new pick question regarding double triple teaming of receiver

[Steve Rieck a.k.a.Leak]

The previous defender on defender pick question was regarding 2
markers chasing 2 receivers who were running straight down the field,
& when the markers saw they were burned , but still only 9 ft away
from their cutter, & collude to bump each other and call a pick to
prevent themselves
from suffering the repercussions of bad defense, which you concluded
would be a valid call under the 11th's defender on defender pick
rule, &
gave no path to achieve the rightful, fair result under these
conditions

This scenario is totally different, in that it is a single cutter
running straight down an open side of the field, with 1 marker and 2
doubleteamers
in pursuit. the marker does nothing but run straight.. but since he is
faster he is getting away. the only marker is 9 ft behind, and one of
the doubleteamers is 9 ft. behind the cutter but nowhere near his
mark, colludes with his teammate, or lets say accidentally, alters his
course to avoid his teammate , or gets tangled up, etc. This can't
possibly be considered a violation on the cutter just running down the
field can it????Leaker

[Jon Bauman]

No, I don't think that's a pick.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UPA 11th edition rules" group.
To post to this group, send email to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.

[Benjamin Supnik]

"A pick occurs whenever an offensive player moves in a manner that
causes a defensive player guarding (II.G) an offensive player to be
obstructed by another player."

Did the offensive player _cause_ the mess? I think the requirement of
the offense causing the pick via movement helps protect the offense a
little bit from bogus pick calls. As a defender you can't just step
into the nearest obstacle and go "pick" if the offense isn't causing
you to do so to maintain coverage.

Jon, if the defense sets a pick for the offense (think like a
basketball play), e.g. D2 picks D1 who is chasing O1, D1 calls pick,
all three players are in motion at the time, can the offense argue
that it was really D2 and not O1 who "caused" the pick, and thus it is
not a pick?

cheers
Ben

[Jon Bauman]

But, the defense doesn't set picks in Basketball, the offense does.

Anyway, if the defense were actively causing picks that would be cheating and probably not legitimate under the pick rule. But as far as I'm concerned I've never seen that happen and it would probably be pretty hard to determine to a high degree of certainty in a game.

[Benjamin Supnik]

Hi Jon,

> But, the defense doesn't set picks in Basketball, the offense does.

And for good reason. :-) Basketball referenced only to describe the
motion of the players.

> But as far as I'm concerned
> I've never seen that happen and it would probably be pretty hard to
> determine to a high degree of certainty in a game.

I have only seen this happen once, and it was a "first day of hat
league in the spring" kind of situation...players who hadn't played
together moving without coordination. One of the defenders was, by
virtue of a lack of field awareness, fairly active in picking his
team-mate. The picked team-mate called the pick (since he couldn't
cover his defender) and the team on offense made a fair amount of
noise about what a lame call it was. Since it was a fairly casual
league environment, the pick stood, and the play was done over, with
the general consensus that the defense should feel a certain amount of
shame over what happened.

cheers
Ben

[Jon Bauman]

There's a difference between moving around stupidly on defense and causing picks and moving around on defense to intentionally create them. The former is a legitimate pick call and just part of learning the game; the latter is cheating, not a legitimate pick call and (in my mind) not very effective defense anyway.

cheers
Ben

[Steve Rieck a.k.a.Leak]

Does nobody else see that all this mess can be completely eliminated
by eliminating the validity of D on D picks by rewording that portion
of the rule to exactly how it was stated in
the 9th, and how it was played from the roots of ultimate, from back
when I started out with the Condors.... It seems to me that we can
expect much less cheating if we don't seem
to provide wide open avenues of undetectable validated opportunities
to do so... All other violations occur between opposing team members,
so this possible collusion is quite unlikely...............Lets use
common sense and change this so we don't invite what is the most
important portion of competition for a self officiated sport to avoid
at all costs.

