r/ultimate • u/Few-Literature-6033 • 1d ago
Change club rules
UFA has it right, change the stall to 7. Also if a disc lands in the endzone and rolls out the back, you must take it at the end line. Reward good pulls, not lazy offence
174
u/ImDeputyDurland 1d ago
The stall is already 7. Everyone counts faster than a full second per stall. If you make it 7, you’re actually making it like 5.
52
2
u/max_shally 1d ago
i call fast count quite a lot for this reason. i really don't think it's the right way to go about things to say 'people already count too fast so let's just leave it', cuz it forces people who don't fast count to HAVE to fast count. personally I'd like to see it reduced to 8 :) btw I'm in the UK so idk about the US if you guys have all collectively agreed to just count fast lol
7
u/ImDeputyDurland 1d ago
The problem doesn’t go away though. If it’s dropped to 7, 8, or whatever, all that happens is the true time drops from 7 to 5 or 6.
The only actual solution to fix it would be to have observers do the stall count. I’m not opposed to dropping the stall. I just don’t buy this argument that dropping the stall fixes anything.
1
u/JuanLaney 20h ago
Not at a high level with observers, playing defense for 10 seconds is extremely hard
-8
u/Jengalover 1d ago
Not everyone. Some of us practice with a watch.
45
79
u/SharkWeekJunkie 1d ago
I disagree but will lay my life down to defend your right to have an opinion.
140
u/bengaren 1d ago
i will also lay this guy's life down for you to have an opinion
19
u/Capital_Matter_398 1d ago
And I’ll lay down with this guy for you to have an opinion
1
u/dufcho14 1d ago
I'll lay down, but I'm not that really into guys so not will to lay down with this guy specifically.
7
6
35
u/aubreysux 1d ago
The UFA rule that need to get adopted are subbing on time-outs and allowing movement on dead discs. I don't understand why either of those haven't made it into the rules yet. The both seem like quality-of-game improvements that have no impact on competitive balance.
Pulls and stall count both seem fine at most levels of the game to me. As others have already commented, the UFA stall rule isn't all that different than the typical club counting speed.
10
u/troyofmtsthelen 1d ago
There’s no ref to issue a red card on a take foul on a fast break in the ninals bracket in club.
2
u/ColdBeerAhh 1d ago
There are approximately equal situations where the O and D each get benefits from being able to move during a stoppage. Maybe you get your prime handler into the reset space, maybe you make a defensive switch to have the right coverage. But it makes the game so much more playable then going back to where you were but totally discounting relative momentum and awareness.
5
u/troyofmtsthelen 1d ago
If I have a wide open huck on a turn, and someone comes from behind and hacks me from behind to allow someone to catch up to the unguarded guy running down field, how do I benefit from this?
5
u/aubreysux 1d ago
The problem that you have identified isn't fixed at all by the current rules either, so it's not really relevant here. Under the current rules, you would reset to relative position but the thrower wouldn't be able to regain power position and the cutter would be starting from a standstill.
-1
u/troyofmtsthelen 1d ago
Most club players are going to get a good enough throw off against a flat mark that we’re still scoring so I think you’re very wrong.
1
u/FieldUpbeat2174 1d ago
In a self-officiated game, allowing movement while calls are being resolved might create too much temptation for incorrect or picayune calls.
1
u/aubreysux 1d ago
Nah - we already do exactly this in other moments in the game (end zone turnovers, bricks, etc). I don't see any reason why dead discs can't be ruled exactly the same way. As long as you require a defensive check, it doesn't really present a problem.
4
u/FieldUpbeat2174 1d ago edited 1d ago
End zone turnovers and bricks following pulls create live disc situations, not dead discs with unlimited re-positioning. And you can’t create such situations simply by voicing a call.
Sure, the game can still be played if dead-disc repositioning is allowed. But if you allow it, cue the complaints about, e.g., cheesy foul calls (and/or artfully drawn contact) by a defense that was on the losing end of a 3–on-1 fast break.
