From csv.warwick.ac.uk!britdisc-owner Tue Apr 1 14:45:52 1997 From: mackay@mrao.cam.ac.uk (David J.C. MacKay) To: admrwm@ccg.acu.man.ac.uk, britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: Re: Re[2]: rules question I will try to finish off this pick question by summarising and filling out what Rafi said. The following is taken from http://wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk/ultimate/rules.html NOTE: the UPA rules differ from the WFDF rules. I will give both versions. In the UK we play WFDF. Picks A pick is called when a defender is unable to follow the offensive player he/she is marking. The important issues to get clear are: * Whether you should carry on playing the disc, if it is in the air. YES if you don't know that the pick was called *before* the throw [wfdf], YES always [upa]. [As a rule of thumb, always play out whatever play is in the air, then have a discussion after.] * What happens then, if the pass is incomplete / complete to the picking offensive player / complete to another offensive player. [wfdf] Once the play is completed you figure out if the pick call was before or after the throw. IF it was BEFORE the throw, then play should have stopped, and the disc should not have been thrown, and the disc *always* goes back to the thrower, whether or not the pass was incomplete. IF the pick call was AFTER the pass was thrown then: incomplete pass or interecepted pass -> turnover; complete pass -> back to thrower; UNLESS the pick call was irrelevant to the play (e.g., the pass went to *another* offensive player in another direction), in which case the completed pass stands, and play resumes with a check. [UPA] Any incomplete pass is a turn-over; complete passes go back to thrower unless the play was unaffected by the pick. -------------------------------------------------------- Having hopefully ended this thread, I would like to start another one. Last season, a certain junior player, with the support of his team, strongly advocated `view A': "if a player runs off the field and then back onto the field, they are ineligible to receive the next pass." Just to make clear the situation, our player, Jim K., ran down the line, taking some steps off the field, then ran back on the field, then received the disc, i.e. both points of contact *immediately before* and *immediately after* the catch were in bounds. Having read the rules carefully I think that the above play IS legitimate, and that `view A' above is a myth that needs to be wiped out. This issue spoilt the spirit of at least one game last year, and I would like to see it sorted out before Ultim8 gets going. See you in Hitchin! David Strange Blue ========================================================================== David J.C. MacKay email: mackay@mrao.cam.ac.uk www: http://wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/ Cavendish Laboratory, tel: (01223) 339852 fax: 354599 home: 276411 Madingley Road, international code: +44 1223 Cambridge CB3 0HE. U.K. room: 982 Rutherford Building From watsonwyatt.co.uk!Wayne_Retter Tue Apr 1 16:00:46 1997 From: Wayne_Retter@watsonwyatt.co.uk Encoding: 2552 Text To: mackay@mrao.cam.ac.uk (David J.C. MacKay) Subject: Re[4]: rules question David Picks: Thanks for pointing out to everybody the UPA/WFDF differences - it's something that gets hazed after events like Worlds, and teams visiting the US, and people get confused. I've been involved in this discussion before (when I played for Masters {this doesn't mean I'm experienced, it means that Masters in 93 was young - I was 5th eldest at 22yrs of age!} at EUGC93 in Papendal, Holland) when Bud voiced "View A" in one of our games, but was assured that it was no correct. If I remember correctly, the conclusion was that there HAD been a rule (along the lines of "a player going out of bounds is not legally inbounds again (and so cannot receive a pass) until another pass has been completed" - which seems a bit complex!) but that it had been replaced by that which you are saying. As an example, an endzone player MAY stack out the back of the zone but still receive the pass, so long as he is inbounds before and after the catch. However, I can't remember if you have to have one or two inbounds ground contacts before the catch, but I think and play that it's one. (eg if you cut up a line, running one foot in, one out, penultimate foot out, last foot in, make a catch, next touch (could be a hand on a layout!) is inbounds, you're OK.) Not sure if this helps, but you've made me think! Wayne Retter Fluid Druids ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Re[2]: rules question Author: mackay@mrao.cam.ac.uk (David J.C. MacKay) at ~Internet Date: 01/04/97 14:18 [stuff about picks read, agreed and hopefully remembered...] Having hopefully ended this thread, I would like to start another one. Last