-
The result of a pick is that some offensive player gets open while it should not (because someone got in the way). A pick is a temporary *advantage* for the offense. To balance this, the defense and only the defense may call “pick” to stop play and recover the distance lost by the pick. The logic should be that the disc should go back if an offensive player gets the disc after being open because of a pick. Logically, the question is asked *to the defender* : “did the pick affected you” ? Yes: disc goes back. No: disc stays, and defender recover the lost distance.
But a big majority of pick calls are resolved in the advantage of the offense. In practice, either because the receiver stopped running when hearing the pick, or because the thrower completely missed a throw *after* the pick. Turnovers that happen during a pick are almost always cancelled, because the rules allow even the offensive player to claim that the “pick call” affected them, and not only the pick itself.
To my opinion, this is the most important issue to be fixed in the rules. Versions 2017 and 2021 did not go far enough in fixing this issue. More precisely, I believe rule 16.3
“Regardless of when any call is made, if the players involved from both teams agree that the event or call
did not affect the outcome, the play stands.”should be changed to
“Regardless of when any call is made, if the players involved from the team who made the call agree that the event or call
did not affect the outcome, the play stands.”Otherwise, it gives the offensive team the possibility of claiming that the “pick call” affected them which is against the logic of repairing an advantage obtained by the offense team by the pick itself.
> The logic should be that the disc should go back if an offensive player gets the disc after being open because of a pick.
As I read them, that’s already exactly what’s written in the current rules (16.2.4.2.1)
> In practice, either because the receiver stopped running when hearing the pick
If the received stopped running when hearing a pick and the disc was already in the air (and as a result isn’t caught), then it’s a turnover (16.2.4.1).
> Turnovers that happen during a pick are almost always cancelled, because the rules allow even the offensive player to claim that the “pick call” affected them, and not only the pick itself.
This is *only* true if the throw was made after the pick call (assuming they indeed consider that the turn occurred because of the pick call). I’ve seen plenty of picks result in turnovers (because the throw was made before the call, or because the offense agrees that the call did not affect the turnover).
Could you expand more precisely on what specific situation you find badly defined ?
Thanks for your answer, it helps me trying to explain what I consider to be an issue in the rules (or the way they are interpreted?).
> As I read them, that’s already exactly what’s written in the current rules (16.2.4.2.1)
Yes, I agree.
> If the received stopped running when hearing a pick and the disc was already in the air (and as a result isn’t caught), then it’s a turnover (16.2.4.1).
Ok, thanks for confirming this in the situation where the disc was already in the air. In this situation, maybe the issue is not with the rules themselves, but rather with how they are interpreted in my community… That is another story.
> This is *only* true if the throw was made after the pick call (assuming they indeed consider that the turn occurred because of the pick call).
Thank you, this is exactly the situation I dislike which seems to be allowed by the rules: a pick is called, plays stops (16.1), the thrower attempts a pass anyway, and for whatever reason, the possession is lost. As far as logic is concerned, I believe the disc should never be sent back to the thrower. In this situation, the rules allow an offensive player to say that the “pick call” affected them (we may assume here it is True, but this is also an often-used breach) and recover possession. The pick is already an advantage for the offensive team: someone got open because of some obstruction. Wondering if any offensive player was affected by the “pick call” should not even be a question I believe.
The reason for my view point might also be that I have played in Canada for more than 10 years (with UPA and USA Ultimate rules) before I moved to Europe. I now play in WFDF rules since more than 10 years. In USA/Canada, the play stops when the thrower acknowledges a call was made. And as a player, you learn on day 1 that you should never stop playing/running when hearing a pick. If you don’t maintain possession it is a turnover 100% of the time. There is no such thing as “the pick ‘call’ affected me” which is not a logical way of resolving a pick call, an advantage for offensive team, I believe.
In the 2021 version of WFDF rules, the rule (16.3) was added/updated about “regardedless of when any call is made”. But, to my opinion, it does not go far enough, because it needs both teams to agree. More precisely, when an offensive player says “the pick ‘call’ affected me”, then by definition rule (16.3) does not apply because he does not agree.
This rule absolutely needs clarification. There’s too much subjectivity in whether or not the pick “affected” the offensive player as the other poster points out. There were a couple famous instances of this in the Open WUCC 2022 final, where Pony got a couple of discs back on cases which seemed very questionable, but in the end were probably the correct interpretation of the rules. In both cases, the receivers didn’t immediately stop or anything, but more mentally switched off or had their concentration broken, and then didn’t catch the disc. By the rules, because these calls were made before the throw was in the air, the disc should go back because the call affected the players. The whole stadium was booing them though, because it looked like they hadn’t stopped, and just dropped the disc.
I prefer the USAU version, where there’s no ambiguity about possession. If the disc hits the ground, it’s a turnover. There’s no reason to inject the subjectivity of the receivers deciding if it affected them.
I was coming to this forum to propose the exact same thing.
A pick is a situation that is advantageous for the offensive player, and it should not be possible to use the pick-call to gain a second advantage if the outcome of the play is finally at his disadvantage, whatever if the call happened before the pass (which is frequently very hard to judge).
The play should stop only when the thrower acknowledges a call was made.
In this way :
– It’s the thrower responsibility to avoid throwing when a call was made
– It’s all other players responsibility to keep playing/running if the thrower has not acknowledged the call yet.
– It’s all other players responsibility to call, and repeat someone’s call, in an audible way for the thrower.With the current rules, a pick called before the pass (eg during the thrower’s shot) always leads to weird misunderstanding situations and unfair outcome for the defense.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.