[Aren Siekmeier]

Can prevent an immediate callahan at least. Should be allowed to at least touch it after throwing it.

Also can be fun to try to fix a botched throw by tipping it again to your teammate.

But if only this is to be disallowed, what’s the proposed rule?

If the thrower touches the disc they have thrown before anyone else, it can no longer be caught by anyone on their team for a completion?

[Aren Siekmeier]

Besides that the receiver who caught the disc may choose not to even call the foul if they caught the disc and are able to make a throw.

[Aren Siekmeier]

This kind of play is already in breach of several other rules, including 1.6.1, 17.1.1, or where intentional, 1.6.2 or 1.2, all of which would rightly result in a spirit timeout if continued. 1.2 specifically dictates the principle that there are no harsh penalties for inadvertent breaches because we assume adherence to Section 1.

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

[Aren Siekmeier]

An important control here would be to compare again HFDF games with 2020-2024 rules, perhaps from 2022 national cup!

[Aren Siekmeier]

+1

I actually thought the other offensive players could escalate, I was mistaken.

The other problem is that the thrower, if they weren’t the one calling the infraction, may also throw the disc without the defense remedying the breach, in which case any turnover stands (or even when caught, disc could go back if the infraction is contested). If the non-thrower has an opportunity to stop play with a violation call before this throw goes off, this helps considerably.

Still need to work on everyone hearing and responding to calls being made, instead of continuing play for 2, 3, 4 throws… but that’s a different issue.

[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.)

[Aren Siekmeier]

Defender (almost) certainly was illegally positioned before the throw if they are able to block it in this manner, but 18.1.6 places the responsibility on the thrower to 1. notice and call the defender’s illegal positioning and 2. not throw the disc. This is not the only rule working this way, generally if offense doesn’t notice a breach and plays on, there is no recourse short of 1.2.1.

The important difference between all of the explicit rules and the catch-all (logical bottom) 1.2.1 is that any change in the outcome requires the agreement of both captains, whereas normally disagreement between the teams always sends the disc back.

The opposite rule (logical top) 16.3 (play stands if all parties agree there was no effect) does not have this flaw.

[Aren Siekmeier]

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)

[Aren Siekmeier]

Better yet, play 6 on 6!