11 Edition Change Clarifications

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Reading through the 11 edition, and looking at

the summary of changes I'm a little confused

about "fast count" calls, more specifically, when

it's called for the second time in the same stall

count. With the way the new rules are written

w.r.t marker fouls, my interpretation is that

instead of going back to zero for the 2nd

infraction, the stall count now resumes at 6. Am

I wrong? Am I missing something? Clarification?

In my blog (see other post), likely within a week, I'll be explaining the 'new' marker violations in a lot more detail... but for now...


The way it works in the 11th is this. The first call of any of the four marker violations (by name: fast count, double-team, disc space, and vision blocking), the count goes down one and continues.


"StallingOne... Two... Three... ["fast count"] Two... Three... Four... Five..."


On the second call, again by name, it's exactly the same thing. The count goes down one (again) and continues without stopping.


continuing from above: "... Five... ["fast count"] Four... Five... Six..."


And so on, for a third time, fourth time, whatever...


Or... after the first call, for a second and subsequent, the thrower can choose to stop play instead. Instead of saying the marking violation's name, he/she says "Violation".


continuing from above: "... Six... Seven... ["Violation"] "... and play stops.


After the check, the count either comes in at "StallingOne" if uncontested. Or if contested, it comes in at the number after the one just uttered, or 6 if over 5. See XIV.5.a)(1) or XIV.5.a)(3), respectively.


continuing from above - uncontested: "StallingOne... Two"


continuing from above - contested (since 7 is over 5): "StallingSix... Seven..."


Also notice there's no pause needed now after the word 'stalling'. "Oh, there was supposed to be a pause?" ... never mind, not anymore.

JDD By JDD

I think Iain was referring to the change where, if a stall is contested (i.e. the marker reaches 10 but the thrower contests the stall), and then once the disc is checked back in, it is contested again due to a fast count, the next time it is checked in it comes in at stalling 6 rather than stalling 8.


(for the actual rule, see 11th edition XIV.A.5.b.3)


For anyone reading along in the 'substantive changes' document, when it refers to the second or subsequent contested stall coming in on 6, it is referring to that very specific situation only, and not to the general application of fast count (during the count, before the marker reaches a count of 10). Mortakai more than adequately explains the general rule in the post above.

So I guess we'll all be fast counting now, if we say StallingOne, as StallingOne doesn't take a full second to say. My understanding is that the way it was before, one second had to elapse between the starting of the word Stalling and the "wuh" of the word One. Or should we drag it out and say StallinnngggggggOne?

Oh! ... the "stall because of a fast count" stuff.


This is the case where someone speeds up in the last few numbers and you don't have the chance to say "fast count" before they've hit ten and called "stall". Then the 'stall' is 'contested' because of a 'fast count'.


In the 10th, it would go back to "Stalling ... nine...". And often this would be done so fast "Stalling.Nine.Ten", that it'd be another contested stall because of a fast count.


[ There was one particular game at College Regionals last year... the back-door game-to-go (UBC vs ? Stanford ? ) where this was done 3 or 4 times... I wasn't working that game, but I so wanted them to come to the Observers... NO WAY were those stalls... every one of the passes should've counted. ]


Many times (rarely seen in league tho') this 'stall/contest' cycle repeats over and over and over until eventually the thrower doesn't complete a pass and then the turnover stands, regardless of the stall call or not.


So now (11th), the first stall/contest comes back in at "StallingEight". But if the marker says "StallingEight.Nine.Ten", instead of "StallingEight... Nine... Ten", and there's another stall/contest---but only a contest because it was a fast count, *not* a contest because the thrower thought he released before "ten"---then we're down to "StallingSix".


It doesn't matter about why the *first* stall was contested, by the way, it can be either because the count was fast, or because the thrower thought they got the throw off before "ten".


But the second contest MUST be because of a fast count. In other words, if the second contest was because the thrower thought they got the throw off in time, but the count was the proper speed, then it's back in again to 8.

--> So I guess we'll all be fast counting now, if we say StallingOne <--


The 10th said the second between 'words', the 11th says between 'numbers'. (Actually between the first letter of one word/number and the next.) So the pauses aren't required until you're into the numbers.


That is, no pause is required after Stalling; or more specifically, no longer a need for a second between the "s" in "stalling" and the next number.


So now (11th) the rules fully support spitting out "StallingOne" as fast as you can.


Doc By Doc

damn I got timed out ... but to keep it short:


Fast Counts are already abused ... having the count drop only 1 will lead to more abuse and countless (pardon the pun) arguments about what number the marker was at when fast count was called...


Getting rid of the pause after stalling is good - keep it simple, less room for arguments

Thanks for all the clarification everyone, now the challenge will be to explain these situations to the

newbies in spring league! ("No, the count only goes back to 6 because you said 'fast count' when

you should have said 'violation', but I may have contested it anyway so it may have gone to 6

anyway, got it?".)


I also agree with Dave that the Cheatin' Cheaterheads are given a way of getting off easy now. All

they have to do is contest the violation call to avoid having to go back to zero because they've

been fast countin' cheatin' cheaterheads twice on the same mark.

It also strikes me as an insufficient deterrent (one stall count do-over) for violations like double-

teams etc. Strategically speaking, there are definitely times when taking a double team violation

would be better than allowing a huck. Perhaps I'v missed an important point? Wouldn't be the

first time.


Better start training more observers. A-ha! That's what's going on... an evil make-work plot for

the men and women in orange. We're onto you Mort! ;-)

Although... while the count only drops one, it's actually in effect a two-count reduction... that is, without the call right after you said "4" you *would* have gone on to "5", but instead you have to go down to "3". [5 less 3 is a two-count reduction].


AND... for the double-team, the count has to stop until they've all moved outside of the circle-of-death, so that effectively means even more time given back to the thrower.


And yes, true about the strategy about the DT instead of allowing the huck. However, it IS a 'cheatin'' thing to do, plus it's the same strategy that a player/team could have chosen to do in the 10th as well.


... and it's not evil... What *would* be evil is if there was too many and I'm forced off center-stage! :)

Math is hard!


Thanx for the addt'l info.