When is adding players allowed?

[Patrick Malka]

This came up locally.

2 players are the minimum to signal readiness.

Let's say my team has 4 guys 2 girls, who are on the field. We are currently short a girl say.

Another girl manages to show up, can she join immediately or does she have to wait till the point is over?

It seems the rules are not clear, as this is not a 'substitution' but I suspect it should be handled in the same way.

If the substitution rules are to be used, will this be clarified in a future version of the rules?

[ultimate7]

You have to be on the field when the point starts, I think this is
implied in substitution rules, maybe I'm wrong

[Patrick Malka]

That is the general consensus, but strictly speaking, an addition without a subtraction is not a substitution and so would not be subject to the substitution rules as currently worded.

[Craig Temple]

VIII.B.4.A) After signaling readiness, players on the pulling team may move anywhere in their end zone, but their feet may not cross the vertical plane of the goal line until the disc is released.

VIII.B.4.B) After signaling readiness, players on the receiving team must be in contact with the goal line that they are defending without changing location relative to one another.

If a player joins the game after the pull, that would be a violation of one of the above rules (before the pull, that's offsides, after it's a garden variety Violation).

I don't know that we need to clarify this particular case, but it wouldn't hurt.

Craig

[Patrick Malka]

I think a clarification would help then, there are multiple ways of interpreting the 'players ... must' in these rules, neither of which seems totally absurd.

Your assessment seems to assume that being in contact with the goal line or being in the endzone confers the quality of 'player' and is the only time and way, excepting VII, this quality can be conferred (which is more like 'players... must have been... to be considered players') as opposed to 'at the time of the pull, players currently on the field must be in contact with the goal line or in the end zone.'

Both interpretations are reasonable, but there seems to be ambiguity. The latter interpretation allows for adding players without breaking any rules.

[Craig Temple]

Your assessment seems to assume that being in contact with the goal line or being in the endzone confers the quality of 'player' 

No, not necessarily (though is a good way of defining player in the future).

As it is, a player is a player, that's decided by the teams as it always is. If a person is not in position at the time of the signal/pull then they are either not a player for that point, or they are a player and in violation of the rule. If they act as a player later in the point, then they're making the distinction clear, and it's a violation.

That doesn't resolve whether that player is allowed to partake in the game (after resolving that violation), but it's not something I'll lose much sleep over. Add it to the list of things to shore up for the 11.1 or 12th.

Craig

[Patrick Malka]

If a person is not in position at the time of the signal/pull then they are either not a player for that point, or they are a player and in violation of the rule. If they act as a player later in the point, then they're making the distinction clear, and it's a violation.

The rules, at best, only imply this. It is by no means the only interpretation however. Given that another interpretation yields opposite results, it seems clear that there is indeed problematic ambiguity.

Clarification would be appreciated.

[Colin]

I think the easy way to think about it is whether it makes sense for
the current rules to be read to allow for a mid-point addition. If
you're saying it's not a substitution, then you're saying there is
nothing in the rules to guide the process.

The outcome created by allowing a late addition, unguided by the
rules, is totally crazy. Do you just send a 7th player running onto
the field whenever and wherever you feel like it?

I do think it makes sense to stick a line in addressing this, though,
since it's easy to make perfectly clear.

[Patrick Malka]

It may be crazy to you, but lots of people won't comprehend the full ramifications and just think they can send people on whenever they are short and people start showing up.

To some, a substitution and addition are clearly distinct, and they will easily read the complete lack of mention of addition of players vs. substitution as implicit approval to add players on the fly if they are short. What is not explicitly disallowed is allowed.

The fact that someone on a forum asked, means it is not as 'totally crazy' as one might think.

Thanks for supporting a clarification.

[Craig Temple]

It may be crazy to you, but lots of people won't comprehend the full ramifications and just think they can send people on whenever they are short and people start showing up.

I offer a bottle of beer for every time this has ever happened in the history of ultimate. I'm not certain I'm going to have to even buy beer to back that up.

This is not an actual problem in ultimate, but it is a problem with the rules, I'm all in favour of a clarification.

The fact that someone on a forum asked, means it is not as 'totally crazy' as one might think.

