[Robert Jablko]

I feel that the Stalling Rules are a source of uncertainty among players. Maybe it’s just me, but I always felt it’s really hard to remember all of them. A little time passes and a certain situation happens on the field, and I don’t remember.

Although mathematically correct, I think there are too many cases. I suggest simplyfing them to a few cases, written in simple and INCLUSIVE language. The idea is to make them easier to remember and players feel confident.

[Rueben Berg]

I’m not sure how much more simple we could make it, but open to suggestions.

Can you give an example of inclusive language you would use?

[Robert Jablko]

I wish I could, but language is not my domain. I hope somebody reading this can help. All I can say for sure, is that 9.6 is mathematical and efficient, but NOT INCLUSIVE.

9.6. To restart a stall count “at maximum n”, where “n” is determined by 9.5.2, 9.5.4, or 20.3.6, means the following:
9.6.1. If “x” is the last agreed number fully uttered prior to the call, then the stall count resumes at “Stalling (x plus one)” or “Stalling n”, whichever of those two numbers is lower

[Aren Siekmeier]

Before checking in a dead disc as the marker, I always clearly announce to all players “saying x” to indicate which number will be counted out first.

“Coming in on” has somehow always been ambiguous (though it shouldn’t be..).

The wording in 9.6 and 9.6.1 “restart/resume at n” has the same meaning, but it seems people find that ambiguous too (not having read 9.6.1 closely).

“The stall is” has similar problems, “stall is 0” meaning saying 1, “stall is max 6 after a call” meaning saying 6, are very commonly heard.

So I prefer to announce before resuming the stall that I will be “saying x”. Perhaps this could be called out also as “stalling x”, at risk of confusion with the actual restart of play.

The idea of the stall being “at” or “on” a certain number I think might be confusing because it’s technically always “between” the previous number and the number to be said after resuming play.* Perhaps all rules on the stall could replace the wording “resume stall count at maximum n” with,

“Resume the stall count by saying “stalling” followed by the next number, or [n], whichever is lower.” inserting 6 or 8 or 9 for [n] where appropriate.

And 9.6 becomes unnecessary.

Just to be clear on all the different cases we’re talking about:
– no stall (incl. accepted breaches). “Stalling 1” (not “coming in on 1”, “coming in on 0”, I’ve heard both to mean the same thing…)
– last spoken number before a call was below 6 (or 8 for contested stalls or illegal timeouts or 9 for legal timeouts). “Stalling (the next number)”
– last spoken number was 6 or above, restarting stall after normal calls. “Stalling 6”
– last spoken number was 8 or above, restarting stall after contested stall out. “Stalling 8” (not “coming in on 8” which I have heard people argue means they get to start saying 9, or they don’t need to say the full word “stalling”, or whatever suits their desire to stall out the thrower)
– last spoken number was 9, restarting after a timeout. “Stalling 9”

– last spoken number before marking infraction was n, continue stalling by saying the number before the previous number or 1, whichever is higher (one less than previous spoken number). If the previous number was 7, saying 6. If the previous number was 1, saying 1.

– illegal timeout call: “saying the next number plus two, if this is 10, automatic stall-out turnover”. If the previous number was 6, “Stalling 9”. If the previous number was 7, 8, or 9, automatic stall-out.

Did I miss anything?

* (For the analysts and measure theorists, time when stall is exactly “at” a number has measure zero.)

[amaury]

I agree with Aren that there’s always a big confusion when announcing at which stall the game resumes (“resuming on 6” being interpreted as both “stalling 6” and “stalling 7”), and that it’s often a source of (minor) friction on the field.

[Meret Trapp]

Maybe an annotation could help that clearly states the following:

The number communicated to the players on the pitch should always be the number that will be said next, once the disc is live again.
Meaning after an accepted foul by the defense, the marker should communicate “The disc is coming in on 1” and not “0”. After an contested stall out call, the marker should say “The disc is coming in on 8. Disc is in. Stalling 8, 9, 10.”

And then goes through similar examples.
But I also like Aren’s suggestion of “Resume the stall count by saying “stalling” followed by the next number, or [n], whichever is lower.”