Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Post by rulzdo » Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:54:50


At a game this weekend, we played a team (let's call them the Bow-wow
Battlers)
with a very aggressive style of play. After calling several fouls, our
team
was accused of cheating and not having read the rules. Now, I thought
I was
pretty up on my rules reading, but had a nagging doubt at the back of
my mind.
So, I did a little research, and found that I had been playing under
an
*outdated* rules edition! In fact, the most recent rules amendments
are the
Rules of Ultimate (Battler edition).

Here are some good excerpts for you (amendments from the outdated 9th
edition
are presented in brackets []):

Preface

In Ultimate, an intentional foul would be considered cheating and a
gross offense against the spirit of sportsmanship [unless the marker
is trying to
break y'all's mark]. Often a player is in a position where it is
clearly
to the player's advantage to foul or commit some violation, but that
player is morally bound to abide by the rules [unless, like I said,
the thrower's about
to break y'all's mark].

...

VIII. Starting and Restopping Play
4. The Check
  C. The marker restarts play by touching the disc in possession of
the
     thrower [and doin' it while the thrower is discussin' the
violation
     and ain't yet presented the disc is 'specially recommended].

...

XVI. Fouls
4. Catching Fouls
  C. If a player's attempt to make a play on the disc causes
significant impact      with a legitimately positioned stationary
opponent, before or after the         disc arrives, it is considered
"harmful endangerment" and is a foul
     [unless y'all hit the disc first. Oh, wait, I guess that would  
   qualify as *before* the disc arrives. My bad, y'all. Nevermind].
  D. Dangerous, aggressive behavior or reckless disregard for the
safety of      fellow players is always a foul [unless y'all can get
the disc first!
     Yeah!].

Those are the most outstanding changes between the 9th edition amended
and
the Battler edition. I highly recommend teams get this most recent
version of
the rules and read them, so we can all be playing the same game. I
wince to
think that all the arguing with the Battlers this weekend could have
been
avoided if my team had simply realized the *actual* set of rules we
were
playing under! Don't let this happen to your team.

Rulzdood

 
 
 

Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Post by Adam Tar » Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:09:57

Careful, pal, those "bow-wow" folks will shout you down with numbers and
volume if you imply they don't play by the rules.

To wit:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&frame=ri...

Do you want to go through all that fun?  Your choice...

-Adam

 
 
 

Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Post by Larry D. Hol » Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:06:11

Hallo,

Quote:

> Careful, pal, those "bow-wow" folks will shout you down with numbers and
> volume if you imply they don't play by the rules.

        If they've been busted for cheating, everybody should know.

Larry

 
 
 

Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Post by Mike Geric » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 03:09:52

rulzdoodie...

what do those new rules read about little whiney shrimps that get gobbled up
all day long like a big ole pork rind???

 
 
 

Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Post by rulzdo » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 06:27:33

Quote:
Mike G writes:
> what do those new rules read about little whiney shrimps that get
> gobbled up all day long like a big ole pork rind???

Continued excerpts from the Rules of Ultimate (Battler edition):

Appendix B: Etiquette
1. In a spirit of inclusiveness, everyone should be invited to play.
   Shrimp, lobsters, crawdads included [hey, they got claws. Tho' how
   they gonna sky anyone I don't know].
2. Players should refrain from eating one another without permission.
   Even if y'all run out of burrito tickets.
3. If one of y'all's teammates harms another player, it is common
   courtesy to praise him or her for the outstanding athletic prowess
   required to produce a collision strong enough to inflict injury.
4. When an opponent makes a call with which y'all disagree, either
   of the following are appropriate responses:
   a. ``Contest!'' [deprecated]
   b. ``That's bullsh*t, you whinin' motherf*cker!''

