contact rule & 20 yd end zones

[Craig Hart]

Is the contact rule and 20 yd end zones official? I can't
find them on USA Ultimate's website but I've heard about
from various people.
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com

[anakin gerics]

> Is the contact rule and 20 yd end zones official?  I can't
> find them on USA Ultimate's website but I've heard about
> from various people.

~~~~~~~~~~~

---the contact rule.....second dumbest idea to ever infiltrate the
sport of ultimate.
guess what the single #1 dumbest idea for one associations rule
set?.........forcing a thrower to lean down and tap the disc on the
ground before starting play.

yep......who's dumb ideas were those two things.

they're both idiotic.

[hsteb]

anakin gerics wrote on Fri, 24 May 2013 05:59

It's dumb to dissuade the defense from intentional fouls?
That's what it's for, after all. Before, contact = foul =
stoppage of play = offense loses momentum. Now, contact =
reset stall count = offense keeps momentum = defense has
less reason to intentionally foul.
The ground tap, on the other hand, I can't defend very
well.
Harry

[Sean]

Craig44 wrote on Thu, 23 May 2013 19:35

> Is the contact rule and 20 yd end zones official? I
> can't find them on USA Ultimate's website but I've heard
> about from various people.

The contact rule?
Yes, it's a rule designed to avoid stoppage of play but I
rarely see it called over a foul which stops the play
because not alot know about it. I never heard of it until
nationals when the observer explained it.

20 yard endzones?
No:
"The Field: A rectangular shape with end zones at each end.
A regulation field is 70 yards by 40 yards, with end zones
25 yards deep."
- USAU ultimate in 10 simple rules

but if you were to measure most endzones at a tourney
they're real short at like <15 yards because hosting teams
don't know how to measure fields.

[pacemaker]

Yes. 20 yard endzones and Contact Call.

http://www.usaultimate.org/competition/college_division/college_season/guidelines.aspx#Rules

Regarding the Contact Call. Many college players and upper
level club players seem to prefer to play with the contact
rule. It is great as long as the thrower doesn't call
contact every time the marker breathes on him.

[anakin gerics]

> It's dumb to dissuade the defense from intentional fouls?
> That's what it's for, after all. Before, contact = foul =
> stoppage of play = offense loses momentum. Now, contact =
> reset stall count = offense keeps momentum = defense has
> less reason to intentionally foul.

---great question harry....and the answer is.....YES...it's dumb.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> The ground tap, on the other hand, I can't defend very
> well.

---oh harry.....but you should hear all the dumb dumb efforts to TRY
to defend this, the dumbest of all made up, senseless and useless
rules....
sorry to be rude.....but the efforts to give the ground tap some
legitimacy, sound a bit like your weird effort to legitimize the
'contact' rule.

[anakin gerics]

> The contact rule?
> Yes, it's a rule designed to avoid stoppage of play but I
> rarely see it called over a foul which stops the play
> because not alot know about it. I never heard of it until
> nationals when the observer explained it.

---an observer at nationals......had to explain it........?????
they wait until ya get to nationals.....and then have......an
observer.......explain it.
are they tryin' to keep that dumb rule secret for JUST those who make
nationals?
good......keep it away from everyone else!
~~~~~~~~~~

> 20 yard endzones?
> No:
> "The Field: A rectangular shape with end zones at each end.
> A regulation field is 70 yards by 40 yards, with end zones
> 25 yards deep."
> - USAU ultimate in 10 simple rules

--20 yards might have been the experimental rule for the upsa
association last year....right?
i haven't heard anything about it this year tho...

[morrison luke smith]

Mike, I don't expect you to change your mind, as you're
generally sort of on the pedantic side, but, the contact
rule is one I like a lot:
I'll tell you why, but, I don't really expect to change your
mind.

I think that explaining a rule at the captain's meeting is
bananas: And for that reason, I agree with the questions
about the contact rule. But, it's a hugely useful rule.
Read on.

It is just the same as calling "foul" on the mark, except
play doesn't stop. "Cheating" marks really make the game
suck. They make it tough to play, tough to coach, and worse
to watch. While certainly, a player should step through,
make the throw, and call foul, the reality is that in many
cases, this is not completed. While I'm sure you teach a
'solid' mark that doesn't move an inch, the fact of the
matter, is that it can be said of man markers, especially
HS and college...

1) Many set up illegally, in that you can connect a line
through their hands that crosses the pivot. This is illegal
2) Allmost all Move their arms when they mark, which by
definition, makes pivot contact a foul on the marker.
3) Most (and I mean, greater than half) are unaware of their
position, and many of these contest fouls that are not good
contests.

