Stall count inititation with "zero"
colinm...@gmail.com
respect to initiating and reinitiating the stall count. It was
mentioned before, but I kind of missed it and it didn't look like it
got full discussion. I think it was choice b) on Flo's list. It seems
to address all of the concerns raised. I'd really like to hear more
opinions on this possible change.
Pros:
-more obvious to players if they are rushing that first second
-retain a consistent word to indicate that the stall count is being
initiated or reinitiated.
-retain a 10 second count (don't cave in to cheaters)
-standardize stall counts (no stalling, stallingone, stallone
confusion)
-simple change (substitution of one word)
Cons:
- tradition(al inconsistency in play is removed)
- "zero" feels weird
Examples:
"four...five...sixseven"
"fast count"
"zero...six....seven"
"zero...one...two"
"pick!" (followed be checking for players' readiness)
"zero...two...three"
-Colin
danfri...@yahoo.com
colinm...@gmail.com wrote:
> "four...five...sixseven"
> "fast count"
> "zero...six....seven"
I would prefer "five...six...seven".
colinm...@gmail.com
So favoring or disfavoring starting the stall with "zero" instead of
"stalling"?
And then preferring to drop an additional second in place of "stalling"
in instances of mid-count infractions? Reasonable, just the other side
of the "we need a word to indicate when the count is
initiated/reiniated" concern.
May I ask your reasons? Just hoping to get all the sides fleshed out
so there can be complete basis for whatever decision gets made. Not a
representative sample here to allow for vote-counting. (if you already
elaborated elsewhere, a link is totally sufficient).
doyl...@gmail.com
one, two, ...)? The only negative that I've seen discussed is that
people count fast with the current system. However there is a call
already in place for that (oddly enough called 'Fast count'). The only
thing I'd change in the definition is:
XIV.A.1.a) The interval between the first utterance of each number in
the stall count must be at least one second.
Make 'Stallingone' legal. It's been my experience that if a player
rushes this part of the count, they're going to be rushing the rest of
the count as well.
This, in my opinion, provides the thrower with ten seconds of
possession, as the rule is intended to do. Then on any call, you start
the count at whatever is required. i.e. "Coming in at 5!" Check disc,
and "Stallingfive, six, seven, ...."
Matt
colinm...@gmail.com
> I'm curious as to what is wrong with the current system (i.e. Stalling
> one, two, ...)? The only negative that I've seen discussed is that
> people count fast with the current system. However there is a call
The issue here is that a large percentage of players initiate the stall
count incorrectly by beginning with "stallone/stallingone" or simply
"one", not that they count fast in general. Many people feel that
requiring the thrower to call "fast count" at the beginning of most
stall counts creates arguments and is an unfair burden on the thrower,
just to get a legal count. Better to change to rule to make it
perfectly clear to even the most dedicated misinterpretor/misreader to
create uniformity and eliminate systematic infractions. I think the
choices on Flo's list all do this.
> The only thing I'd change in the definition is:
>
> XIV.A.1.a) The interval between the first utterance of each NUMBER in
> the stall count must be at least one second.
>
> Make 'Stallingone' legal.
This doesn't address the body of players who never say "stalling" at
all, including those who only say "stall". They still represent a
significant portion of systematic infractors.
ira...@gmail.com
> doyl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm curious as to what is wrong with the current system (i.e. Stalling
> > one, two, ...)? The only negative that I've seen discussed is that
> > people count fast with the current system. However there is a call
> > already in place for that...
>
> The issue here is that a large percentage of players initiate the stall
> count incorrectly by beginning with "stallone/stallingone" or simply
> "one", not that they count fast in general. Many people feel that
> requiring the thrower to call "fast count" at the beginning of most
> stall counts creates arguments and is an unfair burden on the thrower,
> just to get a legal count. Better to change to rule to make it
> perfectly clear to even the most dedicated misinterpretor/misreader to
> create uniformity and eliminate systematic infractions. I think the
> choices on Flo's list all do this.
It seems to me that counting down solves all these problems, and has
many other benefits, too.
Where is "Flo's list" and is counting down one of the choices on Flo's
list?
Everyone (especially new players) would pick up the counting down very
quickly, because that's how most other sport clocks work. It
completely solves the issue of stallingone fast count.
Are we so resistant to change that we can't embrace a better idea when
it comes along? The only argument against counting down that I've
heard is that it will be too hard for existing players to get used to.
Weak reasoning, IMO.
Ira
colinm...@gmail.com
> Where is "Flo's list" and is counting down one of the choices on Flo's
> list?
