View topic - Disregarded rules?

Disregarded rules?

Clarify Ultimate Rules and post other useful Ultimate related stuff!

Disregarded rules?

Postby Derek » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:55 am

Okay, let's hear it. What rules do you feel are least observed in Ultimate?

Off-sides? Probably happens 30 times in your average game to 17.

Double-team? Cups push this envelope by definition.

Travel? Every second possession, though typically to no advantage.

But the big 'winner' in my estimation in sheer volume of violations is [drum roll...]

Fast Count. I'd guess this happens at least twice on every mark.

Maybe the rest of this post should have gone under the 'Rant' section, but instead I'll cut myself short by asking: How do YOU initiate a stall count?
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:10 pm

Postby a. » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:18 am

Offside???
User avatar
a.
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 1:40 pm

Postby DeeDee » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:19 am

STALLING ONE..... and I personally would have liked to hear the rant!!! :wink:

You're slipping, buddy!
DeeDee
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Disregarded rules?

Postby march » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:42 am

Derek wrote:Fast Count. I'd guess this happens at least twice on every mark.


just a little bit of an exageration, plus how do you know it's fast, do you have a stop watch in your non-throwing hand to double check? As Einstein says, "it's all relative," may seem fast, but in reality it isn't

as for the most overlooked rule... I vote for offside on the pulls
march
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:20 pm

Postby GregS » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:42 pm

Derek wrote:How do YOU initiate a stall count?

DeeDee wrote:STALLING ONE.....

Stalling..... One.

If we're talking about total numbers, I agree that offside is probably the most common violation. Second would be "The maximum time allowed between the scoring of a goal and the ensuing pull is ninety seconds."

If we're talking about percentages, how about "Each team time-out lasts 70 seconds." I think that 99.97% of all timeouts last longer than this (usually much longer).
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Re: Disregarded rules?

Postby Jesse » Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:17 pm

Derek wrote:Okay, let's hear it. What rules do you feel are least observed in Ultimate?

I'd vote for field dimensions.
and before I get killed for mentioning the fields,
1. I'm happy to play at any of the fields; I have little, if any, appreciation for how hard it is to get/keep fields in the city.
2. Without reading the rules, I don't even know the 'proper' dimensions.
(just checked and it's here)

Offsides, yep - every point, both teams.
User avatar
Jesse
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:58 pm

Postby Sheff » Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:24 pm

Having looked at Jesse's link, I'd bet it's a rare (league) game where an 18 meter brick rule is used.
User avatar
Sheff
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:12 pm

Postby GregS » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:13 pm

Jesse wrote:I'd vote for field dimensions.

As the person who gets there early, and was often setting up the field 3 times a week last year, the problem here is that very few of our permitted spaces are big enough for a full sized field. You do the best you can, but I don't count this one as a rule violation.
Sheff wrote:Having looked at Jesse's link, I'd bet it's a rare (league) game where an 18 meter brick rule is used.

Agreed! People seem to think that if the field is 10 yards shorter than regulation, the brick should be 10 yards shorter. I figure it should be proportional, keep it at 2/7 length of the field proper.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby Jesse » Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:15 am

GregS wrote:You do the best you can, but I don't count this one as a rule violation.

I completely agree - we do the best we can.
Violation? Maybe not - but the post said "disregarded" and "least observed".

We've all learned to accept non-official field sizes as okay, maybe we've done the same with fast counts/double teams/etc?

Next time I'm setting up the field.

Jesse
User avatar
Jesse
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:58 pm

Postby GregS » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:39 am

Jesse wrote:
GregS wrote:You do the best you can, but I don't count this one as a rule violation.

Violation? Maybe not - but the post said "disregarded" and "least observed".

I was thinking of the Captain's Clause: "Such things as...dimensions of the field...can easily be altered". I've never agreed with the other captain that we should ignore offsides.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Feeling violated?

Postby Derek » Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:07 pm

GregS wrote:Stalling..... One.


THANK YOU!!! (Can you cover me when we play?)

