part of the issue is trying to determine the "perception" of a travel in real time.. not slow mo replay.. sure we can easily sit here and dissect frame by frame.. but theres not that luxury on the field.. to justify if it is or not.. so the onus is on the offense to atleast attempt to minimize the perception of a travel.. otherwise defence will always call travel if they even remotely think its a travel.. and we end up back here arguing frame by frame if its a travel or not at these high level games..
True, but this is probably the best breakdown I have seen of travels / non-travels with multiple examples and explanations I have seen. At the very least, it's a good foundation of what to do and what not to do.
When my partner and I got invited to a Frisbee game, we actually practiced before we went. This is how we instinctively practiced, not knowing the rules. It's such an obvious change and I'm glad it finally got implemented
On 3:55, I really don't like this argument in general. First, all plays are easier when you are free to ignore the rules. It's the same reason that letting your pivot slide while throwing is an advantage. You can't point to any one play and say that's the one where the travel prevented a mistake, but it makes it easier. (Thankfully, the 2024 USAU rules update explicitly allows small travels of
Two additional points of contact after the catch is still just two points of contact if the catch is made while on the ground. It's not three steps if you are on the ground and only two if you are in the air during the catch, the first piont of contact after the catch is counted in additional points of contact.
It’s not though, two ADDITIONAL points of contact is very different from two total points of contact. if my momentum is bring me forward and i catch the disc with my non pivot foot on the ground, and my first “step” is onto my pivot, i still have that additional step that would warrant as my pivot and be under the two additional points of contact
@@jesuscalicea I hear what you're saying, I think that makes good sense and is definitely how I used to think of the rule and in practice is probably how I call it. I guess my question is does the same apply to a disc caught in the air? One step, pivot foot, and then a pivot step(if I'm correct in understanding you). Honestly I commented because I feel like you can't count a step as "zero".
There is no loophole. There is nothing like gray area in this rule. It is just questionable if this change was needed or wanted. But the rule itself is clear.
Yeah the real question is why this kind of ticky-tack, two-steps-but-not-three rule is being added at all. The whole point of the base rule is that no one wants to count or argue about steps. You just have to hit the brakes. I don't see the benefit of this rule at all. It doesn't add any kind of interesting play, it just invites stupid arguments over the how many steps someone took.
wait, so is Rueben saying that per the old rules, a greatest was a travel? He said that the old rules didn't allow you to throw the disc while in the air, unless i'm misunderstanding
@@domstafford1894 I'm not as familiar with WFDF rules, but for USAU a greatest is definitely a completed catch - for example, a foul on the greatest throw would come back to the thrower just like normal.
Im pretty sure it depends on ground contact with the disc, with Ruebens example the order is 1) foot on the ground, 2) catch with the foot still on the ground, 3) jump/stride/remove ground contact, 4) throw, which in this case in a travel as you have moved from your last ground contact with possession. With a greatest you never contact the ground with the disc in hand, 1) jump, 2) catch, 3) throw, 4) land, which would not be a travel since technically you "haven't ever had possession on the field".
Why is the catch and throw at 5:15 a travel? It looks to me that he catches the disc with his left foot in the air. He then establishes a pivot with his left foot after stepping with his right foot. Then he releases the disc before his left pivot foot leaves the ground. I've always been a little bit confused about the footwork rules if a pivot is used. I always assumed that if I caught the disc and landed on my right leg that I could step in any direction with my left leg to establish a pivot.
Below is part of the annotation of 18.2.5 in the WFDF rules, and the latter part should clear this up for you. It would be considered unnatural to place your pivot anywhere other than the straight line you were decelerating in (e.g. decelerating in a straight line and then putting your pivot foot 90 degrees from the plane). "A player is deemed to be changing direction after catching the disc if there is sideways movement of their centre of mass before a pivot is established, or their pivot point is not established where their foot would naturally have stopped based on their previous motion."
Thanks for the clarification @@mylesmccallum1 , I wasn't aware that a normal pivot foot needed to be placed in a "straight line". I still like this example as not a travel since his momentum was carrying him slightly to the right, I think that his pivot foot location was "natural". It was in front of his body, in the direction of his momentum and didn't cross over his other foot. Then after that, it can't be a travel since he releases before he picks up his foot. In this video, the complaint about the change of momentum happens after the pivot foot is down, which is just a legal throw and go here.
No worries @@zacharyjacobs2529. That example you're talking about is still a travel because the player is deemed to be changing direction due to the sideways movement in centre of mass before a pivot foot is established, which is in the annotation above.
@@mylesmccallum1 hm quite interesting, also never noticed that part of the rule. so in theory if in this example he didn't end up throwing the disc, it would still be a travel since the pivot wasn't established "naturally". i guess that makes sense
No, if you are paused, the assumption is that you have established your pivot. Thus if your pivot foot has been established, that foot should not leave the ground before you release the disc. What is shown in the video, is a player catching the disc in motion. If a player is decelerating after having caught the disc it is not considered a travel so as to avoid injury. The "loophole" here, is that apparantly according the rule change so long as the player is not going faster, or changing their direction they can throw the disc BEFORE three steps. Hope this helps!
part of the issue is trying to determine the "perception" of a travel in real time.. not slow mo replay.. sure we can easily sit here and dissect frame by frame.. but theres not that luxury on the field.. to justify if it is or not.. so the onus is on the offense to atleast attempt to minimize the perception of a travel.. otherwise defence will always call travel if they even remotely think its a travel.. and we end up back here arguing frame by frame if its a travel or not at these high level games..
True, but this is probably the best breakdown I have seen of travels / non-travels with multiple examples and explanations I have seen. At the very least, it's a good foundation of what to do and what not to do.