Counting down is on there: http://tinylink.com/?i2YMCFWBIz
> Are we so resistant to change that we can't embrace a better idea when
> it comes along? The only argument against counting down that I've
> heard is that it will be too hard for existing players to get used to.
> Weak reasoning, IMO.
I favor changing to a countdown. The "big change" objection isn't
easily resolved, though. Given the deadline, it seems unlikely to make
it into this round of modifications. I'll continue to favor this when
it's proposed, but in the meantime...
My position now is that even if the SRC chooses not to go with the BEST
change, the countdown, it should still make a change and make a GOOD
change. Replacing "stalling" with "zero" is a small change and seems
to address all the concerns I've heard (esp. from the SRC members).
And given the deadline, it's great. Just substitute one word.
Colin
doyl...@gmail.com
In the travelling thread you noted:
"The issue with dispelling the "three steps" myth is that the myth is
hardly based on what the rules say at all. This sort of myth might
better be dispelled in a "Most common rules misconceptions" document
sent to all members. I don't think we can try to address too
carefully, through the rules, players who don't read the rules. "
The stall count is perhaps the most clear rule in the book. If there is
a concern that people aren't starting the count with stalling (and I
tend to hear stall one, stall two, etc. more often than anything else),
perhaps this 'Most common rules misconceptions' document might be the
best place to try and communicate the requirement to members.
Matt
colinm...@gmail.com
here, too, but the stall count problem is way more prevalent than the
travel problem (every marker stalls on every reception, but not every
reception takes more than three steps to stop and not every defender
calls it when that does happen). Let me distinguish the circumstances
in another way, too. All citations are to the 10th edition
Regarding the travel rule (XIII.D.4/XV.D, XIII.D.3), the player has
added fictional language to the rules and is now making a call based on
it. He's such a cheater that he can't be reached. Even reasonable
skimming will only lead to "more steps ... third ground contact"
The stalling mistake is based on the rules (XIV.C.1) and is a function
of careless reading. When such a player finds that the rule has been
changed, he's likely to check a bit more carefully when he reads the
new edition, because he has to see how it changed. It's like playing
PhotoHunt, but with the rules. Players are going to be all over this
rules change, getting together with friends at the bar to compare 10th
to 11th. But PhotoHunt really wouldn't be very much fun if the
pictures were completely identical, would it? So if we want people to
play "stall count PhotoHunt," and thereby learn the rules we're going
to have to make a change (and perhaps provide pocket editions of the
rules to all members when they get their membership cards).
The careless reader may skim and get "say 'stalling' and then count
from 1-10 at intervals of one second" or "count from 1-10 at intervals
of one second." She therefore will omit "stalling" or say
"stallingone." I concede I don't know where "stall one" came from -
maybe someone who counted "one apple, two apple..." converted.
But the point is that the cheater who conjures up travel rules is
beyond help through the rules. The incorrect stall-counter is just a
lost soul who needs a reminder. The change in the rules is that
reminder and should correct the issue, if a good change is made.
-Colin
michae...@pomona.edu
with the subsequent number (albeit perhaps by force of habit) and end
up saying stallingone...two...three which to me isn't a big deal
because 9+ seconds is plenty to get off a throw, but it is a problem
after a contested stall like "stallingnine...tenSTALL." So it seems
what we're trying to do is guarantee the ten full seconds or at least a
full pause between counts.
Therefore, I think replacing "stalling" with "zero" is a great idea.
It's a lot trickier to get away with "zeroone...two...three" than it is
"stallingone..." because you're obviously merging two numbers. I don't
think it really matters what the replacement for "stalling" is, hell it
could be kangaroo, toenail, anything so long as it doesn't get merged
with the following number, but since zero is a number itself it seems
like the best option.
I don't really understand all this counting down hype, all we really
care about is the full ten seconds to throw the disc and avoiding fast
counts. Inserting zero instead of stalling seems to work without
causing much damage that I can see. Stalling should have worked, but
the game evolved past it so we have to choose something else, and I
don't see the downside to replacing "stalling" with "zero," it resolves
the fast count issue pretty easily.
Parinella
colinm...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think we should replace the word "stalling" with the word "zero" with
> respect to initiating and reinitiating the stall count. It was
> mentioned before, but I kind of missed it and it didn't look like it
> got full discussion. I think it was choice b) on Flo's list. It seems
> to address all of the concerns raised. I'd really like to hear more
> opinions on this possible change.
CVH tried to get this change instituted in 1986 but it didn't take hold.
danfri...@yahoo.com
next, when in fact "six" will be next. Also, starting on the number
you SAY you'll be starting at makes more sense.