season, a certain junior player, with the support of his team, strongly advocated `view A': "if a player runs off the field and then back onto the field, they are ineligible to receive the next pass." Just to make clear the situation, our player, Jim K., ran down the line, taking some steps off the field, then ran back on the field, then received the disc, i.e. both points of contact *immediately before* and *immediately after* the catch were in bounds. Having read the rules carefully I think that the above play IS legitimate, and that `view A' above is a myth that needs to be wiped out. This issue spoilt the spirit of at least one game last year, and I would like to see it sorted out before Ultim8 gets going. See you in Hitchin! David Strange Blue From reuters.com!patrick.moore Tue Apr 1 17:28:37 1997 Mr-Received: by mta REC.MUAS; Relayed; Tue, 01 Apr 1997 17:23:07 +0000 Mr-Received: by mta RE6; Relayed; Tue, 01 Apr 1997 17:23:09 +0000 Mr-Received: by mta RITIG4; Relayed; Tue, 01 Apr 1997 16:23:20 +0000 From: Patrick Moore 5884 Subject: Re: Rules question - running out and then back in To: Britdisc Cc: David Mackay Hop-Count: 2 David Mackay wrote: >Having hopefully ended this thread, I would like to start another >one. Last season, a certain junior player, with the support of >his team, strongly advocated > >`view A': > "if a player runs off the field and then back onto the > field, they are ineligible to receive the next pass." > > Just to make clear the situation, our player, Jim K., >ran down the line, taking some steps off the field, then ran >back on the field, >then received the disc, i.e. both points of contact *immediately before* >and *immediately after* the catch were in bounds. >Having read the rules carefully I think that the above play >IS legitimate, and that `view A' above is a myth that needs to be >wiped out. >This issue spoilt the spirit of at least one game last year, and I would >like to see it sorted out before Ultim8 gets going. Being OLD and (metaphorically) grey, I think I can shed some light on this: The "certain junior player" and his team are several years out of date, but the call they made was actually correct at some point in the early nineties. I think it lasted exactly one edition of the WFDF rules before being removed, on the grounds that it, and the resulting effect on the game, were completely CRAP!!! I very much hope that your team won the argument, as you were certainly in the right according to current rules. I also hope that nobody is going to suggest that this rule (i.e. the old one) be included as part of the tournament rules for Ultim8. Regards, Patrick -- patrick.moore@reuters.com From csv.warwick.ac.uk!britdisc-owner Wed Apr 2 00:02:38 1997 From: Kevin Lowe To: "'Britdisc'" Subject: Re: Rules Question 2 Since I was kind of involved in this argument with Dave, I'll put my = tuppence worth in=20 now. I'd actually had this 'discussion' with some Druids just before = this, to find out the=20 'internationally agreed' view. As a result, I stayed out of the on-pitch = argument, still=20 unsure about this rule. The situation, as described by Dave, was that a player ran out of bounds = while=20 chasing the disc. He caught it in bounds (having taken off from in = bounds as well), but=20 the question is whether he was making a play on the disc while chasing = it. The rules=20 state, "Receiving players may not go out-of-bounds to make a play on the = disc". The junior in question made this call, as he learnt it in 1994 playing = against Sweden.=20 One of the GB Juniors was attempting to catch an overhead, and he = stepped outside=20 of the pitch while the disc was in the air, before coming back in bounds = to make the=20 catch. The Swedish juniors called it even before he attempted to catch = the disc. As far=20 as they were concerned, if he went outside the pitch, he must not = influence the play=20 until the disc was caught. I think the problem is how to define 'making = a play on the disc'.=20 As to whether it should have been called is a totally different matter. = The spirit in this=20 game was not good. Both teams have good spirit records, but that seems = to go out of=20 the window whenever they meet each other. I really don't know why, but = we have=20 vowed to change this next time we meet. The problem here is that some players believe that rules should be = observed, whatever=20 the game. This was not GB Juniors Vs Sweden, but if they don't make the = calls (and=20 have them made against them) in general games, they will get even more = walked over=20 internationally. The same argument applies to dropping the pull. If it = doesn't get called,=20 no one learns. Sure, if they were inexperienced, explain it, and let = them off, but if it's=20 in the rules, and it's likely that it would be called by another team, = you've got to