[John McNaughton]

Sounds like an altogether intelligent set of reasons. Well done crew 🙂

[John McNaughton]

#1 Hmmm… seems to defeat the point of the rule if the only recourse is to make a game-stopping call, delaying things further. This is one worth keeping an eye on to see how it’s treated by players.

#2 Where does the marker stand? If I start counting at the goal line, then the thrower could play it from the point of the disc (if more than 3m back) and any existing stall count would be invalid, as there was no marker if they were more than 3m away. I guess that’s an effective deterrent in itself.

[John McNaughton]

I read this exactly the same way, and agree with your view in point #1.

Also very interesting question #2. I’m keen to hear the response here.

[John McNaughton]

Yes, only that player. The rule change removes the “double turnover”, but doesn’t allow for the disc to be taken by another player after the intercept.

[John McNaughton]

If no pivot has been established, presumably the player has either:
a) just made an intercept while moving, or
b) made an intercept in a position where they have to walk the disc somewhere to establish a pivot (i.e. in the endzone or out of bounds).

In either case, rule 13.6 applies, and the answer to Romik’s question is yes: the player who was in possession after a turnover must re-establish possession if they intentionally drop the disc/place it on the ground, and play restarts with a check. That is, if they make the intercept and then deliberately put the disc on the ground, it is not a turnover – they have to pick it up again.

As Rueben and Raghul have said, if the player establishes possession appropriately and then unintentionally drops the disc through a skills error, this would be a turnover if they are within the central zone (or have established a pivot in the defending endzone). If they must move to put the disc into play (case b, above), a turnover is not possible until a pivot is correctly established.

[John McNaughton]

Hi manvee,

The interpretation for 12.9 says this:
“When making a play at a disc, players need to ensure that they will not cause non incidental contact with another player (neither their stationary position, nor their expected position based on their established speed and direction), before, during or after the attempt at the disc.”

And the interpretation for 17.8.1 says this:
“If two players have the same space reserved at the same time and contact occurs, whoever caused the conflict of reservations (i.e. whoever last moved so that their reserved space clashed with the other players reserved space – usually the player who got the reservation last) is guilty of the foul.”

As far as I can tell from this video, the defender’s attack on the disc was always going to lead to significant contact based on the receiver’s speed and direction, hence it should not be treated as a clean intercept.

If the defender has changed his direction late, thus “reserving the space last”, it should be a foul on him, as he has come into a reserved space and created contact. If not, it should be treated as an offsetting foul, with both players moving to the same space.

“17.10.2. Non incidental contact that occurs as two or more opposing players move towards a single point simultaneously should be treated as offsetting fouls.”

As Rueben has pointed out on this thread: “At its basic level, Ultimate is a non-contact sport that has a bias towards the offence. In these sorts of incidents where contact occurs as two players converge on the same spot, the majority of outcomes will result in the offense retaining possession (either via the receiver or the disc being returned to the thrower). If this sort of collision did result in a turnover, then the rules would be rewarding dangerous play and would be in direct contradiction of one of the basic rules – that Ultimate is a non contact sport.

[John McNaughton]

Provided that the marker is legally positioned in all other ways (e.g. not straddling or wrapping), they may legally maintain this position. The thrower has relinquished that space by stepping back; as long as the marker moves to a legal position, the thrower is no longer able to call “disc space” if they attempt to step forward again.

This situation is dynamic while the thrower still has the disc. For example, if the marker later steps back enough that the thrower can pivot forward legally, without coming within one disc diameter, they have re-established their space, and the marker must respect the new position and the “disc space” requirement.

[John McNaughton]

I can’t comment on USAU, but your interpretation is correct for WFDF.

The relevant rule is 18.3.1:
“If a defensive player is guarding an offensive player and they are prevented from moving towards/with that player by another player, that defensive player may call “Pick”.”

[John McNaughton]

See the clarification on rule 9.1: http://rules.wfdf.org/rules/ultimate/14-9-stall-count

The requirement to leave a gap after the word “Stalling” has been removed for 2013.

[John McNaughton]

Who called the pick? Given the lack of on-field audio, some context would be useful…

[John McNaughton]

It’s been my understanding that, through the history of rules development, WFDF has deliberately avoided trying to close every loophole that exists. The more involved and legalistic the rules become, the more difficult it is to learn them and self-referee the game.

Instead, there is a recognition that grey areas exist, and the overarching concepts provided by Spirit of the Game should guide the resolution of these incidents. While some things will be changed or cleared up (and Rueben would obviously be the most knowledgeable person here), I imagine this will remain the general approach to the rules.