Current scenario: Pick happens at stall 7. Marker says "ok, coming in
on 'five'". Checks disc in & says "stalling...six".
Your proposal: Pick happens at stall 7. Marker says "ok, coming in on
'five'". Checks disc in & says "zero...six".
My revision: Pick happens at stall 7. Marker says "ok, coming in on
'five'". Checks disc in & says "five...six".
I like the idea of starting with "zero".
*Cooler to say than "stalling".
*Should make stall counts more consistent.
*I'm sick of calling fast count on people who don't say "stalling".
*Easier for the rabbit in the zone to say, over & over again, rather
than getting tired & just skipping to "one".
colinm...@gmail.com
a weird habit that some ultimate players have fallen into. It isn't
rule-based.
As for your revision beginning after a pick on 5 instead of saying
"stalling" seems fine to me. I think the main argument against
removing a "stalling"-word altogether is that in the case of a marking
violation, it is nice to be able to hear a distinctive word that
indicates the marker recognized the call. The flurry of numbers can be
a little confusing (I think using "zero" is sufficiently distinct,
though). Really, in the middle of the count, I think both arguments
have validity and I am not opposed to either.
colinm...@gmail.com
> CVH tried to get this change instituted in 1986 but it didn't take hold.
And that decision was what made my "twos" terrible.
Craig Temple
himself in the details of the stalling issue... until now.
>From what I gather, the percieved problem is that A) the vast majority
of stall-counts contain only 9 delays (theoretically a second, but no
rule change can affect that), and B) Restarted counts are consistently
coming in at one number less than they should (ie: "stall five...six"
instead of "stalling...six"), but effectively giving the right amount
of time to throw.
I think we can agree that the rules cover both cases perfecty, when
they're followed.
I have two questions for you all to ponder:
1) Is this a problem serious enough to warrant such a drastic change as
requiring people to say things like "zero...5...6...7...etc"?
2) Do we really think that the 'problem' where people aren't following
the rule can be fixed by changing the rule they're not following? Will
people really follow such a dramatic change?
--
Try to extract yourselves from the details of the issue. Talk to some
casual players or even some more experienced players that don't have a
strong grasp of the rules. I think just about anybody you'd talk to
would agree that some of the changes being discussed are really
drastic, and probably won't be universally followed anyway. They'll
simply cause tons of arguments about incorrect stall procedure. We're
*definitely* going to introduce arguments that would have never existed
if we change the stall rule.
--
My opinion is that we need to have the rules reflect the way we play,
the way we should play, and the way the vast majority of players want
to play:
Remove the requirement to wait between "stalling" and the first number.
Which means that all the numbers that counts come in on must be reduced
by one (except for "one"), and that the entire stall count is only a
little over 9.
Both of these 'consequences' of course are exactly how the game has
been played for years.
Are these consequenses negative? I don't think so. The only people that
realize the count has *theoretically* been reduced by one second, are
the people that really know the rules anyway. These are likely the only
people that were giving 10 second counts, and now the playing field is
level.
Finally, if you ask 50 people (that are not rule-nuts like us) to count
to 10 seconds, every one of them will say "one...two...three...etc" and
give you a 9 second count. People will still think that there's a 10
second stall count, even if it's only between 9 and 10.
Craig
colinm...@gmail.com
Craig Temple wrote:
> From what I gather, the percieved problem is that ... B) Restarted counts are consistently
> coming in at one number less than they should (ie: "stall five...six"
> instead of "stalling...six"), but effectively giving the right amount
> of time to throw.
I don't think this is a widespread issue at all. The issue here is the
same ("stalling6....7). The count is still shortened, but the
shortening is more significant as the time remaining decreases. Some
players will announce "coming in on three" and then say "stalling 4"
but that's a different issue and not one I think we're really trying to
address. That indeed has no basis in the rules and probably can't be
addressed.
> I think we can agree that the rules cover both cases perfecty, when
> they're followed.
yes.
> I have two questions for you all to ponder:
>
> 1) Is this a problem serious enough to warrant such a drastic change as
> requiring people to say things like "zero...5...6...7...etc"?
Yes. We have at least four different common ways of initiating the
stall count, resulting from carelessly reading the rules, not reading
the rules or carelessly reciting the rules while wearing the
erroneously self-awarded "rules authority" badge.
> 2) Do we really think that the 'problem' where people aren't following
> the rule can be fixed by changing the rule they're not following? Will
> people really follow such a dramatic change?
Yes. The majority of the problem is not people who simply have no
exposure to the rules or completely ignore them. It's incomplete
second-hand information and careless reading. The change will generate
talk ("The stall count rules changed?" "yeah, now you say 'zero'
instead of 'stalling'"). "Zero" is easy to remember and there is no
room for variation.