"Stall one...stall two..." = fast count
"Stall one...two..." = fast count
"One...two..." = fast count
"One stall...two stall..." = fast count
"Stalling one...two" = fast count
"Stalling one...stalling two" = fast count
"Stalling...one...two" = rare event

God forbid I call it, then I have to call it again and stop play, since people don't know how to react properly. <Far> more often than not, I have to explain the violation. I have tried to do this nicely on the field, and have on occasion succeeded in not inciting resentment (people don't like to be told the're wrong & don't like to change. "I just said 'One' - how can that be fast!?!") There are the exceptions that understand that I just like to play by the rules, and like others to do the same (is that so wrong?) It went over well (I think) at the finals of Solstice when I called it, right beside Sweet's bench, then calmly asked them all to initiate the stall count properly. It probably helped that I had inadvertently threw what lead to a goal after my second successive fast-count call and ended up calling it back. Oh, well. You win some, you get crushed in some.

The funny thing about this situation, is that if you call 'Fast-count' right after a faulty initiation, the marker should subtract one & start over: "Stalling...zero...one..."!

I agree with most comments here, that the other disregarded rules happen proportionally as often (time-outs for example are almost always longer than 70 seconds), but there are far fewer instances in which they can occur (how many time-outs in your last game?) Fast count (with the exception of a very few stall countingly enlightened individuals) happens on every possession (at least once). Hundreds of times a game..ds

ps. Sorry, Darce, no real rant (yet). I'm trying harder to maintain my composure now that I'm a role model. Good thing Ben can't read!
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:10 pm

Postby Richard K » Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:28 pm

It's amazing the complaints I get on the rare occasion there is enough room to set up a near-regulation field. "This field is too big, let's make it smaller!" An unfortunate byproduct of Toronto fields is being trained to play on small, short, narrow fields.

GregS wrote:Agreed! People seem to think that if the field is 10 yards shorter than regulation, the brick should be 10 yards shorter. I figure it should be proportional, keep it at 2/7 length of the field proper.


A proportional brick is reasonable and maintains the spirit of the rule, but what's your view on the length of the endzones? Officially, they're each about 1/3 the length of the field proper. Do you try to maintain the ratio? Or save the space for playing field proper and sacrifice endzone length?
Richard K
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:34 am

Postby E » Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:59 pm

My goodness, if you're complaining about the difference between
Stalling..... One...
and
Stalling one...
then you really don't have enough to worry about. If you're going to nitpick about that during a game I can see why that might incite resentment from the other team.

Other violations mentioned here have merit, that one, in my opinion, doesn't.
User avatar
E
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:40 pm

Postby GregS » Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:16 pm

Richard K wrote:what's your view on the length of the endzones? Officially, they're each about 1/3 the length of the field proper. Do you try to maintain the ratio? Or save the space for playing field proper and sacrifice endzone length?

It depends on how much space is available. We seem to often have about 100 yards available, in which case I'll go with 20-60-20, which is close to the right ratio. Below that, I'll generally shrink the end zones until I get down to 15-60-15, at which point the field will start shrinking again. I don't like the end zones to get smaller than 15, for fear of collisions when 4 attackers and their defenders all get in there.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby diane » Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:51 pm

Offsides and timeout lengths aside, I think the most ignored rule that has the most impact on the game is the fast count (not even counting Derek's 'stalling, stall, stalling...' thing). Here's the rule:

Stalling: Generally, the thrower is allowed ten seconds of possession in order to release a throw. This possession may be timed by the marker's stall count.

1. The count consists of the marker loudly announcing "Stalling" and counting from one to ten loudly enough for the thrower to hear.
i. All intervals between the beginning of one word and the beginning of the next are to be a minimum of one second.


Now when was the last time anyone heard a stall count that was actually 10 seconds? I have about the slowest stall count I know, and I'm pretty sure it never takes me more than 6 seconds to get to 10. The fact that we no longer have to say 'stall' in between numbers doesn't help any. People, 10 seconds is a hell of a long time.
diane
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:51 pm

Postby GregS » Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:13 am

diane wrote:Now when was the last time anyone heard a stall count that was actually 10 seconds? I have about the slowest stall count I know, and I'm pretty sure it never takes me more than 6 seconds to get to 10.

I must really be some kind of freak. (Those who know me might well say "more than one kind".) I just timed myself, without watching the clock, trying my best to count as fast as I do on the field, and my 10 stalls came in at just under 14 seconds. Everybody I'm playing against soon had better watch out, because I'm going to try to trim that down to a lean, mean 12!
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Respectfully...

Postby Derek » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:32 am

Now I really want you to cover me, Greg!

