Non-Players Moving an OB Disc

[Alex Peters]

Disc gets turned over, rolls out of bounds, comes to rest among some
chairs and bags a few yards from where it crossed the line. Member of
the team becoming offense (not one of the 14 players on the field)
moves the disc from where it had come to rest to a closer spot near
the sideline where it would be put into play. Offense picks up the
disc, carries it to the spot a foot away, puts it into play and the
defense calls violation.

"You can't move the disc"

Team on defense does not cite an actual rule despite being asked to do
so several times, but does pull the "I'm an observer" card.

Looking over the rules, I did not find anything that said it is
illegal for someone to move an OB disc.

The only thing I could find was IX.H. "To continue play after the disc
becomes out-of-bounds, a member of the team gaining possession of the
disc must carry it to, and put it into play at, the spot on the
playing field proper nearest ..."

So it says that you must "carry [the disc] to the spot on the playing
field proper." It does not, however, say that you have to carry the
disc from the spot it came to rest. Anywhere the thrower picks up the
disc, they will be carrying it to the spot, so in my opinion, they are
fulfilling exactly what the rule says they have to do. They walked up
to the disc, picked it up, carried it to the spot, and put it into
play. That the disc moved between when it came to rest and when they
picked it up is irrelevant to this rule, and unless I'm missing
something, is not otherwise specified as illegal.

[Craig Temple]

It's hard to find a made-up rule in the rulebook.

> Team on defense does not cite an actual rule despite being asked to do
> so several times, but does pull the "I'm an observer" card.

I've never met an observer or an SRC member (or anybody) who hasn't
been wrong about the rules from time to time. Trying to back up an
argument with one's qualifications instead of with proof (when that
proof is in the readily available book) is a big old red-flag.

Regardless of what happens, there's never a point in arguing over a
rule during the point. Save the discussion for after the point/game.
Any sort of protracted discussion or any argument during a point
automatically makes you in the wrong.

When this sort of thing happens, I say "we'll talk about it after the
game" and I capitulate. I bring the rulebook over to the team after
the game and try to clarify things. Unfortunately, it's very difficult
to do this without the other team taking offense, but if you try hard
to be extra-friendly, I find it's worthwhile. Increasing rule
knowledge in your league/area can only make the game better.

Craig

[Alex Peters]

Bonus question that I was trying to think of earlier that I just
remembered because of the "I'm an Observer" thing: Player A gets
stepped on by an opponent, calls injury, leaves game. Later in that
point, player B on the same team calls injury. Player A wants to re-
enter the game as Player B's injury sub, is told he is not allowed,
and will have to wait for the next point with the qualification that
"I'm an observer." Didn't see anything about that in the book either.

[Craig Temple]

That guy's giving Observers a bad name.

No such rule.

Of note: A player doesn't ever *have* to sub-off after calling an
Injury TO. If they don't sub-off then their team may be charged a Team
TO (or a Turn Over if none remain). However, if their injury is caused
by an opposing player, no Team TO (or Turn Over) is incurred.

So, in your scenario, Player A didn't even have to sub-off, play could
have just stopped and restarted when he was ready. He certainly could
have come back at any time.

VI.C.4) If the injured player does not leave the game after an injury
time-out, that player’s team is charged with a team time-out unless
the injury was caused by an opposing player. If the team being charged
with the time-out is also the team in possession and has no time-outs
remaining, it is a turnover.

Craig

[Darrin]

I don't know, Alex. Is it OK for a non-player to catch a pull out of
bounds on one bounce and throw it to a player on offense who is
standing on the brick mark? Most people would agree this is not
allowed, but with your reading of the rules, it seems to be allowed.

It seems to me that a more straightforward reading of the rule you
quote below requires a player to pick up the disc from where it came
to rest and carry it to the spot where it is to be put into play.
See also XIII.A. "If the disc is on the ground, whether in- or out-of-
bounds, any member of the team becoming offense may take possession of
it." and "If an offensive player picks up the disc, that player must
put it into play." This doesn't say that a non-player CAN'T pick it
up and move it, but it seems to me to be implicit.

But, I am a novice here, and I could totally be wrong on all this.
And either way it doesn't excuse the attitude by the opponent, who
showed a lack of respect based on what you have said.

Darrin

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

Regardless of what the rule interpretation may be, it's commonly
accepted that non-players MAY assist with bringing the disc back to
the line. This helps the game continue without delay, and is not too
unlike a different disc being given to the thrower when the ob disc
cannot be retrieved within 20 seconds.

I'd expect we'll be considering a rule clarification on this during
our next update process.

[Patrick Malka]

If a clarification is forthcoming, I would like to mention a couple things that should be considered.

When non-players aid in the movement of a disc to where it is to be put into play, players that are not aware that this has been invoked may be caught behind the play. This should be taken into account somehow. If I see a disc go OB far from any offensive players, I may assume I have a bit of time before play restarts. But if a non-player suddenly moves the disc, I am now at a disadvantage through no fault of my own. Offense can take advantage of this.

Maybe when a non-player touches the disc, a full check could be required instead of just a tap-in to ensure the defense has had time to adjust and made aware that the disc has moved outside the normal channels.

If people think this is a bad idea, which I can see being argued, make it clear that even if a non-player touches the disc, it is still live and players should continue focusing on playing to ensure they are not surprised by unanticipated disc movement.

[Darrin]

Yes, a clarification here would be good. Even if it is commonly
accepted, I imagine the "rude observer" and I are not the only ones
who thought this is not allowed under the current rule structure.

I learn something every day.

On Nov 4, 9:19 am, Mark -Mortakai- Moran <mdmora...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[Josh Drury]

> When non-players aid in the movement of a disc to where it is to be put into
> play, players that are not aware that this has been invoked may be caught
> behind the play. This should be taken into account somehow. If I see a disc
> go OB far from any offensive players, I may assume I have a bit of time
> before play restarts. But if a non-player suddenly moves the disc, I am now
> at a disadvantage through no fault of my own. Offense can take advantage of
> this.

True on this point. However, I would argue that the team that is now
on defence should be aware that this could occur, and furthermore I
can see reasons why assisting getting the disc back into play is both
desirable and fair:
1) There are already rules in place to speed up gameplay and reduce
delays (pre-stall, delay of game, time limits between points and for
timeouts); few would argue against these rules and it is generally
accepted that fewer and shorter delays are better.
2) Generally when this situation would come up, it is reducing a delay
that was caused by the team now on defence. For example, a pull out
of bounds, or a wayward pass that goes out of bounds. The team now on
defence is effectively getting an advantage in getting more time to
set up, as a direct result of their own actions. In some cases this
may even be applied strategically (e.g. pull out of bounds on purpose
so defence can set up).

Allowing assistance in getting the disc back into play, with no
prohibitions, and no additonal requirements, seems reasonable to me.
I certainly agree it could be clarified in the next rule set but
adding rules to prevent this seems like it would be a step in the
wrong direction.

[Patrick Malka]

True on this point.  However, I would argue that the team that is now
on defence should be aware that this could occur, and furthermore I
can see reasons why assisting getting the disc back into play is both
desirable and fair:
1) There are already rules in place to speed up gameplay and reduce
delays (pre-stall, delay of game, time limits between points and for
timeouts); few would argue against these rules and it is generally
accepted that fewer and shorter delays are better.

I believe that help should be allowed, just in a fair manner.
 

2) Generally when this situation would come up, it is reducing a delay
that was caused by the team now on defence.  For example, a pull out
of bounds, or a wayward pass that goes out of bounds.  The team now on
defence is effectively getting an advantage in getting more time to
set up, as a direct result of their own actions.  In some cases this
may even be applied strategically (e.g. pull out of bounds on purpose
so defence can set up).

Allowing assistance in getting the disc back into play, with no
prohibitions, and no additonal requirements, seems reasonable to me.
I certainly agree it could be clarified in the next rule set but
adding rules to prevent this seems like it would be a step in the
wrong direction.

