Stoppage of play for rules discussion
Peter
Me: "delay of game. three. two..."
Him: "I get 20 seconds"
Me: "...one. stalling one. two. three."
Him: "That's not a foul!"
Me: "four. five. six..."
Him: "I get 20 seconds!"
Me: "seven. eight. nine. ten. turnover"
Him: not very happy.
(It ended up being a turnover)
Questions:
- should I have stopped play when he disagreed with my counting to
discuss and explain the rules to him?
- was I demonstrating bad spirit by not stopping my counting to
explain the rules?
I.B Spirit of the Game: Ultimate relies upon a spirit of sportsmanship
that places the responsibility for fair play on the player. Highly
competitive play is encouraged, but never at the expense of mutual
respect among competitors, adherence to the agreed upon rules, or the
basic joy of play. Protection of these vital elements serves to
eliminate unsportsmanlike conduct from the Ultimate field. Such
actions as taunting opposing players, dangerous aggression,
belligerent intimidation, intentional infractions, or other win-at-all-
costs behavior are contrary to the spirit of the game and must be
avoided by all players.
II.S Stoppage of play: Any halting of play due to a call, discussion,
or time-out that requires a check or self-check to restart play. The
term play stops means a stoppage of play occurs.
XIII.A.5 If an offensive player unnecessarily delays putting the disc
into play in violation of rule XIX.B, a defender within three meters
of the spot the disc is to be put into play may issue a delay of game
warning instead of calling a violation. If the behavior in violation
of rule XIX.B is not immediately stopped, the marker may initiate and
continue a stall count, regardless of the actions of the offense. In
order to invoke this rule, after announcing delay of game, the marker
must give the offense two seconds to react to the warning, and then
announce disc in before initiating the stall count.
XIX.D If a dispute arises on the field, play stops and is restarted
with a check when the matter is resolved.
Josh Drury
'novice' or was it someone who should know better? If the former then
this rule would apply:
XIX.E. If a novice player commits an infraction out of sincere
ignorance of the rules, it should be common
practice to stop play and explain the infraction.
Delay of game is an infraction (i.e. a violation of XIX.B) so the
condition of them commiting an infraction out of ignorance would be
covered - in that case, stop play and explain it to them. That is in
accordance with the rules, proper etiquette, and good spirit - IF the
player is a novice and ignorant of the rule in question.
If they are an experienced player who should know better - more
ambiguous situation, question is at what point does it become a
'discussion' that stops play, if it does at all. I'll leave that to
an SRC member to weigh in on.
Oh and you probably realise this, but per XIII.A.5 in your initial
scenario you actually gave one more second of warning than you
needed :)
themindset
I'm with Josh on this, if you're playing in the lower divs of a rec
league, then you should absolutely stop and explain the rules.
But if you're in the upper divs, or in a competitive tournament, then
you are absolutely not required to stop and explain the rules.
If the level falls in-between those two, I would err on the side of
stopping and explaining.
Josh Murphy
My problem with this rule (& it might possibly apply to your situation
depending on the other player's point of view) is that it doesn't
define the necessity. Unnecessarily to accomplish what? To launch a
completed huck to a player 70 yards downfield? To communicate the
play call to each of the players on the field? Or to just pick up the
disc & establish a pivot? Can I decide that the marker COULD walk
faster towards the disc or sprint instead of jog & thereby start this
delay of game warning as soon as I'm within 3 meters of the disc?
Colin
"XIII.A.5 . . . In order to invoke this rule . . . the marker
must . . . announce disc in before initiating the stall count."
1) Yes, you should have stopped play to discuss and explain the rules
to him. And explain how you made an error and should not have been
counting.
2) You were demonstrating bad spirit by counting the stall count in
the first place . . . when you weren't allowed to.
There are unfounded disputes that come up all the time. That's a
discussion. It's common practice to stop play for this. The fact
that you both were wrong just reinforces the appropriateness of
stopping play for this stuff.
What you did, in my view, is the equivalent of the marker who fouls
you, blurts out "no contest," taps the disc (without it being offered)
and starts counting. When you say "hey, wait a minute, I never
offered you the disc - that was not a check" he refuses to respond and
continues counting, trying to pressure you into caving and throwing a
turnover at 8 or something. That kind of behavior is totally
unacceptable.