Sorry, E, I try not to complain as much as politely request people respect the rule. I understand that most players don't know all the rules, so before I call it, typically I will explain the rule. Though sometimes that gets their backs up, as I said, people don't like to be told they're wrong.

I won't call a fast count if I hear 'stalling one', since there's some sort of effort to respect the rule. When I hear 'one', though, I might even call it before explaining the violation. Depends on what kind of game it is.

If I chose to worry about things, I'd have enough to worry about. I prefer to address things so that (ideally) the issue would get resolved.

It also irks me when smokers toss their butts on the sidewalk. Boy, do they get ticked when I inform them of their infraction!
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:10 pm

Postby Hanuman » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:44 am

Regarding fast counts... does it really matter if you start with the words "stalling.... one". I mean isn't it more important that your counting is timed for 10 seconds? Either way, I'm going to start my stall counts that way to avoid misunderstandings.
As an aside... can we all agree that "Check Feet" is not a call! Really should be saying "You're out"... then you can discuss it.

I must really be some kind of freak. (Those who know me might well say "more than one kind".) I just timed myself, without watching the clock, trying my best to count as fast as I do on the field, and my 10 stalls came in at just under 14 seconds. Everybody I'm playing against soon had better watch out, because I'm going to try to trim that down to a lean, mean 12!


I'm thinking that in the heat of the moment you're probably closer to 10 seconds since with the adrenaline pumping you're going to be counting faster. As a result, you're better than most with your stall counts.
BTW, Greg you are a freak but that's another matter :wink:
.........................................._o
......................................_`\ \_
.....................................(_)/'(_)
User avatar
Hanuman
 
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:42 pm

Postby Kevo » Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:15 pm

Hanuman wrote:As an aside... can we all agree that "Check Feet" is not a call! Really should be saying "You're out"... then you can discuss it.


Oh I love this one. How many assy of ass plays have their been on the field when I hear "Check Feet is not a call" exclaimed to one team's advantage.
That's total bull.

Will someone please explain to me how boundary violations work?

What if you say: "You're out".
and I say: "No, I'm not" and keep playing?
User avatar
Kevo
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:17 am

Postby Hanuman » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:08 pm

Essentially when someone says, "check feet", what they are really saying is "I think you're out". Why not just say, "you're out"? I mean just be decisive about it already.... don't make calls unless you're sure. In any case, I believe if I think I'm in, I'll just look and say "I'm in" and play on.
It's to the calling team's advantage because it disrupts flow and let the defence catch up... but as discussed above calling "you're out" has the same effect.... semantics.
.........................................._o
......................................_`\ \_
.....................................(_)/'(_)
User avatar
Hanuman
 
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:42 pm

Postby lukefraser » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:13 pm

Kevo wrote:
Hanuman wrote:As an aside... can we all agree that "Check Feet" is not a call! Really should be saying "You're out"... then you can discuss it.


Oh I love this one. How many assy of ass plays have their been on the field when I hear "Check Feet is not a call" exclaimed to one team's advantage.
That's total bull.

Will someone please explain to me how boundary violations work?

What if you say: "You're out".
and I say: "No, I'm not" and keep playing?

I think the rules you are looking for are:
XV.G wrote:If it is ever unclear whether a receiver was in- or out-of-bounds at the point of making a catch, the player with the best perspective makes the call.

XVI.C wrote:If a dispute arises concerning a foul, violation, or the outcome of a play (e.g., a catch where no one had a good perspective), and the teams cannot come to a satisfactory resolution, the disc is returned to the thrower and put into play with a check, with the count the same or at six if over five.

So if I think you're out (and I think I had best perspective) I should call you out. If you don't agree it's back to the thrower. Or am I missing something too?
User avatar
lukefraser
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 7:43 pm

Postby jason » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:44 pm

spuke4000 wrote:So if I think you're out (and I think I had best perspective) I should call you out. If you don't agree it's back to the thrower. Or am I missing something too?


Yes, that's how it should be handled. Of course, it implies that you are in position to make the call and that's why "Check Feet" is used in the first place. Players often think that someone's out, but don't know with enough certainty to make the OB call.
User avatar
jason
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:17 pm
Location: spidermonkey

Postby GregS » Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:21 pm

I consider a "check feet" call to be shorthand for "I see that you are very close to the sideline, and you have better perspective to make the call than I do, but I'm not sure that you actually looked to make sure you're in". If it's directed at me, and I know that I'm in (I have pretty good sideline awareness, so I've usually checked), I may acknowledge it with a quick "I'm in", but I'm not going to stop anything that I'm doing.