> Try to extract yourselves from the details of the issue. Talk to some
> casual players or even some more experienced players that don't have a
> strong grasp of the rules. I think just about anybody you'd talk to
> would agree that some of the changes being discussed are really
> drastic, and probably won't be universally followed anyway. They'll
> simply cause tons of arguments about incorrect stall procedure. We're
> *definitely* going to introduce arguments that would have never existed
> if we change the stall rule.
Tons of arguments? What's there to argue? Did the rule change? Yes.
What's the new rule? Say "zero" whenever you were previously obligated
to say "stalling." If you're saying that players are going to have to
adjust to any change made in the rules, then I agree. But this is such
a simple, if drastic change that I don't believe that it will produce
widespread arguments with any persistence. It should get disseminated
very quickly and easily. I think your "tons of arguments" claim should
be applied with discretion and is maybe better aimed at the new disc
space rule.
> My opinion is that we need to have the rules reflect the way we play,
> the way we should play, and the way the vast majority of players want
> to play:
The whole voting process is supposed to decide "the way the vast
majority of players want to play." For this to work, I think some of
the more significant/controversial changes should be voted on
independently, so that a truly unpopular change doesn't get
piggy-backed through on a very popular change.
But I do think the change would reflect the way we play and the way we
should play. Rules call for a 10 second count and have for how long?
I don't say "zero" in place of "stalling", but to do so would have no
effect on my stall count.
> Remove the requirement to wait between "stalling" and the first number.
> Which means that all the numbers that counts come in on must be reduced
> by one (except for "one"), and that the entire stall count is only a
> little over 9.
So the players who initiate with "stallone" or "one" still need to be
called for fast count every time they initiate a stall? Or are you
just choosing to lessen their impact slightly and call the problem
solved? I don't think your proposed change would generate much talk.
Certainly not enough to reach these players. Furthermore, it's so
complicated with the "stalling" and what-not, that it's unlikely that
it'll get disseminated accurately (you think I've got anything to back
up that claim?).
> Both of these 'consequences' of course are exactly how the game has
> been played for years.
Exactly, except for the players who stall correctly, the players who
initiate with "one" and the players who initiate with "stall
one/stallone."
> Are these consequenses negative? I don't think so. The only people that
> realize the count has *theoretically* been reduced by one second, are
> the people that really know the rules anyway. These are likely the only
> people that were giving 10 second counts, and now the playing field is
> level.
Level it the other way. It's not hard. All it has to do is generate
some talk. After the "zero" rule passes, go on RSD and start a thread
that says, "What the hell? "Zero" instead of "stalling?" The word
will get out and the playing field will become level in the appropriate
way.
> Finally, if you ask 50 people (that are not rule-nuts like us) to count
> to 10 seconds, every one of them will say "one...two...three...etc" and
> give you a 9 second count. People will still think that there's a 10
> second stall count, even if it's only between 9 and 10.
If you tell those 50 people to count to ten and say zero first, how
many of them are going to put less space between zero and one than they
would between any other number. If you even mention zero, how many of
them will ask "do you want me to start at 'zero' or 'one'?" If you ask
fifty children (the future of our sport) to give you ten seconds to go
hide, a lot of them will say "ten...nine...one...ready or not here I
come!" So my made-up polling with reasonable analysis also supports my
favored positions.
Colin
michae...@pomona.edu
"stallingnine...ten" after a fast count, or "stallingsix...seven" after
a pick or whatever call makes it revert to 6. If someone actually
complains that they got fastcounted because they only had 9+ seconds
since the count started at "stallingone...two" then that's just
ridiculous and they need to get some friends. But it's perfectly
reasonable to complain about the "stallingnine...ten." So if we feel
adding in a zero is too drastic, then I say just allow the merging of
stalling and the subsequent number, and then lower the number it comes
in on, so that you have "stallingeight...nine" and the same after a
pick. You can say we're giving into the "cheaters" who probably are
not conscious of the fact that they are "cheating," but I think that's
a negligible concession to resolve the stalling dispute in a way that
won't make anyone relearn any rules or really affect the game.
As far as I see it, this change will make the stall more like it's
supposed to be, because "stalling...nine...ten" is the same as
"stallingeight...nine..ten" and the only actual change is that the
stall goes from 10 to 9+ seconds, and seriously, is that really a
problem? So yeah, give into the "cheaters" and just make the stall a
lot simpler and easier to understand since people are doing that
anyways.