It is also possible that the now defense did nothing intentionally wrong, and allowing this sort of 'surprise' attack by the now offense is unfair. I could be on the sideline, make a throw that goes just after the throw out but fails to come back in by a couple inches. It would go back to where it went out which could be some distance.

If someone picks up the disc, we are assured they will put it into play, and I can estimate how much time I have, but if a non-player does this, especially while I am waiting for an actual player to retrieve the disc, which is what I would normally do, this creates an advantage for the offense now.

If no players are near the disc, I can reasonably expect one of them to go get it. Allowing a non player to get it should be allowed, but a non player throwing a live disc should at least be subject to a full check in or they effectively become a player for that play without the possibility of a turnover. If any player had done this, the disc would be subject to a turnover.

I guess I think that a non-player throwing a live disc should make it a dead disc. Yes it does slow things down a bit, but it is a just a full check vs a tap in. Ironically, this is generally how people play it now anyway...

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

> Allowing a non player to get it should be allowed, but a non player

> throwing a live disc should at least be subject to a full check in [...]

>
> I guess I think that a non-player throwing a live disc should make it a dead
> disc. Yes it does slow things down a bit, but it is a just a full check vs a
> tap in. Ironically, this is generally how people play it now anyway...

However, remember that if we DID consider it a dead disc requiring a
check once a non-player touches it, that also means that players need
to freeze at that point and are not allowed movement. The way I see
that situation, that means the defense are still as out of position as
they would have been had there been no stoppage. The would actually
create more delays and further slow the game down, because of any
necessary repositioning and the "both teams ready?... check in"
procedures, when we should be pushing for the opposite.

Also, consider that if we introduce any additional procedures because
of non-players assisting with returning discs, then we also need to
consider in more detail, what to do when an OB throw hits a non-player
and stops there rather than flying to where it otherwise would have,
or what to do when a rolling pull hits a player bag and stops. It's
all on the same topic of the players not being allowed the extra time
that they assumed they'd otherwise have.

That's it.... carry on like I'm not here....

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

> I learn something every day.

And the day you stop leaning is the day you find yourself dead.

[Craig Temple]

>
>> I learn something every day.
>
>
> And the day you stop leaning is the day you find yourself dead.

I didn't know that Mark.

> >

[Patrick Malka]

However, remember that if we DID consider it a dead disc requiring a
check once a non-player touches it, that also means that players need
to freeze at that point and are not allowed movement. The way I see
that situation, that means the defense are still as out of position as
they would have been had there been no stoppage. The would actually
create more delays and further slow the game down, because of any
necessary repositioning and the "both teams ready?... check in"
procedures, when we should be pushing for the opposite.

Yeah, that would be less than ideal, but could we just enforce a defensive check of the live disc instead of a full dead disc? It would still be faster than an actual player getting it and bringing it back. That seems like a decent compromise.
 

Also, consider that if we introduce any additional procedures because
of non-players assisting with returning discs, then we also need to
consider in more detail, what to do when an OB throw hits a non-player
and stops there rather than flying to where it otherwise would have,
or what to do when a rolling pull hits a player bag and stops. It's
all on the same topic of the players not being allowed the extra time
that they assumed they'd otherwise have.

I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

In the case where a non player throws the disc, they are actively modifying where the disc would eventually come to rest/where the now offense can pick up the disc and then carry it to the place to put it into play... However, If the disc hits a non-player and falls to the ground, this is the same as if it hit a tree. The non-player affects where it comes to rest, but not actively. Same with trees, bags and other similar non-active OB items.

[Craig Temple]

However, remember that if we DID consider it a dead disc requiring a
check once a non-player touches it, that also means that players need
to freeze at that point and are not allowed movement. The way I see
that situation, that means the defense are still as out of position as
they would have been had there been no stoppage. The would actually
create more delays and further slow the game down, because of any
necessary repositioning and the "both teams ready?... check in"
procedures, when we should be pushing for the opposite.

Yeah, that would be less than ideal, but could we just enforce a defensive check of the live disc instead of a full dead disc? It would still be faster than an actual player getting it and bringing it back. That seems like a decent compromise.

There's no such thing as a check on a live disc. Checks happen when play stops. Perhaps we could invent a new type of 'defensive tap', but then you're allowing the D to dictate the flow of the O on a live disc. I don't like that. The entire D can set up while the O waits for the Marker to slowly ambles towards the thrower who is waiting 50m downfield. That's crazy.

On D your responsibility is to cover the O, whether the disc is IB or OB, if there's a threat you have to be ready. The fact that somebody hands the disc to the O doesn't change that.

Remember, no bodies are suddenly jumping down the field to open positions when the disc is speedily returned to the thrower. Rather the 'concern' is that play is continuing quicker than the D expected.

We're looking at making a change which makes it safer for the D to assume they have a certain amount of time before they have to continue playing D.

I think that's pointless. You're on D, it's your responsibility to be ready. If that means hustling on a Turn Over, so be it. If you're out of position on a TO where the disc is near the thrower, you're screwed, but that's Ultimate. Don't complain if you get screwed on a TO where the disc was far from the thrower, but it was speedily returned to him.

If anything, I'd like to see a rule which speeds up the transition of an OB disc. Sure that may put the D at a disadvantage, but it's better for the game than having people stand around. Also remember that the game is not balanced between O and D, and that's perfectly fair, both teams get turns on O and D.

[Flo Pfender]

Possibly the new WFDF rule on this is a good compromise (more or less
as follows):
Everyone is allowed to return the disc towards the correct spot, but
the thrower must at least carry the disc from a (usually imaginary)
line 3m from the playing field to the spot. When the disc is thrown
onto the field by a non-player, the thrower technically has to carry
the disc back to this line first (but will usually just offer the disc
to the defender for a short tap, which commonly implies the defender's
agreement not to call the violation). Very similar to when an observer
(or disc boy) would provide a spare disc close to but not on the spot.

Or maybe this is just too much "ruling" going on, and returning the
disc should be completely legal (which it currently is in UPA imo, as
there is no rule forbidding it, and it is not forbidden as an integral
part of Ultimate without a rule needed out of common sense). I
personally am happy when the disc is returned quickly but try not to
take advantage by surprising the defenders with a very quick tap in
afterwards.

[Josh Drury]

> I believe that help should be allowed, just in a fair manner.

No problem there I think we just have different ideas of what is fair
(and not that different ideas perhaps).

> It is also possible that the now defense did nothing intentionally wrong,
> and allowing this sort of 'surprise' attack by the now offense is unfair. I
> could be on the sideline, make a throw that goes just after the throw out
> but fails to come back in by a couple inches. It would go back to where it
> went out which could be some distance.

Good example, this does change the dynamic compared to some previous
examples.

> If someone picks up the disc, we are assured they will put it into play, and
> I can estimate how much time I have, but if a non-player does this,
> especially while I am waiting for an actual player to retrieve the disc,
> which is what I would normally do, this creates an advantage for the offense
> now.
>
> If no players are near the disc, I can reasonably expect one of them to go
> get it. Allowing a non player to get it should be allowed, but a non player
> throwing a live disc should at least be subject to a full check in or they
> effectively become a player for that play without the possibility of a
> turnover. If any player had done this, the disc would be subject to a
> turnover.

OK, this is based on expectations. So if I have the expectation that
the disc can come back in immediately, and you have the expectation
that an on-field player needs to retrieve it, we have different
expectations, and if my expectations are correct, you are potentially
(likely?) at a disadvantage. I can't argue this. i think though the
problem is in inconsistency in expectations (due to an unclear rule)
rather than an improper rule (lack of a requirement to check). If you
expected the same as I did (because rules were explicit) there would
be no inconsistency and I think the 'fairness' concern would be
eliminated, or at least reduced.

In either case, I think an explanation in the rules wiould be useful.
Either there is a new requirement (e.g. a full check as Patrick
suggests) or there is acknowledgment that non-players can assist in
getting the disc (or an alternate disc, esp. if the game disc is now
far away) to where it can be put into play. Then everyone has the
same expectations and can play as such, rather than one team having
one set of expectations in speedily resuming play and the other team
seeing them as exploiting a 'loophole'. Without the clarification it
will lead to more situations where there is different understanding of
an ambiguous rule/non-rule which just leads to confusion and arguments.