I don't want to get into observers: Let's have a separate
conversation about that: I'm totally OK with refzervers (a
term I coined, btw), BUT, I'd rather players play by the
rules. It is a part of the game that actual cheating is
supposed to not happen. "Professional" fouls have no place
in the game, especially where there are no consequences for
it. The contact foul forces the mark to set up legally, but
without stopping the flow of the game.

So, I like it because it addresses systematic cheating (or,
systematic overly huggy franken-marking), without forcing
teams to stop play. The game just sucks to watch when you
have to stop play with every pivot because of an illegal
mark. NOW, I have no problem with active observers,
empowered to yellow/red/tmf players or teams who mark
improperly. But, that's not the system right now. So,
"contact" forces players to step off and use their feet.

As a player who made his club living "at the mark," To me,
it's supposed to be a battle of wills at the mark. Not a
kung fu fight. As always, I welcome your thoughts.
Luke

> The contact rule?
> Yes, it's a rule designed to avoid stoppage of play but
> I
> rarely see it called over a foul which stops the play
> because not alot know about it. I never heard of it
> until
> nationals when the observer explained it.



---an observer at nationals......had to explain
it........?????
they wait until ya get to nationals.....and then
have......an
observer.......explain it.
are they tryin' to keep that dumb rule secret for JUST those
who make
nationals?
good......keep it away from everyone else!
~~~~~~~~~~

[anakin gerics]

---oops....it only took two lines to lose my interest......





On May 25, 1:40 am, morrison luke smith <morrisonlukesm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

[anakin gerics]

> 1) Many set up illegally, in that you can connect a line
> through their hands that crosses the pivot. This is illegal
> 2) Allmost all Move their arms when they mark, which by
> definition, makes pivot contact a foul on the marker.
> 3) Most (and I mean, greater than half) are unaware of their
> position, and many of these contest fouls that are not good
> contests.

~~~~~~~~~~~


---i'd change those dumb ideas....so that ya don't have to add ANOTHER
dumb idea to an association's rule set.

that's an incredibly stupid set of rules that forces a defender to
keep his arms in a straight line by rule......that forces a defender
to remain stationary for fear that opponents might tough......

goofy of an association to make up dumb rules that require additional
dumb rules to make the other dumb rules seem slightly less dumb.
pile some dumb on top of dumb...and ya get dumber.

[Craig Hart]

pacemaker wrote on Fri, 24 May 2013 07:13

> Yes. 20 yard endzones and Contact Call.
>
>
> http://www.usaultimate.org/competition/college_division/coll
> ege_season/guidelines.aspx#Rules
>
> Regarding the Contact Call. Many college players and
> upper level club players seem to prefer to play with the
> contact rule. It is great as long as the thrower doesn't
> call contact every time the marker breathes on him.

Thanks, so they're only used in college ultimate. But I've
heard of the contact rule being used in mixed. Maybe it was
specific to that tournament though.

[mark]

I believe they were in place for the club season last year.
However, due to the extreme shittiness of the USAUltimate
website, I cannot find any real references for this, other
than the last poster in this thread
http://boards.usaultimate.org/showthread.php?1043-Contact-call-and-the-continuation-rule&p=4768
saying that the contact rule was in the 2012 club guidelines
(the link the poster provides doesn't work anymore and this
year's guidelines don't mention contact/endzone size).

P.S. Please tell all your friends not to use american eagle
to build their websites, as holy shit the USAUltimate site
sucks.

[muffnuts]

anakin gerics wrote on Fri, 24 May 2013 06:59

the ground check is to prevent the thrower from walking into
power position when bringing the disc to the end zone line.
It also acts as a check -- that the disc is in play.

You so old that you need to walk into your pivot to throw a
flick boom headshot?
#toofattotouchtheground?

[anakin gerics]

On May 28, 9:13 pm, muffnuts <bjmale...@gmail.com> wrote:

> the ground check is to prevent the thrower from walking into
> power position when bringing the disc to the end zone line.
> It also acts as a check -- that the disc is in play.

----2 horrible reasons.
2 reasons that aren't good reasons.
2 reasons....that do not require a thrower leaning down into an
unathletic position to tap the disc onto the ground.

1-to prevent a thrower from walking into a power position. what the
hell does that even mean?
can't a thrower walk into a position where their pivot foot is on the
proper spot on the field/sideline?
what's a power position?
why can't a thrower 'walk into a power position'?
why can't a thrower walk and put their pivot foot on the proper spot
on the field without leaning down and tapping the disc on the ground?

