View topic - Had this play in tonight's game

Had this play in tonight's game

Clarify Ultimate Rules and post other useful Ultimate related stuff!

Had this play in tonight's game

Postby larrypmac » Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:42 pm

Long pass... defender jumped up, knocked down the pass, landed, and then crashed into the intended receiver.

The receiver called a foul. The defender did not think it was a foul, on the basis that the disk was already knocked away when contact was made, so the contact was incidental.

Who's right?

Larry
larrypmac
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:17 pm

Postby Hanuman » Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:46 am

Yup I would say it is incidental.
Only thing that could be argued is dangerous play but it doesn't sound like that was what happened.
.........................................._o
......................................_`\ \_
.....................................(_)/'(_)
User avatar
Hanuman
 
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:42 pm

Postby peterd » Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:47 am

XVI H 4:
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 This rule is not superseded by any other rule.
peterd
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 6:36 pm

Postby Hanuman » Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:20 pm

Yes I agree that a dangerous play could have been called but it would depend on the relative position of the receiver and defender... I am assuming since the defender was able to land before making contact with the receiver that the receiver was in motion and was also making a play on the disc. But it's hard to judge a "dangerous play" call with the description given. Anyways, hope this thread helps clear things up.
.........................................._o
......................................_`\ \_
.....................................(_)/'(_)
User avatar
Hanuman
 
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:42 pm

Postby the04dude » Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:00 pm

The call in question was obviously a contested foul. In the ensuing discussion we came to the conclusion that both players had legitimate claims to make.

Of course it really falls to what exactly is the definition of a foul in this ludicrous game... The best description I ever heard was anything that raises the ire of your opponent.

I get the feeling that this issue comes up in 1 out of every 4 games that are played...

James
the04dude
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:32 pm

Foul

Postby mcecch » Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am

As the "receiver" in this play I see the situation as this.

- Long pass to me that is underthrown I stop running.
- Defender has had down and keeps running
- I jump straight up to make a play on the disc
- He jumps forward (with his running pattern) to do the same
- Somewhere in "bang bang" sequence he hits the disk and hits me
- I also make contact with the disk

I call foul because had he not hit me I'd have caught it or improved my chance to catch it (I touched it with my hand as he was knocking it away)

He contests because he 'hit the disc before he hit me' and therefore says I wouldnt have caught it (since he'd hit the disc away)

The exact sequence of this all is debatable but in the end was handled as a contested foul.

I didnt retract because I felt I had position, he hit me and that reduced (somewhere between 1 and 100%) my chances of catching the disc. In the end, he's not allowed to hit me.

It is a tough one that happens all the time. I'd love if there is a "clear" guideline.
mcecch
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:33 am

Re: Foul

Postby Mortakai » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:55 pm

mcecch wrote:As the "receiver" in this play I see the situation as this.

- Long pass to me that is underthrown I stop running.
- Defender has had down and keeps running
- I jump straight up to make a play on the disc
- He jumps forward (with his running pattern) to do the same
- Somewhere in "bang bang" sequence he hits the disk and hits me
- I also make contact with the disk

I call foul because had he not hit me I'd have caught it or improved my chance to catch it (I touched it with my hand as he was knocking it away)

He contests because he 'hit the disc before he hit me' and therefore says I wouldnt have caught it (since he'd hit the disc away)

The exact sequence of this all is debatable but in the end was handled as a contested foul.

I didnt retract because I felt I had position, he hit me and that reduced (somewhere between 1 and 100%) my chances of catching the disc. In the end, he's not allowed to hit me.

It is a tough one that happens all the time. I'd love if there is a "clear" guideline.


Dangerous play aside...

If the contact was immediately above your torso (i.e., verticality rule), then it's generally a foul on the other person, unless the disc was batted away to the point it was no longer playable by you within this vertical space before the contact with you occurred, in which case it's considered incidental contact. XVI.H.3.b)(3)

If his hitting you was part of why you couldn't catch the disc, and the disc was still within reach (i.e., catchable) at the time of the contact, then it also would generally be a foul on the other person.

Although as you admit, you're not sure of the relative timings of the hit with you, his contact with the disc, and your contact with the disc. That on it's own sounds like a reasonable reason to send the disc back.

... now to bring Dangerous Play also into the discussion... I suggest that generally mild or even moderate contact (i.e., more than incidental) should not be considered as dangerous simply because it appears that the person may have been running with they head down and/or generally unaware of your precise position. On it's own, I don't think that's clear that this person was playing with reckless disregard for player safety.

But, on the other hand, if the collision was so significant that it was much more likely to have been injurious (regardless of whether that particular play resulted in an injury or not), then dangerous play is a perfectly valid call.

One of the many difficult things with dangerous play is that there's still a grey area in there that's much harder to explain or know when it's the right call or not on the field.