[Craig Temple]

I have an open question to those that think IX.H is unclear, or
doesn't allow help with the disc:

IX.H) To continue play after the disc becomes out-of-bounds, a member

of the team gaining possession of the disc must carry it to, and put

it into play at, the spot on the playing field proper nearest to where
the most recent of the following events occurred:

My question is, what happens when the OB disc comes to rest right
where it is to be put into play? Example: Player A catches the disc
straddling the line, it is OB, and Player A drops the disc on the
line. Player B is the new thrower and the disc is to be put into play
directly where the disc is.

So, does Player B have to still "carry the disc"? Do they have to pick
up the disc, walk away then walk back? (Ahem: Travel!)

I think common sense is failing us a bit here. Certainly let's get rid
of the poor wording in the written form of the rule, but does anybody
honestly think that the proper interpretation of this rule is that the
thrower is obligated to walk somewhere with the disc before he can put
it into play?

Forest for the trees and all...

Craig

[Darrin]

On Nov 4, 1:55 pm, Craig Temple <tem...@hyperdrive.ca> wrote:
> I have an open question to those that think IX.H is unclear, or  
> doesn't allow help with the disc:
>
> IX.H) To continue play after the disc becomes out-of-bounds, a member  
> of the team gaining possession of the disc must carry it to, and put  
> it into play at, the spot on the playing field proper nearest to where  
> the most recent of the following events occurred:
>

The way I was reading it is that if the disc is carried, then it must
be done by a member of the team gaining possession, i.e. it cannot be
carried by a person not on the team gaining possession. I do not
argue it means that the disc must be carried.

I would say that if one intends this rule to allow help from the
sideline, then the rule could better have left out the words "carry it
to, and" and just say "...a member of the team gaining possession of
the disc must put it into play at the spot..." Other rules already
say that the player who gains possession of the disc is required to
put it into play.

It seems to me that people are arguing that the phrase "must carry it"
has no content, and should be ignored. If that is the case, then the
rule is poorly written and should be clarified.

Or perhaps we wish to prohibit people from kicking the disc to the
spot it is to be put into play! :-).

Darrin

[Patrick Malka]

I guess the question is, should O be allowed to take advantage or not? If yes, then no change. When you try not to take advantage, is that because you are a nice person or because you think the rules imply it somehow?

It is interesting that my thoughts are inline with WFDF, I had no knowledge of that rule at all. It seems that this is not a new issue, and has been solved once already. I wonder what the motivation for that was.

I do like that rule, but if it is decided that such a rule will not be included in UPA, explicitly saying that players should be aware that non players may move a disc to the place it is to be put into play would be nice.

[tke71709]

Purely for the sake of discussion, what happens if...

Disc goes out of bounds.
Sideline guy A picks up the disc (not one of the players on the field
at the time).
Sideline A throws the disc to Player B at the spot where it should be
checked in.
Player B, not paying attention, bobbles and drops the disc.

The disc is technically live, so is this a turnover?

[Big D]

I don't see a rule that supports such a scenario being a turn.

XII.B says If the thrower accidentally drops a live disc or a disc in
play....it is considered an incomplete pass.

The term 'thrower' is not explicitly defined, but I would argue that
someone who never has the disc in their possession is never a
thrower.

[Nate]

II.T.5: An offensive player in possession of, or who has most recently
possessed, the disc, is the thrower.

If player B never had possession, it's not a turnover.

- Nate

[Patrick Malka]

This seems like a good time to bring this up. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If a player does the same thing, passing an OB disc to where it is to be put into play with the receiver bobbling and dropping, it would be a turnover.

You could call a violation, since the thrower did not carry it to the right spot before throwing, but the disc is still live, and hence subject to a turnover.

Would you be obliged to call the violation since it happens before a potential turnover? Would that result in back to thrower if caught, and turnover if not?

[Craig Temple]

This seems like a good time to bring this up. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If a player does the same thing, passing an OB disc to where it is to be put into play with the receiver bobbling and dropping, it would be a turnover.

I'm not sure if this has any relevance, but it is true if the player was on the new Offense.

You could call a violation, since the thrower did not carry it to the right spot before throwing, but the disc is still live, and hence subject to a turnover.

You're assuming the thrower didn't carry it to the spot of the disc. Remember, no matter how semantically you read the rules, there's no rule that says a player must *carry it the whole way* to the spot of the disc.

I think any Violation call here would be hard to support by the rules, except for a *very* specific case where the new thrower does not move an inch after gaining possession, and thus didn't "carry the disc". I still think the rule doesn't support calling a violation even then, but at least the semantic argument becomes slightly valid in that case.

Would you be obliged to call the violation since it happens before a potential turnover? Would that result in back to thrower if caught, and turnover if not?

You lost me here. Which scenario are you discussing? And what do you mean "since it happens before a potential turnover"? Also, you're never obliged to call a Violation. Could you clarify this?

Craig

[Patrick Malka]

If a player does the same thing, passing an OB disc to where it is to be put into play with the receiver bobbling and dropping, it would be a turnover.

I'm not sure if this has any relevance, but it is true if the player was on the new Offense.

I have not seen this exactly but many times I have seen the now offense throw the disc towards the place it is to be put into play and it lands on the ground, same idea. Beginners do this mostly, rarely once they realize the consequences.
 

You could call a violation, since the thrower did not carry it to the right spot before throwing, but the disc is still live, and hence subject to a turnover.

You're assuming the thrower didn't carry it to the spot of the disc. Remember, no matter how semantically you read the rules, there's no rule that says a player must *carry it the whole way* to the spot of the disc.

I think any Violation call here would be hard to support by the rules, except for a *very* specific case where the new thrower does not move an inch after gaining possession, and thus didn't "carry the disc". I still think the rule doesn't support calling a violation even then, but at least the semantic argument becomes slightly valid in that case.

Yes, of course. I said that they throw it before arriving at the correct spot, either believing they are at the correct spot, or throwing to someone who is at the correct spot.
 
IX.H clearly states it must be carried TO a specific spot and THEN put it into play at that spot. In this scenario, they are halfway say, and throw it to another player who is at the right spot. This would be a violation of IX.H.

How can you put a disc into play if you are not allowed to release it and are not required to carry it the whole way to the pivot? Even if that is relaxed, which I don't believe is warranted, they are not at the pivot at the time of release, so at a minimum this is a travel, subject to continuation.

I suppose it does not matter which violation you call, they would result in the same outcome since both are subject to continuation, and in fact I think most people call a travel in this case, if they call it at all, though technically I think it is just a violation (of IX.H).

Would you be obliged to call the violation since it happens before a potential turnover? Would that result in back to thrower if caught, and turnover if not?

You lost me here. Which scenario are you discussing? And what do you mean "since it happens before a potential turnover"? Also, you're never obliged to call a Violation. Could you clarify this?

If you notice that they threw before having carried it to the pivot, and know that this is a violation, you must call the violation and not wait for the outcome of the throw, hoping for a turnover.

XVI.A "... The player must immediately call violation or the name of the specific infraction loudly" could mean that you 'must always immediately' or you 'must immediately if at all'. The 'always' version is the first one I thought of, since it is more inline with other meanings of 'must' than 'if at all'.

[Craig Temple]

Ah, for some reason I didn't think you were talking all about the first scenario you mentioned. I thought you were going back to the non-player throwing the disc.

If your scenario is solely where a thrower throws an pass before establishing a pivot at the appropriate spot, then the answers are pretty easy.

--

Scenario A) Thrower's illegal pass of a Live disc is 'complete'.

Yep, this is a Travel, and the disc would go back to the Thrower. Call it if you want, but you're right, call it immediately.

Remember though that the accepted interpretation of "immediately" is not limited to the dictionary definition of "immediately". Calls of all type are legally made a second or two after the infraction occurs. Perhaps a discussion on what is meant by "immediately" is best served by its own thread.

