Anonymous
Forum Replies Created
-
In reply to: Check
The other day we had a similar discussion with some people in Colombia @rueben, and I think this could be resolved by changing the wording from “calling brick” to “informing brick” or something like that. Because that “calling” is not being used as “making a call” but as “commenting”. Do you agree?
In reply to: Check
The other day we had a similar discussion with some people in Colombia @rueben, and I think this could be resolved by changing the wording from “calling brick” to “informing brick” or something like that. Because that “calling” is not being used as “making a call” but as “commenting”. Do you agree?
If you are marking a thrower and a cutter runs through your arms this is a foul initiated by them (provided you didn’t initiate the contact with your movement).
If you are extending your arm to block or catch a disc and someone runs through it then it’s also a fault, provided you didn’t put your arm there in the last second(s) when they had no chance to avoid contact given their position and speed.
If you are marking a thrower and a cutter runs through your arms this is a foul initiated by them (provided you didn’t initiate the contact with your movement).
If you are extending your arm to block or catch a disc and someone runs through it then it’s also a fault, provided you didn’t put your arm there in the last second(s) when they had no chance to avoid contact given their position and speed.
In reply to: Who can call a sideline obstruction
If both teams agree that there was no chance of somebody catching the disc the turnover can stand. If the attack believes they could have made a play on the disc I guess the disc should come back to the thrower.
Small note: This is assuming the spectator actively sought the disc. If they are hit by the disc without their involvement this would be a turnover.In reply to: Who can call a sideline obstruction
If both teams agree that there was no chance of somebody catching the disc the turnover can stand. If the attack believes they could have made a play on the disc I guess the disc should come back to the thrower.
Small note: This is assuming the spectator actively sought the disc. If they are hit by the disc without their involvement this would be a turnover.In reply to: Restarting the game after a pick
Hello Stepan,
Rule 16.3 states that
“16.3 Regardless of when any call is made, if the players involved from both teams agree that the event or call did not affect the outcome, the play stands. This rule is not superseded by any other rule”.
From what I understand you agree that the Pick call did not affect the possesion of the disc in this part “Both player A and B did make a play on the disc, not affected by the pick call, player B catched the pass and both players stopped, noticing the stoppage.”
Therefore, it seems to me that your team wanted the disc to go back on the ground of positioning of the rest of players. But this could have been easily solved by everybody (except receivers) taking the positions they held when the call was made.
In reply to: Restarting the game after a pick
Hello Stepan,
Rule 16.3 states that
“16.3 Regardless of when any call is made, if the players involved from both teams agree that the event or call did not affect the outcome, the play stands. This rule is not superseded by any other rule”.
From what I understand you agree that the Pick call did not affect the possesion of the disc in this part “Both player A and B did make a play on the disc, not affected by the pick call, player B catched the pass and both players stopped, noticing the stoppage.”
Therefore, it seems to me that your team wanted the disc to go back on the ground of positioning of the rest of players. But this could have been easily solved by everybody (except receivers) taking the positions they held when the call was made.
In reply to: Check-in
I think it depends a lot on how exactly things happened. It depends on how much time passed from the stoppage of A, the speed, and many variables. It is difficult to answer just with such description.
In general, if both players are calling a foul it should be treated as an offsetting foul. However, if the players had no chance of catching the disc, the following rule would apply : “17.9.2.1. However if this occurs after the disc has been caught, or after the relevant player/s involved can no longer make a play on the disc, this must be treated as an Indirect Foul (excluding contact related to Section 17.1)”I think it depends a lot on how exactly things happened. It depends on how much time passed from the stoppage of A, the speed, and many variables. It is difficult to answer just with such description.
In general, if both players are calling a foul it should be treated as an offsetting foul. However, if the players had no chance of catching the disc, the following rule would apply : “17.9.2.1. However if this occurs after the disc has been caught, or after the relevant player/s involved can no longer make a play on the disc, this must be treated as an Indirect Foul (excluding contact related to Section 17.1)”In reply to: The right to slow down
Hi, when you read rule 12.5 it says “Every player is entitled to occupy any position on the field not occupied by any opposing player, provided that they do not initiate contact in taking such a position, and are not moving in a reckless or dangerously aggressive manner.”
And then the annotations in 12.5 it is explained that “Moving in a ‘reckless manner’ could include running without looking where you are going for an extended period of time, or diving in a way that does not allow you to adjust to any legal changes of movement that an opponent might make.”For me, following a player from behind so close that they cannot reduce their speed falls into the “Reckless manner” cattegory.
In reply to: The right to slow down
Hi, when you read rule 12.5 it says “Every player is entitled to occupy any position on the field not occupied by any opposing player, provided that they do not initiate contact in taking such a position, and are not moving in a reckless or dangerously aggressive manner.”
And then the annotations in 12.5 it is explained that “Moving in a ‘reckless manner’ could include running without looking where you are going for an extended period of time, or diving in a way that does not allow you to adjust to any legal changes of movement that an opponent might make.”For me, following a player from behind so close that they cannot reduce their speed falls into the “Reckless manner” cattegory.
In reply to: Calling a turnover on your team?
Hi David,
Rule 13.3 dictates that ” If a player determines a turnover has occurred they must make the appropriate call immediately. If the opposition disagrees they may call “contest” and play must stop. If, after discussion, players cannot agree or it is unclear what occurred in the play, the disc must be returned to the last non-disputed thrower.”
Therefore ANY player can make the turnover call, not necessarily from the opponent team. I also think it was resolved in a good way.
In reply to: Calling a turnover on your team?
Hi David,
Rule 13.3 dictates that ” If a player determines a turnover has occurred they must make the appropriate call immediately. If the opposition disagrees they may call “contest” and play must stop. If, after discussion, players cannot agree or it is unclear what occurred in the play, the disc must be returned to the last non-disputed thrower.”
Therefore ANY player can make the turnover call, not necessarily from the opponent team. I also think it was resolved in a good way.