learn. I hope this rule does get cleared up. It's one that's confused me for = years. It's worse indoors, when you consider the walls being out of = bounds. Should you be allowed to push yourself away from the wall to = make a cut? Can you be leaning against a wall when you catch a disc? Or = as any Shotgun player would say, "Who cares? Get outside, get a life!". = Thank God indoors is over for another season. Kevin. --=20 | E-mail Kev@Curved-logic.com Phone (+44)1244-382371 | Silence is better than unmeaning words - Pythagoras From mrao.cam.ac.uk!mackay Wed Apr 2 00:24:18 1997 From: mackay@mrao.cam.ac.uk (David J.C. MacKay) To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk, kevin.lowe@curved-logic.com Subject: Re: Rules Question 2 Cc: mackay@mrao.cam.ac.uk >> The rules state, "Receiving players may >> not go out-of-bounds to make a play on the disc". Yes, I agree, the rules say this, and it seems ambiguous what it means. However, let's look at the big picture. This means reading the next two sentences in the rules. Here they are. Receiving Players: Receiving players may not go out-of-bounds to make a play on the disc. For a receiver to be considered in-bounds at the time of gaining possession of the disc, the player's first point of contact with the ground must be completely in-bounds. If any portion of the first point of contact is out-of-bounds, the player is considered out-of-bounds. Definition Player: A player is out-of-bounds whenever he is contacting an out-of-bounds area. When a player is in the air, whether he is in or out-of-bounds is determined by where he last contacted the ground. I think this makes it pretty clear. The first part of this paragraph, quoted by Kevin, says "receiver may not go out bounds to make a play". You ask `but what does that mean?' The second part says what the definition of "out of bounds" is. Why is this definition given here? I think it is given in order to *explain* the first sentence `Receiving players may not go out-of-bounds...' So my interpretation of the sentence quoted by Kevin is this: Imagine you are defining the rules of ultimate to someone. One of the basic rules you will tell them is "The offence cannot go and run off the playing field". I think that this is all that is being explained. It is a basic rule stating that you can't go touch the disc off the field. If there really *were* still a rule about being ineligible to receive the disc until the next pass, the rules would surely spell this out? As it is, I reckon the rules say "You can't receive out of bounds; the definition of out of bounds is that the current / previous ground contact was out of bounds, and when you receive the disc your the next ground contact must be in bounds too." I found Patrick's old grey comments on this very helpful. In case anyone wants to be reminded of what he said, I'm logging this correspondence here: http://wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk/ultimate/eligible.txt All the best, David From csv.warwick.ac.uk!britdisc-owner Wed Apr 2 00:43:52 1997 From: mackay@mrao.cam.ac.uk (David J.C. MacKay) To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk, kevin.lowe@curved-logic.com Subject: Re: Rules Question 2 Cc: mackay@mrao.cam.ac.uk >> The rules state, "Receiving players may >> not go out-of-bounds to make a play on the disc". Yes, I agree, the rules say this, and it seems ambiguous what it means. However, let's look at the big picture. This means reading the next two sentences in the rules. Here they are. Receiving Players: Receiving players may not go out-of-bounds to make a play on the disc. For a receiver to be considered in-bounds at the time of gaining possession of the disc, the player's first point of contact with the ground must be completely in-bounds. If any portion of the first point of contact is out-of-bounds, the player is considered out-of-bounds. Definition Player: A player is out-of-bounds whenever he is contacting an out-of-bounds area. When a player is in the air, whether he is in or out-of-bounds is determined by where he last contacted the ground. I think this makes it pretty clear. The first part of this paragraph, quoted by Kevin, says "receiver may not go out bounds to make a play". You ask `but what does that mean?' The second part says what the definition of "out of bounds" is. Why is this definition given here? I think it is given in order to *explain* the first sentence `Receiving players may not go out-of-bounds...' So my interpretation of the sentence quoted by Kevin is this: Imagine you are defining the rules of ultimate to someone. One of the basic rules you will tell them is "The offence cannot go and run off the playing field". I think that this is all that is being explained. It is a basic rule stating that you can't go touch the disc off the field. If there really *were* still