--

Scenario B) Thrower's illegal pass of a Live disc is incomplete.

Whether you noticed that there was a Travel or not before the disc was incomplete is really irrelevant. Yes, if you noticed it, and you wanted to call it, you should do it as soon as you realize. However, you're never *obligated* to make any Call.

If you called Travel, the Continuation Rule would result in a turn over. If you didn't call Travel, it would be a turn over.

--

Is that more along the lines of what you were asking about?

Craig

[Patrick Malka]

Scenario A) Thrower's illegal pass of a Live disc is 'complete'.

Yep, this is a Travel, and the disc would go back to the Thrower. Call it if you want, but you're right, call it immediately.

Remember though that the accepted interpretation of "immediately" is not limited to the dictionary definition of "immediately". Calls of all type are legally made a second or two after the infraction occurs. Perhaps a discussion on what is meant by "immediately" is best served by its own thread.

Yes of course, immediate within reason.
 

Scenario B) Thrower's illegal pass of a Live disc is incomplete.

Whether you noticed that there was a Travel or not before the disc was incomplete is really irrelevant. Yes, if you noticed it, and you wanted to call it, you should do it as soon as you realize. However, you're never *obligated* to make any Call.

If you called Travel, the Continuation Rule would result in a turn over. If you didn't call Travel, it would be a turn over.

Is that more along the lines of what you were asking about?

Yes. Though the one thing I am still not convinced about is that it is a travel vs. violation (of IX.H.) I have seen everyone argue it is a travel but the rules seem clear: carry it to X and then put it into play. The 'then' is not explicit, but seems a reasonable implication. You can't fail to check it in till you have successfully carried it to the pivot.

The wording is a bit strange, it says, in general, touch the disc to the ground before putting it into play, but people equate touching it to the ground with putting it into play. How exactly does one put the disc into play after touching it to the ground? No action is required, but one is implied.

Yes the outcomes would be the same, but the rules lawyer in me wants to know the right call and why, if it is a travel instead of a violation.

[Craig Temple]

> Yes. Though the one thing I am still not convinced about is that it is a travel vs. violation (of IX.H.) I have seen everyone argue it is a travel but the rules seem clear: carry it to X and then put it into play. The 'then' is not explicit, but seems a reasonable implication. You can't fail to check it in till you have successfully carried it to the pivot.
>
> The wording is a bit strange, it says, in general, touch the disc to the ground before putting it into play, but people equate touching it to the ground with putting it into play. How exactly does one put the disc into play after touching it to the ground? No action is required, but one is implied.
>
> Yes the outcomes would be the same, but the rules lawyer in me wants to know the right call and why, if it is a travel instead of a violation.

You may be over thinking this a bit. Why do you think one rule must be called over another? Specificity aside, you can break more than one rule with one action. Call whichever you prefer.

Here's a strange scenario for you: Player O1, checked by player D1, is cutting downfield after O2 catches the disc. Player O1 runs just past O2 (the thrower), and just as D1 is about to pass O2, O2 jumps in front of D1.

That single action could be a Travel, it could be a Pick, and it could be an Obstruction foul. In fact it's likely all three at once! Call whichever you like.

Craig

[Patrick Malka]

Maybe. The wording of the rules implies order, and specificity only applies to simultaneous infractions, which I think is not the case here.

Put another way, you can't simultaneously break 2 rules when the second one only applies after the first one has been satisfied. If you failed to meet the first requirement, you can't possibly have broken the second. Otherwise walking can be construed as not having satisfied the second later requirement as well, which is clearly absurd.

[Craig Temple]

Maybe. The wording of the rules implies order, and specificity only applies to simultaneous infractions, which I think is not the case here.

Remember though that the 'ordering' of the actions of IX.H is something you have imagined.

You say it's reasonable to interpret an implied order to the actions that must be taken, I think most would agree that it is not reasonable to interpret that rule that way. If you do interpret that rule that way, you get all kinds of screwy results to common scenarios. Those results have no resemblance to or foundation in the game of ultimate.

Take another look at my example about an OB player catching the disc while straddling the line, placing the disc on the line, and a new thrower picking it up at the spot of the disc. If you think your interpretation of that rule is reasonable, then you would think that the new thrower would have to walk with the disc away from the right spot in order that he can come back to carry and ('then' if we're playing along) put it into play.

That's not a reasonable interpretation of the rule.

Remember possible semantic interpretations of the wordings of the rules do not equal reasonable interpretations of the rules. I know we disagree on this, but your belief in the reasonable/possible semantic interpretation in absence of *any* non-written experience with the sport seems to tie you up in knots over rules that seem not to trouble many (or often any) others.

It is valid, even necessary, to expect that somebody reading the rules of ultimate be able to weigh the consequences of a given interpretation of a rule on the play of the game, and to use common sense as to whether that interpretation is reasonable. I don't think you lack the common sense required, but I do think you fail to follow through on this important part of reading and interpreting the rules.

I suggest to you that ultimate is not unique in this aspect. No sport has its rules crafted in such a way that no estimation of implied intent is necessary. Nor is there a sport which has rules which have only one possible (even reasonable) semantic interpretation of the wording. I'm not sure if you believe that or not, but as an exercise, you can take a look at the rules of other sports to confirm for yourself. I picked the following rule at random out of the NHL rulebook, it may be a good place to start: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26347

Honestly, I'm not trying to take the piss out of you. I'm trying to help you realize why it is that you seem to have more trouble with the rules than most people. Your method of interpretation seems to make things more difficult on yourself.

Craig

[Darrin]

Similar situation: disc goes out of the back of the end zone
incomplete on a huck. Nearest player becoming offense jogs away
leaving disc on ground and no one becoming offense within 35 yards of
the disc. Player becoming defense picks up the disc and tosses it to
a spot near where it will need to be put into play. Based on the
reading being given the rules in this thread, there is no rule against
doing this, correct?

The reason I ask is that I have wanted to do this before to speed up
games, but I thought it was prohibited.

Thanks,
Darrin

[Colin]

II.C.

Defensive player: A player whose team is not in possession of the
disc. A defensive player may not pick up a live disc or a disc in play
or call for a pass from the thrower.

[Craig Temple]

That is the rule, and it's important to know it.

However Its rare that you'll be called for violating a rule that helps the other team, or helps the game speed along.

Generally the O doesn't like if you try to hand/throw the disc to a player, because that player may not want to become the thrower. However, bringing the disc back to where it is to be put into play is rarely going to garner any thoughts from your opponents other than 'thanks!'.

I find there's a lot of ways ultimate communities (and even levels within each community) agree to look the other way, or play with an unspoken variant of the rules. This is natural. I'd recommend talking to somebody with more experience in your area to determine what sort of extra-rules etiquette may be present in your league.

This can lead to problems though. When people don't know that how they think 'is the way we play' isn't actually within the rules. Be sure to keep in mind that moving the disc as you described is against the rules. If you ever were to be called for something like that, the caller isn't being unspirited, you were breaking the rules. There could be a handful of reasons why the other team may not want you do to that.

Overall, I think it's perfectly natural to play by an unspoken ruleset. It happens organically almost everywhere. However, it is very important to know the actual rules, and to never, ever *expect* that another player abide by an unspoken ruleset that has not been agreed to in advance.

Craig

[Patrick Malka]

Maybe. The wording of the rules implies order, and specificity only applies to simultaneous infractions, which I think is not the case here.

Remember though that the 'ordering' of the actions of IX.H is something you have imagined.

Not at all.

IX.H states:"... *After* establishing a pivot at the appropriate spot on the field, the thrower must touch the disc to the ground *before* putting it into play." Order is explicit here and necessarily applies to the 2 steps that must be taken when a disc goes OB; carrying it to and putting it into play at place X. The pivot can only be set after the carrying step is complete, and is always before the disc is put into play. Since they cannot happen simultaneously, a travel would not be the right call if an offensive player threw the disc to another offensive player closer to the correct spot. The argument is largely academic I know, but I believe it is the correct interpretation.
 