I'd view this as "win-at-all costs-behavior." It's totally
inappropriate, it's unpleasant, it creates conflict unnecessarily, and
there's no good reason for it. My response here is totally unofficial
and my personal view only. But jeez, give me a break.
-Colin
Colin
XIX.B It is the responsibility of all players to avoid any delay when
starting, restarting, or continuing play. This includes standing over
the disc or taking more time than reasonably necessary to put the disc
into play.
I'd say that "unnecessarily" pretty clearly applies to "putting the
disc into play." What's necessary for putting the disc into play?
Getting to the disc and getting to the spot where you're going to put
it into play. The rules make that clear. Standing and resting,
stopping to call a play, etc. are not necessary components of the
"putting the disc into play" process.
I think it would take a total rules weenie taking a total rules weenie
approach to actually make a problem out of this in practice. I mean,
you've already got the 10/20 second cap from XIII.A.3 & 4, so we're
often talking about a relatively minor extra chunk of time. XIX.B
explicitly identifies a reasonableness standard. Is it really
necessary for this minor rule to be laid out in greater detail for
players to figure out what's reasonable?
Basically, when you think the other player is delaying unreasonably,
you tell him to hurry up (call delay of game). He hurries up and the
problem is solved. He's standing calling plays instead of proceeding
to the line. You tell him to hurry up. He's dilly-dallying and
walking in circles instead of going to pickup the disc. You tell him
to hurry up. Do players really not comply with this?
I only see it becoming a problem in a situation like this involving
Thrower 2 (Thrower 1 = no problem):
Marker: "Hey, delay of game, you're only walking at 4.2 mph and you
need to walk at least at 4.6 mph to be reasonable"
Thrower 1: "Fine, if you're going to be a weenie about it, I can speed
up .4 mph, but consider e-mailing the SRC on this, ya jerk"
Thrower 2: "No, no, no, I can walk as slowly as I want to and I'm not
going to walk any faster than 4.3 mph, so you can take your objection
and shove it."
-Colin
Hank
There's an important correction to how Delay of Game has been
represented above. The delay warning involves a 2-second count down,
not a 3 second. As the marker, you can give the thrower that extra
second - but as a thrower, you can't call a violation when the marker
only gives you two seconds.
Also, you have to announce the disc is in before starting the stall.
Question: An offensive player stands over the disc and when you call
delay of game, the player runs down field. Do you continue with the
delay of game warning? "{if behavior not immediately stopped}...the
marker may initiate and continue a stall count, regardless of the
actions of the offense."
-H
XIII.A.5 If an offensive player unnecessarily delays putting the disc
Craig Temple
> represented above. The delay warning involves a 2-second count down,
> not a 3 second.
>
Slight clarification: You do not have to have any sort of verbal 'count down' when invoking VIII.A.5. You merely have to "give the offense two seconds to react to the warning". The only words you have to speak are "Delay of Game" and then two seconds later, "Disc In. Stalling 1..2..", etc.
> Question: An offensive player stands over the disc and when you call
> delay of game, the player runs down field. Do you continue with the
> delay of game warning? "{if behavior not immediately stopped}...the
> marker may initiate and continue a stall count, regardless of the
> actions of the offense."
No, you cannot initiate the stall count due to that DoG action, because they've stopped the behaviour which is unreasonably delaying the game at this point. Standing near or over the disc, even stooping down to pick it up as part of a fake (or other reason) in no way obligates you to pick up the disc. When that player runs on, there no longer exists any semblance of unreasonable delay of game.
Of course the other 'pre-stall' rules still apply.
You could probably contrive a scenario which would enable the O to take advantage of the DoG rules and get a full 10 seconds before putting the disc into play, but I don't see that there's actually a problem here in the real world.
Craig
Alex Peters
stalling a player who catches the disc in bounds, and continuing to
stall them when they traverse the end zone or run out of bounds and
take their time coming back. Where it gets messy is when they go "you
can't do that... hey! what, I was out of bounds, you can't stall
me... FAST COUNT!"