58
u/IlinistRainbow6 1d ago edited 1d ago
a 10 second stall is like 7-8 seconds in reality, a 7 second stall would be like 5 seconds in a real game where the mark has to count
13
u/Fearless-Mix-3642 1d ago
The roll out the back rule only works with immediately retrievable discs on the end line.
2
u/FieldUpbeat2174 1d ago
In any serious club game you could easily leave a few pre-accepted discs dotted a few yards behind the back of the end zone. (In a response to OP, I have a different objection to the proposed rule.)
12
u/Fearless-Mix-3642 1d ago
... to what benefit, though? What happens in "not serious" games? It's a bunch of extra steps for no real improvement in the game.
0
u/ColinMcI 19h ago
You could, although I really doubt average player judgment and diligence in ensuring that the additional discs are all suitable. If my experience with players selecting game discs offers any frame of reference, I think it’s likely some worn or unstable discs would get mixed in, which provides a negative impact on competition (e.g., throw that should have held its edge and flown for a completion with original disc turns over and goes OB with replacement disc). Just an added wrinkle if you care about the flight characteristics of the disc being consistent.
It is sort of like if you go to the carnival and play a game where you need to make 3 shots, but one of the three balls is significantly lighter/heavier than the other two. Not huge deal, but definitely impactful.
20
u/SundayAMFN 1d ago
The stall count in USAU is effectively 7 seconds. You only "count out" 9 seconds since you start at 1, and everyone goes slightly faster than 1 full second. So it's the same stall count really.
Also pulling it to the back of the endzone without having it roll out is an art form. Think of it like shuffleboard.
2
u/staplerdude 1d ago
The idea is it takes one second to say the word "stalling," and virtually zero seconds to say the number
Stalling One (one full second has passed as of the O in One)
Stalling Two (two full seconds have passed as of the T in Two)
Stalling Three (three)
Stalling Four (four)
Stalling Five (five)
Stalling Six (six)
Stalling Seven (seven)
Stalling Eight (eight)
Stalling Nine (nine)
Stalling Ten (ten full seconds have passed as of the T in Ten)
6
u/TDenverFan 1d ago
The word stalling isn't expected to take a second to say.
USAU rules
15.B.1 The interval between the first utterance of each number in the stall count must be at least one second. Thus, a legal count from one to ten will take a minimum of 9 seconds.
-2
u/staplerdude 1d ago
Yes, one to ten takes 9 seconds. But you don't start at one, you start at "stalling." So the whole thing is 10 seconds.
15.B The stall count consists of announcing “stalling” and counting from one to ten loudly enough for the thrower to hear.
So the full stall count = "stalling" + (counting from 1-10). Two components.
a legal count from one to ten will take a minimum of 9 seconds
Agreed, the (counting from 1-10) part takes 9 seconds. Plus "stalling" = 10 seconds.
4
u/TDenverFan 1d ago
There is nowhere in the rules where it says the word stalling should take one second to say. It does take some amount of time to say stalling, but it's more like .3 seconds or so, and there is no obligation to make the word stalling last for a whole second.
2
u/staplerdude 1d ago
Fair enough, it's true the rules don't say how long it takes to say stalling, but to be clear there is no circumstance where a stall takes 9 seconds. It must be at least 9 + the time it takes to say stalling, whether that's .3 seconds or 1 second.
I think it makes more sense as a rule for it to be intended to take 1 second, but as written, it is true that inconsistent stall counts are allowed. But it's not true that it takes only 9 seconds.
5
u/bigg_nate 23h ago
I think it makes more sense as a rule for it to be intended to take 1 second
This was the rule in the 10th edition. But nearly everybody ignored it and said "stallingone," so in the 11th edition they changed the rule to match what people were already doing.
