rule change

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

I got an email for a suggested rule change and then I spaced and forgot about it. It pertains to the 5v5 rules for goal-scoring. Here's the suggestion. I'd like some agreement on it before I go ahead and make the change.

#1 is the current rule. #2 is my suggested revision. It makes the rule more consistent with the eastern version, and less ambiguous on the subject of where the disc is meant to be placed.

1. “There is no pull after a point. When a team scores, the receiving player acknowledges the goal and immediately places the disc on the ground. The other team has 8 seconds to take possession and put the disc into play at that spot (they cannot walk the disc to the goal line). “

2. There is no pull after a point. When a team scores, the scoring player acknowledges the goal and immediately places the disc on the playing field, approximately at the receiver’s first ground contact in the endzone following possession. The other team has 8 seconds to take possession and put the disc into play at that spot (they may not walk the disc to the goal line).

What do you think? If a receiver slid a great distance, it would mean having to get up and drop the disc where he first crashed.

Re: #2
I like the intent. On thing: what happens if the receiver doesn't put it
down at the point of first ground contact (FGC)?
- Is it a callable violation (with an ensuing stoppage), or
- can the person putting it into play simply walk it to the spot of FGC?
- If the offense is allowed to to reposition it, shouldn't the 8 sec count
start only once they've made it to the location of FGC?
-I'm assuming FGC is established using "best perspective".

Rob By Rob

I like it.

"On thing: what happens if the receiver doesn't put it down at the point of first ground contact (FGC)? "

The way #2 is phrased, a violation of the rule could be called just like any other violation -- that would produce a stoppage.

Presumably, you would force a stoppage only if there was a major, play-altering disagreement over where the "approximate" location is.

I wouldn't recommend writing rules around repositioning rights, as it would get a little complicated.

I really like the intent of this. I believe this will decrease some confusion that has happened in the past. However I see one issue that can arise. If the scoring player, scores at 100% full speed by running on a long cut and is totally exhausted after the score (aka they want to puke) and the other team realizes this. The scored on team will then want to run the offense immediately to take advantage of the mismatch related to one player being totally gassed. The past scorer will probably very slowly bring the disk back to the FPC and thus adversely affect the other team. So I propose two possible solutions:

1) Change the wording to say that the just scored player must placed the disk back at the FPC ASAP.

2) Change the wording to say that the just scored on team can choose to starts the offense from where the player drops the disk or at the FPC. This is similar to an end zone turnover in regular ultimate. (The newly offensive team can either play the disk from where the disk is on the ground or bring it up to the end zone line.)

I prefer option 2
Thanks
Nick

Sorry didn’t see the immediate in the LC’s suggestion. My ASAP in my option 1 is probably not needed. But my option 2 could be valid.

Re:
"The way #2 is phrased, a violation of the rule could be called just like
any other violation -- that would produce a stoppage.
Presumably, you would force a stoppage only if there was a major,
play-altering disagreement over where the "approximate" location is.
I wouldn't recommend writing rules around repositioning rights, as it
would get a little complicated."

Re: the repositioning rule being harder to write:
That's probably true. However, without allowing repositions we're
opening ourselves up to a lot of stoppages. Almost any call that stops
play benefits the defence a bit - in this case the team that just scored. I'd prefer to see a "live" remedy that does not favour the violator.

In field ulty the team taking possession in their end zone has an option to play it from where
the disc stops or walk it to the goal line. The decision has to be made immediately.

This is part of the sport that we know and works well.

Why not word it so that after a score, the scoring team puts the disc down where they score,
and the team becoming offense has the choice to play it where it lays or walk it to the first
point of contact after the possession was gained?

This covers the somewhat rare cases where field possession will be lost by the proposed rule
change above (think an in-cut from the back of the end-zone towards the line). The O gets to
choose, they can always get the better possession, the scoring team can never gain an
advantage by running the disc out.

There will also be little or no confusion, as it's quite symmetrical with the current ultimate
rules. Further, the new D will not get to move the disc, so that eliminates any potential delay
(intentional or otherwise).

I like the how this is included: "The other team has 8 seconds to take possession and put the
disc into play at that spot (they may not walk the disc to the goal line)."
I did try this last Thursday though and my opponent said a countdown from 20 is necessary.
Me being a faster player I am able to score further away from my opponent. I think 8 seconds
is plenty of time to get to disc. Is there any time it should be more than 8?

"Why not word it so that after a score, the scoring team puts the disc down where they score, and the team becoming offense has the choice to play it where it lays or walk it to the first point of contact after the possession was gained?"

You know, a similar rule is popular in Quebec 5v5 variants (but walking up to the goal line instead of point of first contact following possession).

But I would prefer to keep the disc placement prescribed to one spot to keep things simple. If there had to be a choice, I'd prefer the choice be between where the disc lies and the goal line (a la Ville de Quebec). Having a choice between two somewhat vague spots on the field makes it doubly confusing, in my opinion. As a defender, I'd be flummoxed if a handler picked up the disc, unexpectedly hopped over to another spot in the endzone, and threw from there.

By prescribing a slightly more precise location to place the disc, we might invite more litigious enforcement of that rule -- true. But people can already call violations if the scorer does not act "immediately" enough, and I don't think we see much of that. By adding an "approximate" placement location, I think we're just giving better direction on what we'd like to see.

"Why not word it so that after a score, the scoring team puts the disc
down where they score, and the team becoming offense has the choice to
play it where it lays or walk it to the first point of contact after the
possession was gained?"

I like it.

I see where the issues are regarding gassed strikers, etc. I'm curious to see where the discussion leads to. Maybe there should be some sort of "delay of game stall count" where the defending (now offensive player) can do, maybe up to stall 3 for example at the spot where the FPC was (are we going with first point of contact? I forgot the acronym), and the player who caught the disc has to drop it at the spot. If not, the offensive team can bring it up to the endzone line? I don't know. It's just an idea in this brainstorming session and there are no bad ideas in brainstorming (just covering my bases in case someone reams out my idea :P)

And the putting the disc down immediately is very important and needs to be enforced. I don't feel unspirited if I drop the disc right in front of a player when I score; I'm just doing what the rules say.

I had an incident last night where I followed my guy around for a few steps, then he finally handed the disc to me. I pivoted around him and threw it. He called a travel on me and I'm not sure why he called it, but from the general gist of it, either because he thought I took a step, or because he thought I should have taken it back to where he had initially caught it.

I don't think there's a "courtesy" when someone hands me the disc. If anything, I think this gives the now defensive player to catch their breath, allow their fellow defenders to catch up to their checks etc. As an offensive player, I want to pick up the disc, and huck it right away to my striker whos gunning it down the field. Too bad if the defense isn't ready. It's a part of turf style ultimate.

I prefer the current wording of the rule. Receivers catch a goal, and drop it after a couple steps. It would drive me nuts if I have to follow this guy around while he decides "asap" exactly where to put the disc, meantime catching his breath and his team mates finding checks.

The yards lost when a receiver holds onto the disc too long after catching a goal just don't matter much, compared to the loss of chance for a fast break.

Ryan