Anonymous
Forum Replies Created
-
In reply to: Off./Def. Receiving Foul or Indirect Foul
In reply to: landing on both feet but one is out
Out.
Assuming you catch the disc while airborne (and that before you were in-bounds, otherwise it doesn’t matter how you land, it will be out the moment you touch the disc):
11.3.1. An airborne player retains their in-bounds/out-of-bounds status until that player contacts the playing field or the out-of-bounds area.
When you land it’s the first point of contact that counts (in your case it’s both feet). If any part of your body (or disc) is out-of-bounds, then you are out-of-bounds.
In your situation to stay in-bounds you should have landed with your left foot first.
In reply to: After a foul: subtract two or reset??
Fouls (section 17 of the rules) and infractions (section 18) are two different things…
The stall count goes down by 2 on uncontested marking infractions (the first time, on a second uncontested marking infraction on the same stall count it restarts at 1). See rules 18.1.3 and 18.1.5.
Uncontested foul by marker: stall count resets to 1 (rule 9.5.1).
Contested foul by marker: restart at maximum 6 (rule 9.5.4).
9.6. To restart a stall count “at maximum n”, where “n” is a number between one (1) and nine (9), means to announce “stalling” followed by the count at one more than the last number uttered prior to the stoppage, or by “n” if that value is greater than “n”.
Interpretation | 9.6.
If, after a call, a stall count is to be restarted at maximum 6 and:
– the stall count was stopped at 4, the stall count restarts on “Stalling 5”
– the stall count was stopped at 8, the stall count restarts on “Stalling 6”There does not need to be a gap between “stalling” and the number of the count.
Get the Decision Diagrams on Downloads section: http://rules.wfdf.org/downloads
They are quite helpful on these situations.In reply to: new call during discussion
In reply to: Beach Ultimate Feet Under the Line In or Out?
I’ve played many beach tournaments (in europe) and I’ve never heard such non-sense as a foot burried under the line being inbounds…
Should be like Flo said… Doesn’t matter if the foot is burried or not touching the “physical” line, if it’s touching the ground on a vertical plane that crosses the “physical” line marker it should be out.
In reply to: Dangerous Play doesn’t fit the violation call
In reply to: Game Advisors – Spirit Scores
In my opinion, I think that any situation related to SOTG scores should be dealt with the Spirit Director for the tournament and the game advisors should not be involved.
Giving a score of 0 (or 4) requires a justification, so on the spiritsheet the team giving those scores should write a clear reason for it.
If a team believes they got a score that doesn’t reflect what happened in the game their spirit captain should seek the spirit director and the other team’s spirit captain and talk calmly about it.Spirit scores can be changed. If a team believes they were unfair and their judgement was tainted by the heat of the moment they should be allowed to review their scores (talk to the spirit director). But no third party should overrule the spirit scores. Solely the teams are responsible for giving those scores and changing them if they wish so.
Dialog between teams is encouraged and any SOTG issues should be dealt between them. The only third person that should be involved is the Spirit Director, that’s what he is there for.This is just a personal opinion, I’m not affiliated with WFDF or the SOTG committee.
Cheers,
BrunoIn reply to: When is marking contact ‘contact’ or a ‘foul’?
Hi Flo,
Is that an official interpretation of the rules? Or rather a more “how things turn out to usually happen in the real world” kind of approach?
The definition of the “contact” marking infraction on the rules is:
18.1.1.7. “Contact” – a defensive player makes contact with the thrower prior to the thrower releasing the disc and not during the throwing motion. However, if this contact is caused solely by movement of the thrower, it is not an infraction.
The way I have always interpreted it has been very literal: if the contact happens before the thrower has initiated the throwing movement then it’s generally not a foul.
Whether pivoting can be considered part of the throwing movement or not can be a bit of a gray area, but personally I usually only call a foul if the contact happens after I started my arm motion (with the intention of throwing), otherwise I call contact.Apart from that only if the contact makes the thrower loose the disc (strip) or is too physical (dangerous play?) making the thrower loose balance for example I would call a foul.
(yes, you can initiate contact by sticking your hand in front of a moving thrower in the last moment even if your hand is stationary at the moment of contact)
I consider this to be a bit too limiting for the defender… making hand blocks nearly impossible to achieve…
Don’t get me wrong, I’m very much against any kind of contact, but in this case, if it’s the thrower moving into the hand of the defender I consider to be the thrower initiating contact, even if the defender’s hand was not there yet when thrower started the throwing movement.Here’s a concrete example from WCBU:
Eventhough the defender is not static, in my opinion, it was a valid hand block.
Cheers,
BrunoIn reply to: Starting the stall count after a contested stall-o
If the stoppage happened at 8 or 9 it would restart with “stalling 8” (assuming we are talking about a contested stall-out).
If it stopped lets say at 4, then you would resume by saying “stalling 5”.
English is not my native language and this seems quite clear… I don’t know how people can misunderstand this. Do they really read the sentences till the end?
In reply to: Double turnover?
I’d like to add that this rule also makes more sense when we’re talking about beginners who might place the disc on the ground in their best intentions… but even in those cases there should limits to what is reasonable.
Other than that, anyone trying to take advantage of this rule I’d say it’s a severe disrespect for the most important rule: spirit of the game!
In reply to: check after stall-out
Yes they do… it’s all there (bold is mine):
15. Calling Fouls, Infractions and Violations
15.1. A breach of the rules due to non-incidental contact between two or more opposing players is a foul.
15.2. A breach of the rules regarding a Marking or Travel breach is an infraction. Infractions do not stop play.
15.3. Every other breach of the rules is a violation.16. Continuation after a Foul or Violation Call
16.1. Whenever a foul or violation call is made, play stops immediately and no turn over is possible.10. The Check
10.1. Whenever play stops during a point for a time-out, foul, violation, contested turnover, contested goal, technical stoppage, injury stoppage, or discussion, play must restart as quickly as possible with a check. The check may only be delayed for the discussion of a call.
10.2. Except in the case of a time-out:
10.2.1. All players must return to the positions they held when the event that caused the stoppage occurred, unless specified otherwise.
10.2.2. If the event that caused the stoppage occurred after the thrower released the disc, and the disc is returned to the thrower to restart play, all players must return to the positions they held when the thrower released the disc, unless specified otherwise.
10.2.3. All players must remain stationary in that position until the disc is checked in.Your scenario 2 only happens in the case of a time-out (as stated in the rules).
In reply to: Scoring on a pull
In reply to: Scoring on a pull
7.7. No player on the defensive team may touch the disc after a pull until a member of the offensive team contacts the disc or the disc contacts the ground.
According to 7.7. it’s not possible to score a Callahan on a pull.
If an offensive player touches the disc (failing to catch it) and a defender catches it before touching the ground I guess that could be valid goal (Callahan).
In reply to: Blocking Fouls
In reply to: Blocking Fouls
After reading some of the threads on the video section, I just realized that Situation 2 that I examplified could fall into the Dangerous Play category.
17.1. Dangerous Play:
17.1.1. Recklessdisregardforthesafetyoffellowplayersisconsidereddangerousplay
and is to be treated as a foul, regardless of whether or when contact occurs. This rule is not superseded by any other rule.I’m still curious though to know whether a blocking foul can be called against the offense, or should always be a dangerous play foul?