You say it's reasonable to interpret an implied order to the actions that must be taken, I think most would agree that it is not reasonable to interpret that rule that way. If you do interpret that rule that way, you get all kinds of screwy results to common scenarios. Those results have no resemblance to or foundation in the game of ultimate.

Take another look at my example about an OB player catching the disc while straddling the line, placing the disc on the line, and a new thrower picking it up at the spot of the disc. If you think your interpretation of that rule is reasonable, then you would think that the new thrower would have to walk with the disc away from the right spot in order that he can come back to carry and ('then' if we're playing along) put it into play.

That's not a reasonable interpretation of the rule.

Absolutely, but that has nothing to do with the order I am talking about. The above would be true even if the only requirement was to 'carry' the disc somewhere and do nothing, so the order is not a factor here.
 

Remember possible semantic interpretations of the wordings of the rules do not equal reasonable interpretations of the rules. I know we disagree on this, but your belief in the reasonable/possible semantic interpretation in absence of *any* non-written experience with the sport seems to tie you up in knots over rules that seem not to trouble many (or often any) others.

It is valid, even necessary, to expect that somebody reading the rules of ultimate be able to weigh the consequences of a given interpretation of a rule on the play of the game, and to use common sense as to whether that interpretation is reasonable. I don't think you lack the common sense required, but I do think you fail to follow through on this important part of reading and interpreting the rules.

As I have said before many times: I agree in principle, but if it takes 3 experts to explain it to a layman, this 'common sense' may not be so common. A degree in logic should not be a prerequisite for understanding the rules and applying this 'common sense.' This is not a logic final exam. The conclusions may seem obvious and trivial to people here, but the assumption that players in general have the same logic abilities as the people here is a gross error. I do understand the need to balance terseness with understandability, but surely there is room for improvement.
 

I suggest to you that ultimate is not unique in this aspect. No sport has its rules crafted in such a way that no estimation of implied intent is necessary. Nor is there a sport which has rules which have only one possible (even reasonable) semantic interpretation of the wording. I'm not sure if you believe that or not, but as an exercise, you can take a look at the rules of other sports to confirm for yourself. I picked the following rule at random out of the NHL rulebook, it may be a good place to start: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26347

Honestly, I'm not trying to take the piss out of you. I'm trying to help you realize why it is that you seem to have more trouble with the rules than most people. Your method of interpretation seems to make things more difficult on yourself.

I understand where you are coming from, but I think people generally assume I am wrong and try to do the math after the fact rather than listening to what I say. I have earned that to some degree, so I'll take my lumps and just keep trying using hopefully well formed arguments.

[Craig Temple]

Maybe. The wording of the rules implies order, and specificity only applies to simultaneous infractions, which I think is not the case here.

Remember though that the 'ordering' of the actions of IX.H is something you have imagined.

Not at all.

IX.H states:"... *After* establishing a pivot at the appropriate spot on the field, the thrower must touch the disc to the ground *before* putting it into play." Order is explicit here and necessarily applies to the 2 steps that must be taken when a disc goes OB; carrying it to and putting it into play at place X. The pivot can only be set after the carrying step is complete, and is always before the disc is put into play. Since they cannot happen simultaneously, a travel would not be the right call if an offensive player threw the disc to another offensive player closer to the correct spot. The argument is largely academic I know, but I believe it is the correct interpretation.

Patrick, you're reading that because order is stated between two criteria in a one clause of the rule (touching the disc to the ground *before* putting it into play), that order is implied between the criteria of a completely separate clause of the rule (carrying the disc *and* put it into play). I won't even get into whether or not that is a logical fallacy, or even a semantically reasonable (or correct) interpretation. That logical argument is pointless, it's far down the garden path (this is the point I'm trying to make!).

Still, you're failing to follow through on the necessary exercise in determining whether a semantic interpretation is valid or not. You haven't seemed to try to think 'what does it mean if I interpret the rule this way?' If you do that, you quickly realize that it's not a reasonable interpretation of that rule.

Absolutely, but that has nothing to do with the order I am talking about. The above would be true even if the only requirement was to 'carry' the disc somewhere and do nothing, so the order is not a factor here.

Right, but you've missed out on my point! If you do that exercise, you'll quickly see that *no reasonable interpretation* of IX.H can require that the disc *must* be physically walked to the point which it is to be put into play, regardless of the ordering of any actions.

Semantically and logically that interpretation may be reasonable, but that's not how to interpret the rules of a sport. One must use one's common sense and knowledge of the game to determine what the intended interpretation is. In some cases this is impossibly vague or contradictory. These cases are important to clarify in the rules. In other cases, such as IX.H, it is quite difficult to think that a particular semantic interpretation can be the intended interpretation, *if* one follows through the consequences of that semantic interpretation and looks at what it would mean to the sport.

As I have said before many times: I agree in principle, but if it takes 3 experts to explain it to a layman, this 'common sense' may not be so common. A degree in logic should not be a prerequisite for understanding the rules and applying this 'common sense.' This is not a logic final exam. The conclusions may seem obvious and trivial to people here, but the assumption that players in general have the same logic abilities as the people here is a gross error. I do understand the need to balance terseness with understandability, but surely there is room for improvement.

This is kind of funny. I'm trying to explain to you that you are the one trying to use advanced logic when it comes to rules interpretations. Advanced logic is not necessary, but a basic knowledge of the sport absolutely is! You cannot read the rules in a vacuum and arrive at the intended interpretation. It would be nearly impossible to add enough information into the rules to do this, it would make the rules incredibly longer, and it would be largely unnecessary!

You don't need advanced logic or semantics in interpreting the rules. You do need to apply common sense and knowledge of the game though. Once you arrive at what you think is a possible interpretation of the rule ("What does this rule mean?"), you then have to ask yourself, "How does that possible meaning of the rule affect the game?"

I think you get so stuck on finding the One True Possible Meaning that you never get to the second step. The truth is the rules of every sport are not written as Laws. Almost none of them have a One True Possible Meaning (neither do laws in fact!). In almost every rule of every sport there is a multitude of possible semantic interpretations. You have to test those possible interpretations to find the correct one. You can't identify the Intended Meaning just by reading the wording of a rule.

When you are testing a Possible Meaning, if your interpretation adds all sorts of strange consequences that you *know* are not part of the sport, then you *know* that that interpretation is not the Intended Meaning. You abandon that Possible Meaning, even if there is no semantic or logical reason to do so!

Often rules will only have one interpretation that passes this common sense test. I believe IX.H to be an example of this. I challenge you to come up with what you think is a reasonable interpretation that passes the 'how does this affect play?' test.

Some rules have multiple interpretations that pass that test, some have none. Those are the rules we need to fix. That isn't to say we shouldn't try to make it even easier to interpret the rules that have only one reasonable interpretation, but it does mean that in those cases there is no 'problem in the sport', there is only a 'ease of reading' problem.

I understand where you are coming from, but I think people generally assume I am wrong and try to do the math after the fact rather than listening to what I say. I have earned that to some degree, so I'll take my lumps and just keep trying using hopefully well formed arguments.

I can tell you that I am reading and understanding what you are saying. I can understand why you may feel you're not being listened to, because people don't always respond to your points. You *are* bringing up valid logical and semantic points, by the way. The problem is, while valid logically and semantically, they are completely unnecessary in understanding the rule! I am trying to tell you that you're going down the garden path, so there's no point in resolving the ambiguities you point out. You're missing the forest for the trees. You are tripping yourself up in the loops and knots of logic and semantics, but unnecessarily so.

You don't need to be a Vulcan to understand the rules. You do need to be a bit creative in using your experience playing the game in order to be able to think of possible scenarios to which the rule would apply, and then use common sense to determine if the consequences of your interpretation are intended.

Can I humbly suggest that if you often feel people assume you're wrong and don't listen to you, that perhaps you may be the common element in all those cases, and perhaps you may not be hearing what they are saying?