Additionally, what was occurring under the 9 th that prompted such
a radical departure from the traditional opposing team only picks,
which was the universal interpretation in
Ultimate, & still is is the only interpretation in all other sports
that include picks in the rules.........Thanks for your
consideration.................Leaker

> > upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com<upa_11th_edition_rules% 2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Benjamin Supnik]

Hi Leaker,

> Does nobody else see that all this mess can be completely eliminated
> by eliminating the validity of D on D picks

If a D on D pick isn't a pick, then when I am on O I can get easy
separation on my defender by cutting close to or around a random third
defender such that my defender is now picked on his own man. He can't
call pick, easy deep cut for me.

I've never heard anyone say "the pick rule is perfect", but it seems
that allowing D on D picks would be worse than the current rules
because it would give the offense a way to use picks offensively.

cheers
Ben

[pacemaker]

I think Leak may have a point here.

If there is a defender who is NOT guarding someone (poacher), it
hardly seems fair that that poacher should be able to cause an
obstruction even if they are completely stationary.

If there is a poach defender on a in-cut lane, I see no reason why I,
as a cutter, should not be able to use that (non)defender as someone I
can cut around to get open on the guy guarding me. I understand that
is a pick in the present rules, but I can see why it shouldn't be.

Also, as Leak attempts to point out, if a cutter is double teamed and
makes a quick move, the defenders might crash into each other and a
pick can be called. That's not right. Well, it is in the rules, but
it's not right.

Under pick maybe it should say the obstruction is caused by an
offender or a defender who is guarding another player. That would
remove the bogus defender step-out pick calls as the defenders motion
was not a reacting to the offenders movement (and thus, at the time of
the step-out pick, was not guarding the offender). It would also
prevent the double-teamers from causing a pick unto themselves.

pacemaker

On Nov 4, 12:50 pm, Jon Bauman <baum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's a difference between moving around stupidly on defense and causing
> picks and moving around on defense to intentionally create them. The former
> is a legitimate pick call and just part of learning the game; the latter is
> cheating, not a legitimate pick call and (in my mind) not very effective
> defense anyway.
>

> > upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com<upa_11th_edition_rules%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Jon Bauman]

Steve,

I appreciate your passion and your opinion on the issue, but I don't think we're going to change this rule. It's fine to bring it to our attention when you think a rule should be changed and questions about interpretation are great, but the purpose of this forum really isn't to debate about rules you disagree with. It's primarily meant to be a resource for people trying to understand the rules.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.

[Benjamin Supnik]

Hi Pacemaker,

> If there is a defender who is NOT guarding someone (poacher), it
> hardly seems fair that that poacher should be able to cause an
> obstruction even if they are completely stationary.

It seems to me that that is sort of the nature of poaching...the
poacher is putting defensive pressure in one part of the field (by
taking up space, interfering with cutting lanes), but it's a
trade-off; someone else is poached.

> If there is a poach defender on a in-cut lane, I see no reason why I,
> as a cutter, should not be able to use that (non)defender as someone I
> can cut around to get open on the guy guarding me.  I understand that
> is a pick in the present rules, but I can see why it shouldn't be.

This gets into Jon's comment...this would fundamentally change the
game...I won't try to pass judgment on whether ultimate would be
better or worse if there were some opportunities for the offense to
use picks, but that's a fairly radical change.

> Under pick maybe it should say the obstruction is caused by an
> offender or a defender who is guarding another player.  That would
> remove the bogus defender step-out pick calls as the defenders motion
> was not a reacting to the offenders movement (and thus, at the time of
> the step-out pick, was not guarding the offender).  It would also
> prevent the double-teamers from causing a pick unto themselves.

It wouldn't solve the original 2-on-1 coverage case. If I read the
rules right, the definition of "guarding" does not prohibit two
defenders from guarding the same offensive player. So the two
defenders could still pick each other (since they are both guarding
someone, just the same someone). And if the poacher is close enough
to the play to cause a pick, the poacher could make a (possibly
legitimate) claim to be guarding that player (at that instant) too,
sometimes.

cheers
Ben

[Steve Rieck]

Good point Ben,  but I think that there should be some personal responsibility to be aware enough to avoid your fellow defenders, or call switch in that situation.....otherwise its not much different than 2 O players saying that because of how the D moved while guarding them, they were 

obstructed/ picked by each other, which is of course preposterous..............