Rulzdood

 
 
 

Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Post by Andy Tolhurs » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 06:56:27

rulzdood,
  in any edition of the rules there is nothing that says the mark must allow
the thrower an uncontested and free easy break mark throw (hence the name
"break mark").  in any athletic sport at the highest level there is contact
(i.e. basketball, soccer, even track and field for gosh sakes). call the
foul and move on (since we know you won't play-on making the game athletic
and hard-fought and sporting as long as someone touches a finger or breathes
on an eyelash while you are making your oh-so-pretty swill)  heaven forbid
that the game become a sport.  i also remember playing in a big game against
some team (i think they are collegiate national champs) that used physical
bump and run *gasp* away from the disc as well as on the mark enroute to a
national championship but they must have been cheating.  as for collisions
on field, it takes two people making an athletic bid.  the team you hint at
lost a player in college on just such a play.  and concerning the stall,
well why in the world would someone allow the offense an additional
advantage that they have no right to?  the foul has been called, the marker
checked it in.  there doesn't have to be a long discussion to have spirit.
the call was made and instantly upheld or contested. check it in (the disc
must be presented and cannot be held from being checked in) and start
counting!  having pretentious discussion that ends in the same manner while
the offense sets up some play isn't spirit, that's abusing the name of
spirit so that you can get the look you want and is just as much an offense
as the foul.  this weekend i played a team i hate.  really.  i don't like
any of the rage players and i am confident that they don't like me.  the
shocker is that we don't have to like each other.  the spirit lies in the
handshake at the end of the game (which they did with eye contact which is
more than i can say for certain players from the team the "battlers" faced
last).  it was pretty cool to be a part of that game that was so hotly
contested with tempers, collisions, big plays, and big scores and shake
hands and mean it.  the best part is we still don't have to like each other
and the game will be as hot the next time (a *gasp* rivalry!!). but what
would i know...i'm only in it for the battle and the pork rinds

Quote:
> rulzdoodie...

> what do those new rules read about little whiney shrimps that get gobbled
up
> all day long like a big ole pork rind???

 
 
 

Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Post by Andy Tolhurs » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 06:56:27

rulzdood,
  in any edition of the rules there is nothing that says the mark must allow
the thrower an uncontested and free easy break mark throw (hence the name
"break mark").  in any athletic sport at the highest level there is contact
(i.e. basketball, soccer, even track and field for gosh sakes). call the
foul and move on (since we know you won't play-on making the game athletic
and hard-fought and sporting as long as someone touches a finger or breathes
on an eyelash while you are making your oh-so-pretty swill)  heaven forbid
that the game become a sport.  i also remember playing in a big game against
some team (i think they are collegiate national champs) that used physical
bump and run *gasp* away from the disc as well as on the mark enroute to a
national championship but they must have been cheating.  as for collisions
on field, it takes two people making an athletic bid.  the team you hint at
lost a player in college on just such a play.  and concerning the stall,
well why in the world would someone allow the offense an additional
advantage that they have no right to?  the foul has been called, the marker
checked it in.  there doesn't have to be a long discussion to have spirit.
the call was made and instantly upheld or contested. check it in (the disc
must be presented and cannot be held from being checked in) and start
counting!  having pretentious discussion that ends in the same manner while
the offense sets up some play isn't spirit, that's abusing the name of
spirit so that you can get the look you want and is just as much an offense
as the foul.  this weekend i played a team i hate.  really.  i don't like
any of the rage players and i am confident that they don't like me.  the
shocker is that we don't have to like each other.  the spirit lies in the
handshake at the end of the game (which they did with eye contact which is
more than i can say for certain players from the team the "battlers" faced
last).  it was pretty cool to be a part of that game that was so hotly
contested with tempers, collisions, big plays, and big scores and shake
hands and mean it.  the best part is we still don't have to like each other
and the game will be as hot the next time (a *gasp* rivalry!!). but what
would i know...i'm only in it for the battle and the pork rinds

Quote:
> rulzdoodie...

> what do those new rules read about little whiney shrimps that get gobbled
up
> all day long like a big ole pork rind???

