View topic - Crashing the cup

Crashing the cup

Clarify Ultimate Rules and post other useful Ultimate related stuff!

Crashing the cup

Postby bbiagioni » Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:45 pm

When a cutter is crashing the cup, what's the call on incidental contact between the cutter and the outstretched hands of the "non-marking" members of the cup?

My opinion is that any non-malicious and non-dangerous contact with the arms here wouldn't be considered a foul, and that the cup must not use their arms as a wall to prevent crashing (as per rule that a defensive player cannot move in such a way that prevents the movement of an offensive player).

This came up in a game recently and I was wondering what the opinion of the community was.

Cheers
b
bbiagioni
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:57 am

Re: Crashing the cup

Postby GregS » Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:58 pm

There's a number of things here.
bbiagioni wrote:what's the call on incidental contact

Incidental contact is, by definition, not a foul. The definition of "incidental" seems not to be well understood. As Inigo Montoya said, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." II.H reads "Incidental contact: Contact between opposing players that does not affect continued play." If contact between the crasher and a player in the cup somehow affects the outcome of the play, then that's not incidental, and would be a foul. The question is whether it's an offensive or defensive foul.

bbiagioni wrote:as per rule that a defensive player cannot move in such a way that prevents the movement of an offensive player

I believe you're thinking of XVI.H.3.c.1, which says (in part) "When the disc is in the air a player may not move in a manner solely to prevent an opponent from taking an unoccupied path to the disc." Note that, unlike your quote, this rule makes no distinction between offensive and defensive players. It also doesn't say you can't prevent movement in general, and it only applies when the disc is in the air. You might also be thinking of XVI.H.3.c.2, which says (in part) "A player may not take a position that is unavoidable by a moving opponent when time, distance, and line of sight are considered." VXI.H.2, which reads "Contact resulting from adjacent opposing players simultaneously vying for the same unoccupied position, is not in itself a foul" may also factor in here.

bbiagioni wrote:My opinion is that any non-malicious and non-dangerous contact with the arms here wouldn't be considered a foul

Taking the rules quoted in combination, this is true (though there's no concept of "malicious" anywhere in the rules)...

bbiagioni wrote:the cup must not use their arms as a wall to prevent crashing

...but this one is wrong. If the players in the cup feel like joining hands, can do so without causing a double-team on the thrower, do it before the disc is in the air, and in a way that is not unavoidable by any player on offence, then they are free to do so.

If someone in the cup steps in front of the crasher or moves their arms into their path, such that contact becomes unavoidable, and that contact affects the outcome of the play, that's a defensive foul per XVI.H.3.c.2. (If there is no throw made to the crasher, then any contact that happens would be considered incidental, and hence not a foul.)

On the other hand, if the crasher hits the extended arms of one of the players in the cup and thereby prevents them from making a play they otherwise would have had on the disc, that would be non-incidental contact and hence an offensive foul.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Re: Crashing the cup

Postby Mortakai » Thu Aug 06, 2009 12:27 pm

GregS wrote:If someone in the cup steps in front of the crasher or moves their arms into their path, such that contact becomes unavoidable, and that contact affects the outcome of the play, that's a defensive foul per XVI.H.3.c.2. (If there is no throw made to the crasher, then any contact that happens would be considered incidental, and hence not a foul.)

Small correction if I may, relating solely to the sentence in brackets...

It's not just the play but rather continued play that is the determination of whether it's a foul or not. The play would limit it to the pass at hand, but continued play expands that to also be things like someone losing their balance and needing time to recover or being delayed in their movement such that they wouldn't arrive at another location as they otherwise would have.

So unavoidably running into someone's clasped hands/arms may be a foul regardless of whether the throw went to them or not if they were put off balance or couldn't get to another place (e.g., back behind the thrower for a dump a few seconds later), because these examples are also examples of continued play being affected.

Now, having said all that... these latter examples would NOT place the disc into the crasher's hands if the disc wasn't thrown to them, because it wouldn't have been a receiving foul. Rather, it is just a normal foul, requiring a stoppage and a check, but the outcome of the play (if there was a play not including the crasher) would remain as it was. If on the other hand, we're discussing the more specific receiving foul, then we do consider whether it affected the play and if uncontested would put the disc in the receiver's hand.
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Re: Crashing the cup

Postby GregS » Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:55 pm

Mortakai wrote:Small correction if I may

Of course you may, and if that's the only expert correction needed to everything I wrote, then I'm pretty happy with myself. :D
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm


Return to Ultimate Rules and Tools

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron