I wonder if a 2011 updated version of the rules is due? I think I remember that an announcement had gone out in the last few months of last year that suggestions for the 2011 changes to the rules should be made (to the rules forum) by a certain date. Obviously, updating the rules is a big job, which is important to get right; but hopefully, if there will be any big changes, the update will be released soon.
I had made some suggestions, on this blog and on the rules forum already mentioned. Looking at the rest of that forum, the pick thread is the only one to get to 2 pages long. It seems the pick rule is one that quite a few people would like to see changed! Although, the pick rule is the rule that I see most frequently misinterpreted, so perhaps there'd be less trouble with the rule were it played as it is written. The fact that it's different to the USA ultimate rule probably doesn't help it get played correctly either.
Where are the main weaknesses left in the rules? What causes the biggest avoidable disputes? I was recently talking this over with my brother and I've come to the opinion that quite a few weaknesses of the sport come down to the fact that the rules are written for a game of ultimate, but, virtually all important games are played as part of tournaments. The rules of the sport are pretty good. The rules specific to each competition can vary.
Because of this, we get the over-complicated way games tend to end. (see the piece I already pointed out above on this blog).
We get confusion over who is entitled to play in game. If a tournament director just says "yeah, sure, play for whoever you want", other teams can get annoyed at what they see as their opposition unfairly picking up players from other teams.
And at big tournaments we get sidelines lined with about 10-20 subs from each team, with whom a player could inadvertently blend in with, and be accused of unfairly sneaking past the defence to get open. Not against the rules of the sport, but it's the duty of the competition organisers to define limits for how many subs a team can have, and how close they can stand to the pitch.
The rules of the sport don't actually say anything about not taking performance enhancing drugs either. (Do they?) I think we can take that as a given, but perhaps championship tournament rules should actually state it.
In conclusion, if you're organising a competition, be sure that any associated rules you need to add, separate to the usual rules of ultimate for isolated games, are well thought through. For instance, if your competition includes a rule that says "no time outs can be called in the last 5 minutes of the game" be sure to say what should happen if someone forgets and calls one. Since that isn't a general rule of the sport, what happens next is not defined in the rules.
And maybe state whether or not players can only play for one team in your competition.
PDF; The Flowers From My Mother's Garden
3 years ago
http://www.wfdf.org/antidoping/WFDF%20anti-doping%20final.pdf
ReplyDelete= Another addition to the rules, in another separate document, and on a separate website. Lovely.
It would be nice if there was a full rules document that contained everything you might need to know (rules, interpretations, decisions diagrams, scenarios, principles, appendices, hand signals, doping).
While the pick rule did get the most discussion on the forum, it contained posts from just 5 people. Maybe this means that this forum needs to be advertised more (in future in preparation for another document), maybe it shows how close to perfection the rules are, or maybe it just demonstrates the number of people with actual suggestions to changes as opposed to the endless stream of people that enter into the spirit debate (seems to have spread to Britdisc with talk of suggested spirit scoring changes/clarifications).
The "principles" has in the past allowed for more debates in games. And can be used for arguments involving picks, fouls, violations etc. The more text there is, the more opportunity for confusion. If the rules are good enough maybe remove principles, or clarity situations where some might use the principles incorrectly to argue their case.
"It is trusted that no player will intentionally violate the rules; thus there are no harsh penalties for breaches, but rather a method for resuming play in a manner which simulates what would most likely have occurred had there been no breach.
A team should not be disadvantaged because the opposition has made an error or caused a breach.
Calls should only be made where a breach has occurred that has a meaningful impact on the game. Players should allow for a reasonable degree of tolerance for minor breaches involving small discrepancies in distance and time."
Putting everything in one document would make for a mega huge document.
ReplyDeleteAre there inconsistencies that you know of?
As for the principles...I think as with most rules issues, it's the made up ones that cause the confusion. Have you seen prolonged debates based on the principles you've quoted? I'd be interested to hear about them.
Arguments have been:
ReplyDelete"the pivot at the point on the playing field proper closest to where the disc went out-of-bounds"
and the principle
"players should allow for a reasonable degree of tolerance for minor breaches involving small discrepancies in distance and time."
So if pivot foot is just on the line, just off the line, part of the foot on line, part of the foot off line etc, how close to the line do you have to bring your pivot foot? Anyway I've seen arguments with it in the past.
Then the pick rule or foul rule:
"Whenever a foul or violation call is made, play stops immediately and no turn over is possible." (unless against the thrower, but a pick isn't against thrower, but if it is?!)
and principle
"but rather a method for resuming play in a manner which simulates what would most likely have occurred had there been no breach."
So sometimes thrower and receiver don't hear the call and after a few seconds throw the disc away. I know the rule states its not a turnover and I saw on the forum that other players that did stop could have come into play and become an option for the thrower, but it's hard to argue this in the fatigue of the moment when someone else is arguing the principle.
The pick rule and the principle
"Calls should only be made where a breach has occurred that has a meaningful impact on the game." so if someone doesn't call pick straight away and tries to argue that they're calling it when they are now 15 metres because of this priniciple etc.
I imagine with the pivot foot thing, someone is being unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteas for the rest, I see what you mean. Arguing from these principles can get you anywhere.
If, as a defender, I punch you in the face at stall 9, and don't contest the foul call, the stall should go back to zero. But the principle regarding "what would most likely have occurred had there been no breach" says that if I didn't punch you in the face, the stall count would still be much higher!
Basically, I think the 'principles' aren't intended for settling rule arguments unless you actually find a scenario that's not covered by the rules. The rules are the important document. Everything else is just a supplemental aid to understanding the rules. But if there's a contradiction - the rules are the final say!
So in the case of the pick or foul call that wasn't heard, the rules are explicit: play has stopped, no turnover is possible.
And as for your last point, there is a rule that says "Calls must be made immediately after the breach occurs." Besides, if someone ends up 15 metres away, they must gotten knocked over by the pick or something, no?
Good point about the face punching and when to argues principles.
ReplyDelete15 metres away: maybe they're slow and/or slowed down and looking around to see if play is affected!