Patrick, you seem to say that a lot, and you seem to be the only one saying it. :)

Craig

[Alex Peters]

This came up over the summer in Philly as well. Two league teams
started a game, 6 on 7. During the point, the 7th player showed up
and the team called time out to see if they could get the player in.
I don't think it was really a big deal (I wasn't there) but they found
that the rules didn't exactly address the situation.

[Patrick Malka]

Patrick, you seem to say that a lot, and you seem to be the only one saying it. :)

I knew you were going to say that! Like I said, I was just forwarding a local question here to see what everyone here thought.

[Colin]

Lots of people do a really awful job of interpreting the rules.
Doesn't mean there shouldn't be a clarification, but also doesn't mean
their interpretation is at all valid or even that it's not totally
crazy.

If the late addition were allowed, then I would never put a full line
of players out to receive the pull. After the pull, I'd just have my
surprise additions pop up on the field somewhere convenient. It's
totally crazy to think that might be allowable.

As a side note, the 6-player late addition scenario came up for me at
Regionals, too. We just played 6 for the point.

On Oct 20, 4:06 pm, Patrick Malka <malka.patr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It may be crazy to you, but lots of people won't comprehend the full
> ramifications and just think they can send people on whenever they are short
> and people start showing up.
>
> To some, a substitution and addition are clearly distinct, and they will
> easily read the complete lack of mention of addition of players vs.
> substitution as implicit approval to add players on the fly if they are
> short. What is not explicitly disallowed is allowed.
>
> The fact that someone on a forum asked, means it is not as 'totally crazy'
> as one might think.
>
> Thanks for supporting a clarification.
>

[Patrick Malka]

Lots of people do a really awful job of interpreting the rules.
Doesn't mean there shouldn't be a clarification, but also doesn't mean
their interpretation is at all valid or even that it's not totally
crazy.

If the late addition were allowed, then I would never put a full line
of players out to receive the pull.  After the pull, I'd just have my
surprise additions pop up on the field somewhere convenient.  It's
totally crazy to think that might be allowable.

Clearly, it should not be allowed, once that example is taken into account.

My point though is not that it is not a crazy idea, but that the fact that it is crazy may not be immediately obvious to casual players. People in this forum spend a lot of time looking at and dissecting the rules, so in this forum it is obvious, but that does not necessarily apply to the Ultimate community in general.

[Craig Temple]

Oh we got your point, but we just disagree. :)

I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of ultimate games have been played, and I'd be surprised if anybody had ever tried to do this. That would seem to suggest that this is not an interpretation that is remotely likely to occur.

There's a lot of things that the rules don't touch on, but are understood or implicit. Many of these are a lot crazier than the one being discussed, many are less crazy.

I think it's important to remember that the literal, semantic interpretation of the written language of the rules aren't the sole true rules. It is the accepted interpretation of the rules that are the true rules. A lot is implicit. The rules do not have to, nor should they, attempt to shore up every possible semantic interpretation. Not only would it be impossible to do, but an attempt to do so would add such an incredible amount of complexity as to make the rules collapse under their own weight. 

This is not something unique to ultimate, it's true for every sport. Every sport that I know of relies upon a similar amount of implied and accepted interpretation. Certainly a balance must be struck, and where necessary, where there is a potential problem or where the rules are better served by an addition, changes should be made.

Potential problems generally show themselves during play (this evolves with the sport). However, the mere possibility of a misinterpretation by a person reading the rules in a knowledge vacuum does not necessarily mean there is a problem. This is even more true when the so-called 'problem' with the rules has never (or only extremely rarely) cropped up in an actual game of ultimate.

Craig

[Patrick Malka]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Craig Temple <tem...@hyperdrive.ca> wrote:

Oh we got your point, but we just disagree. :)

Haha, I get that a lot...
 

I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of ultimate games have been played, and I'd be surprised if anybody had ever tried to do this. That would seem to suggest that this is not an interpretation that is remotely likely to occur.

I disagree, that is an argument based on a lack of evidence (the forum is not inundated with thousands of questions), which is not proof.

I would argue that the more likely case is that people do encounter these issues regularly, but don't bother to follow up with rules experts. I say this with some evidence because I do play games and I see the questions that come up and also see the lack of follow up. Another likely scenario is that someone at the field had the answer and no follow up was necessary.
 

There's a lot of things that the rules don't touch on, but are understood or implicit. Many of these are a lot crazier than the one being discussed, many are less crazy.