   Were we having that many D on D collisions, under the wording of the 9th?, to warrant such a radical change?.....Just curious......Leaker

cheers
Ben

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UPA 11th edition rules" group.
To post to this group, send email to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.

[Jon Bauman]

The purpose of the pick rule is to avoid collisions. However, poaching is a legitimate defensive tactic, and allowing a receiver to use a poacher to pick their defender is asking for a collision.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.

[Steve Rieck]

Howdy Jon, I agree that I shouldn't be debating on his forum, but I see myself as mainly obtaining pertenant(sp) accurate information to fully understand all the facts, etc. I will be starting a rally to change this back to the proper original intent of the 9 th and before. but I will cut and paste

all my questions and your, & others answers/ comments to RSD, and try to only state my opinions/ comments on that forum...Thanks to all, Leak

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

On Nov 4, 11:42 am, Jon Bauman <baum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The purpose of the pick rule is to avoid collisions. However, poaching is a
> legitimate defensive tactic, and allowing a receiver to use a poacher to
> pick their defender is asking for a collision.

... and SHOULD be accepted as a valid pick call.

Otherwise, I could purposefully use a poacher to validly strip off my
defender (and increase the risk of collision), which I don't think the
players want.

IMHO, anyway.

[Alan Hoyle]

Again, the primary purpose of the pick rule is for safety and to avoid collisions between players.  To contrast with basketball, it is relatively rare that someone in BB in a pick situation will be sprinting full speed, however, that situation in ultimate would be relatively common.  Picks are also illegal in American Football (at least on the collegiate and NFL levels), though admittedly the violation is rarely called.  

-alan

--
  -  Alan Hoyle  -  al...@alanhoyle.com  -  http://www.alanhoyle.com/  -

[Steve Rieck a.k.a.Leak]

Just to clarify, I am absolutely against picks, & blatant D on D picks
by O players performing high speed crossing paths at sharp angle
manuvers, but the fact that the first scenario
I presented could could be even possibly valid considered, exposes a
definite weakness in the 10th's and 11th's radical departure from the
9th, & all previous versions.....Leak

On Nov 4, 2:41 pm, Alan Hoyle <a...@alanhoyle.com> wrote:
> Again, the primary purpose of the pick rule is for safety and to avoid
> collisions between players.  To contrast with basketball, it is relatively
> rare that someone in BB in a pick situation will be sprinting full speed,
> however, that situation in ultimate would be relatively common.  Picks are
> also illegal in American Football (at least on the collegiate and NFL
> levels), though admittedly the violation is rarely called.
>
> -alan
>
> --

>   -  Alan Hoyle  -  a...@alanhoyle.com  -  http://www.alanhoyle.com/ -

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Steve Rieck <riec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Howdy Jon, I agree that I shouldn't be debating on his forum, but I see
> > myself as mainly obtaining pertenant(sp) accurate information to fully
> > understand all the facts, etc. I will be starting a rally to change this
> > back to the proper original intent of the 9 th and before. but I will cut
> > and paste
> > all my questions and your, & others answers/ comments to RSD, and try to
> > only state my opinions/ comments on that forum...Thanks to all, Leak
>

> >>> > > upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com<upa_11th_edition_rules% 2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com><upa_11th_edition_rules%

[Darrin]

I don't see this scenario in the first paragraph (of Steve's first
post in this thread) described anywhere previously. I see a question
where the players accidentally collided, but not where they colluded
to cause a collision.

Wouldn't it be true that if the defenders colluded to collide, that
would be cheating? Perhaps a violation of XVI.H "It is the
responsibility of all players to avoid contact in every way
possible." Surely this would at least outlaw two players (even on the
same team) intentionally colliding.

Darrin

On Nov 4, 12:16 pm, "Steve Rieck a.k.a.Leak" <riec...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Steve Rieck]

Sorry Darrin, that was a mistake on my part, that scenario isn't at the beginning of this thread, but is in my 1st thread, just a couple threads down 

the list...Please check it out too...................SPREAD THE JAM.............Leaker

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UPA 11th edition rules" group.
To post to this group, send email to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.