> No, you cannot initiate the stall count due to that DoG action, because they've stopped the behaviour which is unreasonably delaying the game at this point. Standing near or over the disc, even stooping down to pick it >up as part of a fake (or other reason) in no way obligates you to pick up the disc. When that player runs on, there no longer exists any semblance of unreasonable delay of game.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. If a player is standing over
the disc, not picking it up in a manner which has caused a defender to
invoke the DoG rule, and then he leaves the disc and runs away when he
realizes you've started a DoG count, how is that NOT an unreasonable
delay of game? The game was already being delayed by him standing
over the disc not picking it up, it is only delayed further by him
then leaving and not picking it up because you started a DoG count.
I'm not saying he is obligated to pick it up, I'm saying that by not
picking it up when the delay count starts, he is unreasonably delaying
the game. He can leave (since he's not obligated to pick it up) but
the delay count will start or continue and may result in a stall if he
or someone else doesn't pick it up.
Colin
the warning . . ."
As Craig mentioned above, there is no mandated procedure for giving
this two seconds to react. But I do think there is a best way to do
it to maximize clarity and minimize conflict and confusion. My
suggestions:
1) Count the two seconds somehow. This lets the opponent know a) that
it's being given and b) that the appropriate amount of time is being
given.
2) Do not count upwards from 1. This makes it seem like you're
starting the stall count (improperly, but still).
3) A countdown is a good way to do it. Avoids confusion.
Now, how you do the countdown is up to you. A few reasonable 2-second
countdowns:
a) "3...2....1. Disc In. Stalling1....2...."
b) "2....1...... Disc In. Stalling1.....2..."
c) "2....1....0. Disc In. Stalling1.....2...."
Practically speaking, I think this rule is very rarely all that
important. Calling "hurry up" has served me perfectly well in nearly
every situation at every level. But in the rare instance that I would
call "delay of game" and then actually begin the stall count, I'd make
sure to do it right. So I guess it's good to have this discussion and
remind people how to do it, but I think it's more important to remind
people that this isn't a huge deal and the purpose of the rule is to
keep the game moving at a reasonable pace, not to give markers an
opportunity to get an early count or two on the stall.
-Colin
Craig Temple
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. If a player is standing over
the disc, not picking it up in a manner which has caused a defender to
invoke the DoG rule, and then he leaves the disc and runs away when he
realizes you've started a DoG count, how is that NOT an unreasonable
delay of game? The game was already being delayed by him standing
over the disc not picking it up, it is only delayed further by him
then leaving and not picking it up because you started a DoG count.
I'm not saying he is obligated to pick it up, I'm saying that by not
picking it up when the delay count starts, he is unreasonably delaying
the game. He can leave (since he's not obligated to pick it up) but
the delay count will start or continue and may result in a stall if he
or someone else doesn't pick it up.
Alex Peters
> If that were true, then you would be able to announce Delay of Game *after* he's run away from the disc.
First of all, your second statement is not necessarily valid, because
they are different scenarios. Moving away after a DoG call has
already been announced could be (and is probably more likely to be) an
unreasonable delay, while simply moving away without a call first may
be a reasonable delay (or it may not). I don't see why you get to
automatically conflate the two and then condemn them as one.
But you're saying you can't call a DoG on a player after he runs away
from a disc. So if someone stands over the disc waiting for his team
to get in position, then realizes he doesn't want to pick it up right
now, he can simply move away from the disc for a while and be safe
from a DoG call? Is he not unreasonably delaying the game in this
scenario? Why wouldn't you want the rules to prevent someone from
doing that?
Colin
force you to choose between counting the stall and guarding
you? ...before coming back and picking up the disc?
Or are you talking about someone just running off downfield?
Say the team strategy is for the best thrower to pick the disc up
after every turnover. Player 2 is about to pick up the disc,
forgetting that Player 1, a better thrower, is on the field. Player 1
yells, "hey, my disc" and begins to jog over. Player 2 stands back
up. Marker 2 calls "delay of game" and begins the two seconds.
Player 2 runs off downfield to allow Player 1 to pick up the disc.
When the two seconds have elapsed, what.do you each think Marker 2 can
do?
My impression is Craig thinks the Marker should not be allowed to
begin the stall. I'm not sure Alex's take.
New situation. Say Player 1 is about to pick up the disc, but his
coach yells, "Hey! we're not ready!" So Player 1 stands back up.