a rule about being ineligible to receive the disc until the next pass, the rules would surely spell this out? As it is, I reckon the rules say "You can't receive out of bounds; the definition of out of bounds is that the current / previous ground contact was out of bounds, and when you receive the disc your the next ground contact must be in bounds too." I found Patrick's old grey comments on this very helpful. In case anyone wants to be reminded of what he said, I'm logging this correspondence here: http://wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk/ultimate/eligible.txt All the best, David From csv.warwick.ac.uk!britdisc-owner Wed Apr 2 00:43:56 1997 From: Neil Travers To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: Re: rules question David J.C. MacKay wrote: > UNLESS the pick call was irrelevant to the play (e.g., the pass > went to *another* offensive player in another direction), in which case the > completed pass stands, and play resumes with a check. I think I agreed with the rest of you mail, but I must disagree with this. The WFDF rules do NOT say anything about whether the pick affected play or not. The throw should go back even if the pick was in a completely different direction. Of course a lot of team will allow the play to stand if it turns out the pick was irrelevant. and started a new thread: > `view A': > "if a player runs off the field and then back onto the > field, they are ineligible to receive the next pass." The rules do not support this view at all (as you thought). It is only your current points of contact, or if in the air your previous and next point of contact, that need to be considered. The rules for this are: 404.06 Out-of-Bounds: C. Receiving Players: Receiving players may not go out-of-bounds to make a play on the disc. For a receiver to be considered in-bounds at the time of gaining possession of the disc, the player's first point of contact with the ground must be completely in-bounds. If any portion of the first point of contact is out-of-bounds, the player is considered out-of-bounds. D. Definition Player: A player is out-of-bounds whenever he is contacting an out-of-bounds area. When a player is in the air, whether he is in or out-of-bounds is determined by where he last contacted the ground. -- Neil Travers - work Texcel (UK) Ltd, Braywick House West, Maidenhead, SL6 1DN, UK. From csv.warwick.ac.uk!britdisc-owner Wed Apr 2 01:48:13 1997 From: mackay@mrao.cam.ac.uk (David J.C. MacKay) To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk, neil@texcel.no Subject: Re: rules question Neil said: >> I must disagree with >> this. The WFDF rules do NOT say anything about whether the pick >> affected play or not. The throw should go back even if the pick was in >> a completely different direction. Of course a lot of team will allow >> the play to stand if it turns out the pick was irrelevant. Interesting! You are right.... Even more interesting, If we read the UPA rules, we find this is spelt out some more: ----- Notice part (3) ---- 2. Continuation Rule: A. Disc In the Air (1) If a foul, violation, or pick is called while the disc is in the air, the play is always completed. (2) If the team which called the foul, violation, or pick gains possession as a result of that pass (e.g., an incomplete pass following a traveling violation, or offensive foul), play continues unhalted. In this situation, players should call "play on." (3) If the pass is completed, but the defensive effort on the pass was affected by the violation (e.g. picks), the pass does not count and possession reverts back to the thrower. It says "if the defensive effort was affected by the pick then it goes back to thrower;" implying, I guess, that if it was unaffected, the disc does *not* go back. So, Neil is right -- what I said is correct for UPA rules but it is not mentioned in WFDF rules. Often, WFDF rules are modified to match UPA rules, so it may be that this part of the wfdf rules will change in the next edition. (The UPA rule above is a recent modification to the UPA rules.) Anyway, that's the way it stands at the moment. Does anyone still want to know where the up to date rules are? I hunted around on the web and found the official WFDF and UPA rules. I copied them to wol also, so you can take your pick from the following links: Rules of Ultimate | WFDF version | Cambridge Idiots' version | Britdisc discussion | Britdisc discussion | UPA version | UPA master copy | wfdf master copy | Yours David ========================================================================== David J.C. MacKay email: mackay@mrao.cam.ac.uk www: http://wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/ Cavendish Laboratory, tel: (01223) 339852 fax: 354599 home: 276411 Madingley Road, international code: +44 1223 Cambridge CB3 0HE. U.K. room: 982 Rutherford Building