There was a new one in Monday's game, somebody actually had the nerve to call "check feet" while the disc was still 15-20 yards from the intended receiver. Admittedly, it was OB at the time, but clearly curving back in. Please, people, if you're going to make a non-call, at least wait until the right time!
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby Happy Camper » Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:23 pm

Offside on the pull. Happens as many times in a game as there are pulls.

'Check feet' is a polite way of requesting a confirmation that I think you are out. Choose to ignore it because it is not a 'call' and I will call you out. But I start with 'check feet' because being polite is how my mother raised me. Also, why be brusque or rude in a league game if it is not required? No Stanley Cup at the end of the rainbow...

Fast stall count... not usually a major issue for me. Knowing Derek and knowing his feelings for this rule (personality tic? :P ) I try and accomodate him when I can but it is not always top of mind.

Personally, I always start "Stall One... two... three" - not officially proper but then again I time in consistently over 10 seconds - usually 12 to 14 - and I have to think that the three or four times in over 10 years of Ultimate that I have gotten to say ten... dead are more due to the defensive coverage behind me rather than my ability to count quickly. I pay more attention to the mark's calls on the sudden speed up that happens to some people when they get from seven... to ten... in a heartbeat.

Fact is none of these really bother me too much anymore because I have more experience and I can work around it.

What irks me is when experienced players either abuse the rules, misquote the rules, or bend the rules to their advantage over someone who is not experienced. Me, I will happily argue back but taking advantage of someone who obviously is not sure due to inexperience is just not fair.

Cheers,
Rob
Winners never quit and quitters never win. Cheaters, however, go on to win home run titles.
User avatar
Happy Camper
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:50 pm

Postby GregS » Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:54 pm

Rob, what's your polite way of calling picks and fouls? I say if someone is out, call them out!
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby diane » Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:15 pm

Wow! I'm really impressed that people have such slow stall counts. Maybe it's just the girls (oops.. women) that count really fast. I have certainly had the 'stall one two three four..' and the 'stallonetwothreefour..' counts put on me. Then when I call fast count, the count does go down by two but keeps on going at the same speed. Perhaps you guys can run a counting clinic or something ':wink:'

Anyways, I think the 'check feet' thing has nothing on the perspective from the field. I seen so many times when someone (usually inexperienced) catches the disc on the line or out of bounds and their teammates are saying it's their call as to whether they were in or not. 'Check feet' is merely being polite when you think someone is OB but you're not sure.
diane
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:51 pm

Postby jed » Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:37 pm

GregS wrote:Rob, what's your polite way of calling picks and fouls? I say if someone is out, call them out!


I'm with Rob and Diane on this one. If I'm sure, I will call you out. The complication comes when I have good perspective, but possibly not the "best" perspective. I think you're out, but you (or someone else) may know better, so by saying "check feet", I'm giving you a chance to say so, without having to stop your offensive flow. Often the receiver won't have a clue whether she was in or out - meaning my perspective was the best after all.
User avatar
jed
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:36 pm

Postby Peeters » Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:38 pm

In terms of where the brick should be, I did a quick calculation, and based on the amount of square footage for you to hit on a pull, came up with this:

- For every 5 yards/paces you take off the total LENGTH of the field (including endzones), take off 1 yard/pace from the brick (ie. a 100 yard length would take 4 yards off the brick).
- For every 5 yards/paces you take off the WIDTH of the field, take 3 yards/paces from the brick (ie. a 35 yard width would take 3 yards off the brick).

The more typical 100x35 field we tend to set up would then have a brick of 14 yards with this formula. Feel free to make it 15 if you like.

Feel free to use/ignore this as you see fit. I think we should penalize appropriately for OB pulls, and I'm one of the worst for violating this. :)
Peeters
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:45 pm

Postby Hanuman » Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:59 pm

I think being polite is great (so Canadian) but not at all costs. If you're not sure about a call, you shouldn't make it. I mean, what if someone starts saying, "I think it's a strip" or "I think you fouled me".
Naturally, I'm assuming that all involved are experienced Ulti players... not a newbie to the sport.
.........................................._o
......................................_`\ \_
.....................................(_)/'(_)
User avatar
Hanuman
 
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:42 pm

Postby Kevo » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:41 pm

jason wrote:
spuke4000 wrote:So if I think you're out (and I think I had best perspective) I should call you out. If you don't agree it's back to the thrower. Or am I missing something too?