And so we are content letting people do logic somersaults to figure this out rather than adding a few clarifying lines? Despite poring over the rules, someone may miss an obvious counter example to a proposed 'implicit' rule, that does not make them stupid. Nor does it make that interpretation less valid in that context. Yes, once a counterexample is made the conclusion is obvious, but without that example, ambiguity reigns, and that is the problem. I think people here take for granted that they know all the 'implicit' rules and why there is no ambiguity.
 

I think it's important to remember that the literal, semantic interpretation of the written language of the rules aren't the sole true rules. It is the accepted interpretation of the rules that are the true rules. A lot is implicit. The rules do not have to, nor should they, attempt to shore up every possible semantic interpretation. Not only would it be impossible to do, but an attempt to do so would add such an incredible amount of complexity as to make the rules collapse under their own weight. 

This is not something unique to ultimate, it's true for every sport. Every sport that I know of relies upon a similar amount of implied and accepted interpretation. Certainly a balance must be struck, and where necessary, where there is a potential problem or where the rules are better served by an addition, changes should be made.

While I don't know much about the rules of other sports, I am not sure I buy your argument here. I know that there is leeway in referees of other sports *interpreting* the rules, but that is not the same as having implicit rules.

Potential problems generally show themselves during play (this evolves with the sport). However, the mere possibility of a misinterpretation by a person reading the rules in a knowledge vacuum does not necessarily mean there is a problem. This is even more true when the so-called 'problem' with the rules has never (or only extremely rarely) cropped up in an actual game of ultimate.

Considering that Ultimate is a self-refereed sport, I think that argument is a bit oversimplified. As people are learning the rules, the implicit ones are not self-evident so a diligent player going over the rules to understand them better can only go so far. It is not so much a vacuum of their knowledge but the vacuum of the rules as a self contained reference. It is a vacuum because the full rules are not there, there are other rules that must be obtained by lucky insight, or from other players, which in my opinion is another problem, word of mouth is not an accurate propagator of rules. Even if you could convince someone of the correct implicit rule, how is that ever better than an explicit line in the rules themselves?

I realize the need for balance between adding rules and keeping things as simple as possible, but a lot of the ambiguity I am talking about can be fixed with one line statements that have no impact on the complexity of the rules.

[pacemaker]

Any and all discussion should immediately end when you are not playing
with seven players.

Rule 1.A

Introduction

1. Description: Ultimate is a non-contact disc sport played by two
teams of SEVEN players. .....

<sarcasm>You are clearly not even playing Ultimate when fewer than
seven players are on the field for either team (despite what VII.B.3
says) Or wait. Maybe that is a contradiction that needs to be
cleared up so I know exactly what game I am actually playing.

Can we change the wording of the description to be

1. Description: Ultimate is a non-contact disc sport played by two
teams of between two and seven players (inclusive) counted at the at
the time of the pull after which no other players may be added to the
field except as outlined in rule VII. blah blah blah

Would that solve all the problems? Then we can know that the rules of
ultimate actually apply to the situation we are discussing AND that no
players may be added.</sarcasm>

I cannot imagine this even matters. If you are at a real competition,
you will have at least 7 players ready to play. If not, then your
team has issues. If your team is so dense as to place 6 players on
the field when you have more, tough luck on that point.

If it happens during league play, who cares? Is someone going to pull
out a rule book (besides you, ultimate7). Lend a player/ let them
join during a turnover/whatever.

What is interesting (and very pathetic) is that a summer league team
of mine once had 8 on the field twice during the same game. The rules
do not seem to cover that problem -- nor do I wish it to.

pacemaker

[Alex Peters]

Actually I think the rules should definitely cover what happens when
you have more than 7 people on the field...

[pacemaker]

Alex Peters <muis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually I think the rules should definitely cover what happens when
> you have more than 7 people on the field...

Well, OK. I lied. I actually think this should be somewhere in the
rules.

Probably along the lines if there have been no turnovers, the disc
goes to the present field position OR position of the 2nd offsides on
a pull rule -- whichever if better for the non-offending team. If
there has been a turnover and the offending team got possession, then
the non-offending team gets the disc at midfield. It should not
happen in the first place, but what do you do when you find out?

pacemaker -- not thinking this through too much, but going from a gut
feeling of fairness