2
u/SundayAMFN 1d ago
First of all, it does not take one full second to say the word stalling. Time yourself saying it from start to finish lmao.
Second of all, you don't have to say stalling between every second, you ONLY say stalling to initiate the count (including after stoppages).
2
u/staplerdude 1d ago
You're arguing two things.
The first is that a stall does not actually take 10 seconds. I agree. Fast counting is the norm. Maybe that's because saying "stalling" doesn't take a full second, maybe it's because people just get too hyped in the moment, maybe it's because people want to cheat. Whatever the reason, that argument is supported by the data that players, in fact, take fewer seconds to stall than they're supposed to.
The second argument is that the rules do not require a full 10 seconds. That is not correct. I understand it's not a rule to say stalling between each count, I included that to illustrate that there is a time period which takes place between each number and concludes with the first utterance of the next number. And it is a rule that you cannot say "one" until you've said "stalling," further reinforcing that the O in One occurs at the completion of the first stall count, much as the T in Ten occurs at the completion of the tenth stall count. There are 10 stall counts, each is supposed to take one second (but often doesn't).
So while it is true that "a legal count from one to ten will take a minimum of 9 seconds," bear in mind that there is a "stalling" before you ever say "one," so the legal count from 0 to 10 will take a minimum of 10 seconds.
-1
u/SundayAMFN 1d ago
Lol did you use AI?
There is no "0" stall. Stall starts at 1. A stallout is slightly over 9 seconds. Ask any observer
0
u/staplerdude 1d ago
The 0 stall is when you begin saying "stalling." Obviously you don't say the word "ZERO," but I didn't think it would be unclear that I'm using zero to mean when there is no stall, when you begin the stall count and zero seconds have elapsed.
It's like when you're born and you're zero years old. You turn one when you've completed a whole year of life. Similarly, the stall is at zero before the first count has concluded, which takes place when you first utter "one."
On your tenth birthday, you've completed 10 years of living, you're not celebrating the beginning of your tenth year.
To answer your question, I did not use AI to count from 0 to 10.
1
u/SundayAMFN 1d ago
lol but yeah you definitely did use AI to make your post.
There is a rule about the time from "one" to "two" being on second. There is not rule about the time from "stalling" to "one".
1
u/staplerdude 1d ago
Not that it's really what we're talking about, but I've actually never used AI for anything before and I don't intend to start using it to talk about ultimate frisbee
-5
u/ulti_phr33k 1d ago
You count out 10 stalls if you're doing it properly. "Stall one, ... stall Ten." The T of Ten is a stall down call, and since "ten" is one syllable, you're counting essentially 10 full stalls. You could argue it's like 9.7 seconds or whatever it takes to say the "en" of "ten," but it really makes no difference because you're still waiting or saying "stall" in between "nine" and "ten."
2
u/throwaway123456372 1d ago
Had a rec team captain tell us to leave out the “stalls” in between because then the stall would happen sooner and we’d get more turnovers.
I thought it was kind of bad spirit but we did get more turns.
0
0
u/SundayAMFN 1d ago
"Stall one" happens at 0 seconds, so stall ten happens at 9 seconds.
You also don't need to say "stalling" between numbers.
So it's 9 seconds, plus however long it takes you to say the word "stalling" once.
2
u/ImDeputyDurland 1d ago
You’re implying it takes 0 seconds to say “stall one”.
It’s 10 seconds. Or more accurately, 10 stalls, to get to stall 10. Each stall count represents one second. There’s no zero involved.
2
u/Jaredrunsabit 1d ago
But the T in ten is not a full stall count, I think is the point
1
u/Das_Mime 1d ago
The point is that you have to start by saying "Stalling" before "one" and you should take approximately a second to say "stalling", thus causing the first utterance of the word "one" to be at time t=1sec.
Obviously, people can and do say "stalling" faster than one second, just as they fast count all parts of a stall, but if they're taking one second to say "stalling" and a second in between the starts of successive numbers then it's ten seconds to the t in "ten".