And for half of them an argument can be made that there are changes in direction. Most of the steps come with a bend.
When my partner and I got invited to a Frisbee game, we actually practiced before we went. This is how we instinctively practiced, not knowing the rules. It's such an obvious change and I'm glad it finally got implemented
On 3:55, I really don't like this argument in general.
First, all plays are easier when you are free to ignore the rules. It's the same reason that letting your pivot slide while throwing is an advantage. You can't point to any one play and say that's the one where the travel prevented a mistake, but it makes it easier.
(Thankfully, the 2024 USAU rules update explicitly allows small travels of
Splitting hairs, but I don't think he changed direction AFTER the catch but right before it.
Two additional points of contact after the catch is still just two points of contact if the catch is made while on the ground. It's not three steps if you are on the ground and only two if you are in the air during the catch, the first piont of contact after the catch is counted in additional points of contact.
It’s not though, two ADDITIONAL points of contact is very different from two total points of contact. if my momentum is bring me forward and i catch the disc with my non pivot foot on the ground, and my first “step” is onto my pivot, i still have that additional step that would warrant as my pivot and be under the two additional points of contact
@@jesuscalicea I hear what you're saying, I think that makes good sense and is definitely how I used to think of the rule and in practice is probably how I call it. I guess my question is does the same apply to a disc caught in the air? One step, pivot foot, and then a pivot step(if I'm correct in understanding you). Honestly I commented because I feel like you can't count a step as "zero".
What’s the podcast clip from
Regardless of whether it is "legal" or not....doesnt the principle of 'exploiting a loophole' violate "Spirit of the Game"?
I think calling it a loophole is misleading. It was made with allowing this in mind, so its just a rule allowing for a different style of play
There is no loophole. There is nothing like gray area in this rule. It is just questionable if this change was needed or wanted. But the rule itself is clear.
“Loophole” is the wrong word for what he means.
Yeah the real question is why this kind of ticky-tack, two-steps-but-not-three rule is being added at all. The whole point of the base rule is that no one wants to count or argue about steps. You just have to hit the brakes. I don't see the benefit of this rule at all. It doesn't add any kind of interesting play, it just invites stupid arguments over the how many steps someone took.
wait, so is Rueben saying that per the old rules, a greatest was a travel? He said that the old rules didn't allow you to throw the disc while in the air, unless i'm misunderstanding
I guess a greatest doesn't count as a completed catch, since it's not established of an aerial offensive player is in or out. But I might be wrong
@@domstafford1894 I'm not as familiar with WFDF rules, but for USAU a greatest is definitely a completed catch - for example, a foul on the greatest throw would come back to the thrower just like normal.
No, there was and still is an extra rule, that allows the thowing before contacting the ground.
Im pretty sure it depends on ground contact with the disc, with Ruebens example the order is 1) foot on the ground, 2) catch with the foot still on the ground, 3) jump/stride/remove ground contact, 4) throw, which in this case in a travel as you have moved from your last ground contact with possession. With a greatest you never contact the ground with the disc in hand, 1) jump, 2) catch, 3) throw, 4) land, which would not be a travel since technically you "haven't ever had possession on the field".
Why is the catch and throw at 5:15 a travel? It looks to me that he catches the disc with his left foot in the air. He then establishes a pivot with his left foot after stepping with his right foot. Then he releases the disc before his left pivot foot leaves the ground. I've always been a little bit confused about the footwork rules if a pivot is used. I always assumed that if I caught the disc and landed on my right leg that I could step in any direction with my left leg to establish a pivot.
I was thinking the same thing.
Below is part of the annotation of 18.2.5 in the WFDF rules, and the latter part should clear this up for you. It would be considered unnatural to place your pivot anywhere other than the straight line you were decelerating in (e.g. decelerating in a straight line and then putting your pivot foot 90 degrees from the plane).
"A player is deemed to be changing direction after catching the disc if there is sideways movement of their centre of mass before a pivot is established, or their pivot point is not established where their foot would naturally have stopped based on their previous motion."
Thanks for the clarification @@mylesmccallum1 , I wasn't aware that a normal pivot foot needed to be placed in a "straight line". I still like this example as not a travel since his momentum was carrying him slightly to the right, I think that his pivot foot location was "natural". It was in front of his body, in the direction of his momentum and didn't cross over his other foot. Then after that, it can't be a travel since he releases before he picks up his foot. In this video, the complaint about the change of momentum happens after the pivot foot is down, which is just a legal throw and go here.
No worries @@zacharyjacobs2529. That example you're talking about is still a travel because the player is deemed to be changing direction due to the sideways movement in centre of mass before a pivot foot is established, which is in the annotation above.
@@mylesmccallum1 hm quite interesting, also never noticed that part of the rule. so in theory if in this example he didn't end up throwing the disc, it would still be a travel since the pivot wasn't established "naturally". i guess that makes sense
Goaltimate is really going to blow his mind. We just gonna act like dillon freechild hasnt been doing this for a decade?
So Its (Catch)zero - 1 - 2
no (Catch)1-2
is it ok to be paused jump throw the disc aroung your mark then land or is that a travel
No, if you are paused, the assumption is that you have established your pivot. Thus if your pivot foot has been established, that foot should not leave the ground before you release the disc. What is shown in the video, is a player catching the disc in motion. If a player is decelerating after having caught the disc it is not considered a travel so as to avoid injury. The "loophole" here, is that apparantly according the rule change so long as the player is not going faster, or changing their direction they can throw the disc BEFORE three steps. Hope this helps!
Looks like Aussie football play style.