Because there is (should be) a second between you saying the number before you reset the stall and saying "1". Previously you've had to say stalling to *start* the stall, but now the stall is continuing so you don't (shouldn't) need it.
C On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 23:16, Ben Blackman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Much as I hate to prolong an already long and fairly petty debate... > > In the past, a stall resetting meant going back to zero, rather than 1. > > However, > 18.1.5. For any subsequent uncontested marking infraction called > during the same > throwers possession, the marker must reset the count to one (1) and > continue. > > If my understanding's right, the zero count of 'stalling' should take a > second during a normal stall; 'stalling, 1, 2, 3...' rather than > 'stallingone, 2, 3...' (or have the rules changed...?) > > So why is it the case that after two foul calls, the count isn't fully reset? > If it goes back to one, the count is only nine seconds. > > Matt said "Now for all references to the stall count, the rules quote the > first number > you should say. So stall resets to 1 means that you have to say 1..2... (A > second contact effectively resets the stall to 0 and gives you a whole new > 10 seconds)." > > I don't think it is a whole new ten seconds, i think it's 9. A small > difference perhaps, but one that rule wise doesn't really make sense to me, > and crucially, could mean a stall out at a critical time. It seems a little > incongruous in my opinion. > > I would have thought that the case of two contacts should be "stalling, > 1,2,3,4,contact,3,4,5,contact,stalling, 1,2,3,4...." but the rules do clearly > specify a return to count 1 rather than zero. Can anyone explain to me why > this is? > > > Apologies if i have any fundamental misunderstanding of the rules here, just > looking for a bit of clarification to ensure i don't bark up the wrong tree > at tour 0. > > Cheers > > Beej > > > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:09:16 +0100 > From: "Matt Harwood" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [BD] Contact Rule: Go back 2 > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: Richard D Shelmerdine <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <f7b9889fc3bb443ab491d56ab1dd4...@mattlaptop> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > >> So, if the stall goes back to 1 and continues uninterrupted from there, we >> don't actually need to say "one", right? >> "1,2,3,4,contact,3,4,5,contact,2,3,4...." > > Wrong. > > The rules have been changed to try and remove the misunderstanding on where > you restart a stall, ie. When someone used to say stall is coming in on 3, > did that mean stalling 3..4.. or stalling 4..5.. > > Now for all references to the stall count, the rules quote the first number > you should say. So stall resets to 1 means that you have to say 1..2... (A > second contact effectively resets the stall to 0 and gives you a whole new > 10 seconds). > > At least that's my understanding... > > Matt > _________________________________________________________________ > Beyond Hotmail — see what else you can do with Windows Live. > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665375/direct/01/ > __________________________________________________ > BritDisc mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed > -- Aussie http://leedsleedsleeds.org.uk http://www.flatballphoto.co.uk __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
