WFDF v UPA

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Something for you rules gurus to chew on: the WFDF rules that will be in use at WUGC have been posted on the WUGC website, and they are different from the UPA rules. One distinctive difference is that WFDF does not use Observers, even at Worlds.

That's right. There's a strong feeling, especially amongst some of the European players, that Observers are the beginning of the slippery slope away from self-officiating toward fully officiated games (and less spirited play). I'm curious to see if, on the world championship stage, the players can keep their conversations down to 30 seconds when calls are disputed... If so, it'll make for good viewing... and that's the spirit that the fans are looking for!

More play, less boredom!

WFDF is currently putting together a summary list of the main differences between WFDF and UPA rules, primarily for use by the North American teams to get up to speed quickly on the WFDF rules for Worlds.

Hopefully the hecklers will also read the summary so they're not embarrassed when they boo the pick call because they think the defender was too far away.

Interestingly, I don't think the Observer rules difference made it to the list, but understandably so given the document's purpose.

Interesting that the WFDF rules don't allow a throw before the third ground contact without
slowing. I wonder if that's going to affect teams' play if they use lots of give-go's.

I'm pretty sure the world's best teams don't actually read these sort of rules, so everybody will
be applying their conventional wisdom (which will allow for the give-and-go).

Hmm, the greatest doesn't seem to be allowed either.

JDD By JDD

"Hmm, the greatest doesn't seem to be allowed either."

How so?

Maybe the greatest is legal... maybe not....

http://www.wugc2008.com/files/WFDF%20Ultimate%20Rules%202008%20-
%20Official%20Version.pdf

16.3.4) The thrower may attempt a pass at any time as long as they are entirely in-
bounds or have established an in-bounds pivot.

I initially took that to mean that the player has to be within the playing field proper, though
now I'm not so sure. Either the rule is using the new term "entirely in-bounds" to mean "in-
bounds", or there is some different state where one can be partially in-bounds.

It's unclear, but I think that this can only really be interpreted as the thrower can make a
pass whenever they are in-bounds. This makes the rule redundant however as the only time
you can have an IB pivot is when you are IB. I'm wondering what the intent of this rule is
trying to say.

As it is written, the thrower does not have to set a pivot before throwing.

That interpretation leads us to the following problem:

16.3.1) After catching the disc, the thrower must come to a stop as quickly as possible,
without changing direction.

Following above, one can throw at any point that one is IB, yet this rule still applies, and the
thrower must come to a stop, even after they've let go of the disc.

That doesn't really make sense either. I have trouble believing that that is how that rule is
intended to be interpreted.

Perhaps the intent was that the thrower must come to a stop before throwing. If that's the
case, the rule would actually make sense, but it would outlaw the greatest.

--

I think the WFDF rules are an excellent example of how a 'simplified' rule-set is not actually
a better rule-set.

Actually, maybe it does make sense, and maybe it does allow for the greatest. It says that you
have to be IB to throw, and that you have to stop as quickly as you can, but if you are in the air
and IB at the time of the throw, and subsequently stop as quickly as possible, the greatest is
legal. I think. Give and go's, however, are only legal as long as you are slowing down as quickly
as possible and actually come to a stop before or after the throw.

"Actually, maybe it does make sense, and maybe it does allow for the greatest. It says that
you have to be IB to throw, and that you have to stop as quickly as you can, but if you are in
the air and IB at the time of the throw, and subsequently stop as quickly as possible, the
greatest is legal. I think. Give and go's, however, are only legal as long as you are slowing
down as quickly as possible and actually come to a stop before or after the throw."

Isn't that what I said? :)

My point is that I don't think that it makes sense. And I don't think that that's how the rules
are intended to be interpreted.

We may both be right, but I hope not. Being able to call a travel on somebody because they
didn't stop fully after they make a throw (even a release while in the air), certainly doesn't
make sense to me.

"Hopefully the hecklers will also read the summary so they're not embarrassed when they boo the pick call because they think the defender was too far away."

Mark,

Where in the UPA 11th Edition rules does it state the distance the defender has to be within to make a pick call? Section XVI I (1-3) covers pick calls and does not mention a distance anywhere. When I search the document for "pick" nothing else relevant comes up except where the stall count is restarted.

The WFDF rules state clearly it is 5 m in section 16.1

I just wanted to know what the rule was supposed to be for league play, I always thought it was 3m (10ft).

I see it is referenced to Definitions (IIG).

Guarding: A defender is guarding an offensive player when they are within three meters of that offensive player and are reacting to that offensive player.

I had to look at the rule differences between 10th and 11th to find it.

Glad I could help

;p

More importantly, when has whether or not a call been 'legitimate' ever stopped people from heckling?

There's a nascent WFDF rules quiz up at Ultipedia highlighting a few of the differences. If you've got any other relevant questions, post em there :) see www below