Well as balanced as your argument is Felix (and I do generally agree with you) there is also historical interpretations here. What I mean by this is that there are certain things that have been done for a while now and that’s why we play rules in certain ways.
The gray areas only show up when players try to gain unfair advantage with unusual interpretations. You can't make rules bullet proof. The more complicated and precise the rules would become, the more exceptions you can find. This is where the very controversial idea of spirit comes in. If it feels wrong it probably is. You just have to rely on players getting this ideal right or agreeing to meet in the middle. I was taught to stand off the disc is I didn’t want to pick it up. Personally I like a quick start as an O player because the D is less likely to have the field locked down. Some times I'm happy for the O team to brick the pull because I have time make sure my D is as good as it gets. Phil -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Felix Sent: 13 July 2006 13:47 To: Britdisc Subject: Re: [BD] Rules on Stalling That's certainly one interpretation of the WFDF rules, although moving beyond 3m from the thrower and continuing the stall is probably not a correct interpretation, for reasons pointed out earlier ('The Marker' section in the rules). Stalling whilst the disc is on the ground - doesn't say you can stall someone who is not 'the thrower' in WFDF rules, so if you're in the lead, you can just stand over the disc until time runs out. Maybe someone can cobble together three vaguely related paragraphs of the WFDF ruleset and logically deduce that, so long as X means Y and Z is referring to Q, if a player is stalling the play in any way then they can be stall counted. I'd much rather be able to look it up in the rules and find something like: "If an offensive player stands over a disc without taking possession, the marker may issue a "Delay of Game" warning. If the disc is not picked up, the marker may initiate and continue a stall count regardless of the actions of the offence." It's simple, and it's how the game should be played. If somebody is stalling for time then they should be stall counted. Remember a while back there was a discussion about stalling people whose momentum carries them off the pitch? I think the outcome was basically if you interpret the rules one way then it's legal, and another way then it's not legal. When this happened recently to some guy I was marking, I started stalling him when it appeared he wasn't getting back onto the pitch as quickly as he comfortably could. Even then I started slow, with "Stalling... come on get back onto the pitch, one... come on... two", because as I saw it, it wasn't fair for his players to run upfield without the disc being stalled. However, I was also aware that by WFDF rules it's probably illegal (or undefined) to start stalling someone off the pitch, and he might have known this, so I didn't want to give him a fair reason to call anything. In actuality he could probably have just sat down on the sideline and waited till the game was over. But, I digress. I sincerely doubt the UKUA will ever get together a set of proposals for updates to the WFDF rules. It would be loads of work (I was involved in Benji's indoor rules and found it gets very complicated very quickly), much better spent on setting up a regional B tour or something I'm sure you would agree, and even if they did then there is no guarantee at all that the WFDF would adopt it. Will the WFDF ever update their rules? I doubt that many members of the original rules committee are still part of the organisation, or that one of the regular WFDF committee's main concerns is the grey areas in a ruleset that isn't even played by the most competitive & advanced ultimate playing countries. So, I can't see a WFDF update happening any time soon, and when it does happen, who is to say they won't just adopt the UPA rules themselves? I mean, why wouldn't they? Like Nick says, it would be far better than solving the ambiguities in a different way and essentially creating a third set of rules - why not just adopt the rules that have been thought out, updated, and function extremely well in the most competitive Ultimate environment in the world? The problems that arise on the pitch at the moment aren't caused by people not having read the rules, but by the rules being vague and ill-defined at best. Felix http://www.seultimate.org/rules/ On 13/07/06, Ranulf Doswell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's been a while since this has come up, and my knowledge of the stall > rules is largely based on what people like Sammy told me 5 or 6 years ago, > but as I understood it (and what people were playing to certainly 5 years > ago) was: > > * A defence player must be within 3m to initiate a stall, but once initiated > can retreat more than 3m away whilst continuing the stall (for instance to > clog for a zone, etc). Obviously, another defensive player cannot then get > within 3m of the thrower unless he is marking someone else and within 3m of > them. I always believed it best to be midway between the person you were > marking and the thrower, as then you couldn't be double teaming, but were > still in the way. > > * Regarding stalling a disc not in play, this again is possible if someone > is standing next to the disc and obviously stalling, i.e. close enough to > the disc to pick it up and waiting for the team to set up. If a player was > just wandering near the disc, they probably aren't stalling, and so you > wouldn't initiate a stall. The stall would be initiated by the defensive > player checking the disc in whilst it's on the ground, and would continue as > normal if the player picked up the disc to throw. There's nothing to stop > the offensive player from walking away and saying they weren't in > possession, in which case the stall would have to restart on a new player. > > I've played the stalling whilst not picked up thing a couple of times, and > invariably it's resulted in confusion and the other team telling me "you > can't do that". It also seems to result in a general feeling of bad spirit, > and so I stopped ever calling it. I guess if it's only a UPA rule and not a > WFDF rule, then it's questionable whether we play by those rules anyway. > > Ralf > > > __________________________________________________ > BritDisc mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp > __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/387 - Release Date: 12/07/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/387 - Release Date: 12/07/2006 ___________________________________________________________ Does your mail provider give you FREE antivirus protection? Get Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