Craig

[Patrick Malka]

IX.H states:"... *After* establishing a pivot at the appropriate spot on the field, the thrower must touch the disc to the ground *before* putting it into play." Order is explicit here and necessarily applies to the 2 steps that must be taken when a disc goes OB; carrying it to and putting it into play at place X. The pivot can only be set after the carrying step is complete, and is always before the disc is put into play. Since they cannot happen simultaneously, a travel would not be the right call if an offensive player threw the disc to another offensive player closer to the correct spot. The argument is largely academic I know, but I believe it is the correct interpretation.

Patrick, you're reading that because order is stated between two criteria in a one clause of the rule (touching the disc to the ground *before* putting it into play), that order is implied between the criteria of a completely separate clause of the rule (carrying the disc *and* put it into play). I won't even get into whether or not that is a logical fallacy, or even a semantically reasonable (or correct) interpretation. That logical argument is pointless, it's far down the garden path (this is the point I'm trying to make!).

But that is exactly what I want, if you think I am wrong, just spell it out for me and I will accept proof. I already know this is academic, yet people keep straying from the real issue, dragging this out longer than it needs to go. I beg of you, show me your proof.

Right, but you've missed out on my point! If you do that exercise, you'll quickly see that *no reasonable interpretation* of IX.H can require that the disc *must* be physically walked to the point which it is to be put into play, regardless of the ordering of any actions.

I keep saying that the literal interpretation of *carry* is not what I am arguing at all, I conceded that the intent of that portion of the rule is to get the thrower to the pivot. If they are already there, then great, but that does not change the fact that it must be fulfilled, one way or another, before continuing, and therefore before it is possible to travel.
 

Semantically and logically that interpretation may be reasonable, but that's not how to interpret the rules of a sport. One must use one's common sense and knowledge of the game to determine what the intended interpretation is. In some cases this is impossibly vague or contradictory. These cases are important to clarify in the rules. In other cases, such as IX.H, it is quite difficult to think that a particular semantic interpretation can be the intended interpretation, *if* one follows through the consequences of that semantic interpretation and looks at what it would mean to the sport.

And what I am saying is that my alternate interpretation simply results in the only correct call being a violation instead of a travel, no black holes are created as a result.
 

When you are testing a Possible Meaning, if your interpretation adds all sorts of strange consequences that you *know* are not part of the sport, then you *know* that that interpretation is not the Intended Meaning. You abandon that Possible Meaning, even if there is no semantic or logical reason to do so!

Don't get me started, this is so subjective. Many ancient civilizations condoned human sacrifices by overwhelming majority, that does not make it right, despite being common sense. If you wish to enforce the will of the majority, then call it that, don't call it common sense, because many things are debatable, and the deciding factor I keep seeing is majority. Your common sense is not my common sense, and it is tiring to hear that my common sense is not the right common sense, there is no right common sense, just the majority.
 

Often rules will only have one interpretation that passes this common sense test. I believe IX.H to be an example of this. I challenge you to come up with what you think is a reasonable interpretation that passes the 'how does this affect play?' test.

I have, I challenge you to find issue with a violation being the correct call instead of a travel.
 

Some rules have multiple interpretations that pass that test, some have none. Those are the rules we need to fix. That isn't to say we shouldn't try to make it even easier to interpret the rules that have only one reasonable interpretation, but it does mean that in those cases there is no 'problem in the sport', there is only a 'ease of reading' problem.

Again, this is condescending. I hear this argument a lot, and it is annoying every time. It would be so much simpler to just say, yes the rules say so and so, but you should play it like X until we can clean it up. Instead people seem to need to defend the rules as is as someone attached to a favorite toy. Every time, it is my fault for being a dolt for not seeing the obvious ramifications. What if I don't see the ramifications? Is that my fault? I congratulate people that can find counter examples to the various rejected interpretations, but please stop assuming they are obvious and easy to find.

Every question that is asked in this and other forums is a clear indication that these counter examples are not always obvious.

Can I humbly suggest that if you often feel people assume you're wrong and don't listen to you, that perhaps you may be the common element in all those cases, and perhaps you may not be hearing what they are saying?

If I had a dollar every time someone suggest that to me, I'd be rich, but I'll stick to my guns thanks. I can admit when I am wrong, but nothing here has convinced me I am yet. In many other cases I have been and have no problem admitting it.

[Craig Temple]

But that is exactly what I want, if you think I am wrong, just spell it out for me and I will accept proof. I already know this is academic, yet people keep straying from the real issue, dragging this out longer than it needs to go. I beg of you, show me your proof.

I don't think you're wrong! I don't care whether you are right or wrong! You're arguing that one of a multitude of possible semantic interpretations is more semantically correct. That is pointless. The correct interpretation of the rule is not necessarily the semantic interpretation of the rule!

How the rule can be semantically interpreted does not dictate the rule exclusively. The Intended Interpretation of the rule is the Rule. It's unfortunate when the written rule contradicts that or confuses the Intended Interpretation, but that does not change the Rule itself. The Rule is more than the sum of its parts.

Right, but you've missed out on my point! If you do that exercise, you'll quickly see that *no reasonable interpretation* of IX.H can require that the disc *must* be physically walked to the point which it is to be put into play, regardless of the ordering of any actions.

I keep saying that the literal interpretation of *carry* is not what I am arguing at all, I conceded that the intent of that portion of the rule is to get the thrower to the pivot. If they are already there, then great, but that does not change the fact that it must be fulfilled, one way or another, before continuing, and therefore before it is possible to travel.

I can't figure out what you're saying here. What has to be fulfilled before which travel rule can be called? I could use a clarification so we can stay on the same page.

 

Semantically and logically that interpretation may be reasonable, but that's not how to interpret the rules of a sport. One must use one's common sense and knowledge of the game to determine what the intended interpretation is. In some cases this is impossibly vague or contradictory. These cases are important to clarify in the rules. In other cases, such as IX.H, it is quite difficult to think that a particular semantic interpretation can be the intended interpretation, *if* one follows through the consequences of that semantic interpretation and looks at what it would mean to the sport.

And what I am saying is that my alternate interpretation simply results in the only correct call being a violation instead of a travel, no black holes are created as a result.

I'm not sure what Travel rule can't be called using your interpretation, or why. Further, I'm not sure what interpretation you're using. Could you clarify?

 

When you are testing a Possible Meaning, if your interpretation adds all sorts of strange consequences that you *know* are not part of the sport, then you *know* that that interpretation is not the Intended Meaning. You abandon that Possible Meaning, even if there is no semantic or logical reason to do so!

Don't get me started, this is so subjective. Many ancient civilizations condoned human sacrifices by overwhelming majority, that does not make it right, despite being common sense. If you wish to enforce the will of the majority, then call it that, don't call it common sense, because many things are debatable, and the deciding factor I keep seeing is majority. Your common sense is not my common sense, and it is tiring to hear that my common sense is not the right common sense, there is no right common sense, just the majority.

No, it's not majority rule, it's How the Sport is Intended to be Played (aka The Rules). The Rules are not wholly encompassed by the written rules. The Rules are not wholly encompassed by the written rules of any sport. Subjective extrapolation to determine the Intended Meaning of the written rules based on experience is required in determining what The Rules of a game are.

Do you believe that?

In many cases The Rules are still ambiguous (those are areas that need to be addressed), but in the majority of cases there is no reasonable ambiguity. I don't think that you lack the common sense to determine this. I just don't think you believe that the Intended Meaning is the Actual Rule. And thus, I don't think you're using the correct process of interpreting the rules.

 

Often rules will only have one interpretation that passes this common sense test. I believe IX.H to be an example of this. I challenge you to come up with what you think is a reasonable interpretation that passes the 'how does this affect play?' test.

I have, I challenge you to find issue with a violation being the correct call instead of a travel.

What's the rule and the scenario? You've lost me. If two rules are being broken, then either one can be called.

 

Some rules have multiple interpretations that pass that test, some have none. Those are the rules we need to fix. That isn't to say we shouldn't try to make it even easier to interpret the rules that have only one reasonable interpretation, but it does mean that in those cases there is no 'problem in the sport', there is only a 'ease of reading' problem.

