[amaury]

Self-catch turnovers (13.2.5)
(…)
Extra If the disc is accidentally released during the throwing motion as part of a fake attempt, the thrower cannot catch the disc unless it has been touched by another player.
The thrower may touch a disc they have thrown, for example to prevent an opponent from catching it, or to tap it to a teammate. If the thrower does catch their own pass, the turnover location is where the thrower is when they caught the pass.

[amaury]

It’s not a goal since the foul isn’t a strip.

However, per 17.2.2 it’s a valid foul and the offensive player gains possession of the disc, unless the opponent contests the call, e.g. using 16.3 if she/he believes the offensive player would have not had the disc even if the foul had not occurred.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by amaury.

[amaury]

This already exists, see hand signals https://rules.wfdf.sport/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/WFDF-Rules-of-Ultimate-2021-2024-Hand-Signals.pdf number 23:

23. Who made the call
Called by Offence / Defence
Pointing with two arms straight out, towards the end zone being defended by the team

[amaury]

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.

[amaury]

> However, the rules don’t specify what the correct outcome should be.

Since the rules don’t specify anything, it’s allowed and this is not a turnover.

[amaury]

You seem to believe that indicating “Call X!” from the sideline is a bad behavior, but I’m not sure if this is a widely shared point of view. Of course, only the players on the field may make actual calls, and the sideline is explicitly forbidden from intervening in calls if they have not been invited to do so by the players involved. However, I believe it is totally acceptable for the sideline to inform the players that they may make a given call (e.g. “you can call double team” when the thrower doesn’t notice). I don’t see how that’s different from any other kind of sideline communication with the players, and since it’s not an actual call (“you can call double team” VS “DOUBLE TEAM!”) there’s no way it can be mistaken for an actual call.

Why do you feel that this is detrimental to the game ?

edit: where I would agree with you is that as far as I know, there’s no explicit point in the rule that handles the situation where someone on the sideline actually makes a call (e.g. “Out”) and a player on the opposite team stops as a result.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by amaury.

[amaury]

The play in question can be viewed here https://www.youtube.com/live/-da5_KWvqlU?si=fa5i26s_JH-XED4i&t=1932 (at 32m12s).

> Possession of the disc
> A player establishes possession of a pass when:
> – they catch a pass and then they maintain that catch for more than one noticeable instant, and
> – they maintain the catch throughout all ground contact related to the catch, or until they throw the disc
> (…)

In WFDF rules, I believe the discussion would resolve around whether the defender in this clip lost the disc because of a ground contact (in which case he never established possession and it’s not a turn), or whether he fumbled it after establishing possession.

In any case, it seems to be that it’s already well covered by existing rules.

[amaury]

> 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 ?

• This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by amaury.

[amaury]

Pivots are only defined for the thrower, and you can’t be the thrower unless you have the disc in hand.

[amaury]

I don’t have anything against this in higher divisions, but I must point out that imo this is quite unnecessary in lower divisions, where in my personal experience the current stall count feels fine.

[amaury]

I would personally strongly advocate against that. I play ultimate at a level that is far from elite, and in which it’s common over a match that one or two very long points occur. Timeouts during the points are a strategic opportunity to rest that is very welcome and widely used from my personal experience, and I only see downsides to cutting them out at those levels.

[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.

[amaury]

I’m very much against changing the rules for the sole purpose of making the game more viewable, especially if this is at the expense of the well-being of players. Most wfdf ultimate games are not broadcasted in any way.

[amaury]

Thanks, that’s very clear (although maybe we can improve the wording for the next set of rules 😉 ).

One tangential question: Does a non-player (e.g. an uninformed spectator) catching the disc within three meters of the sideline count as an obstruction (assuming players are actively running for the disc, although they may still be somewhat far away) ? Or is it automatically a turnover with no Violation call possible ?