11th edition rules - a review (Part 2 of 2)

Continuing from my previous post, a review of the "substantive changes" in the UPA's draft 11th edition rules:

Revisions/clarifications in the continuation rule: Several smallish changes that look to be in line with how the game is played or how it should be played to give fair outcomes. Specifics include: clarifying that continuation is on infractions only, not stalls; continuation is now from the time of the infraction rather than the time of the call (e.g., you must be fouled while throwing for it to take effect, rather than be fouled, then call it after starting to throw); and the outcome of the play stands regardless of continuation, if the infraction does not affect play. "Affected the play" is also defined more clearly. All of these seem reasonable and clarify how the rules apply to some outcomes; as such they are helpful but I don't see them being too major. Importance: minor. Improvement: minor.

Penalties for offsides and time violations in observed games: nice to have these codified but ususally in tourneys where observers are used (e.g. Nationals) they already have rules on this. Hardly changes things, I suppose at least it's universal now. Importance: minor. Improvement: minor.

Changes for goal scoring: A few changes here - players no longer need to 'acknowledge' that they have scored for it to count, and effectively score as soon as they have met the requirements to do so (and in a related change, scores require the disc has been caught and the possession has survived ground contact related to the catch). Furthermore if a player has clearly but unknowingly scored, then throws an incomplete pass, they have still scored, a player with best perspective can still award them a goal (though if there is disagreement on this, the turnover stands). Both changes seem reasonable. The requirement to acknowledge a score seemed rather meaningless given there was no universal way to do this, so it might as well go. As for negating a throwaway after a player has already scored (but doesn't know it yet), that kinda seems like rewarding stupidity, but then again, allowing the turnover to stand rewards bad defence by giving them an unearned turnover. It's a wash I guess. Importance: minor. Improvement: minor.

Elimination of 'strip' call: Another 'not as major as it sounds' changes. A disc in hand is considered part of the player so a strip is by definition a foul. Thus 'strip' is gone and simply a foul call now. Also gone is the one thing that made a strip different than a foul - in the 10th, an uncontested strip in the endzone is a goal. Now, any uncontested foul in the endzone, where the receiver had established possession of the disc, is a goal. This includes both a strip and a foul where the fouling player doesn't touch the disc itself (e.g., a defender hits the receiver's arm after the catch, causing a drop). Small change, but it makes sense to me. Importance: minor. Improvement: moderate.

Changes to stalling rules: Several changes falling into this broad category. First and most notably, the requirement to leave a second after "stalling" when initiating a count has been dropped. Thus "stalling... one" can be reduced to "stallingone". This effectively drops one second from a legal stall count (to about 9 seconds rather than 10), which seems substantive... but in reality, most players already stall like this. So, it levels the playing field for players who are rule-conscious. It's not the most ideal solution in my view (I thought initiating with "zero" would be best), but very pragmatic of the rules committee.

A few related changes to where the count comes back in on calls: on a contested stall count, it goes back to 8 rather than 9 (making up for the lost second after "stalling"). This ensures two stalls rather than the "stallingnine... ten" you would often get. On contested fouls and violations, there is no added second, it stays at 6 if over 5. I guess the extra second is less important there, so, OK I guess. Stall on an uncontested offensive violation does not drop to 6 if over 5, though it did in the 10th - just removing an oversight. Lastly a special case where there is a second contested stall that results from a fast count, it comes in at 6 instead of 8. OK, sure. Overall the changes provide a few clarifications and the overall change to drop the second after "stalling" just brings the rules into agreement with how most players play already. Importance: major. Improvement: moderate.

Travelling rules clarified: The most major change is to the exception allowed for throwing on the run. In the 10th the rule was it was not a travel if you release the disc before your third ground contact while running or jumping. I always assumed that would count the ground contact a player has (if any) while catching - so they must throw before two more contacts in that case. But apparently there was some disagreement over that. The new rule is similar but specifies "three additional points of contact" after possession is gained. Not sure if this is an improvement but at least I find it at least as clear as the rule it replaces. A few other clarifications including definition of a pivot for a player who is slowing down but not stopped; non-stanfding players can lose a pivot to stand even if they have faked a throw already; and the treatment of travelling by intentionally bobbling or delaying is clarified. Overall I can see some of these will be important but I don't think there will be too much effect on play. Importance: moderate. Improvement: minor.

Calling and contesting infractions: One change and one clarification here. First, only a player on an infracted team can call an infraction (and as in previous editions, only the infracted player can call many of these). In the 10th, some infractions allowed any player to call it; I don't know if this was ever abused but it makes sense to close the loophole. Also the rules now explicitly acknowledge that any call can be contested, stating "a player called for an infraction may contest that call if that player believes the infraction did not occur". I am very much in favour of explicitly acknowledging this, it will hopefully eliminate the bizarre "you can't contest a ____" arguments, and the wording of the rule does a nice job of defining when calls should be contested (i.e., not just when a call wuld be inconvenient to accept). This addition may lead to more calls being contested, but in my opinion, many more calls should be contested, particularly when they are based on a poor understanding of the rules. Importance: moderate. Improvement: major.

Caps renamed: No one used the old cap names properly, so they are renamed based on what people already call them. So, "soft cap" is now "point cap", "time cap" is now "soft time cap", and "hard cap" is now "hard time cap". The latter two will inevitably be reduced to "soft cap" and "hard cap" in common use, but at least they will refer to the right thing now. Importance: minor. Improvement: moderate.

Everything else: there are probably a good two dozen other changes not covered, but either they are minor clarifications, changes affecting small nuances of the rules, changes that affect rare situations, or otherwise just aren't worth commenting at length on. I don't really have any concerns on any of these, generally I like the rest of the changes or can't see much of an impact from them.

OVERALL: The ruleset represents an improvement in many areas over the 10th. In most cases the changes simply clarify situations or close loopholes. In the few cases where they will affect play, I generally think it will be for the better. I agree with some that these rules will discourage, or provide mechanisms to discourage, close physical marks. However I don't think this will affect the game negatively, rather it will likely lead to cleaner play, and more disciplined defence (based on holding forces rather than bodying throwers). I expect there will be a transitional period when it appears the new rules lead to more calls and arguments, but as players learn to play with them and adjust, the game should become more fluid, more playable, and more watchable (think the NHL after a crackdown on obstruction and clutch-and-grab).

Lastly the process used in developing the rules was a good one, very transparent and allowing input from anyone interested (well, anyone interested and with internet access). I was able to offer my own inputs and while I didn;t see all changes go exactly as I had wanted, overall there are no deal-breakers, and the rules are improved from the 10th. Thus, a "yes" vote from me.

11th edition rules - a review (Part 1 of 2)

Recently the UPA undertook a process to draft a new ruleset, updating the 10th edition which have been in use since 2001. The draft rules were released fo public consultation, tweaked based on this, and finalised for voting by the UPA membership, on now. (the new rules and a list of changes are available here).

Anyway shortly after the ruleset was released for voting, someone on rec.sport.disc issued a request from ulti's "blogging elite" to comment on the rules and how they would vote. So far that has been met by just one elite blogger, but I figure I might as well contribute my views (even though I'm certainly not in the 'blogging elite'), for whoever cares, at least so I can identify for my own purposes what I like or don't about the draft rules.

Most of the rules are pretty much the same, which in itself is a plus. The rules are mostly clarifications and plugging loopholes, few changes are intended to affect the game as played. As such I'll go through the "substantive changes" and register my thoughts for each:

Throwing fouls are clarified: Basically the new rules clarify what had been an ambiguity in thrower/marker fouls when the thrower makes contact with an extended arm or leg of the marker. Many previously argued that was always a foul by the marker, as their extended arms and legs "cannot be positioned in such a manner as to restrict the thrower from pivoting or throwing", and even if the thrower thries to throw through a stationary arm or leg of the marker (i.e., thrower initiates contact) it is a marker foul. The new rules make it a thrower foul if they pivot into a "completely stationary" part of a legally positioned marker but otherwise it is a foul on the marker. Also a few other minor clarifications, e.g., contact with the torso of a legally positioned marker is a thrower foul, contact while both players are vying for an unoccupied space is always a marker foul, etc. Subtle stuff, but offers a slightly better definition of positional responsibilities. I don't see it substantially reducing calls or arguments but I do think it is a small improvement. Importance: moderate. Improvement: minor.

Section on 'marking violations' added: I like this section. It encompasses existing rules on fast counts and double teams, in which calling the violations by name reduces the count but does not stop play. It also adds rules which existed in some form previously, but didn't have a real call to define them: disc space and "vision blocking". I'll discuss disc space separately below; vision blocking is where a marker deliberately blocks the thrower's vision (something I've never seen happen but I don't object to there being a call for it). Now in all cases, the thrower recogniding any of these can call the specific violation and the marker must correct the violation and then resume the stall count one lower than before. On subsequent occurences of any of these in the same stall count, the thrower may do the same thing, or just call 'violation' and stop play as the 10th edition allowed. Importance: moderate. Improvement: moderate.


Disc space defined: The 10th edition has a rule (XIV.A) efffectively requiring disc space without using the word, and no reason to enforce it without either drawing a throwing foul or just calling "violation" either of which would stop play. Thus, a close mark can be a way to inhibit the thrower's options and a call is often not made because it stops flow, or the thrower does not want to make a call when the marker is just inside the legal limits, risking the ire fo the marker, his/her teammates, and (in some cases) the spectators for making such a 'pussy' call. Less experienced players often call 'disc space' and insist it's a rule (often which necessitates a dropped stall count) but such a call does not exist. Until this draft ruleset.

The new rule makes it a disc space violation for a line between any two points on the thrower to either touch the thrower anywhere, or to be within less than a disc diameter of the thrower's torso OR pivot, unless this issue is caused solely by the actions of the thrower. Any call due to this is resoolved as a marking violation, described above. A few nuances worth noting:

1. The two points on the thrower may be anywhere on their body, including the tips of their fingers (thus, preventing the marker from encircling the thrower, as a separate rule specifies in the 10th), their toes, two points on their chest, and effectively any single point anywhere on the marker (as mathematically, even two points that are almost adjacent can form a line). Markers take note.
2. The extension of the disc space to the pivot represents a change from the prohibition on straddling in the 10th. The new rule goes beyond straddling to cover anything where the marker's toe or line between their toes is within a disc diameter of the marker's pivot point.
3. By definition, any foul by the marker on the thrower is now both a foul and a marking violation (as a point on the marker touches the thrower). The thrower can call either as they see fit. This gives them a call to use in the case of a foul early in the count that would normally stop flow or cost a few stalls if not called. This will hopefully reduce the use of hacking tactics used by some players/teams to stop flow.

Overall, I like the change, but I can see the change with respect to the pivot is non-negligible and will take some adjustment. We'll have to see exactly how much this affects marking tactics but I think on the whole it'll be for the better. Importance: high. Improvement: moderate.

OK, three changes in and I've written this much? I'll discuss the remainder later... don't worry, I generally have less to say on most. Stay tuned.