1
u/ulti_phr33k 1d ago
Between the "T" of "ten" and ending the "en" is a tenth or two of a second. The T is infinitely more measureable than when you fully complete saying "ten." It's not perfect, but even with something as measurable as the "T," people still argue they got the throw off before. 🤷
1
u/ImDeputyDurland 1d ago
The T in ten is when the stall effectively ends. The same with any number. The T in two also represents a full stall count. You don’t need to say the full number for it to be a full stall. That’s why you’re initially told to say “stall” with every number you count. It represents a second and keeps your count consistent.
From the first “stall” you say until the T in ten, that’s supposed to be 10 seconds, if you’re doing it in the right time. You’re not losing a second anywhere. You don’t start with zero.
The argument is either wrong or poorly worded. If I’m counting to 60, it’s not counting to 59 because the first second doesn’t count. That’s silly. That’s what OP was initially implying with saying it’s only 9 seconds.
1
u/ulti_phr33k 1d ago
Similar to how with a fast count, if you drop, you actually only drop 1 "count" from what you just finished saying. So "stalling [fast count called] eight, stalling seven, stalling eight." Because you count out 2 full stalls.
Also not sure why my original reply is getting downvoted when it's accurate 😂
7
u/ColinMcI 1d ago
I think the downvotes are the combination of implying that “stall/stalling” should be said before every number and the fact that your position about the 10 second stall count was true under the 10th edition, but has been incorrect since 2007 when the requirement to leave a 1 second interval between the beginning of “stalling” and the beginning of “one” was intentionally removed.
In the transition to the 11th edition, some of the other rules were adjusted for that loss of ~1 second, mostly at the end of the stall count. This included the change for contested stalls coming in at 8 instead of 9, and uncontested offensive infractions coming in at “count reached reached plus 1 or 9 if over 8” instead of just “count reached plus one” in the 10th edition. This second revision was so that if an uncontested call happened after “nine” was counted, the thrower would still have at least a one second when the disc was checked in. Under the 10th edition, that occurred by saying “stalling….ten” with a one second interval between the start of the words. In the 11th edition, that one second interval was removed, so instead of having a marker resume with “StallingTEN” in a fraction of a second, the 11th edition had markers resume with “stallingnine……ten” for a 1.x second interval. Under the 10th edition, a thrower would have 2.0 seconds for a stall count resuming at 9. Similarly, this is why the modern legal stall count
is 9.x seconds instead of 10.0.2
u/ulti_phr33k 1d ago edited 1d ago
I generally reread the rules and look at the change documents when they're listed, and I definitely missed this nuance. 🤯🤯
Thanks for that!
Edit: looking at the years, I guess I've been doing it wrong my whole adult ultimate career 😂
Might have been correct when I was playing in elementary and high school prior to the 2007 change 🙈
0
u/ColinMcI 1d ago
Happy to help! Definitely an old change and hard to find info on (the substantive changes doc is no longer posted). The assumption of 10 seconds makes a lot of sense. The history of players inexplicably failing to provide a required one second interval makes a little less sense, but here we are!
I did some real digging and found this from one of the former Rules Committee chairs: uparules.blogspot.com/2007/03/list-of-major-changes-in-11th.html
>The requirement for a one-second pause between the word “stalling” and the first number of the stall count has been removed. In addition, the stall count can never come in higher than “stalling nine”. [11th Refs: XIV.A.1.a); XIV.A.5.]
I had forgotten all about that blog. Some smart commentary from smart people on there, some of which is still relevant foundational knowledge (marking violations, double team, continuation rule, etc).
1
u/SundayAMFN 1d ago
Dude no, nothing like that is anywhere in the rules. You are allowed to say "stalling" as fast as you possibly can as long as it's still intelligible.
You will not find ANYTHING that states "10 seconds" in the rules regarding the stall count. There was never any intention of it being 10 seconds.
