Blog Request: New Rules

[Jackson]

I'm somewhat undecided on how to vote on the new rules. I like most of
the changes, but there are a few changes that I am really against, and
I don't know which outweighs which for me.

I'd like to get some opinions from the "blogging elite". Jim P., Idris,
Cooke, Timmy, Hector, what is your take on the new rules? Which ones do
you like, which do you disagree with? How do you plan to vote?

Shit I'm gonna be late for my last final,
-Jackson

[ultimattfrisbee]

I, also, would like to see some public discussion before I cast my
vote.

Matt

[dusty]

Wouldn't it be a fantastic idea if someone created a newsgroup for that
sort of thing?

Interestingly, a rudimentary search comes up with this:

http://groups.google.com/group/UPA_11th_edition_rules

Damn, there goes my one great idea, already implemented! I guess I'm
not as smart as I thought...

music on tap: neil young, live at the fillmore east

dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com

[colinm...@gmail.com]

Why not allow the members to vote on some of the rules individually as
opposed to the all or nothing proposition? For example, I think most
of the changes are good, but the modification to the "third ground
contact" rule (XV.C) is stupid. Why piggyback the bad changes on the
good ones? Is the UPA willing to make the game worse for the sake of
simplicity of voting?

Reason the XV.C change is a bad one, according to a member of the
non-blogging proletariat:

-10th edition. Player jumps, claps hands on disc and his right foot
touches the ground. If we can determine that he established control
(possession) of the disc any time before his right foot comes off the
ground, then that is his first ground contact.

-11th edition. Player jumps, claps hands on disc and his right foot
touches the ground. We must determine exactly when he established
control (possesion) of the disc in relation to when his foot touched
the ground. If his foot touched beforehand, then his next ground
contact is his first ground contact. If his foot touched afterwards,
that is his first ground contact, just like under the 10th. This
change creates a nearly impossible-to-apply standard. The result?
More bad travel calls. More stoppage of play. More argument.

[Flo.P...@googlemail.com]

colinm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why not allow the members to vote on some of the rules individually as
> opposed to the all or nothing proposition? For example, I think most
> of the changes are good, but the modification to the "third ground
> contact" rule (XV.C) is stupid. Why piggyback the bad changes on the
> good ones? Is the UPA willing to make the game worse for the sake of
> simplicity of voting?

The discussion forum was instituted to give time for feedback about bad
changes. Some of the changes can't be taken out of context (well, this
one could). And, as you say, the voting would get very complicated.

>
> Reason the XV.C change is a bad one, according to a member of the
> non-blogging proletariat:
>
> -10th edition. Player jumps, claps hands on disc and his right foot
> touches the ground. If we can determine that he established control
> (possession) of the disc any time before his right foot comes off the
> ground, then that is his first ground contact.

It's not as clear cut as you think it is.
10th edition:
XV.4 If the receiver is running or jumping while catching the disc, the
receiver may throw a pass before the third ground contact after
catching the disc without attempting to stop. However, changing
direction or increasing speed while in possession of the disc is a
travel.

This just does not say if you include ground contacts in the count
which were already begun before the catch. When is a ground contact
after the catch? If it is partly after the catch? If it is completely
after a catch?
So, what the proposed 11th is doing is not changing the rule but rather
choosing one of the two possible interpretations of the 10th (the one
which is different from your interpretation). The SRC picked the one
the majority (of the SRC) felt was the better one.

>
> -11th edition. Player jumps, claps hands on disc and his right foot
> touches the ground. We must determine exactly when he established
> control (possesion) of the disc in relation to when his foot touched
> the ground. If his foot touched beforehand, then his next ground
> contact is his first ground contact. If his foot touched afterwards,
> that is his first ground contact, just like under the 10th. This
> change creates a nearly impossible-to-apply standard. The result?
> More bad travel calls. More stoppage of play. More argument.

The grey area is just as big with your interpretation of the 10th. Just
consider the opposite end of the ground contact. Disc is caught during
the lifting of a foot. Was the foot still down when possession was
established? This question is just as hard to determine as the other
question.

I would even argue it is harder to judge. When the foot first strikes
the ground while running, there is a shock wave going through the body.
Much easier to see this wave and the hand on the disc than to watch
foot and disc at the same time.

But, let's move this back to the other forum where it belongs...

Flo.