11th Edition Rules - Draft Review - It's Here!

18 posts / 0 new
Last post

As Posted on the UPA Website this morning...

This text and the associated links and documents referenced within can be found at the link below.

Many of you will already know that I'm one of the two Canadian members on the SRC. Each member of the SRC has invested many hundreds of hours to get us where we are now. And now it's all YOUR turns to help... and from comments so far from the little tidbits I've thrown out over the last month or so, I'm quite looking forward to the process.


It's here! The UPA Standing Rules Committee has been working hard on the 11th edition of the Rules of Ultimate, and we finally have a draft version that's ready for public scrutiny.

In order for this edition of the rules to be as good as possible, we are requesting feedback and input from our membership. The complete text of the proposed 11th Edition is now posted on the UPA site, as is a list of substantive changes between the 10th and 11th editions .

In addition, we are starting a rules discussion group to help us incorporate YOUR suggestions. You can visit the newsgroup at the following address: http://groups.google.com/group/UPA_11th_edition_rules .

Anyone can read the messages posted to this newsgroup, but to post or reply to a message you will need to login or sign up for a google groups account (which is free and easy to do).

The new rules will be available for public review for several months. Please take some time to read through this new edition, and let us know by posting to the newsgroup whether there are any areas that can be improved in terms of clarity or content. Members of the SRC will be checking and replying to this newsgroup regularly. Please limit your posts to rules-related topics. After sufficient time has elapsed for revisions based on feedback from the Ultimate community, a finalized version of the rules will be put to a vote.

Thanks to everyone who has been involved in or given input into this process, and thanks in advance for your assistance in helping to make the 11th Edition as comprehensive as possible.

-Peri Kurshan

SRC Chair


In an hour I'm off to Vegas again until the 30th if you can believe. I'll see if I can look it over

before then, but I'm doubtfull.

So if you don't hear from me in the next couple weeks. Don't worry you *will* hear from me. :)

From the 11th Edition draft:

"(2) In general, any contact between the thrower and the extended arms or legs of a marker is a foul on the marker, unless the contacted area of the marker is completely stationary and in a legal position."

Isn't this more ambiguous than the current 10th edition rules? I really dislike the use of "in general".

I prefer the current rules:

"The marker's extended arms and legs cannot be positioned in such a manner as to restrict the thrower from pivoting or throwing. Contact resulting from such an action is a foul on the marker."

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

the modifier "in general..." allows for the conditional "unless..." and is therefore appropriate. imo.

Weee... I read this on the CU website first :)

Colin. Would you be willing to post your comments on the Google discussion?

This is one of the harder(est) rules to actually codify and it'd be good for someone to kick off the discussion over there...

heh... yes Scire... I've been travelling :)

Why "in general" is being used is not 100% clear, so it could be dropped, imho.

As for the rest of that new rule, it looks OK at first glance. The stuff about 'restricting the movement of the thrower' in the old rule appears to now be covered by new rule XIV.B.3 "Disc-space: If an imaginary line segment connecting any two points on the marker touches the thrower or is less than one disc diameter away from the upper body or pivot of the thrower, it is a disc space violation. However, if this situation is caused solely by movement of the thrower, it is not a violation." So if the marker has their arms wrapped around you, you can call a disc space violation right away, instead of having to pivot into their arms (to enable a foul call).

If I'm interpreting it correctly, these two rules also mean that if I'm stationary as a marker, and I have a legal disc space separation, you can't call a foul if you hit my arms when you throw (or step through me to make a throw). That appears to be one change, cause today any contact with the markers arms can be called as a foul on the marker. I do envison many arguments as to whether the marker's arms were truly stationary or not, though.

"in general" seems to imply that there are exceptions to the rule.

Yes Mort, I'll duplicate my posts in rsd.

This rule is something I feel pretty strongly about. I don't just disagree with the wording of the rule, I disagree with the rule's intent.

The 10th edition rules made it so nice and clear. Why do we want to add the stipulation that if the marker's arms are "completely stationary" it's not a foul. Nobody has their arms stationary when they mark. If they do, any decent thrower can just throw under/over/around them. All this rule does, is give the defender something to argue about.

Was this change made because offensive players were taking too big an advantage of the current rules? Sure it is often possible to draw a foul in the case of a high stall count, but this rule change doesn't really address that issue.

If you want to give a leg up to the defense, change the stall count to 7... but that's for another thread.

Yeah! We finally get to see what Mortikai's been doing when he isn't posting on the forum (which means there really hasn't been a lot of effort put into the 11th edition, obviously)!


Hmm... I was impressed that I saw your post on the EUPA message board. We are one of the border association for Ultimate. We tend not to get a whole lot of major announcements on our neck of the woods...

Well Scire, I've played there at times, got to know some of the people, and have hit your boards in the past. So it just seemed natural to spread the word there too.

... bump for CT ...

I've heard a lot of complaints recently regarding a marks tendency to foul early in the count as a mechanism to disrupt flow. Has there ever been discussion of implementing field position penalties in Ultimate as there is in Football?

ie if the mark fouls within the first two stall counts...the mark and the thrower take ten steps in the offensive direction, furthermore all other players are allowed to take any position on they field they choose and the disk comes back in with a check...if within ten steps of the goal line, you can set up on the line but can't be awarded a point.

I know the rules are formed under the pretense that all players are not breaking the rules on purpose...but that obviously isn't the case anymore.

That's been discussed a fair bit... both within the SRC and on r.s.d.

In any discussions I've been involved in, positional penalties don't get much support. It's a fair bit away from the premise of the rules, as you've stated; however, that premise and the philosophy behind it continues to be strongly supported by the majority.

One of the problems with positional penalties, notwithstanding the overriding philosophy of the game, is that once something like this is instilled, then many will read it as condoning this as acceptable behaviour as long as you're willing to live with the circumstances. Also, it would (should) likely only apply to uncontested fouls, and a cheatin' cheaterhead will simply cheat even more and contest the foul so the penalty won't be instilled... and/or this same cheatin' cheaterhead will then call this foul to attempt to get the penalty applied. Which would then likely end up with calls needing to be taken out of the players hands and into "referees".

I believe this sort of behaviour needs to be dealt with through direct discussion between the players involved, among the captains and players, and dealt with overall by peer pressure and strong vocal support for Spirit of the Game. That's what Ultimate is all about.

Basically try to remember:

There's no rule that can prevent cheating.

The players are breaking the existing rules on purpose, they're cheating. In a self-refereed sport

where the cheater is as much the authority for ruling on play as everybody else,

there's nothing you can add to the rulebook to stop cheating.

I don't know Temple...

Proposed new section to 11th Edition:

Cheatin' Cheaterheads.

A- Any players suspected of being a cheatin' cheaterhead will be required to prove their innocence through one of three Trials.

i) Retrieving the One Ring from the firey pits of Mt. Doom.

ii) Challenging, and defeating, William Shatner in a croon-off.

iii) Naked boat race.

B- Trials must be successfully completed before play can be restarted. If play is restarted before the completion of the Trial, "Travel" must be called and the offending Cheatin' Cheaterhead must then complete their own Trial. Three successive Travel violations result in a Delay of Game call.

Just a thought.