say
"stallingone...two" instead of "stalling...one...two". Getting people
to change what they instinctively do is never easy.
Peter Washington
> fighting over,
I don't know. Trapped on the sideline, you may want to give yourself six or
seven seconds to hit the dump. This means turn at stall three or four. The
lost second comes in the first part of the count while you're looking
upfield. The difference between two and three seconds is pretty
significant.
judd
Also make it your goal to have your teammates aware and making good
available cuts, and get off a good throw before the 9 1/2 seconds are
up, and you rarely will deal with this. Technically, you're right,
and maybe if it bugs you too much you can mention it to a player
between points about what you'll do if he or they keep doing it.
ed
> and maybe if it bugs you too much you can mention it to a player
> between points about what you'll do if he or they keep doing it
I think this is the best way to deal with this situation. Of course
you have the occasional person who says "If it's a violation, call
it." If the mark chooses not take the warning, then nothing should
stop you from calling it.
ed
Mortakai
> well... read rule XIV C and i believe that it answers all of your
> questions. basically, yes- in every instance described you could call
> a fast count since [according to rule XIV C 6] the marker must start
> the count with the word "stalling" and in rule XIV C 1 a it says that
> there must be a one second interval between all words.
Actually, XIV.C.1.a says "...between the beginning of one word and the
beginning of the next...", rather than "between all words".
"between all words" means one second from the "g" in "stalling" to the
"o" in "one", whereas it's *really* from the "s" in "stalling" to the
"o" in "one".
If the word "stalling" is said slowly enough, they can say
"stallingone" without pausing in the middle. I mainly bring this up
because someone in another response to your message says that
"stallingone" is too fast... I contend that "it depends".
chewie
not because you were robbed of a few fractions of seconds. any kind
of offensive strategy should invovle not allowing the marker's to
stall high enough to even let the idea of his stalling you into his
mind. move the disc quickly (by 3 would be great). just think of
their cheating as your motivation to hit the dump!
"Peter Washington" <p...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote in message news:<2l0hnfF...@uni-berlin.de>...
Peter Washington
Sort of, but not really.
> if you're getting stalled it's cause you stink,
> not because you were robbed of a few fractions of seconds. any kind
> of offensive strategy should invovle not allowing the marker's to
> stall high enough to even let the idea of his stalling you into his
> mind. move the disc quickly (by 3 would be great). just think of
> their cheating as your motivation to hit the dump!
Or you could call them on it, getting yourself an extra second in which to
look upfield. That was my point. Hitting the dump is all well and good,
but it should be a bail-out, not your only option. If your team counts on
you to look at the dump at stall three and your opponents have reached stall
two by the time you've caught the disc (not uncommon), their cheating is
taking away your upfield options. Why not call it?
Travis Finucane
> > i agree with peter.
>
> Sort of, but not really.
>
Yes she does; you just don't know it.
chewie
to call fast count on someone, you'll probably have to call it twice
(cause the mark is a tool), stopping play. when i am running, i hate
people who make calls bringing the game to a screeching hault. it
forces me to stop my cut and lose all my inertia. and i'm a lanky
dude, it takes a lot of effort to get my lets back up to speed.
furthermore it allows the d get a step on me and assess the situation
and set a sweet poach. if the disc stays in play and i don't sweat
the 0.5 seconds that were taken from me (kinda like the lost seconds
when you're foot is on the ground and you're standing and establishing
your position), i can hit that cut (in front of me or to the side).
the dumb is not a resort, it is an option that leads to the other side
of the field where the defense is not. instead of worrying about the
mark, just break it and play!
Adam Tarr
This is the old "which side gets an advantage when play stops" argument.
I tend to agree with you that it's usually the defense, unless things
are very static or you have a really great thrower with the disc or
you're near the endzone.
That said, you lose nothing by calling the first fast count. If your
marker does not go back, but you think the offense has an advantage as
is, then just don't call the second one. If the marker speeds up at any
point later on, you can call a second fast count then and get a reset in
stead of just going back two.
-Adam
russ
> and i'm a lanky
> dude, it takes a lot of effort to get my lets back up to speed.
Yeah, I always feel so bad for those lanky folk, bearly able to break a
trot.
justruss