Yes, that's how it should be handled. Of course, it implies that you are in position to make the call and that's why "Check Feet" is used in the first place. Players often think that someone's out, but don't know with enough certainty to make the OB call.


So back to Hanuman's original statement:

hanuman wrote:As an aside... can we all agree that "Check Feet" is not a call! Really should be saying "You're out"... then you can discuss it.


From what I have read in this thread, there is no material difference between saying "Check Feet" and "You're Out". It doesn't matter which is said, but if either is heard, a confirmation from best perspective should at least happen.
In that case, the sequence of events as follows is just plain being an ass:

1. Catch is made near sideline
2. Defense says "Check Feet"
3. Offense does not check boundary position and instead replies "Check Feet is not a call!" and continues on merry way

The intent of the phrase "Check Feet is not a call" is that the offense has to do nothing more than confirm that they are in bounds. Self-regulation can be such an ugly thing...
User avatar
Kevo
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:17 am

Postby GregS » Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:03 am

Kevo wrote:From what I have read in this thread, there is no material difference between saying "Check Feet" and "You're Out". It doesn't matter which is said, but if either is heard, a confirmation from best perspective should at least happen.

And this is the problem with using ad-hoc calls that are not part of the rules. There seem to be as many interpretations of what "check feet" means as there are people interpreting it, whereas "out of bounds" is clearly defined.

For me, if I hear "check feet" but I've already confirmed that I'm in, I'm not about to stop what I'm doing to check again. Also, I expect that all of my teammates will continue making their cuts. After all, it's not a real call, so play should not stop.

On the other hand "out of bounds" is a call (I'll also accept "you're out"), and requires everyone (including defenders) to stop where they are until it is resolved. Anyone who was open before the call had better still be just as open when the disc is checked back in, or else someone is playing games within the game.

Maybe we need to get together a representative cross-section of the league, and decide what the "official TUC interpretation" of "check feet" should be, and then post it on the web site and disseminate it to captains. I'd hate for someone to think I'm an ass because they yelled "check feet" and I still made my throw without reconfirming that I'm in.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby jed » Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:31 am

GregS wrote:And this is the problem with using ad-hoc calls that are not part of the rules. There seem to be as many interpretations of what "check feet" means as there are people interpreting it, whereas "out of bounds" is clearly defined.

For me, if I hear "check feet" but I've already confirmed that I'm in, I'm not about to stop what I'm doing to check again. Also, I expect that all of my teammates will continue making their cuts. After all, it's not a real call, so play should not stop.


That's the point; it doesn't stop play, and if you've already checked, you don't have to again - just acknowledge and play on (not necessarily in that order).
On the other hand "out of bounds" is a call (I'll also accept "you're out"), and requires everyone (including defenders) to stop where they are until it is resolved. Anyone who was open before the call had better still be just as open when the disc is checked back in, or else someone is playing games within the game.

Most would be just as annoyed to be called out if they've already checked. No one is ever as open after the call - I think this is one of Newton's laws, isn't it?
User avatar
jed
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:36 pm

Postby Hanuman » Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:08 am

I agree with Greg's interpetation of the "check feet" call. I don't want to seem like an ass but when I hear "check feet", I think that you're not sure that I'm out of bounds.... as opposed to "you're out" where there is a little more certainty about your opinion. As I've said before, I think a call should only be made if you're sure.

Kevo wrote:
In that case, the sequence of events as follows is just plain being an ass:

1. Catch is made near sideline
2. Defense says "Check Feet"
3. Offense does not check boundary position and instead replies "Check Feet is not a call!" and continues on merry way


I never implied that, I said the following:
Essentially when someone says, "check feet", what they are really saying is "I think you're out". Why not just say, "you're out"? I mean just be decisive about it already.... don't make calls unless you're sure. In any case, I believe if I think I'm in, I'll just look and say "I'm in" and play on.