2-it acts as a check. yeah...who the heck needs a check?
who are you checking with?
why should the offense have to check the disc?
why should the O have to pause slightly to lean down and tap the disc
on the ground in order to 'check' it?
what's the 'check' for?
who are they checking for?
what are the checking with?
why should the thrower lean down and tap the disc on the ground to
'check it'.....
if a team took the pull.......and no team has scored yet.....doesn't
THAT MEAN...that the disc is 'in play'???
if no one's scored....and there's not been a FOUL or VIOLATION
called....isn't the disc IN PLAY?
who do you have to 'check with' to know that no one has scored yet?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> You so old that you need to walk into your pivot to throw a
> flick boom headshot?

---what does leaning down to tap the disc on the ground have to do
with being able to throw a flick?
personally...if you're asking me....no, i'm not too old to throw any
sweet throw, anywhere on the field....and don't need to 'walk into'
anything to do so.
what does walking into a pivot have to do with leaning down and
tapping the disc on the ground.

i'd ask you....are you so young that you've been tricked into being
brainwashed that leaning down and tapping the disc is NECESSARY for
'checking' the disc?
are you so young and foolish that you have been convinced by someone
that you need to let everyone know that you're playing ultimate
frisbee and that the only way everyone around and on the field will
know it...is by you leaning down to tap the disc on the ground?
are you so young that you think it's necessary to remind everyone that
'no one has scored yet' by tapping the disc on the ground?
~~~~~~~~~~~~

> #toofattotouchtheground?


---and...nope...not too fat....but much too smart to think there's a
need to lean down into an unathletic position for no reason whatsoever
to tap the disc on the ground.


wise up.
escape the retarded brainwashing!

[anakin gerics]

On May 28, 9:13 pm, muffnuts <bjmale...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You so old that you need to walk into your pivot to throw a
> flick boom headshot?
> #toofattotouchtheground?

~~~~~~~~~~



---hey, i know you're not too young to have been brainwashed into
pretending to come up with dumb reasons why throwers should have to
tap the disc on the ground....
....are you just too goofy?

[muffnuts]

anakin gerics wrote on Wed, 29 May 2013 06:37

> On May 28, 9:13 pm, muffnuts

I've figured out a way to tap the disc while looking
athletic -- but it requires bending your knees.

Power position is using your momentum to throw the disc
farther - like a handler going up-line and hucking within
their 3rd step or a cutter turning the corner after an under
cut and releasing a bomb. The extra power comes from the
momentum, rather than generating power from a standstill.


For players downfield, it's difficult to tell when the
thrower's foot has or has not touched the line and when the
disc is actually in play.

I think the biggest reason is that without a defensive check
or ground check, you could jog/walk the disc to the end zone
line, plant a pivot and immediately rip into a power
position huck before the defense is "ready."

The goal line ground check eliminates this artificially
created power position.

If you are superiorly coordinated, you could jog into a
pivot, tap the ground, and rip a power position huck all in
one movement.

90% of the time, the defender is waiting at the check-in
point regardless, so I prefer the defensive check rather
than the ground check. It's mostly just being polite -- so
maybe something that is beyond comprehension:p

[anakin gerics]

> I've figured out a way to tap the disc while looking
> athletic -- but it requires bending your knees.

---can ya throw if your man is open while you're down there?
seems an incredible senseless thing to be doing while you teammates
could be open.
why, again, are you down there, bended knees, tapping the disc on the
ground?
your marker is on 2 when you stand up ready to throw......
why bend down and let your marker get to 2 when your teammate might be
wide open?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Power position is using your momentum to throw the disc
> farther - like a handler going up-line and hucking within
> their 3rd step or a cutter turning the corner after an under
> cut and releasing a bomb.  The extra power comes from the
> momentum, rather than generating power from a standstill.

----yeah....all this stuff is perfectly legal, as long as it's done
legally.

HOWEVER...you mention....hucking within their third step.
common misconception.....you don't get three steps.
you get the fewest to stop, or you can release a pass before your
third ground contact.....which is 0, 1 or 2. not 'within their third
step'

but, i take your meaning about momentum.
now....if it makes for great ultimate, as you describe above....and is
totally legal when done legally....tell me again...why does one
association's rule book force a thrower to lean down and tap the disc
on the ground?
they've already got their pivot foot....right?
the thrower sets their pivot and leans down into an unathletic
position to tap the disc on the ground while the marker counts to 2
and their receivers are wide open......
they've already got their pivot foot.....why, again, do you have to
lean down and tap the disc on the ground?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> For players downfield, it's difficult to tell when the
> thrower's foot has or has not touched the line and when the
> disc is actually in play.