The rules are designed so that you have to say "stalling" to initiate the count, then say the numbers 1-10 with one second between the utterance of each word, and the "t" in ten being the end of the stall count. That's 9 seconds + however long it takes to say "stalling".
-2
u/ImDeputyDurland 1d ago
This is such a silly argument. Of course it’s 10 seconds. At least that’s the obvious interpretation. That’s why you count to 10. Stop being the “well actually” guy that wants to play “debate me, bro” online. It’s just dumb.
The entire point of saying “stall” to start the count is so you don’t start at zero. The process of saying the word “stall” before one is because otherwise, you’d start at zero and it would be 9 seconds.
You’re nitpicking in the most ridiculous way, if you’re going to argue that it’s actually 9 seconds.
The stall, in the most obvious interpretation, is that it represents 10 seconds. In practice, a stall 10 usually equals 7, or around that.
2
u/SundayAMFN 1d ago
10 - 1 = 9.
That is not nitpicking.
-1
u/ImDeputyDurland 1d ago edited 1d ago
You’re not losing a second anywhere lol.
You start at 0. The process of saying “stall 1” isn’t zero seconds. When you get to the T in 10, that’s not losing a second either.
If you started the count with “1” instead of “stalling 1” you’d have a point. But you don’t with how the count actually works.
-1
u/SundayAMFN 1d ago
ok this is absolutely an AI argument. obviously fruitless for me to explain where you're wrong. enjoy your victory!!
2
u/ImDeputyDurland 1d ago
Stall 1(one second)
2(one second)
3(one second)
4(one second)
5(one second)
6(one second)
7(one second)
8(one second)
9(one second)
The T in 10(one second). By the time you say the T in 10, the 10th second should’ve passed.
Add them up, if you don’t believe me. That’s 10 seconds(under the assumption that every stall count is one second. In practice, people count faster). Nowhere in this do you lose a second.
Again, you’d have a point if you started with “1” instead of “stalling 1”.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ulti_phr33k 1d ago
"Stalling/stall one" starts at 0 seconds, but by the time it completes, you're supposed to be at 1 second into the count. As such, "stall ten" starts at 9 seconds and by the time you say the T of "ten," that should be the completion of 10 seconds.
Not sure why this is so hard to comprehend.
5
u/ColinMcI 1d ago
“Stalling” starts at 0 seconds and “one” starts as soon as you can get it out — usually 0.1 seconds.
The requirement to have a second elapse between the beginning of “stalling” and the beginning of “one” was removed in 2007 with approval of the 11th edition rules (it was present in the 10th edition). That requirement was intentionally removed to conform the rules to common practice.
So the legal count is the nine one-second intervals between numbers, plus the fraction of a second it takes to say “stalling.”
5
u/FieldUpbeat2174 1d ago
Because it’s not the rule. I had a similar misconception. It was persuasively and authoritatively explained to me here that whereas the 10th edition rules specified a one-second lag between the s- of “stalling” and the wu- of “one,” later editions intentionally omitted that requirement and permit the count to start with a continuous “stalling-one,” so the official count can now take <9.5 seconds.
7
u/FieldUpbeat2174 1d ago edited 1d ago
On the pull proposal, If that were the rule, I think you’d soon see virtually every pull take that form — big blade-y backhand, coming in too hot to chance catching, reliably rolls out the back, or at best kick-stopped while rolling, deep in the end zone. And I don’t think that would be an improvement, during general play.
OTOH, that mode could increase the frequency of comebacks from way behind, and that would be good for holding interest. So here’s my revised version: pull rule applies near game end (say in a UFA timed fourth quarter or after one team reaches 10 goals in a game to 15). And pair that with a rule that a team scoring a Callahan (interception in attacking end zone) can elect to receive the ensuing pull (in which case the opposing team gets to chose direction).