I'm all for self regulation and discussion... 'nuff said.
.........................................._o
......................................_`\ \_
.....................................(_)/'(_)
User avatar
Hanuman
 
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:42 pm

Postby TerryBobJack » Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:05 am

Hanuman wrote:I agree with Greg's interpetation of the "check feet" call. I don't want to seem like an ass but when I hear "check feet", I think that you're not sure that I'm out of bounds.... as opposed to "you're out" where there is a little more certainty about your opinion. As I've said before, I think a call should only be made if you're sure.


I personally dislike "check feet" and consider it very unspirited because:
1. Typically the person calling it is across the field.
2. It disrupts the flow of the game if the offence acknowledges the call (possibly intentionally?)
3. If your sure its out, call it out.

While "check feet" may have good intentions, it's result usually isn't good.
Me fail English? That's unpossible!
User avatar
TerryBobJack
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 1:02 pm
Location: Throw Les Vaches

Postby deanbrown » Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:23 am

We do need some kind of call when a player is near/on/over the sideline and doesn't make an effort to see if they are in bounds. I hesitate to say that they're out, since I don't know either, but I'd like them to at least check.

And by checking, I don't mean looking at only one cone or the 2 endzone cones at one end. It's the the two cones at the front of the 2 endzones (there's always a straight line between them!!!!). You have to look forward and backwards to truly see if you are in or out. If you don't do that, you haven't "checked to see if your feet" are in bounds.

Of course, if you were running at the time of the catch, you'll have to go back to where you think you caught the disc (and on which foot you were standing when you caught the disc and stopped it's spin!)

Remember: you probably not in bounds if you say "Well, I'm in by that cone.."
User avatar
deanbrown
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:59 am

Postby Barney_Rubble » Tue Jul 04, 2006 1:16 pm

I'll come down on the Check Feet is a courtesy call side.. we never have lined fields at league games, we almost never have straight lines. A lot of bad OB calls messes up a game a lot more than a couple of check feet calls. It is a way of saying "this field is messed up a bit, I think you're out but I trust you to tell me if you are or not."

There is however no excuse for calling it on a lined field.

I also believe that...

1) "Check feet" should never be argued if the catcher says s/he's in. If you're sure enough to argue then you should have been sure enough to call OUT.

2) If you yell "check feet isn't a call!" then the next thing I yell is OUT! That will jam up the offensive flow far more than a quick glance for the cones does.
User avatar
Barney_Rubble
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:30 pm

Postby lennox » Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:10 pm

Jed wrote:Most would be just as annoyed to be called out if they've already checked. No one is ever as open after the call - I think this is one of Newton's laws, isn't it?


Except in the end zone, where after a stoppage of play, the end zone reciever is always more open than before the call. :wink:
There is no finish line.
User avatar
lennox
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 2:42 pm

Postby lennox » Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:18 pm

deanbrown wrote:And by checking, I don't mean looking at only one cone or the 2 endzone cones at one end. It's the the two cones at the front of the 2 endzones (there's always a straight line between them!!!!). You have to look forward and backwards to truly see if you are in or out. If you don't do that, you haven't "checked to see if your feet" are in bounds.


Honestly, some people need to figure out how to lay a field. The one point that I always end up telling people is to never move the front end zone cones once they are placed. Always move the back end zone cones so that they line up with the main sideline. If you move the front ones, you screw up the other end zone (way down at the other end of the field!!) Only when you have a proper field can you rely on the offensive or defensive end zone cones to imply in or out of bounds.

That's a much easier way than having someone on the field run down to one of the end zone cones and check. :cry:

Oh, and I also believe there's a rule which states that only the 14 people on the field have best perspective. The spectators or subs currently not playing cannot be called upon to make a best perspective call.

Anyway, yeah, nobody calls "offside". Anyone want to start? :wink:
There is no finish line.
User avatar
lennox
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 2:42 pm

Postby orilliaboy » Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:31 pm

incredibly, the team we played against last night was rarely offside on the pulls. nearly every pull originated at or behind the goal line. ... but "out" calls were an issue. glass half full?
User avatar
orilliaboy
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:29 am

Postby Nigel » Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:29 pm

This graphic (from Montreal's Lorne Beckman) is useful:
http://www.montrealultimate.ca/files/visual_rules.pdf

Also, I'd say the average stall count is between 6 and 8 seconds. If you're at a tournie, try timing a few counts. From a recap of the MLU games at Potlatch, someone on rsd wrote:
First off, the 7-second count feels like forever, and I would be is longer on average than the 10-second count in big Ultimate games. When I observed college Nats one year I was asked to rule on a contested stall...the irate marker calmed down real quick when I showed him my stopwatch that said "5.3".
Nigel
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:10 pm

