[David Moser]

Agree.

[David Moser]

I think we are not talking about the same thing now; I’m a bit confused about your last comment… :side:

If after a stoppage of play the marker checks the disc and the thrower then completes a pass to Player A although Player B who is guarding Player A was not yet ready, speaking he was still moving to the right position 10.2.1. then this is a disadvantage for the team of Player B. But since the marker (teammate of Player B) checked the disc in, Player B is no longer entitled to call a violation since his own teammate checked the disc thus gave the thrower the OK to throw the disc. I see that the Offence will not call a violation of 10.2. since their pass was caught by player A but Player B would surley like to call a violation of 10.2. because he was not “ready” speaking not in the right position yet.

But if I understood correctly Player B is NOT allowed to call a violation and the play stands
(althoug mentioned differently here: http://rules.wfdf.org/discussions/interpretations/68-calling-violation-of-10-2-on-own-team)

In my oppinion good spirit would be to give the disc back and inform the marker that he has to chekc with all of his teammate before making the check…

[David Moser]

Okay I get the first part. It will NEVER be a turn even if the call is late because the more specific rule 10.6. always trumps the 16.2. even if a easy pass is dropped…

But I’m unsure about the second point now.

It often happens that the marker checks the disc while one of his teammates is still moving (even if just moving slightly to to right position). In 10.4. it says that the person checking the disc must first verify with the nearest opposition player that their team is ready. It actually says nothing that he has to verify that his own team is ready. I undertand your argument that it doesn’t make sense to call a violation on your own team (in this case on your marker); but then again in the sense of good spirit the disc should be returned to the thrower and the marker should be instructed to only make a check if his own team is ready… I guess I would always try to manage it this way. If it happens a second time in the game then probably I would also say it is our own fault and play shoud continue…

[David Moser]

Just found an answer to my followup question here…

http://rules.wfdf.org/discussions/interpretations/68-calling-violation-of-10-2-on-own-team

[David Moser]

I see it this way that the defensive player could have called a dangerous play before jumping for the disc. It is clear that the D got to the disc first and the O wasn’t watching where she is running so to keep in mind that Ultimate is a non-contact sport the D should just stop and call a dangerous play and a turnover.

But rarley the opposing player agrees on dangerous play without any contact and just gives the disc away…

[David Moser]

Correct. For me it was not totaly clear why you can either say “disc in” or “stalling” but it is correct that the player checking the disc doesn’t necessarily have to mark so he has to have the option of just calling “disc in”.

So any stallcount has to start with the word “stalling” 🙂

Agree on that.

[David Moser]

Thank you Flo. I thought it through again an a violation of 10.2. can only happen before the check so the disc is still dead thus no turnover possible and even a call reatraction would not help because the disc is still dead… 🙂

The problem that we sometimes have is that the marker checks the disc but the defence player says he was not “ready” respecitvely still moving towards his opponent which in my oppinion is his own fault respectively the fault of the marker who didn’t check with his teammates so the play stands.
But according to the rules he could also claim a violation of 10.2. that he was still moving towards his offence player eventhoug his own player made the check. Agree with that?

[David Moser]

Thanks for explaining how it’s meant to be. I guess it is again a problem of language but also interpretation.
When restarting a stall count the interpretation is that the first number uttered is not “between” the last number uttered before the stoppage but it’s just the first number that has to follow the word “stalling” in which ever speed you choose. In this case an interrupted stall count is theoretical only 9 seconds given the fact that “stalling” only takes half a second… (stalling 1 = half a second, stalling “x” after restart = half a second) 😉

[David Moser]

To restart a stall count „at maximum n“ implies the following: If “x” is the last number uttered by the marker then he restarts his stall count with “stalling (x+1)” or “stalling (n)” which ever of those two numbers is lower.

This ist about the german translation…

[David Moser]

I understand that the gap has been removed and I’m glad about it and I think you found the perfect wording in the new rules but I can see we don’t have the same interpreation. I’m not taking about the gap between stalling AND one (1). But it says the interval between the START of each number has to be one second. So in my opionon when starting or restarting a stall count there has to be a one second gap between the start of the number and the last number utter prior to the stoppage or between the number (0) when starting a stall count. In this case we would have exaclty 10 seconds for a full stall count. Since the word “stalling” is more or less one second the problem actulay is solved. But what speaks against my interpertaion?

[David Moser]

In 9.1. it says “the interval between the START of each number in the stall count must be at least one second.” So if starting by “stalling 8”, i have to wait ONE second before I can say eight thus it takes three seconds for a stall out and not 2.5 seconds… Agree with that?

And also when starting a stall count the stall count is at 0 (also a number) and I have to wait one second before I can utter the number one (1) thus the full stall count in my opinion is exactly ten (10)?

[David Moser]

So while using your arms to block a possible pass and an opponent initates contact to crash into the cup and the defender was not aware of the opponent crashing in so had no time to remove his arms, in this case the opponent is allowed to call a foul although he initiated the contact but to a non legitmate positioned defender… Correct?

[David Moser]

In this case I beg you to explain rule 9.6. in a easier way in the next rule change, since we are not all native english speaking and the senctence seems a bit confusing to me and others a talked to…

[David Moser]

So the thrower really gets THREE seconds after a contested stall out… Given the fact that no player purposly makes a fast count or wrong count giving the thrower THREE seconds after a stall out is too much in my opinion. :blush: