Under the Tape is IN – Interpretation of rule

  • March 29, 2019 at 4:16 pm #1645
    sofia pereira
    Participant

    Under the tape is IN

    The rule states
    ● On the tape is still ‘out’. ○ Stepping on it, landing on it, etc: out.
    ● The sand under the tape is considered ‘in’. ○ Stepping under it, landing under it, etc: in.
    ● As long as you’re not on the tape, touching it is OK (such as the tape resting on your foot).
    ● The sand past the tape is still out – so even if you’re under the tape, touching the out of bound sand is still out of bounds! ○ Your foot is under the tape, but your foot is otherwise obviously out-of bounds… you’re out-of-bounds!
    ● If you accidentally move the tape while doing something else, such as dragging your feet to stay in bounds, that’s OK.
    ● You may not move the tape on purpose (unless play is dead and the boundaries need to get fixed for some reason.)

    My questions/doubts
    Personally, and taking it as it is written, I can see part of these amendments becoming seriously problematic from a practical perspective. For example,
    1 – Does that mean that if I am running up the line, drag the tape (on the side of my sand-socks without noticing), catch the disc with the tape dragged so that it is now clearly not in a straight line with the field corners (OB but inside the tape), I am in?
    2 – If I am standing still with one of my feet under the line and thrown a disc, am I in? The argument that the toes were “beyond the tape” in the out of bounds area is going to be a serious issue. Especially because often they are under the sand and not visible.
    3 – a layout in the endzone where the foot drags the line (obviously unintentional) – is it in?
    4 – In all cases or in any case that the foot is below the line tape, how do you know that the foot has not gone beyond the tape?

    I am a full believer in SOTG and people’s well wishes and realize that there is no perfect way to deal with in/out calls and that the foot under the line can sometimes be explained by the momentum of the receiver and therefore in bounds. On the other hand, there is often slight dragging of the line in these cases, and therefore OB. In the end, I believe that a clear and visible in/out call that is not based on a player’s intention or perspective may make things easier and cause less stops/discussions. Or perhaps I am not understanding the new rules. I look forward to your feedback on this.

    March 30, 2019 at 7:12 am #1648
    Will Christopherson
    Participant

    Hi Sofia –

    1 – Does that mean that if I am running up the line, drag the tape (on the side of my sand-socks without noticing), catch the disc with the tape dragged so that it is now clearly not in a straight line with the field corners (OB but inside the tape), I am in?

    Yes, as long as you’re not stepping on the tape when you catch the disc.
    Here’s why:
    We play on a surface that is undulating and moves, and is marked by tape that also moves and twists. Invariably, something will shift the tape – wind, water, player movements, etc. The reality of how we play is that we’ve simply accepted the new boundaries as the tape shifts: if wind/water/shifting sand moves the tape, that new space is still considered in. The boundaries on beach are ever-shifting, and we’ve always kept playing and not worrying about it.
    Unfortunately, until now, Beach rules have never actually clarified how to handle this. There is nothing in the ‘old’ Beach rules that addresses how to handle the very typical situation of shifting boundaries (largely because the old rules were basically just adapted from grass, where the lines are not prone to moving and more commonly marked by paint). By adding 2.5.1 – “If the field tape moves inadvertently, that is the new boundary.” – we’ve clarified the rules to match how we actually play.
    So, yes, if someone inadvertently drags the tape while running next to it, that is the new boundary – same as it would be for any other reason the tape has moved.

    2 – If I am standing still with one of my feet under the line and thrown a disc, am I in? The argument that the toes were “beyond the tape” in the out of bounds area is going to be a serious issue. Especially because often they are under the sand and not visible.

    4 – In all cases or in any case that the foot is below the line tape, how do you know that the foot has not gone beyond the tape?

    Please see my reply to Lorne Beckman’s comment here for a full explanation:
    https://www.facebook.com/worldflyingdisc/posts/2148037385281528

    3 – a layout in the endzone where the foot drags the line (obviously unintentional) – is it in?

    I’m not entirely clear on the situation you’re describing – can you be more specific?

    March 30, 2019 at 8:27 pm #1649
    sofia pereira
    Participant

    Thanks for your answers.

    However, I am still not clear on some issues and still worry that this rule is going to create more problems than it will solve.
    Specifically about the previous post
    – Regarding dragging the tape being in – Is a straight line between the corners of the field not a better mark for what is in/out than a movable/flexible tape?
    – i can’t find the specific answer on FB regarding the toes beyond the tape or the case of a stand still receiver. How can you tell if the toes are beyond the line (when they are generally buried in the sand?) and is the disc in for the standstill receiver?
    – With the new rule, OB calls will be dependent on the width of the tape – correct?
    – Regarding the last issue – often when trying to get a disc that is beyond the line, players lay out and drag the tape with their toes (unintentionally). We have called this OB. My question is if this is now considered in (as long as their toes are inside the tape). Even if the tape is now not in a straight line with the corners?

    That is all for now, thanks

    March 30, 2019 at 10:50 pm #1650
    Wolfgang Maehr
    Participant

    Sorry, I cannot see the discussion on Facebook. If possible, please keep the discussion here and long from FB rather than vice-versa. Thanks.