 
 
 

Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Post by rulzdo » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:11:29

Quote:

> [ a really long paragraph ]

Well, a reasonable response! Then, I'll reply in kind:

I'm all for aggressive play. Plenty of teams at the top level play
very aggressively, and yes, there is contact that arises. Just ask
Testosterone Man. The rules even acknowledge this fact (being
Rulzdood, I have to quote some rules in here somewhere):

4.Catching Fouls:
   A. A catching foul may be called when there is contact between
   opposing players in the process of attempting a catch,
   interception, or knock down. A certain amount of incidental contact
   during or immediately after the catching attempt is often
   unavoidable and is not a foul.

The question, of course, is what is ``incidental'' contact, and what
is a foul. The rules are unclear. Even in the pro sports you cite,
there are lines between fouls and acceptable contact (e.g., two hands
on the back of a posting-up offensive player in basketball is a foul
in the NBA, one hand is not).

I think the problem is that the Battlers place that line at a
different spot than the majority of the ultimate community. (I have
played against many other teams, plenty of them better than the
Battlers, and have not had these problems.) As long as this mismatch in
expectation exists, the team expecting more physicality will be viewed
as thugs, and the team expecting less physicality will be viewed,
apparently, as ``little whiney shrimps.''

However, I don't think the Battlers' reputation stems from their
physical play, per se, but rather from the way they carry themselves
on the field and sidelines (and let me put in a STRONG caveat here
that this probably applies to a small set of extremely, um, *vocal*
players--I have actually had pleasant on-field interactions with
several Battlers).

Some examples:
1. Constant, loud verbal abuse from the sidelines immediately
   following a call. Personally, I say bring it--doesn't faze me
   mentally. But it doesn't earn any ``nice guys to play against''
   points. Also, when their teammate doesn't even contest the call
   (actually happens pretty frequently), it makes it even more
   absurd.

2. Righteous indignation about a foul call while an opponent is
   sprawled on the ground, clutching his head from a collision. How
   about checking if the guy's ok *first*, and then discussing the
   call?

3. Can't let this one go:

B. Etiquette
  5. Should a dispute or confusion arise on the field, it should be
  common practice to stop play, and resume play with a check *when the
  matter is resolved*. [emphasis added]

Checking a disc in before a call or violation is resolved is a
blatant violation of this rule. Besides, if the thrower is still
discussing the call/violation, how can he be calling a play?

But I digress.

My main point is that I firmly believe the Battlers would be just as
good of a team (and they *are* good, with many very talented athletes)
if they sharpened up their social skills. Note that I didn't say ``if
they played less aggressively.'' (*) Just work on the sportsmanship a
little.

Quote:

> it was pretty cool to be a part of that game that was so hotly
> contested with tempers, collisions, big plays, and big scores and
> shake hands and mean it

Amen.

Rulzdood

(*) Although a little more body control wouldn't hurt. The rate of
injury time-outs in our game was much higher than in the other games
we played. I find the justification that you lost one of your own
teammates in a collision somewhat twisted. I'll leave with this
thought:

Good play: getting the D.
Great play: getting the D without making contact.

 
 
 

Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Post by dust » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:02:32


Quote:
> national championship but they must have been cheating.  as for collisions
> on field, it takes two people making an athletic bid.  the team you hint

at

as for the debate going on here, i fall somewhere between... i imagine the
team rulzdood is upset with is a little overaggressive, by the same token
rulzdood has a tainted point of view... so whatever... i just like the
disc...

but, when reading your post, i noticed that you stated collisions require
two people main athletic bids, and that's just not true... what about the
collisions with players in the stack? what about picks? what about the guy
who's about to make what he thinks is an easy grab (you should always go at
the disc as though you're about to be contested though) and gets plowed into
from the back? it does not require two athletic bids, it can require someone
just having no regard for someone else's positioning on the field...

it's a fine line when it comes to collisions... i know i've had my bell
rung, and i've done some of the reverse... i don't particularly enjoy either
one, so the key is to, if at all possible, avoid it...