Josh Drury
- The current stall count system is broken - as generally played, it
does not give the amount of time it is supposed to (~ 9 seconds from
the start when it should be 10, ~ 1 second on a contested stall when it
should be 2, and generally one second less then it should be every time
a stall count is resumed).
- Moreover, players who know the rules and consciously try to apply
them properly are at a disadvantage - they give opposing players more
time than their opponents would get from other players. And likely,
the knowledgeable players likely are not afforded the same advantage
themselves.
- The problem is not likely to be solved by knowledgeable players
enforcing the rule (e.g. calling 'fast count' every time a count is
started improperly would quickly become tiresome, and likely result in
many arguments from players who either do not know the rule, or think
it is a cheap call to actually enforce it).
- Similarly, any attempt at a 'public awareness campaign' is likely
to fail to really solve to issue. First of all, the players it is
most likely to reach are those that already care about the rules and
likely know them already - they players that don't care, or who
think they already know everything, won't be reached.
- Even if such a campaign were to reach a significant number of
players, I have a feeling that the natural tendency would be for any
positive effects to be eventually washed out as 'stalling... one'
slips back to 'stalling..one' and then 'stallingone' again.
There is less of a perceived natural need for the pause of a second
after 'stalling' then between actual numbers. As above, players
who try to enforce the rule for a whole second pause will eventually
become frustrated and give up as the application slips back.
- THEREFORE, a change is needed to the rule to ensure all players are
applying stall counts correctly. I think this is only really likely to
be achieved by using one second pauses between each number and only
between numbers, rather than the artificial construct of 'stalling
(one-second pause)'.
- While I was initially of the mind we could just give in and make
'stallingone' the correct initiation (thus a 9-second count), I
like Colin's suggestion of initiation on ZERO for the START of the
count ('Zero... one... two...'), and remove the need to initiate
with 'stalling'.
- However I agree with others that resuming a count starting with zero
('zero... five... six..') is counterintuitive, and I think as a
result it is less likely to produce the one-second pause that is
natural when counting sequentially. I would much prefer rewriting
rules on resuming the stall counts so that an extra second is built in
(for example, 'count reached plus one, or 6 if over 5' becomes
'count reached, or 5, whichever is lower', or something amounting
to the same thing; contested stall are in at 8 instead of 9), again
removing 'stalling'.
So, in summary:
- take out initiation on 'stalling' as it rarely is followed by a
one-second pause
- replace with initiation on 'zero' for intuitive counting and a
second pause between all numbers
- rewrite all rules for resumption of count to add one more second, and
resume on that number instead of 'stalling'.
Craig Temple
> some talk. After the "zero" rule passes, go on RSD and start a thread
> that says, "What the hell? "Zero" instead of "stalling?" The word
> will get out and the playing field will become level in the appropriate
> way.
I think that you overestimate the overlap between people on RSD and
people who play ultimate. My point was that if you go look at rule
changes such as this from the eyes of people who don't live and breathe
ultimate (like those on RSD), then you'll start to see a lot more
issues. Kind of like in the software biz, a developer often doens't
have a very good user perspective, because he is too intimate with the
inner workings. It's dificult, but possible, to have that intimate
knowledge and be able to see from the users' perspective.
I agree that it's important to satisfy the needs of the hard-core
ultimate player, but I think it's equally or even a little more
important to satisfy the needs of the average player in rec league.
That's where the sport grows from and that's where the biggest problems
arise from the rule arguments.
--
Michael and I are in complete agreement. Change the rule to reflect how
most people play and how most people want to play.
Right now after a Stall call people say "coming in at 8. Stall
8...9...10". Or, currently after a contested foul at stall 7 they'll
say "coming in at 5. Stall 5...6...7". This is against the rules, but
causing the exact same length of stall count.
The percieved issue is that people are generally not following the
rule.
If we change the rule to state that "The interval between the first
utterance of each number in the stall count must be at least one
second. " And if we take all the numbers in the rule that the disc
comes in on and subtract 1 (after a stall disc comes in with "stall
8...9" and after contested foul disc comes in with "stall 5...9" etc).
The rules will then pretty much reflect what A) the players are doing
and B) what most players want.
The only people that will realize the rule is different will be the
ones that *really* knew the rule. These people (all of us) are in the
vast minority, and were probably the only ones that were giving a full
10 second count. Why force the vast majority to adjust, when we can
much easier have the vast minority adjust.
--
If we do change the rule to the above suggestion, then I see the
following Pros and Cons. Colin, would you mind seeing if you could see
anything in this list of pros and cons that you'd like to add/contest
for the above suggested rule change?
Pros:
1. Play is almost entirely unaffected.
2. Almost nobody will even know the rule has changed. "Isn't that the
way it's always been?"