    April 2, 2019 at 3:05 pm #1651

    Hi,
    I am part of the ones that think this new “clarification” is nothing but very complicate.
    the line is out is a clear statement, indoor, grass and sand Wise.
    For practical purpose already stated above, the sand line being moved is the actual line (giving the moves are accidental). Another simple clear rule.
    I would say those simple two rules cover all cases of scenario without the strange intricacies of actual wording:
    1) Touching the line is out (whatever side of the line: from above, from Under, from any side)
    2) if you are not touching the line, then it goes bach to the old grass rule: whatever touches the groud first count. Either your foot slided from Inside, then your ankle or your leg should be a very good marker of the impact point (if you slided and touch the line, see #1 – it might cause a discussion about when it touches the line vs when does the catch occurs, but no rule would ever dismiss thoses (rare) cases), and you are in. Either it slided from outside, and it is an obvious out.

    In any case, I can’t see when an exception inside an exception is good ruling (The line is out BUT under the out-line is in BUT under the out-field is out). And that is a french native speaker speaking 🙂

    April 2, 2019 at 6:41 pm #1652
    Wolfgang Maehr
    Participant

    I personally like the rule. The way I see it, it attempts for allow for (1) dragging feet from inside and (2) account for unintentional movements of the tape. I also get that there is the problem of (3) somebody intentionally lifting the tape and placing themselves insider while being outside. To me, the rule *could* be simplified to:
    – Any unintentional movement of the tape stands (weather, players or anything else)
    – As long as the utmost point of contact is below and not beyond the tape, it is in (so dragging a tape even if vertical is in)

    But I understand that no matter how it’s written, there will be a grey area, where things go back to rule #1: Don’t be an arse (paraphrased, the official rules are more tactful).

    Cheers,
    Wolf

    April 3, 2019 at 12:47 pm #1653

    [quote=”njyo” post=1557]allow for (1) dragging feet from inside [/quote]
    I tottally disagree with that; Any attempt for moving intentionnally the tape is still forbidden.
    (isn’t it?)

    April 3, 2019 at 12:49 pm #1654
    Wolfgang Maehr
    Participant

    Yeah, I read that “intentionally moving the tape” as standing there and lifting/shifting the tape. If I receive the disc dragging my feet from inside and the tape gets dragged along, then I would think that’s accepted.

    April 29, 2019 at 5:54 pm #1666
    Owen Binchy
    Participant

    So I don’t fully understand the new rules regarding the tape, and I don’t see the issue with the old rules (I echo all of the concerns raised by Sofia and XofMdS).

    The biggest issue I think is the dragging the feet example which has been mentioned. To make it clear what we are talking about, I drew some diagrams (in msPaint, and I am no artist).

    In the diagrams, imagine a player is dragging their feet towards the tape as they catch a disc, and is “toeing the line”. The first example is when they stay completely in bounds (do not even touch the line) and is clear. The subsequent examples are varying degrees of contact with and dragging the line, and I think highlight how this rule breaks down into absurdity.

    Can someone clarify if my interpretations are correct regarding the new rules in these examples? The last example seems ridiculous, but allowed by the new rules as there is no mention of any limit to how far you can drag the line “unintentionally”. I hope you can see how I think the old rule is clearer and easier to apply, unless I have really not understood this change correctly.

    April 29, 2019 at 6:18 pm #1667

    I do have same interprétations as binchyster.
    Reading the comments on the aforementionned Facebook post, and especially issued by (one of) the redactor of this rule, I think the main issue is trying to resolve case when the line itself is dragged by Wind, and therefore floats over the field.
    It occurs, true, and produces some time very weird game field’s shapes.
    Still, I don’t see how a clearer statement like “touching the line is out” wouldn’t stands in any case (not with same results, but that is not what we are looking for, we want clear neat simple rules with a minimum to no exception, an no exception to exception at all).

    May 2, 2019 at 6:34 pm #1668
    Alan Pierce
    Participant

    I felt Lorne raised a great point with this query, but it was not responded to. Any chance, Will?

    Will Christopherson I just find that any rule requiring us to know the intentions of other players is a bad rule. As far as I know, there are no other WFDF or USAU rules that require me to judge what the other player is thinking, whether they PURPOSEFULLY fouled me, or traveled, or otherwise broke the rules.
    I can only find one instance of “inadvertent” in the WFDF rules, “It is trusted that no player will intentionally violate the rules; thus there are no harsh penalties for inadvertent breaches, but rather a method for resuming play in a manner which simulates what would most likely have occurred had there been no breach.”

    So, the irony here is that, by making a call under this rule (violation of 2.5.2), I am calling my opponent a cheater. I am not calling that they moved the tape. I am saying, “You moved the tape on PURPOSE, which is cheating.” Again, I can’t think of any other cases where I have to call the other player a cheater to make the call.
    This situation is quite a bit different from, for example, “I assume you didn’t initiate contact with me on purpose, of course, but it is nevertheless a foul because the contact materially affected my play on the disc.”

    So, yes, your example, where the player looks down and purposefully shifts the tape. Is that what we are looking for? We make a call only if we believe the other player is intentionally cheating? I mean, I guess that’s a clear directive, but it seems to me that it will only lead to bad blood and that’s why it’s a bad rule.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.