Again, this is condescending. I hear this argument a lot, and it is annoying every time. It would be so much simpler to just say, yes the rules say so and so, but you should play it like X until we can clean it up. Instead people seem to need to defend the rules as is as someone attached to a favorite toy. Every time, it is my fault for being a dolt for not seeing the obvious ramifications. What if I don't see the ramifications? Is that my fault? I congratulate people that can find counter examples to the various rejected interpretations, but please stop assuming they are obvious and easy to find.

Certainly, measuring the possible semantic interpretations against a rule's Intended Meaning is a valid task. Narrowing the gap can be very important for clarity and ease of reading and identifying the Intended Meaning (aka the Actual Rule). However, the gap can effectively never be eliminated. There will always be multiple possible semantic interpretations of the written form of a rule, some or many of which don't line up with the Intended Meaning (aka the Actual Rule).

Do you believe that?

I find value in finding those areas where the semantic interpretation of the written rule leads to ambiguity in the Intended Meaning. But I don't think there's value in exploring the effects on the game or appropriate use of a Possible Meaning, when that Possible Meaning fails the "Could this reasonably be the Intended Meaning?" test. I can see how that's frustrating for you. You're not getting the answers to the semantic questions and logical birds-nests you find yourself trapped in. The issue is that you think it's important to resolve those logical and semantic issues, where most of us do not see any point.

Often it seams to me that you say "what about Interpretation X", only to be met with a chorus of "that's not the correct interpretation". I can see how that's frustrating, because, by all your tools of measurements, there's no way to determine that Interpretation X isn't the correct interpretation.

You're using the wrong tools of measurements. You're using only logic and semantics. You need to use your game experience to hypothetically test out Interpretation X. If Interpretation X yields a game which is not Ultimate, then Interpretation X is not the correct interpretation. Unfortunately, what the game of Ultimate is cannot be fully written down. I'm really not sure how you can resolve that issue.

As an exercise we could go through an example of how to interpret a rule to yield the Actual Rule, but for almost every rule, you're *always* going to get to a point where the answer to your question of "Why?" is met with "Because." I can appreciate how unsatisfying that would be, but it's the case for just about every rule of every sport and just about every law of every company. Eventually it comes down to a Judge saying "Because."

Do you believe that?

Craig

[Patrick Malka]

I keep saying that the literal interpretation of *carry* is not what I am arguing at all, I conceded that the intent of that portion of the rule is to get the thrower to the pivot. If they are already there, then great, but that does not change the fact that it must be fulfilled, one way or another, before continuing, and therefore before it is possible to travel.

I can't figure out what you're saying here. What has to be fulfilled before which travel rule can be called? I could use a clarification so we can stay on the same page

And what I am saying is that my alternate interpretation simply results in the only correct call being a violation instead of a travel, no black holes are created as a result.

I'm not sure what Travel rule can't be called using your interpretation, or why. Further, I'm not sure what interpretation you're using. Could you clarify?

At this point it doesn't matter anymore, I am going to conclude that a violation is a valid call if a player throws an OB disc to another player who then tries to put it into play. I will assume that anyone that calls a travel in this case actually meant to call a violation, just as I will accept that when people prompt me to check in a live disc, they really just meant to tap it in but forgot.

No, it's not majority rule, it's How the Sport is Intended to be Played (aka The Rules). The Rules are not wholly encompassed by the written rules. The Rules are not wholly encompassed by the written rules of any sport. Subjective extrapolation to determine the Intended Meaning of the written rules based on experience is required in determining what The Rules of a game are.

Do you believe that?

I will concede that they fully don't encompass the intent, but not for lack of trying. It seems Ultimate is different in this regard since ambiguity that can be resolved using the silliness argument is apparently not really an ambiguity.
 

In many cases The Rules are still ambiguous (those are areas that need to be addressed), but in the majority of cases there is no reasonable ambiguity. I don't think that you lack the common sense to determine this. I just don't think you believe that the Intended Meaning is the Actual Rule. And thus, I don't think you're using the correct process of interpreting the rules.

Basically what you are telling me is to use logic till it contradicts one of the elders who know what this magical intent is. Of course I won't know that I have contradicted them till it happens, and till them I have no resolution except back to thrower. I have now accepted this.

Again, this is condescending. I hear this argument a lot, and it is annoying every time. It would be so much simpler to just say, yes the rules say so and so, but you should play it like X until we can clean it up. Instead people seem to need to defend the rules as is as someone attached to a favorite toy. Every time, it is my fault for being a dolt for not seeing the obvious ramifications. What if I don't see the ramifications? Is that my fault? I congratulate people that can find counter examples to the various rejected interpretations, but please stop assuming they are obvious and easy to find.

Certainly, measuring the possible semantic interpretations against a rule's Intended Meaning is a valid task. Narrowing the gap can be very important for clarity and ease of reading and identifying the Intended Meaning (aka the Actual Rule). However, the gap can effectively never be eliminated. There will always be multiple possible semantic interpretations of the written form of a rule, some or many of which don't line up with the Intended Meaning (aka the Actual Rule).

Do you believe that?

I find value in finding those areas where the semantic interpretation of the written rule leads to ambiguity in the Intended Meaning. But I don't think there's value in exploring the effects on the game or appropriate use of a Possible Meaning, when that Possible Meaning fails the "Could this reasonably be the Intended Meaning?" test. I can see how that's frustrating for you. You're not getting the answers to the semantic questions and logical birds-nests you find yourself trapped in. The issue is that you think it's important to resolve those logical and semantic issues, where most of us do not see any point.

Often it seams to me that you say "what about Interpretation X", only to be met with a chorus of "that's not the correct interpretation". I can see how that's frustrating, because, by all your tools of measurements, there's no way to determine that Interpretation X isn't the correct interpretation.

You're using the wrong tools of measurements. You're using only logic and semantics. You need to use your game experience to hypothetically test out Interpretation X. If Interpretation X yields a game which is not Ultimate, then Interpretation X is not the correct interpretation. Unfortunately, what the game of Ultimate is cannot be fully written down. I'm really not sure how you can resolve that issue.

As an exercise we could go through an example of how to interpret a rule to yield the Actual Rule, but for almost every rule, you're *always* going to get to a point where the answer to your question of "Why?" is met with "Because." I can appreciate how unsatisfying that would be, but it's the case for just about every rule of every sport and just about every law of every company. Eventually it comes down to a Judge saying "Because."

Do you believe that?

No I do not, that would not be a free society, that would be a dictatorship, with judges being extensions of the dictator, having absolute power that is infallible and unquestionable.

Yes it is very frustrating to be forced to accept that the rules are not really encompassed in the written rules, and I disagree that other sports are so similar.

I think the analogy between Ultimate and other sports in terms of rules and subjectivity and interpretation and all of that is not a fair comparison. Firstly because I don't really believe they are that similar. I have no proof to back that up, though I suspect that there would be far less ambiguity in any other sport and much less subjectivity as well. Secondly, because Ultimate is different then all other sports in that it is self officiated, and so this poses unique challenges to the rule writers.

People keep saying that if you analyse the multiple interpretations, one seems silly and therefore can be ignored. Again, this is not always a practical resolution, and even though you may be right that this approach would work, clarification would eliminate this altogether without changing the rules at all. It could be as silly as 'interpretaion X is clearly not allow because it allows for Y...' No new rules are added and existing wording is unchanged, but people don't have to guess and argue about intent. Why not then clarify even when it can be logically shown, using the silliness argument that one interpretation is no good? I just don't understand the resistance to this.

Thank you for your patience, I now have a better understanding of what people should reasonably expect from the rules, even if I don't like it. I will apply it as such in the future.

[Craig Temple]

No I do not, that would not be a free society, that would be a dictatorship, with judges being extensions of the dictator, having absolute power that is infallible and unquestionable.

I think you understood that I meant "every law of every country" (when I typed "company") and replied to it as such, but I still wanted to clarify. Anyway...

If you don't believe there is ambiguity, subjectiveness, and interpretation in the laws of countries (or the rules of other sports), then you need to look a little deeper. I'm not sure what country you're from, but most democracies share this trait. For example, in the US, there are three branches to the government. The Executive manages operations and enforces the Law (within the bounds of the mandate given by Law), the Legislative branch makes the laws, and the Judicial branch interprets and applies the Laws.

Legal precedent stemming from judicial decisions are what define what The Law is. That Judiciary interpretation and definition is what law enforcement (often under the Executive branch) is allowed to enforce. The ambiguity and interpretation present in studying the law eventually does come down to a judge (or judges) saying "Because." You may want to dig a little further into the field of Legal study if you don't believe this.

The truth is Laws are much, much less subjective than the rules of a sport (which is good!), but the trade-off is that it takes years and years of study to achieve a working fluency (let alone expertise) in those laws.

Yes it is very frustrating to be forced to accept that the rules are not really encompassed in the written rules, and I disagree that other sports are so similar.

I think the analogy between Ultimate and other sports in terms of rules and subjectivity and interpretation and all of that is not a fair comparison. Firstly because I don't really believe they are that similar. I have no proof to back that up, though I suspect that there would be far less ambiguity in any other sport and much less subjectivity as well. Secondly, because Ultimate is different then all other sports in that it is self officiated, and so this poses unique challenges to the rule writers.

I gave you a link earlier. It was a rule plucked at random from the NHL rulebook: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26347

That rule is riddled with ambiguity and subjectivity! You really cannot know absolutely what that rule is by reading it. You must know the Intended Interpretation. If you were familiar with the game of hockey, you could determine its proper interpretation, but it's not something you can do in a vacuum.

If hockey isn't your thing, you can pluck a random rule out of the rulebook of any sport. Save for a few very limited procedural rules you'll find it will only tell half of the story.

There isn't a difference in that Ultimate is self-refereed. The only difference is that ultimate is the only sport you referee! If you don't think referees in other sports have guidance and interpretation documents, as well as discussions over how those rules should be interpreted, you need to think again.

I'll use hockey for another example. A few years ago, the NHL (it's Board of Governors, made up of the team owners) decided to change the subjective criteria of certain rules (coincidentally the hooking rule I picked random was one of these). The wording of the rules were not changed, but the Accepted Interpretation was. The subjective criteria for calling certain penalties was lowered so as to change what behaviour was allowed (again, with no written changes). The result of this change in Intended Interpretation was drastic. The flow of the game was changed. Both Offense and Defense changed. Scoring chances became more common. The ideal attributes for the players of different positions changed almost overnight, decreasing the value of some players and increasing the value of others.

They refer to the game since these changes as "The New NHL". All that from a change in the Accepted Interpretation and no change to the rules themselves.

It has been discussed, and I think it is worthwhile, to have a companion document to the rules. Or alternatively to have an interpretation guide attached to each section of the rules (on a website or some-such). Most sports have this for its referees, but ultimate does not. Instead we have lists such as this in which the community can hash out or pass-on the Accepted Interpretation (important to note it's the community not any one person). We also have the SRC as our 'supreme court' of judges as it were to say "Because." when necessary.

It's good to remember that, even with such a companion document, you can't eliminate the need for experience with the game in being able to direct referees in the proper interpretation. Sure, if you wrote long enough on every rule, and added clarifications for each possible scenario, you could get close, but you'd only be crafting a document that nobody would be able to read and interpret (much less remember!). Likely too it would be riddled with inconsistencies and loopholes until a few hundred thousand games and dozens of iterations shook them all out. The end document would look like computer code I think.

I'm not sure why you are resistant to what you call the 'silliness test'. It really isn't the 'silliness test' at all, it's a test which makes sure that the Rules serve Ultimate and not the case where Ultimate is defined by the Rules. You just can't put such a complex system down in black and white. You can try, but it's usually makes it worse than relying upon wisdom of the game to guide the interpretations of less complex rules.

Craig

[Patrick Malka]

No I do not, that would not be a free society, that would be a dictatorship, with judges being extensions of the dictator, having absolute power that is infallible and unquestionable.

I think you understood that I meant "every law of every country" (when I typed "company") and replied to it as such, but I still wanted to clarify. Anyway...

No, I was just referring to the 'because' comment. I interpreted as 'because i said so', as in, no explanation required, which is not true. People might not like the explanation, but it is always tangibly available. Precedent can be pointed to with the understanding that this precedent is the reason. In Ultimate there is no such repository except me taking your word for it, which seems less than ideal.
 

I gave you a link earlier. It was a rule plucked at random from the NHL rulebook: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26347

That rule is riddled with ambiguity and subjectivity! You really cannot know absolutely what that rule is by reading it. You must know the Intended Interpretation. If you were familiar with the game of hockey, you could determine its proper interpretation, but it's not something you can do in a vacuum.

I never said that. In the context of all the other rules it makes sense and is *relatively* self-contained, not needing magical overrides, much more so than Ultimate in any case, which was my point.
 

If hockey isn't your thing, you can pluck a random rule out of the rulebook of any sport. Save for a few very limited procedural rules you'll find it will only tell half of the story.

There isn't a difference in that Ultimate is self-refereed. The only difference is that ultimate is the only sport you referee! If you don't think referees in other sports have guidance and interpretation documents, as well as discussions over how those rules should be interpreted, you need to think again.

I'll use hockey for another example. A few years ago, the NHL (it's Board of Governors, made up of the team owners) decided to change the subjective criteria of certain rules (coincidentally the hooking rule I picked random was one of these). The wording of the rules were not changed, but the Accepted Interpretation was. The subjective criteria for calling certain penalties was lowered so as to change what behaviour was allowed (again, with no written changes). The result of this change in Intended Interpretation was drastic. The flow of the game was changed. Both Offense and Defense changed. Scoring chances became more common. The ideal attributes for the players of different positions changed almost overnight, decreasing the value of some players and increasing the value of others.

They refer to the game since these changes as "The New NHL". All that from a change in the Accepted Interpretation and no change to the rules themselves.

This is nearly impossible to verify, I tried looking but found nothing on changes that were not recorded as rule changes. No surprise there, could you direct me to something that would detail this? I would be very interested in following up. I don't follow rules of other sports so I can't comment either way till I follow up.
 

It has been discussed, and I think it is worthwhile, to have a companion document to the rules. Or alternatively to have an interpretation guide attached to each section of the rules (on a website or some-such). Most sports have this for its referees, but ultimate does not. Instead we have lists such as this in which the community can hash out or pass-on the Accepted Interpretation (important to note it's the community not any one person). We also have the SRC as our 'supreme court' of judges as it were to say "Because." when necessary.

Sounds good, I am all for that.
 

It's good to remember that, even with such a companion document, you can't eliminate the need for experience with the game in being able to direct referees in the proper interpretation. Sure, if you wrote long enough on every rule, and added clarifications for each possible scenario, you could get close, but you'd only be crafting a document that nobody would be able to read and interpret (much less remember!). Likely too it would be riddled with inconsistencies and loopholes until a few hundred thousand games and dozens of iterations shook them all out. The end document would look like computer code I think.

That may be true, but I still think that we could get a lot of bang for our buck by addressing the stuff that gets asked the most or is incorrectly applied the most. Some middle ground seems possible and desirable.
 

I'm not sure why you are resistant to what you call the 'silliness test'. It really isn't the 'silliness test' at all, it's a test which makes sure that the Rules serve Ultimate and not the case where Ultimate is defined by the Rules. You just can't put such a complex system down in black and white. You can try, but it's usually makes it worse than relying upon wisdom of the game to guide the interpretations of less complex rules.

I object to it because it is not practical. This is of course moot because if you can't agree on the outcome the outcome is then back to thrower, thus eliminating the need for real practicality. Sure you can look at the rules more closely later, but that does not guarantee that you will find the correct outcome later. So I repeat the last point, some middle ground in terms of explanation/clarification should be achievable without the need for a 1000 page rulebook that only 3 people can actually fully understand. It sounds like a companion guide or something of that sort would help a lot in that respect. So would direct rule clarifications, clearer definitions of fundamental principles etc...