Marker 1 announces "delay of game" and begins the two seconds. Player
1 runs off 30 feet away and waits and then comes back and picks up the
disc. Is this unreasonably delaying? What if instead of running off,
he just took a couple steps back away from the disc?
When we're discussing what is unreasonable, a detailed description of
the scenario is pretty important.
As a side note, as with most rules, things can get a little dicy here
with people actively cheating (trying to confuse you about whether
their intentional delaying is unreasonable).
This'd be a good topic to have a couple sentences about on the SRC
official rules interpretations page if/when it is created.
Hank
#########################
If one player stands over the disc and runs away from it once you call
the warning, there is nothing you can do about it, as long as some
other player quickly moves in to pick up the disc. Still, standing
over the disc like this IS a violation of XIX.B, so doing this
intentionally is a violation of the spirit of the game (=cheating).
#########################
According to the above clarification, the DoG can continue if another
player doesn't quickly get to the disc. Once the DoG is initiated,
the ball is in motion "regardless of the actions of the offense." The
only way to stop a DoG once called is to put the disc into motion, or
wait for the stall turnover.
Also, the rule doesn't require the violator to be within 3 meters of
the disc. Only the defender is required to be within three meters to
make the call.
Colin
> On the DoG discussion, this is from the UPA SRC blog.
>
> #########################
> If one player stands over the disc and runs away from it once you call
> the warning, there is nothing you can do about it, as long as some
> other player quickly moves in to pick up the disc. Still, standing
> over the disc like this IS a violation of XIX.B, so doing this
> intentionally is a violation of the spirit of the game (=cheating).
> #########################
>
> According to the above clarification, the DoG can continue if another
> player doesn't quickly get to the disc.
I'm not sure I completely follow and I wouldn't take that language in
the clarification to be an absolute rule. It's official and all, I'm
just not sure that's what it says. Earlier on, Flo writes: "if they
stop delaying immediately, play is continued normally." I'd read the
language you quoted to mean that if a player runs away in response to
your warning to allow someone else to pick up the disc, there's
nothing you can do about it, unless nobody moves to get the disc and
you're able to call another delay of game (that would be SOMETHING you
can do about it)..
> Once the DoG is initiated,
> the ball is in motion "regardless of the actions of the offense." The
> only way to stop a DoG once called is to put the disc into motion, or
> wait for the stall turnover.
As far as the ball being in motion and the "regardless of the actions
of the offense" language, isn't that talkiing about continuing the
stall count once it has begun? The DoG language clearly indicates
that you can stop the DoG if "the behavior in violation of rule XIX.B
is . . . immediately stopped," right?
I just want to make sure I'm understanding you.
I think the general tone of Flo's post there is similar to my view,
which is the 11th edition makes more delaying tactics illegal, which
hopefully will speed up the game and provides you with a way of saying
"hurry up" if you really need to. He's definitely not talking about
it as a neat way to shave a couple seconds off the opposing thrower's
stall count, which I fear is how some players view it.
-Colin
Flo Pfender
On Mar 1, 4:09 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 1:57 am, Hank <hank.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On the DoG discussion, this is from the UPA SRC blog.
>
> > #########################
> > If one player stands over the disc and runs away from it once you call
> > the warning, there is nothing you can do about it, as long as some
> > other player quickly moves in to pick up the disc. Still, standing
> > over the disc like this IS a violation of XIX.B, so doing this
> > intentionally is a violation of the spirit of the game (=cheating).
> > #########################
>
> > According to the above clarification, the DoG can continue if another
> > player doesn't quickly get to the disc.
>
> I'm not sure I completely follow and I wouldn't take that language in
> the clarification to be an absolute rule. It's official and all, I'm
> just not sure that's what it says.
Colin is understanding exactly what I meant to say in the Blog. Once
the player runs away and is not the obvious "thrower to be", you can't
call DoG on him anymore. The only DoG you could call in this situation
would be if no player behaves like he will be the next thrower (i.e.,
moving towards the disc at reasonable speed).
The rule itself is more a codified "hurry up!" in situations where the
allotted 10/20 seconds are obviously way more than needed than
anything else.
Flo.
Hank
Colin - Good point on your comment...
>provides you with a way of saying
>"hurry up" if you really need to. He's definitely not talking about
>it as a neat way to shave a couple seconds off the opposing thrower's
>stall count"
-H