--

music on tap: gillespie y machito, afro-cuban jazz moods

dusty


bobby digital

 
 
 

Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Post by Andy Tolhurs » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:36:44

what about the
collisions with players in the stack? what about picks? what about the guy
who's about to make what he thinks is an easy grab (you should always go at
the disc as though you're about to be contested though) and gets plowed into
from the back?

i actually meant that two people are involved in a collision in an athletic
endeavor as was proven by everyone of your rhetorical questions.  there is a
certain amount of inherent risk involved in playing a highly athletic sport.
i'm all for avoiding collisions...they hurt.  i was posting in response to
the suggested notion that a teammate of mine, or our team for that matter,
are the sole purveyors of on field collisions and that we somehow love
reckless play. we don't.  we love aggressive play and so do other teams as
proven by their play and the resulting injuries to my teammates (my purpose
in including their injuries).  though THE FAN and the best little big man in
the game both enjoy the wacked out painkillers i'm sure they'd rather have
two good collar bones.  sometimes the fine line between aggressive and
reckless gets crossed as each player eyes up the disc and believes "i got
that shit."  in that moment, don't hate the player, hate the game.

Quote:


> > national championship but they must have been cheating.  as for
collisions
> > on field, it takes two people making an athletic bid.  the team you hint
> at

> as for the debate going on here, i fall somewhere between... i imagine the
> team rulzdood is upset with is a little overaggressive, by the same token
> rulzdood has a tainted point of view... so whatever... i just like the
> disc...

> but, when reading your post, i noticed that you stated collisions require
> two people main athletic bids, and that's just not true... what about the
> collisions with players in the stack? what about picks? what about the guy
> who's about to make what he thinks is an easy grab (you should always go
at
> the disc as though you're about to be contested though) and gets plowed
into
> from the back? it does not require two athletic bids, it can require
someone
> just having no regard for someone else's positioning on the field...

> it's a fine line when it comes to collisions... i know i've had my bell
> rung, and i've done some of the reverse... i don't particularly enjoy
either
> one, so the key is to, if at all possible, avoid it...

> --

> music on tap: gillespie y machito, afro-cuban jazz moods

> dusty


> bobby digital

 
 
 

Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Post by Larry D. Hol » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:47:34

Hallo,

        Whiner.

Larry
did I get the correct inflection on that?

 
 
 

Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Post by Ulstrs » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:22:31

Quote:
>3.  The Wilmington standard--"don't call it unless it's pure***."
>(Courtesy of Ulstrson.)

you have to admit wilmington has always allowed an agressive mark.  we call the
foul only if the contact affects our throw.  None of that "foul!!" when were
just faking, after the throw(possible exception John Bowling) or if its light
enough not to impede us.  Most of YA'LL call the second there is contact.  As
for the tap in...., thems the rules folks and it goes a little something like
this:thrower:"FOUL!!!, Wilmington mark:"contest/no contest",(taps disc) "disc
in... six, seven"  As fast as we like.  If its contested why do we need a
discussion?  Do you think you will chage our mind?  Quit ***ing.  If you want
time for a discussion, try to get it written into the rules so you can
have,...say five mins to argue your case if your foul call is contested.  Boy
that will bring in the sponsors.  You sound so wound up.  Taking time to ***
about calls days after a tourny?  At least make it fun:  Talk some shit.  Be
funny.  Get drunk and tarnish your high and mighty image..........     Too many
kooks play this game.... bring on the refs and lets make it a sport.  Long live
the NUA.  

Ulstrson

 
 
 

Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Post by Andy Tolhurs » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:24:29

you left off the expletives, but a good start.


Quote:
> Hallo,


> Whiner.

> Larry
> did I get the correct inflection on that?

 
 
 

Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Post by dust » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:41:51

cool... just a misunderstanding in words then...

in short, i agree...

but i was under the impression that you were stating that the responsibility
for the collision was always resting evenly on two players, not just one...

thanks for the clarification...