3. There is almost no learning curve (and only for the people who
really knew the rule).
4. If people don't follow the new rule, the only effect is that only
the people that really knew the rule are giving an extra fraction
second for the thrower to throw.
Cons:
1. The stall count is now slightly less than 10 seconds when starting
from 1.
What do you think? Personally I think that the pros are just about the
ideal pros for a rule change, and that Pro4 is incredibly important.
Think about the "zero" change, and what the impact would be to people
not following the rule... The people not following the "zero" change
would be guilty of a fast-count. This is absolutely guaranteed to cause
more arguments than the above proposed change where not following the
change will cause no violation whatsoever.
Note: I think we can ignore the subset of rule violations where people
simply start with "one", as they would be just as likely (I think more
likely) to skip "zero".
Craig
colinm...@gmail.com
Craig Temple wrote:
> I think that you overestimate the overlap between people on RSD and
> people who play ultimate.
I didn't say or mean to say that RSD was the only way people could
possibly get the news.
> Right now after a Stall call people say "coming in at 8. Stall
> 8...9...10". Or, currently after a contested foul at stall 7 they'll
> say "coming in at 5. Stall 5...6...7". This is against the rules, but
> causing the exact same length of stall count.
You've changed the issue. The issue we were previously discussing and
in agreement on was that people don't know how to initiate the stall,
not that they don't know what number to come in on. Changing the
number people come in on is as great a change as any, short of the
countdown.
So, I disagree. This is the premise of your argument and I disagree
with it. In most of the games I've played in where people wore shoes,
they say the appropriate number to come in on. Sometimes, they will
say "coming in on 6. stalling 7," but more often it is "coming in on
6. stalling6...7" and rarely "coming in on 5, stalling 6."
Therefore, I disagree with any argument based on "this is how people
play" or "this is how people want to play" relating to your proposed
rule change.
> Why force the vast majority to adjust, when we can
> much easier have the vast minority adjust.
This is in favor of allowing "stallingone," "stallingsix," and
"stallingnine." Again, I disagree that the majority of players
initiate on the wrong number.
> Pros:
>
> 1. Play is almost entirely unaffected.
Again to the premise. I think the majority will have to relearn what to
reinitiate on. So play is majorly affected.
> 2. Almost nobody will even know the rule has changed. "Isn't that the
> way it's always been?"
On paper, this change seems minor. There's a good chance people won't
know the rule has changed. So plenty of inept "rules authorities" will
go telling everyone that will listen that the rule hasn't changed.
Unfortunately, the rule HAS changed.
> 3. There is almost no learning curve (and only for the people who
> really knew the rule).
I think the learning curve on relearning what number to initiate on is
longer than relearning what to say to initiate/reinitiate. There's
simple calculation involved in changing the number, which is more
complicated than simply changing a word.
> 4. If people don't follow the new rule, the only effect is that only
> the people that really knew the rule are giving an extra fraction
> second for the thrower to throw.
This isn't true and relates to the premise. If the minority of players
who currently stall appropriately don't adjust, then they give an extra
fraction second. If the significant number of players who currently
say "stallingsix" after picks don't adjust, they rob the thrower of a
full second instead of the fraction of a second they currently rob the
thrower of.
> Cons:
> 1. The stall count is now slightly less than 10 seconds when starting
> from 1.
Yes, on paper, essentially 9 seconds. With official sanction for
minimizing the time between stalling and one, we'll essentially get to
a 9 second count.
2. Almost no one will know the rule has changed. Easy to gloss over a
1s adjustment.
3. Steep learning curve for all the players who already knew what
number to reinitiate the count on.
4. Creates a full second advantage for those who don't adjust to the
rule's decrease in count, which is what actually requires adjustment
for most players (in that we agree most players say don't pause after
"stalling")
> What do you think? Personally I think that the pros are just about the
> ideal pros for a rule change, and that Pro4 is incredibly important.
I disagree with all of your Pros and think Pro4 is especially wrong.
.
> Think about the "zero" change, and what the impact would be to people
> not following the rule... The people not following the "zero" change
> would be guilty of a fast-count. This is absolutely guaranteed to cause
> more arguments than the above proposed change where not following the
> change will cause no violation whatsoever.
Your change changes what the count comes in on! Violation of that
necessarily causes a fast count, one that causes more damage than not
adjusting to the "zero" change (presumably non-adjusters would say
"stallingone" instead of "zero...one"?)
> Note: I think we can ignore the subset of rule violations where people
> simply start with "one", as they would be just as likely (I think more
> likely) to skip "zero".