Postby areacode416 » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:26 am

Nigel wrote:This graphic (from Montreal's Lorne Beckman) is useful:
http://www.montrealultimate.ca/files/visual_rules.pdf


That 4 page visual ultimate rules is indeed useful (A decision tree for each of Pull, Pick, Throwing Foul, Non-Throwing Foul). Thanks for the post (from two years ago).
areacode416
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:25 pm

Postby Andrew Parker » Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:45 am

There's a lot of talk about initiating stall counts below. In the 11th edition, the rule has changed, and the requirement to start with "Stalling ...... One" has been removed:

The requirement for a one-second pause between the word “stallingâ€￾ and the first number of the stall count has been removed. In addition, the stall count can never come in higher than “stalling nineâ€￾. [11th Refs: XIV.A.1.a); XIV.A.5.]
Andrew Parker
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:46 pm

Postby WiseOne » Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:59 am

Im surprised no one here listed Disk Space. :shock:
WiseOne
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:32 pm

Postby discjockey » Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:50 pm

WiseOne wrote:Im surprised no one here listed Disk Space. :shock:


Clearly you've never been subject to the 'Finger of Skiby'. Fear it.
discjockey
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:38 pm

Postby dentonmatthew » Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:27 pm

Props to Rob on his post below - "What irks me is when experienced players either abuse the rules, misquote the rules, or bend the rules to their advantage over someone who is not experienced. Me, I will happily argue back but taking advantage of someone who obviously is not sure due to inexperience is just not fair. "

I've had this rant burning in me for a few months now:

It is ideal for everyone to know the rules, but there are far too many players out there, most who have the experience to know better, making calls that are, in context, crap. While such calls may be legitimate, their application is inappropriate.

This results in chippy games, as one crap call lowers everyone's standard of calls, and the game is rarely friendly from that point.

My main point is that in the specifics and focus on rules, we have lost that SPIRIT OF SPORTSMANSHIP upon which Ultimate was founded.

Most annoying calls are "out/checkfeet" calls on a sideline with no markings, often from someone with a poor perspective. (cones are the best we have, but imperfect)
Next up are travel calls, as any defender doing a reasonable job of defense is looking at the thrower's eyes, torso, arm or disc. Not the feet.
And we have all seen the pick called from 10 yards out of position.

As for abuses of the rules, the worst of this season was, on an "out" call on the opposite side of the field, the other team's sideline yelling "just contest so it goes back to the thrower". A close second was someone that argued he retains possession of the disc because of a fast count, AFTER throwing an interception; finally, the guy who insisted that despite a pick being called at stall 4, because play did not stop until stall 8, that is where the disc is checked back in.

I know the rules pretty well, and what I don't know exactly I can make strong guesses based on the rules' general logic. However, I often give someone who is adamant the benefit of the doubt - its just a league game, and I'm there to have fun - but it pisses me off when I reconfirm at a later point that person was clearly wrong. Situations like that have directly cost my team wins, and I know it ruins their enjoyment of the game too. I understand the solution is to have a print out of 11th Ed on the sidelines, but I believe it should't have to be that way.

I get that tournament play happens at a higher level of intensity, and that brings a higher standard of play, and the enforcement of that standard. But there is a difference between tournament a league play, and even between leagues, in the calibre of players, and their intensity, experience, and rules knowledge.

So I have asked my fair share of experienced players on opposing teams to chill out, only to hear "I thought this was Competitive league?" My thought: Yup it is competitive, but you have to choose how you compete.

I know I don't want to be "that guy" that makes borderline calls, I know my teammates, and many members of other teams that don't want to be "that guy" either. But damn, when "that guy" makes a crap call, suddenly anything within a few feet of the sideline is "out", and he is travelling on every throw. I hate even getting those thoughts.

Me, I want to win because I hucked it over a defender playing short in a zone, caught a disc in a layout, got a clean d-block, or iinterception. I want to win because my team made 10 nice passes to solid cuts, walked a zone back 60 yards, or played such tight D that a legit stall count expires.

Rant done.
User avatar
dentonmatthew
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:59 am


Return to Ultimate Rules and Tools

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron