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.
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.
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.
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?
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'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.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.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?
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?
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
Maybe. The wording of the rules implies order, and specificity only applies to simultaneous infractions, which I think is not the case here.
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=26347Honestly, 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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!).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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=26347That 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.