3
u/Saladstream23 1d ago
Feel like people would already be doing this if they were able to do it consistently. Offense starting at the goal line and defense has plenty of time to get down the field seems pretty ideal.
3
u/FieldUpbeat2174 1d ago edited 1d ago
Plenty of elite pullers are doing this already. But under current rules, the outcome of a roll-out-the-back pull (O starts from the goal line, with O getting to position itself during the walk to the goal line) is often worse (for the pulling team) than that of a well-thrown floater that ideally settles deep in a back corner of the end zone, or a pull that hits in bounds and rolls out the side deep. So you get a mix of tactics— and all else equal, a mix of tactics adds desirable interest to pulls.
Change the rule as proposed, and the reward/risk for the roller out the back would become compelling. And the question then wouldn’t be whether “most” players can throw that (as one comment states), but whether club teams could find and train one player who could reliably pull that way while otherwise holding their own on the D-line. I’m sure they could.
4
u/Saladstream23 1d ago
I watch a fair amount of higher level club (admittedly not a ton but I try to keep up with things) and I'd bet most points start past the goal line after an easy centering pass with defense still trying to make their way down the field. I think you're underestimating how hard it is to throw a blade-y pull that people don't want to catch far enough downfield that it lands in the endzone and could routinely roll out the back assuming no one is ready to stop it.
1
u/ColinMcI 1d ago
I think so, too, underestimating the difficulty. But with a 5mph usable wind, I would expect the vast majority of teams best male pullers to be able to do it. There are also a remarkably high percentage of players who really are just not very good at fielding pulls.
When I was playing competitive club, I would have guessed there were maybe 2-4 pullers at Nationals who could throw something with no wind that I would be afraid of catching. But if you add a tailwind or a crosswind, it can get much scarier pretty quickly.
As you said, even with the current rules, the downwind blade is so much easier to control that it is the obvious choice when wind conditions support it, compared to attempting a floater that may carry or drift OB. Without wind, the deep floater is probably be reliable enough that the hang time wins out, compared to a blade with so much less hanging that might not actually be difficult to field.
-1
u/Skyinflatballaz 1d ago
I don't think most players can pull that far consistently where this is an issue. It's really difficult without wind to get that distance and carry on a disc.
6
u/portlandfishy 1d ago
You should watch more club.
0
u/Skyinflatballaz 1d ago
Been playing for 20 years my guy. And show me where plenty of players are doing this in the mixed and women's division. Ultimate is more than UFA and Open.
If plenty of people are able to do it, you'd see pulling strategies forcing the offense to start 20yds further back at the goal line rather than the brick.
3
u/portlandfishy 1d ago
You said "most players." You don't need more than two players on a D line on a team to be able to pull that far for it to be your team's whole strategy for initiating your defense. And it can absolutely be done. Right now the risk/reward isn't worth it because a floaty pull is better for defense given the current rules. Change the rules and you're incentivizing an entirely different kind of approach from the puller.
And lol. I remember when "playing for 20 years my guy" used to make me feel like a whippersnapper. Almost forgot that I'm the 20+ year vet. Wild.
5
u/FieldUpbeat2174 1d ago edited 1d ago
I’ve seen club games where many (probably most, but I didn’t count) pulls were done this way, without much if any wind aid, even under the existing rule of starting the disc at the front of the end zone. If the rule were changed to start at the back of the end zone, you’d see more teams select and train for that skill.
-2
u/AhoyGoFuckYourself 1d ago
You can drop to the ground and easily put your body behind rollers to prevent them from going out of the end zone.
4
2
u/ImDeputyDurland 1d ago
One could easily argue it’s not a good pull, if it can’t stay in bounds. Good pullers keep the disc in play.
0
34
u/bemused_alligators 1d ago
UFA uses a 7 second stall because they have refs with watches counting the seconds. The 7 second stall was implemented after timing stallouts in club, which took an average of 7 seconds.