View topic - Weird play, kicked disc, what's the call?

Weird play, kicked disc, what's the call?

Clarify Ultimate Rules and post other useful Ultimate related stuff!

Weird play, kicked disc, what's the call?

Postby BBG » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:23 pm

Okay, so in our game tonight, our opponents through a deep pass. The woman running down the field couldn't quite reach it, and she just sort of kicked her foot out. She kicked the disc up, and a guy on her team caught it, then passed it into the endzone. At no point did the disc touch the ground.

The call on the field was that it was a point.

I'm not sure that it mattters, but we had also called no foot blocks before the game.

So, is there any reason why this wouldn't be a point?
User avatar
BBG
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:20 pm

Postby muskokajoe » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:46 pm

I say point. No reason against.

I can remember an instance of a teammate stopping a disc that wasn't even going to make it to an offensive player - just to D it/stop it from rolling - which was called a foot block(!?), and went back to the thrower. :? I don't think that is in any way related to what a foot block is defined as for the purpose of playing the game - which is the same in this instance. I think a foot block is only a foot block as the marker would use it against a handler.

In this case, the kick was similar to a mac, or a missed catch, or a bounce off of someone's head - just quirky, in that "why did I stop playing D??" way.
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
muskokajoe
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:59 pm

Postby rahil_s » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:01 am

I've seen footblocks defined by :

An attempt by the marker to block a throw with his/her foot, and are a violation resolved as if it were a throwing foul on the marker. This implies it's within 3m of the thrower because otherwise it wouldn't have been done by "a marker" (i.e., marker is the defensive player within 3m of the thrower's pivot).

So it's not a footblock if you aren't on the mark.

I personally would have congratulated her on managing to kick the frisbee to a teammate.
rahil_s
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:05 pm

Postby BBG » Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:39 am

I had actually posted a question regarding foot blocks a couple of years ago that was based on a situation much like muskokajoe described, where the opponents called a foot block on a D that was just for convenience (it was easier to knock it down with the foot than hand). I agree that this was obviously not a foot block.

I personally would have congratulated her on managing to kick the frisbee to a teammate.


Oh, I did. It was a sick play.
User avatar
BBG
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:20 pm

Postby GwaiLo » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:36 am

rahil_s wrote:I've seen footblocks defined by :

An attempt by the marker to block a throw with his/her foot, and are a violation resolved as if it were a throwing foul on the marker. This implies it's within 3m of the thrower because otherwise it wouldn't have been done by "a marker" (i.e., marker is the defensive player within 3m of the thrower's pivot).

So it's not a footblock if you aren't on the mark.

I personally would have congratulated her on managing to kick the frisbee to a teammate.


what if D is playing zone, and they are double teaming (actually have 2 players well within 3 meters of the handler)? Double team wasn't called, but one of the players within 3 meters (the further of the two) throws his foot up as the handler released the disc and blocks the throw with his foot?

Technically the handler should have called Double Team. But is it okay to still call a Foot block in this situation since the guy that threw up the foot did so to block the pass, and was within the 3 meter area and could technically be considered a mark as such?

This came up in our game last night and I don't think we were able to come to an agreement on it. It was contested and went back to the handler, but I'm just curious what the actual ruling should have been.
User avatar
GwaiLo
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:48 pm

Re: Weird play, kicked disc, what's the call?

Postby GregS » Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:01 pm

BBG wrote:The woman running down the field couldn't quite reach it, and she just sort of kicked her foot out. She kicked the disc up, and a guy on her team caught it, then passed it into the endzone. At no point did the disc touch the ground.

Rule XV.A says:
A player may bobble the disc in order to gain control of it, but purposeful bobbling (including tipping, delaying, guiding, brushing or the like) to oneself in order to advance the disc in any direction from where it initially was contacted is considered traveling.

If she kicked the disc ahead (advanced it) and caught it herself, this would apply. But I can't find anything that says you can't purposefully advance the disc to a teammate, so this should be fine.

BBG wrote:we had also called no foot blocks before the game

Foot blocks are a defensive thing, and (as others have said) only apply to someone marking the thrower. An offensive player kicking the disc is definitely not considered a foot block.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby GregS » Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:09 pm

GwaiLo wrote:what if D is playing zone, and they are double teaming (actually have 2 players well within 3 meters of the handler)? Double team wasn't called, but one of the players within 3 meters (the further of the two) throws his foot up as the handler released the disc and blocks the throw with his foot?

That's a tricky one, since foot blocks aren't actually defined in the UPA rules. As I understand it, the reasoning behind disallowing foot blocks in league play is that when players are less experienced, they are more likely to cause an injury by kicking the thrower in the hand or even the face. My feeling would be that, following the spirit of this rule, if the defender is far enough away that there's no danger of the thrower being kicked, then it's not a "foot block", even if the throw was in fact blocked by the defender's foot.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby brooks » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:10 pm

I would like to point out that a couple of times in the past i have been diving out and scrambling on the ground to try and catch the disc when someone has kicked their foot out to block a pass. i have been on the receiving end of these kicks as well as once having my whole hand stepped on. so why is it exactly that only the mark can't foot-block?
User avatar
brooks
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:02 pm

Postby rahil_s » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:18 pm

brooks wrote:I would like to point out that a couple of times in the past i have been diving out and scrambling on the ground to try and catch the disc when someone has kicked their foot out to block a pass. i have been on the receiving end of these kicks as well as once having my whole hand stepped on. so why is it exactly that only the mark can't foot-block?


That's a dangerous play. Which is a foul in itself.
rahil_s
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:05 pm

Postby HotSauce » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:20 pm

The kick would be covered under the dangerous play rule.

"Reckless disregard for the safety of fellow players or other dangerously aggressive behavior (such as significantly colliding into a stationary opponent), regardless of whether or when the disc arrives or when
contact occurs is considered dangerous play and is treated as a foul. This rule is not superseded by any
other rule."

I would have to say that the hand stepping would be similar to having someone step on your foot (assuming it was accidental). If you're "diving out and scrambling" and the defender is also trying to get the disc, this kind of contact is almost inevitable. But if a defender is kicking his foot out without regard for the safety of others, that could be argued to be dangerous play.
User avatar
HotSauce
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:02 pm

Postby jed » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:25 pm

brooks wrote:I would like to point out that a couple of times in the past i have been diving out and scrambling on the ground to try and catch the disc when someone has kicked their foot out to block a pass. i have been on the receiving end of these kicks as well as once having my whole hand stepped on. so why is it exactly that only the mark can't foot-block?


I would say it's because the intention of the rule is to deal with a very specific situation - when a marker is using feet rather than hands, etc. to try to block throws at close range.

Neither the footblock rule, nor any other rule, can eliminate every potentially dangerous situation out there. You may consider sticking a foot out to block a pass to be potentially dangerous - but so is laying out in close proximity to another player's legs (Not saying your play was dangerous, but I would bet that many more serious injuries are caused by ill-advised lay-outs than foot blocks of any description).
User avatar
jed
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:36 pm

Postby Mortakai » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:06 pm

Regarding footblocks, it's league-specific in application, and I am only able to find info on how it's communicated for TUC in various places using the "search" function of this website... and couldn't at all (and still can't) in any of the pages I'm visiting.

The wording that TUC's 'search' typically provided is "Foot blocks are not allowed except with the explicit prior agreement of both team captains. Any footblock, attempted or successful, should be treated as a foul."

... and is too vague in my opinion.

I'd prefer to see something that includes that this refers to any defensive player within 3m of the thrower. And it should also sy what kind of foul, in this case, I think marker foul is most what we typically want.

Back to my original thoughts of how it's articulated for TUC... where does it say that footblocks are not allowed for 2009 summer play? ... I simply can't find it.
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Postby fitzie » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:24 pm

It's in the presentation from the 2009 Captain's Meeting, which is posted under League>Captain's Roles & Duties.
fitzie
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:00 am

Postby Mortakai » Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:13 pm

fitzie wrote:It's in the presentation from the 2009 Captain's Meeting, which is posted under League>Captain's Roles & Duties.

Thanks... although that's quite buried; however do players find it? And even more cryptic/simple than I thought it might be... "no footblocks". Without explanation of what a footblock actually is or what someone is supposed to do if/when it happens.

Would I sound too cheeky to say, "no wonder there's so much confusion"? Oops... too late. :)
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Postby Happy Camper » Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:37 am

Justice Potter Stewart on pornography - "I know it when I see it".

The average (old) Ulty player on footblocks - "I know it when I see it".

Clarification could be made to the rule for TUC purposes and maybe it is because I have played in TUC for too long, I never really thought it was that difficult to figure out.

It is a marker foul and only if the marker moves their legs in an attempt to block or impede a throw.

It is not a foul if the thrower is stupid enough to try and throw a low zinger under the arms of the cup to an open popper in the midfield and bounces it off a cup defender's shin. Or should I have called that?
Winners never quit and quitters never win. Cheaters, however, go on to win home run titles.
User avatar
Happy Camper
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:50 pm

Postby Mortakai » Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:06 pm

Happy Camper wrote:Clarification could be made to the rule for TUC purposes and maybe it is because I have played in TUC for too long, I never really thought it was that difficult to figure out.

It is a marker foul and only if the marker moves their legs in an attempt to block or impede a throw.

It is not a foul if the thrower is stupid enough to try and throw a low zinger under the arms of the cup to an open popper in the midfield and bounces it off a cup defender's shin. Or should I have called that?

Your examples are one reason I think it actually SHOULD be clarified. You're suggesting it should be treated as a marker foul, but remember that fouls are personal contact-related violation, which foot-blocks and attempted foot-blocks are not. The simple statement of "no footblocks" on its own only makes it a violation and only if it's actually successful. In order for it to be treated as a foul (and specifically what kind) and that it also includes attempts as well, it needs to be clearly explained as such.

If not, then some new players may have no idea what that means, unless they ask other more seasoned people what it means... and if experience holds, information will not be either fully accurate or consistent. Just ask an experienced player about "check feet" or "how to check a disc in after a turnover in the EZ" and you may see what I mean by that.
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Postby Happy Camper » Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:07 pm

Ha Ha! Too true.

Isn't "check feet" a polite reminder from your opponent that you might have left one of your feet on the sidelines or in the car. Sort of like "your shoelace is untied". Right?

My example was self depreciating humour and a play on the concept that a Master's player should call anything and everything including a foot block on a poorly thrown disc when no foot block was attempted or even considered. Sort of like the handler initiated contact on the mark in order to get a new stall count... except that never happens, right?

As stated however, I think clarification is a good idea... I just try and be funny as it amuses me (maybe I am the only one).
Winners never quit and quitters never win. Cheaters, however, go on to win home run titles.
User avatar
Happy Camper
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:50 pm

Postby Mortakai » Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:28 pm

Happy Camper wrote:Isn't "check feet" a polite reminder from your opponent that you might have left one of your feet on the sidelines or in the car. Sort of like "your shoelace is untied". Right?


Actually, I think it came from games played in the more active leper colonies.

... after a receiver/defender collision that leaves both in a crumpled heap on the field...
"Foul!" exclaims the receiver.
The other player while pointing downfield at a bloody clump of flesh, "check feet, man".
"SUB!!!"


Happy Camper wrote:I just try and be funny as it amuses me (maybe I am the only one).


... not just you...
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm


Return to Ultimate Rules and Tools

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron