-
Thanks for the draft !
I have a few comments/questions:
1) Change to 7.5.1: by changing “offside” to “a false start”, there is now no rule that explains how to resolve when the defense calls offside. That seems like a mistake to me.
2) Change to 18.1.4: Am I correct to understand that the only effect this has is to enable non-markers to call a double team violation, or are there other effects I’m missing ?
A.
The new proposed definition of ‘guarding’ is to include the term ‘focused on’. What does a defending player need to do to meet this requirement (distinct from the existing requirement of reacting) in order to be legitimately guarding for the purposes of picks and double teams?
Focus is foremost something that happens in the mind so it’s not always externally perceivable. Moreover, a defender’s focus is likely to be split in any one moment between many factors, including the location of their attacker, other opposition players, their own teammates and the disc.
If focused is a reference to active focus with eyes, this could be argued to exclude defenders who are not looking directly at their attacker at the time of the pick/double team (for many valid defensive reasons, including to move safely or to observe the release of the disc to their attacker).
There are many moments where a defender is within 3 metres of an attacker, reacting to their movement or lack thereof (sensed through peripheral vision, noise and last known position) and ultimately trying to stop them get the disc, but without focussing their eyes directly on them at all times.
I therefore contend the addition of the term ‘focused on’ to the guarding definition is not appropriate or at least, insufficiently defined. It will likely lead to debates in pick or double team calls.
To 1: I understand it as just renaming what used to be “offside by the offence” into “false start”. So the defence would call “False start” instead of “offside”.
To 2: that would be my understanding as well. That is the only marking infraction that could be called by some one other than the thrower.It seems the issue raised in discussion “Offense should not recover possession because the “pick call” affected them” [1] is not solved in the current draft. I believe it is an issue that needs to be fixed in the rules 2025-2028.
[1] https://rules.wfdf.sport/forums/topic/offense-should-not-recover-possession-because-the-pick-call-affected-them/
Hi
would be interesting to visually signal the end of half-time and the match so that players and spectators can know if they are on target…For example a yellow cones in front of the scorer to say that we are in time until half time is over. Red cones to say that we are on the half-time cap.
Same thing for the end of the match: 2 yellow cones for the end of time and 2 red cones to signal the fact that the match is in the final cap.
I think that’s very important to have a visual signal for the time for the game and particularly for half time cap and cap
Cheers
Ludo coach open franceHello,
for rule 12.9, you have added the notion of “Extended” arms or legs.
As a follow through, it means that if my arms or legs are NOT extended, then there is no violation. And we add the complication of what is Extended, fully extended, partially extended…Maybe to be clearer it could be :
Players may not use their arms or legs (extended or not) to obstruct the movement of opposing playersIn my personal experience, it often happens that a defensive player may use their knee to block a path of the close cut of the offense. As of current rule 12.9 that was a violation, but with this new modification the leg is not “extended”, so would it be 12.7.2 rule.
Hi again,
“1.9. An experienced player, who offers advice on rules and guides on-field arbitration, may supervise games
involving beginners or younger players.”is it possible to change the expression of ‘an experienced player’ to something that includes non-player roles?
I worked as a translator for the Japan women’s team at WUC and often got involved in discussions. There were a few times when I found my player misunderstood the rule and I corrected it to make discussions smooth. I don’t think it affected the outcomes of discussions negatively, but I was not quite sure if it was a proper way of being actively involved in discussions as a non-player role personnel because I knew the rulebook does not say non-players can take that position.Or if you can clarify what ‘teams’ means in rule ‘1.7. Teams are guardians of the Spirit of the Game, and must:’, it would be resolved I think.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.