-
+1 to ground check. I usually advocate that USAU rules should change to be closer to WFDF – but this rule is the one exception. For a sport that prides itself on inter-team communication, why are we communicating with each other WHERE the thrower is establishing a pivot foot and WHEN the marker can start stalling.
I’m thinking of scenarios where the disc goes out of bounds and the thrower is bringing the disc up along the sideline. As a marker, I’m left guessing whether they’ve set a pivot where they are or they’re merely slowing down because they’re about to set a pivot on the next step.
To Ravi’s point: yes, it’s slightly more awkward for the thrower. But it’s significantly less awkward for the marker and everyone else on the field timing things off the thrower.
I seem to recall WFDF rules used to require this, current rules for the check are for dead disc (stoppage) only, correct? How does this look when the disc is still live and also players are still allowed to move?
For dead disc, full disc check requires (10.6):
1. A defender within reach to check when thrower has possession.
2. If no defender within reach, ground check.
3. If no thrower with possession (such as after stall out), defender taps ground.I think 1. and obviously 3. do not make sense in situations with a live disc where players are moving (walking to brick, front of end zone after turnover/pull rolls out/running into attacking end zone, sideline after turnover/running out/pull rolls out, etc.), so I believe we are talking about a separate rule (not under the regular check rules) requiring ONLY 2. a ground check in these situations.
As Meret responds out to Ravi’s point, yes more awkward for the thrower but that would seem to be the point, slow them down enough to comply with 18.2.5.3 and effectively communicate to the defense where and when the pivot is established. (Though I will point out that the when is not important when the thrower has run out of bounds or into attacking end-zone, only after turnovers or pull receipt – 9.3)
@Paula, that certainly helps. But it still doesn’t help the other players on the field that are further away.
Saw this recently in another ultimate league that has the “no ground touch required” rule in going from “live” to “in play” state: A player (new thrower) picks up a disc in defending endzone after a turnover and runs it to the goal line in a full sprint. The instant the thrower’s foot hits the goal line the disc was thrown. The thrower made absolutely no attempt to slow down and only made a slight course change to avoid running over a legally positioned marker. This is legal; no call. Honestly, I am still trying to decide how I feel about this. Maybe it is just fine and keeping the game more fast-paced. Can’t pin point it, exactly, but something doesn’t feel 100% right about it. As a marker, it almost seems like I would need to guard a thrower while running to put on an effective defense.
The marker could/should be aware of where the disc is going to come into play and can start stalling as soon as one foot hits the in play area, as that’s the established pivot.
In regards to making other players on the field aware, they can either look at when the thrower is standing in bounds or the thrower/marker can shout “Disc in” in make everyone else aware. I don’t think a ground check is required, and it always looks awkward as people try to rush it out as fast as possible.
In the case I presented (where the pivot is set for milliseconds, on a dead sprint, with no attempt to stop), there would be practically zero time for other players to be aware as there would be no time “standing in bounds” or time for a thrower/maker to announce “disc in”. Not necessarily saying this is wrong, just trying to understand impact to all cases we would likely see.
@Brian Bradburn, based on your description (“the instant the thrower’s foot hits the goal line the disc was thrown”), I believe the existing 18.2.5.3 applies and prohibits such a maneuver, regardless of whether or not we add a ground check.
18.2.5.3. anytime the thrower must move to a specified location, the thrower does not establish a pivot point before a wind-up or throwing action begins;
[Annotation: After a pull, a turnover not in the central zone, or after momentum causes a player to leave the playing field, the thrower cannot take a run up to make a pass whereby they start their wind up or throwing action before they have established a pivot point.]@Kiran, your post is self-contradicting. You want the marker to “start stalling as soon as one foot hits the in play area” AND you want the marker to shout “disc in” when the thrower is standing in bounds. How do they start stalling if they are shouting “disc in”? If they shout “disc in”, then they are at a disadvantage by starting their stall count a little later.
Your proposal does raise an interesting question though: why doesn’t the existing “stalling” at the beginning of the stall count suffice in communicating with everyone on the field? I think it’s because people can be very far away, or when you play in the finals / big game, the noise from the sidelines/crowd can be very loud. There’s a reason why we require hand signals for audible calls (eg. pick, foul) on the field – because a visual indication is much more communicative than just an audio one.
re: marker should know “as soon as one foot hits the in play area”, that addresses perhaps the most common case where the disc is walked vertically out of the endzone or horizontally back in-bounds. But there are other cases where the disc is walked back differently. For example, if a disc flies out of bounds at half field then almost lands back in bounds near the endzone. The disc would likely be walked up to half field along the sideline. In this case, the marker cannot rely on when the disc holder steps into the play area. The marker would need to do as @Meret suggested, and point using hands.
@Will: Exactly 18.2.5.3. already exists. The relevant questions are therefore: 1. is that rule effective in preventing the wind up? 2. would the ground check achieve that goal more effectively? 3. do we agree that this is a worthy goal? 4. would a rule change have negative effects?
The rules often rely on someone calling the infractions. The proposed change would shift that by adding a clearly visible step, making the game cleaner overall.
+1 @Meret. I’m in favor of ANY sort of visual indicator. I think it’s critical that everyone on the field has an opportunity to know exactly when the disc is officially in a state where it can be thrown.
@Ravi / @Kiran / @Paula: do you all agree that a visual indicator is a good thing to have that’s currently missing? It’d help move the conversation forward if we can at least agree that there’s positives to be had with some sort of visual indicator (even if we continue disagreeing on whether a ground check is too awkward or not).@Will_Chen I mean, if you want to make sure you’re playing as efficiently as possible as the marker you can also shout “stalling” and begin counting right after. Though in my experience shouting “disc in” first loses maybe half a second which is negligible in most cases.
Also, I just realized that the defending teams doesn’t actually need to care about the exact timing. Field defenders can see when the disc is brought close to the playing field and should then be reacting according to the offense. So the thrower is the one that might want to shout “disc in” instead, then it wouldn’t clash with “stalling” either.@Meret_Trapp imo
1. yes (though it relies on it being known by the marker),
2. not necessarily (I suppose it would be possible to wind up from the disc in a low position, i.e. ending the ground check as soon as the disc touched the ground, not when you’re back to a neutral stance. Also you could still preserve run-up momentum if you start lowering the disc while moving towards the playing field and release it right afterwards),
3. yes (making rules/enforcing of rules clearer is always good),
4. yes (everyone that is not playing in a rule breaking/bending way which a ground check would fix is now forced to ground check. In my experience from watching and playing non UFA matches, that’s almost everybody)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.