-
Hi!
There’s a point I’m not sure about re the new continuation rule. In 16.2.4.2.1 we have:“… affected by the foul or violation, …”
Later in 16.3 it says:
“… the foul, violation or call did not affect …”
If this isn’t just a mistake that “call” wasn’t added in the first case, then I guess these sections should be interpreted as follows:
A player who’s team made the call and failed to gain/retain possession may not use “I heard a call so I slowed down and that’s why I didn’t catch the disc” in order to have the disc revert to the thrower (here we are under the provisions of 16.2.4.2.1).
However, if we are in a scenario where 16.3 is about to be invoked, a player may use that argument to prevent that. This does not mean necessarily that the play wouldn’t still stand (it might, due to another part of the continuation rule) but it will not stand due to 16.3.
Does that sound right?
If this isn’t just a mistake that “call” wasn’t added in the first case
It wasn’t just a mistake.
An example of where saying “the call affected the play” would not be allowed would be (according to 16.2.4.2.1.):
Player A calls pick while the disc is in the air.
The disc was not thrown to Player X, on the other side of the field.
Player B cannot claim that “I stopped defending because I heard the Pick call, so the disc should go back to the thrower”.
So in this case, the disc should stay with Player X.An example of where saying “the call affected the play” would be allowed would be (according to 16.3.):
A pick is called before the throw.
The players in the stack hear the pick call and start to slow down.
The thrower does not hear the pick call and makes a pass towards Player C in the stack.
Player C does not catch the pass because they slowed down when the pick call was made.
Player C can claim that: “I stopped cutting because I heard the Pick call, so the disc should go back to the thrower”.
In that case, the disc should be returned to the thrower.The basic summary is this:
- You should always keep playing if a call has been made while the disc is in the air.
- If the call is made before the throw, and you stopped, then saying the call affected the play can be a valid excuse.
[quote=”rueben” post=30]
An example of where saying “the call affected the play” would be allowed would be (according to 16.3.):
A pick is called before the throw.
The players in the stack hear the pick call and start to slow down.
The thrower does not hear the pick call and makes a pass towards Player C in the stack.
Player C does not catch the pass because they slowed down when the pick call was made.
Player C can claim that: “I stopped cutting because I heard the Pick call, so the disc should go back to the thrower”.
In that case, the disc should be returned to the thrower.The basic summary is this:
- You should always keep playing if a call has been made while the disc is in the air.
- If the call is made before the throw, and you stopped, then saying the call affected the play can be a valid excuse.
[/quote]
Hi there!
Why it is specified that the call was made before the throw?
According to 16.3 “Regardless of when a call is made…” so I would assume that the word “before” is unnecessary.
I don’t understand why a pick called during/after the throw cannot affect the play (in case of not completed pass):
why Player C cannot claim that: “I stopped cutting because I heard the Pick call, so the disc should go back to the thrower” if the call was made when the disc was in the air?does the pick rule 18.3.2 contradict rule 16.3 though?
18.3.2. Once play has stopped, the obstructed player may move to the agreed position
they would have otherwise occupied if the obstruction had not occurred. The
disc is returned to the thrower (if the disc was thrown).this seems to override rule 16.3, though I feel 16.3 was introduced largely due to the issue with picks being returned to the thrower regardless of the outcome.
Why it is specified that the call was made before the throw?
According to 16.3 “Regardless of when a call is made…” so I would assume that the word “before” is unnecessary.
I don’t understand why a pick called during/after the throw cannot affect the play (in case of not completed pass):
why Player C cannot claim that: “I stopped cutting because I heard the Pick call, so the disc should go back to the thrower” if the call was made when the disc was in the air?Player C can make that claim whether the pick was before or after the throw. The difference is what happens next.
In the scenario Rueben gave, player C claims that the call affected the play and therefore 16.3 does not apply. Now, since the pick was before the throw we are under rule 16.1 and the disc returns to the thrower.
However, had the scenario been exactly the same only the pick was called* after the throw, then even though 16.3 doesn’t apply (cause player C slowed down because of the call) we are still under 16.2.4.1, so the turnover stands and play continues.
* EDIT: added “called”.
[quote=”david” post=51]
Player C can make that claim whether the pick was before or after the throw. The difference is what happens next.In the scenario Rueben gave, player C claims that the call affected the play and therefore 16.3 does not apply. Now, since the pick was before the throw we are under rule 16.1 and the disc returns to the thrower.
However, had the scenario been exactly the same only the pick was after the throw then even though 16.3 doesn’t apply (cause player C slowed down because of the call) we are still under 16.2.4.1, so the turnover stands and play continues.[/quote]
Aren’t we under 16.2.4.1 even when the call is made before the throw (and not completed pass)?
[quote=”david” post=53]
Aren’t we under 16.2.4.1 even when the call is made before the throw (and not completed pass)?
To be under 16.2.4.1 we first must be under 16.2. i.e., in a scenario where the call was made after the throw/during the throwing motion or against the thrower (who then attempted a pass).[/quote]
ok…I think I’ve got it. The difference between the two scenarios is that pick is not a call against the thrower (16.2.1 does not apply), but falls under 16.2.2 and 16.2.3 anyway.
I still don’t exactly understand why 16.2.1 says “against the thrower and the thrower subsequently attempts a pass” and not just
16.2. However, if the foul or violation is called:
16.2.1.against the throwerand the thrower subsequently attempts a passWouldn’t this make things easier?
Hi all
I am hoping that the following will make this all a bit clearer:
After a Pick call, where there has been a throw made, there are two possible outcomes of the throw and each outcome requires a different response:
Outcome A: The pass is incomplete:
- The first question should be: “When was the pick called?”
- If it was called during/after the throw, then the turnover stands, regardless of the call/pick affecting the play.(Same as 2009 Rules)
- If it was called before the throw, you must ask a second question: “Did the pick call affect the turnover?”
- – If yes – ie the cutter slowed down because they heard the pick called before the throw – then the disc must go back to the thrower (Same as 2009 Rules)
- – If no – the turnover stands (New Rules for 2013)
[ul]
[/ul]
Outcome B: The pass is complete:
- The first question should be: “Did the Pick/Pick call affect the play?”
- If no – the pass stands (Slight change for 2013)
- If yes – you must ask a second question: “When was the pick called?”
- – If it was called during/after the throw, then it only matters if the Pick affected the play, in which case the disc goes back to the thrower (Same as 2009 Rules)
- – If it was called before the throw, then saying the Pick or the Pick call affected the play is valid, and the disc goes back to the thrower (Slight change for 2013)
[ul]
[/ul]
When written out for each scenario this may seem complicated, but in practice it should be very simple:
Apply continuation just like in the 2009 Rules BUT take the following into account
- – if a pass is completed and it would have been completed regardless of any foul/violation/call – let it stand
- – if a pass is incomplete and it would have been incomplete regardless of any foul/violation/call – let it stand
Note: The big difference between this new rule and the USAU rule is that in the WFDF Rule play should stop immediately if a pick call is made before the throw (not just when acknowledged by the thrower). However if play does not stop, we now have a way to allow any unaffected play to stand.
My question is why that is contradicted by 18.3.2 which is the same as the 2009 version, which says the disc is returned to the thrower if it was thrown, which ignores any possible “did it affect play” situations.
Because Rule 16 overrides rule 18.3.2. We could probably make that more clear by including the following in 18.3.2: “unless specified otherwise”.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.