Rules of Ultimate governed by the World Flying Disc Federation

Pick is not a breach by the offence

  • david
  • Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
More
6 years 6 months ago - 6 years 6 months ago #208 by david
I think it is a fairly common misconception that pick is an offensive breach (probably because it is the offence that causes picks). It matters for the purpose of restarting the stall count after a pick:

9.5.2 - After an uncontested breach by the offence the stall count restarts at maximum
nine (9 .
9.5.4 - After all other calls the stall count restarts at maximum six (6).


In fact, the only clear indication I found that a pick is not an offensive breach is in the interpretation of rule 9.5.4:

9.2 Stall count after a pick (9.5.4)
After a pick call the stall count must restart at maximum six (6).


I suggest this either be squeezed into the pick rule itself, or at least added to the interpretations of that rule as well.
Last edit: 6 years 6 months ago by david.
The following user(s) said Thank You: juan.ottonello

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
5 years 10 months ago #485 by juan.ottonello
Replied by juan.ottonello on topic Pick is not a breach by the offence
I have read and tried once and again to get it, but I still find the stall-after-pick rules confusing.

david's interpretation seems to be ok, as the interpretation 9.2 says that the rule 9.5.4 should be aplied instead of 9.5.2 (uncontested brach by the offence) The decision diagram (page 4 fo the pdf) support the same in the left branch (Disc not thrown)

What I don't understand is that the same diagram shows we should apply 9.5.2 if the disc was actually thrown (stall max 9) What makes the difference in that case? I went through the pick diagram several times in the last months before posting here and my intuiton still tells me that we should apply the same rule in uncontested picks (disc thrown or not) I think we should apply 9.5.2 in both cases. If someone in offence causes a pick when stall is 9, it's called and accepted: why should the stall go back to 6?

If it was intentional to apply 9.5.4 or 9.5.2 deppending on if the disc was thrown or not, maybe it could be a good idea to add an article to the interpretations for the case of "pick & disc thrown" (right branch of the desition tree)

Hope it helps, the 2013 edition was a good improvement anyway :)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
5 years 10 months ago #486 by rueben
Replied by rueben on topic Pick is not a breach by the offence

What I don't understand is that the same diagram shows we should apply 9.5.2 if the disc was actually thrown (stall max 9)


Are you sure you are looking at the latest version? Because the version I just downloaded shows Stall Max 6, rule 9.5.4, for all the outcomes.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
5 years 10 months ago - 5 years 10 months ago #487 by juan.ottonello
Replied by juan.ottonello on topic Pick is not a breach by the offence
:cheer: thanks rueben, my version was one year old and I hadn't checked for updates. It's coherent and it will be easier to explain now!

I know this is a second question, but since we are on the subject: what is the rationale behind using stall max 6 with uncontested picks? I get a pick is not a "breach by the offence" but, is not a pick something wrong the offence do? Why should they get the stall lowered if it was 8 for example?

I know the rule now anyway, that's first. To know why it's the way it is would be a plus. Thanks a lot for all your work!
Last edit: 5 years 10 months ago by juan.ottonello. Reason: clarify question - change "picks" for " uncontested picks"

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
5 years 10 months ago #488 by rueben
Replied by rueben on topic Pick is not a breach by the offence
It was changed to 6 because it is not always the offensive players fault and also to ensure we align with USAU Rules wherever possible.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.265 seconds