But that's no different than most other calls. As long as they're made with the right intent, and contested with a response of the right intent... that's exactly how the game is intended to be played. Just send it back and do it over.
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Foul?

Postby mcecch » Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:16 pm

Thanks....just to be clear, I dont think that he was being dangerous or reckless.....just that the contact impacted my ability to make the play!

Appreciate the input!
mcecch
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:33 am

Postby Gonzo » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:27 pm

Tbh, this is the kind of thing that frustrates me in Ultimate. "It's ok that I ran into you, because I got the disc first." I think that if the only way that someone can get a d on the disc will result in contact, then a foul call should be appropriate. I know that people will argue and quote the rule and say that it doesn't really matter, but I don't think I can be convinced.

At the touring level (and yes, I've been touring for many years), perhaps this kind of behaviour is allowed and even encouraged, but I don't think it should be in league play. The problem is that in league play, you typically end up with players that are not as experienced, athletic or coordinated as you have on touring teams. So you get a guy (or woman) that goes for a d on a disc and ends up knocking someone down, or taking them out at the knees and ending their season (if not career). I KNOW that this has happened on several occasions and I know of people that won't play league anymore because of it, which is a shame.

Bill
Gonzo
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:22 am

Postby larrypmac » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:29 am

But Bill, it's right in the rules, XVI H b 1: If a player contacts an opponent while the disc is in the air and thereby interferes with that opponent’s attempt to make a play on the disc, that player has committed a receiving foul. Some amount of incidental contact before, during, or immediately after the attempt often is unavoidable and is not a foul.

On the play in question, the receiver ran long and had a couple of steps on the defender, so the defender was running backwards watching the disc. The throw was a little short, and the offensive player was coming back towards the disc. They met in the middle.

I wasn't aware that Mark touched the disc on the play - it looked like Dino made the defensive play and then his momentum carried him into the path of the receiver who was moving back to where the disc was. from where I was, it looked like incidental contact, in that the disc was deflected away by the time contact was made. Dino was making a play on the disc, made the play, then contacted the offensive player who had changed directions. I think that since Mark did get a hand on the disc, a contested foul is the right call.

Larry
larrypmac
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:17 pm

Postby HotSauce » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:50 pm

The problem with this play being a contested foul is that it then goes back to the thrower. If no foul was called, it's a turnover. If Larry's description of what happened is accurate, I don't see a foul. I think his quote of the rule supports the no foul ruling. "Some amount of incidental contact...is not a foul." It seems both receiver and defender were moving at the time of contact.
User avatar
HotSauce
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:02 pm

this play

Postby mcecch » Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:29 pm

actually going back to my original "description" of the play...the disc was underthrown so I'd stopped running and was going straight up. Had I been running back towards the disc (i.e. both of us moving) I'd be more sympathetic to the incidental contact argument.
mcecch
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:33 am

Postby GregS » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:03 pm

larrypmac wrote:XVI H b 1: If a player contacts an opponent while the disc is in the air and thereby interferes with that opponent’s attempt to make a play on the disc, that player has committed a receiving foul. Some amount of incidental contact before, during, or immediately after the attempt often is unavoidable and is not a foul.

Many people read this to mean that if they D the disc far enough away from the O player that there will be no "play on the disc" and then subsequently collide with them, that the collision itself doesn't interfere with any "play on the disc" and hence it's not a foul. My personal view is that if there was no way to make the defensive play without the collision, that should constitute a foul (dangerous play or not), but that's not exactly the way the rule is currently worded.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby Hanuman » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:50 pm

I think a lot of this comes down to self awareness and respect for your fellow players and the game. If you're running around like a chicken with you head cut off with total disregard for injuring others then that's not cool. But if you're making an honest play on the disc while taking care not the crash into others, then any incidental contact (in theory) should be "incidental" and not a blatant crashing into others. Also, the context of the competition should be taken into consideration. I've seen contact in high level open that is accepted by everyone as part of the game, that would not be considered acceptable in league play - possibily because there is generally a higher level of self awareness there and a general understanding that some level of contact is sometimes unavoidable.
.........................................._o
......................................_`\ \_
.....................................(_)/'(_)
User avatar
Hanuman
 
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:42 pm

Postby Peeters » Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:40 pm

I think it all comes down to context, like Hanuman said. This is probably a foul in league play because as Greg said, you couldn't make the play without making contact. In Open, though, it seems generally accepted that "I got the disc first" is a legitimate excuse and the definition of "incidental contact" is more liberal. Kinda like the 6.1-second ten-count and bumping and grinding on the mark. :)
Peeters
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:45 pm

Postby HotSauce » Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:32 pm

I call foul on the handler. If he hadn't underthrown it, none of this would be discussed. :twisted:
User avatar
HotSauce
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:02 pm


Return to Ultimate Rules and Tools

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron