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.
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.
posted by Druski at 3:47 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home