I disagree. I don't think they violate by choice. Therefore, a major
change that generates talk will make it more likely that some of these
players get wind of it.
Drafting-wise, the "zero" replacement is a negligible change. In
effect, it's a major change. Everyone has to say a different word than
before. But I contend that that is a very fast adjustment process.
There's a black and white distinction between right and wrong. When a
player hasn't made the adjustment, he'll be told, recognize this major
change he's missed and stick to it. Since everyone has to change,
there'll be talk, which will help the change disseminate. The
black-and-white distinction will help it disseminate clearly, despite
the best efforts of rules garblers. I the process, some of the players
previously unaware of the "word-of-initiation ... number" convention
will become aware. In terms of proposed changes, the zero-for-stalling
substitution is still the simplest (given that simply removing
"stalling" or allowing "stallingone" with no other adjustment isn't
palatable).
The zero-10 count with 1s reductions and no "word-of-initiation" has
similar disadvantages to yours. Everyone has to learn new numbers to
reinitiate on (and failure means cheating the thrower of a second). If
people fail to learn to remove "stalling" then they provide an extra
fraction of a second. But, at least it's a 10-second count. That
said, I don't favor this change for the same objections I have to
yours. It's a system-wide adjustment instead of just changing one
word. I think the system-wide adjustment is too big of a change and if
we're going to go into "too big of a change" territory, we should adopt
the countdown.
Colin
ira...@gmail.com
> easily resolved, though.
Yes it is. Change the rule, everyone adjusts to it. It's not like
we're saying everyone needs to hop around the field from now on. That
would be a big change that's hard to adjust to.
Counting from 10 to 0 is very easy.
> Given the deadline, it seems unlikely to make it into this round of modifications.
Why does the deadline make it less likely to make it in?
Ira
Josh Drury
change' it would represent to initiate on zero, and re-initiate on one
previous to what you initiated on before. It should be relatively easy
for players to adjust - if you knew what the count came in on before,
it just initiates one number less now. For example:
Contested stall: previously in on 9, now in on 8.
Contested foul (count 5 or higher): previously in on 6, now in on 5.
Contested foul (count 4 or lower): previously in on 'count reached plus
one', now in on 'count reached'.
Initial count: previously in on 1, now in on zero.
As you can see, the adjustment is logically consistent throughout. In
all cases, the requirement to initate on 'stalling' and a one-second
pause is replaced by having the stall start one second earlier. This
includes the inital start on zero.
I can appreciate that this will take some adjustment from some players
but I think should be simple enough to understand. And I think the
slightly larger adjustment from this, compared to initiating and
reinitiating all counts with 'zero', is outweighed by its intuitiveness
and logical consistency. My main problem with using 'zero' to
reinitiate is that aside from at the start of the count ('zero...one'),
it does not represent its actual place in the sequence of numbers
counted, and thus becomes kind of an abstract initiation word like
'stalling' is now. I can appreciate that it does at least have some
advantages over 'stalling' (namely, that it is an actual number and at
least at the start of a count it is intuitive to use it, followed by a
one-second pause; it is more obvious that 'zeroone' is wrong than
'stallingone', and this does hold for following numbers; and it not as
easily corrupted as 'stalling' is to 'stall'). However I wonder if
because it is somewhat of an unnnatural usage to start with 'zero'
before any number other than one, if it will suffer some of the same
pitfalls as 'stalling' - e.g., some players may drop it entirely. Not
sure what the likelihood of that is though, maybe 'zero' would have
more staying power than 'stalling' in those situations.
In any case, I think we're agreed that a change is in order, and with
respect to 'zero' universally replacing 'stalling', I think that would
be an improvement from the current system. I just think dropping all
counts by a second is a more logical way to accomplish the same thing.
doyl...@gmail.com
edition rules) so was not sure when some of the stalling procedures
were implemented. I found a copy of the 9th edition
(http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~davide/ultimate.html) that shows many of the
concerns on this topic were a result of changes between the 9th and
10th edition. The pause between 'stalling' and 'one' is new to the 10th
edition. And led to the contested stall coming in at 9 (was 8 in the
9th edition, fouls were in at 5 of over 5, vs. in at 6 now). My
continued suggestion is to remove the required pause between stalling
and the number, and subsequently subtract one from the starting number
after violations (same as suggested above - by Josh?).
Matt
colinm...@gmail.com
Josh Drury wrote:
> Fair points, but I think you overstate the scale of the 'system-wide
> change' it would represent to initiate on zero, and re-initiate on one
> previous to what you initiated on before. It should be relatively easy
> for players to adjust - if you knew what the count came in on before,
> it just initiates one number less now.
I don't think the systemwide change by itself will be quickly adjust
to, because I think it'll be easily skimmed over because it'll look
similar to how the rules read before. If the system-wide change is
accompanied by something that draws attention to it, it's likely to get
adopted more quickly.
I think we're in agreement on the zero substitution, too. It's a very
good change as far as initiation. With respect to re-initiation, it's
not as strong. Simplicity of drafting may be it's strongest support.
As a member of the "word-to-initiate" category, it is susceptible to
getting joined to the following number, but as a number itself and a
unique word, it should be more resistant than stalling. Agreed.
>
> In any case, I think we're agreed that a change is in order, and with
> respect to 'zero' universally replacing 'stalling', I think that would
> be an improvement from the current system. I just think dropping all
> counts by a second is a more logical way to accomplish the same thing.
Josh, I think I'm your mirror image here. Totally agreed on starting
with zero. Then the reinitiation issue, I agree yours is an
improvement over current, but favor the zero-substitution. The
argument for a "word-to-initiate" is to have a distinct word to
indicate that a marking violation has been acknowledged. Every time a
thrower calls a marking violation, if he doesn't hear that word, he
knows he can/should make the call again (he doesn't have to keep track
of the count and see if it's been reduced). The simplicity of drafting
argument comes in because the SRC is coming up to a deadline and the
zero-substitution can be done one minute before the deadline with no
risk of sloppy language.
Looking at the 9th edition that Matt linked to, the 9th is sufficiently
unclear that I can see how habits would have formed and potentially
carried through the duration of the 10th. Perhaps the habit of looking
at the rules and then playing as one pleases, using them as a general
guideline? Certainly the variations in the stalling practices. I
understand why some player still say that you have to drop two on a
fast count call and why some players just drop one, but don't say
stalling. This actually gives my "don't adjust what numbers we
reinitiate on" argument more strength. It takes time for many of these
changes to sink in. I don't think it is in our best interest to make
such changes, when there is an alternative. Makes sense to me now why
so many of the people I've had rules arguments with have been adament
and wrong under the 10th -- they were right under the 9th and just
haven't fully adjusted. Still their responsibility to learn the
current rules, but at least they aren't necessarily making things up.
-Colin
Josh Drury
acknowledge a call. I'm still a bit pu off at the aesthetics of
reinitiating a count on zero, but can live with it if it means people
count properly. And if a simpler adjustment in drafting will make it
easier to implement by the deadline, then I support it.
Matt: good find there, I had only played one season under the 9th and
was not familiar with all the nuances when it was changed. Very
interesting that the stall rules were changed this recently (I thought
they existed that way since at least the 9th). Looking at the changes
made (and what discussions I could find on the r.s.d archives, which
don't seem to detailed on this subject), it looks like the addition of
'stalling' and a pause at the start was meant to re-establish the full
10 seconds, and similarly re-initiation and the respective counts were
changed to make this consistent (this is pretty much a guess at the
reasoning, if anyone involved in the change can shed more light please
go ahead). However while it was intended that all players add a second
when initiating after 'stalling', many (most?) don't, so not only is
the full count still less than 10 seconds, the count is now shorter
when reinitiated late in the count (e.g. contested stall: 9th edition
"stalling8...9...10" = 2+ seconds; 10th edition as intended
"stalling...9...10" = 2 seconds; 10th edition as applied
"stalling9...10" = 1+ seconds). Seems to me an unintended consequence
with significant negative consequences, which reinforces the need for a
change. Give us back our lost seconds!
ultimattfrisbee
when they restart play by saying "coming in at 8..." What they really
mean is, "Last count called was 8" or "Eight seconds counted" or,
simply put, "Coming in at 9."
I like the idea of starting with zero, but agree that it's
counterintuitive to jump from zero to something other than one on a
restart.
As someone who has learned to say "stalling...nine," I don't see that
it's so impossible to hew to that line, but maybe not.
In any case, it doesn't address my biggest problem with the stall
count, which is the late fast count. On a continuous, uninterupted
count, when the stall speeds up starting at 7 or 8, it's a hell of a
thing to ask a thrower to supress the panic-punt instinct and call the
fast count. I'm a bad rule reader, so don't flame me--just tell me if
the new rules address this. On a cursory reading, I don't think they
do, as they clarify that possession is necessary for the thrower to
call a marker violation.
One final thought: Some have argued that the de facto stall is usually
something just over 9. Would that this were true. With many markers,
it's more like a shade over 7.
Did I mention that my wife and I sometimes time each other's stall
counts for fun and practice. We are a sick, devoted bunch.
Matt