---there ain't been no goal scored....right?
there ain't no foul call....nor a violation.
guess what......the disc is actually in play!
if you're on d.....guess what....ya better be playin' d.
if you're on o....the stall's counting....you ought to be cutting or
setting your man up.

hey...you've played ultimate, or a sport before, right?
~~~~~~~~~~~~

> I think the biggest reason is that without a defensive check
> or ground check, you could jog/walk the disc to the end zone
> line, plant a pivot and immediately rip into a  power
> position huck before the defense is "ready."

---personally.....i'd LOVE to throw ever single pass i will ever throw
again....while the defense isn't 'ready'
not sure what your aversion to that is.....

if you've got a kid on your team who's off patting the chalk lines to
make the smoke fly up......or a kid over picking the clover flowers in
the corner......then you have to deal with that issue.
if you've got kids who play sports and know that there's no foul call
or no goal scored.....then you shouldn't have to worry about it.
if you got awesome athletes who are surprised that the opponent is on
offense and trying to score.....sit them.

no one's scored.
no foul called.
no violation called.
your teammates ought to be "ready".
pretty simple, really.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> The goal line ground check eliminates this artificially
> created power position.

---why again?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> If you are superiorly coordinated, you could jog into a
> pivot, tap the ground, and rip a power position huck all in
> one movement.

---so.....then......why the ground tap?
~~~~~~~~~~~

> 90% of the time, the defender is waiting at the check-in
> point regardless, so I prefer the defensive check rather
> than the ground check.  It's mostly just being polite -- so
> maybe something that is beyond comprehension:p

---why in the world would the d get a check on a common simple
turnover?
seriously?
does the d get a 'check' in the middle of the field on a turnover?
defensive check.......maybe after walking the disc to the brick mark
after a pull.
THAT should be the only defensive check, aside from after a foul/
violation, as always.

to be polite?
please.

[disc...@yahoo.com]

word.

hey luke, the rules also say, "The marker may contest the "contact" call by calling "violation", which stops play." seems like this could be used to stop offensive momentum when "contact" is called. how badly do you think this weakens the rule?

sean

[Bulb]

seanc wrote on Fri, 31 May 2013 10:31

> the rules also say, "The marker may contest the
> "contact" call by calling "violation", which stops play."
> seems like this could be used to stop offensive momentum
> when "contact" is called. how badly do you think this
> weakens the rule?

Can't speak for the college level, but at the club level,
I'd say 80% of the time I called "contact" last season, the
marker dropped to 0. Of the other 20%, I'd say half the
time the marker did not know the rule yet, or did not
remember what to do in the moment (not unreasonable given
the rule's first year of existence). I'd say 10% contested
"contact" calls seems comparable to the percentage of
non-throwing "fouls" and "disc space" calls that I've had
contested over the years.

Bottom line is, even if the defense contests the foul, the
"contact" rule is no weaker than the rules were without it -
in effect, there is literally no difference... right? I
can't think of a situation that would have a different
result. Even if the thrower calls "contact" and then
initiates a throw before hearing the marker say "violation,"
the outcome of the throw is nullified by the "violation"
call.

[Bulb]

Bulb wrote on Fri, 31 May 2013 14:47

> Even if the thrower calls "contact" and then initiates a
> throw before hearing the marker say "violation," the
> outcome of the throw is nullified by the "violation" call.

I've been informed this is not true:

http://boards.usaultimate.org/showthread.php?1043-Contact-call-and-the-continuation-rule&p=4765&viewfull=1#post4765

So, it seems there is some difference. All throws after a
Contact call, whether contested or not, are subject to
turnover. Completed passes will only be returned if the
contest is before the throwing motion begins.

But, as I said before, most Contact calls I've made have not
been contested.

[ultimatesamwood]

seanc wrote on Fri, 31 May 2013 10:31
> ...the rules also say, "The marker may contest the

> "contact" call by calling "violation", which stops play."
> seems like this could be used to stop offensive momentum
> when "contact" is called. how badly do you think this
> weakens the rule?
>
> sean

In an observed game, if a marker clearly commits a contact
foul and then contests it, expect him to get TMF'd.

In an unobserved game, there is no on-field repercussion for
making terrible contest calls.

[Ryan Thompson]

It's just exactly the same as any marking foul and contest.

Except in the instances when it's uncontested (90% of the time)
there's no stoppage of play. So it's strictly better than the previous
rule. If you want to stop play, you just call foul.

[anakin gerics]

> It's dumb to dissuade the defense from intentional fouls?
> That's what it's for, after all.

~~~~~~~~


--has 'contact' erased all intentional fouls?
i don't think so...because there's a big thread about one intentional
foul in particular here on rsd right now, i think.

it IS dumb, yes, to dissuade intentional fouls....with something that
is FAR DUMBER than intentional fouls.......yes.

at the spring league tournament yesterday.....one of those brainwashed
young kids....all gobbled up with that new dumbassed word people can
shout out for no reason....shouted it out....and had 50 people looking
at him like he was some sort of looney bird whack-a-doo.
know why.....because that dumb 'contact' rule....is dumb....looney and
whack a doo.