--

music on tap: neil young, silver and gold

dusty


not wolverine but still i holds claws like chamiqua


Quote:
> i actually meant that two people are involved in a collision in an
athletic
> endeavor as was proven by everyone of your rhetorical questions.  there is
a
> certain amount of inherent risk involved in playing a highly athletic
sport.
> i'm all for avoiding collisions...they hurt.  i was posting in response to
> the suggested notion that a teammate of mine, or our team for that matter,
> are the sole purveyors of on field collisions and that we somehow love
> reckless play. we don't.  we love aggressive play and so do other teams as
> proven by their play and the resulting injuries to my teammates (my
purpose
> in including their injuries).  though THE FAN and the best little big man
in
> the game both enjoy the wacked out painkillers i'm sure they'd rather have
> two good collar bones.  sometimes the fine line between aggressive and
> reckless gets crossed as each player eyes up the disc and believes "i got
> that shit."  in that moment, don't hate the player, hate the game.

 
 
 

Extra, extra: new rules edition found!

Post by Steve Peterso » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:18:43

    ok, If a O player gets hand blocked in the endzone and the disc is
fluttering aimlessly in the air who has the right to catch it ?  Should the
team on D be 100% responsible for avoiding the collision and let the O catch
it.  If the player is making a play for the disc then why can't the O player
be more aware and get out of the way.  I've noticed that often times players
like to think that the O has more of a right to the disc.  Well, not against
the Battlers.
    Tapping the disc into play.  If you call a violation why do you have to
explain it for 5 minutes before resuming play.  Talk about delays in the
game. You made the call --- we accepted and want to continue playing.  Don't
call a foul and then hide the disc behind your back so the D can't tap it
in.  Especially if the foul is uncontested.
     The Battlers play hard and I'm sure sometimes commit fouls.   I saw
several Battlers get fouled hard and go down.  I never once heard the
sidelines cry about it or empy on to the field running their mouths.
Usually the player got up and let they player tap the disc in and play
resumed. I think the only real difference in play lies in the intensity of
the players and the sidelines.


Quote:
> At a game this weekend, we played a team (let's call them the Bow-wow
> Battlers)
> with a very aggressive style of play. After calling several fouls, our
> team
> was accused of cheating and not having read the rules. Now, I thought
> I was
> pretty up on my rules reading, but had a nagging doubt at the back of
> my mind.
> So, I did a little research, and found that I had been playing under
> an
> *outdated* rules edition! In fact, the most recent rules amendments
> are the
> Rules of Ultimate (Battler edition).

> Here are some good excerpts for you (amendments from the outdated 9th
> edition
> are presented in brackets []):

> Preface

> In Ultimate, an intentional foul would be considered cheating and a
> gross offense against the spirit of sportsmanship [unless the marker
> is trying to
> break y'all's mark]. Often a player is in a position where it is
> clearly
> to the player's advantage to foul or commit some violation, but that
> player is morally bound to abide by the rules [unless, like I said,
> the thrower's about
> to break y'all's mark].

> ...

> VIII. Starting and Restopping Play
> 4. The Check
>   C. The marker restarts play by touching the disc in possession of
> the
>      thrower [and doin' it while the thrower is discussin' the
> violation
>      and ain't yet presented the disc is 'specially recommended].

> ...

> XVI. Fouls
> 4. Catching Fouls
>   C. If a player's attempt to make a play on the disc causes
> significant impact      with a legitimately positioned stationary
> opponent, before or after the         disc arrives, it is considered
> "harmful endangerment" and is a foul
>      [unless y'all hit the disc first. Oh, wait, I guess that would
>    qualify as *before* the disc arrives. My bad, y'all. Nevermind].
>   D. Dangerous, aggressive behavior or reckless disregard for the
> safety of      fellow players is always a foul [unless y'all can get
> the disc first!
>      Yeah!].

> Those are the most outstanding changes between the 9th edition amended
> and
> the Battler edition. I highly recommend teams get this most recent
> version of
> the rules and read them, so we can all be playing the same game. I
> wince to
> think that all the arguing with the Battlers this weekend could have
> been
> avoided if my team had simply realized the *actual* set of rules we
> were
> playing under! Don't let this happen to your team.

> Rulzdood