What is a foot block

[Lockie]

For the purposes of "a foot block is a foul" games, the definition of a foot block is:
a) a defender lifting their foot when marking the thrower,
b) a distinct kicking motion (yeah hockey reference!),
c) any time a disc comes in contact with a defender's foot,
or d) something else?

[Kev]

You're such a tease Lockie....

[tugbo]

I asked the same question of this forum on July 13 2011 in the thread "Foot Blocks":

Eventually I found a post made in 2007 by the user "Blue" who had the authoritative tag of "TUC Board of Directors" stating that

"A foot block is defined as an attempt by the defender within 3 metres of the thrower to block a throw with his/her foot or leg raised off the ground."

Is this still the definition of foot block that is to apply when captains do not discuss footblocks prior to the game?

Is there a central place to look up non-UPA rules used by TUC?

Mortakai helped point out that a "Foot Block" violation should probably be considered a "throwing foul committed by the marker" so as to have the result of a violation consistent with the intent of the rule.

So there is a definition of a footblock that at one time was used by TUC. Hopefully somebody else can confirm that is still the definition of a footblock that should be used.

[Kev]

For the purpose of attempting to clarify Lockie's question... in a situation where a 'down-field' defender chooses to defend a (low) thrown disc with their foot rather than their hand, would that be considered a foot block? (or rather a 'dangerous play' on the defender).

In either scenario (the one mentioned above as well as the 'traditional' interpretation of a foot block) I would expect the offense to retain possession of a disc knocked down by a foot as an infraction could happen either 1" from the thrower's hand... or 1" of a receivers hand.

The foundation of the 'no foot block' league rule is player safety... and I would argue that a foot to a 'layed out' receiver's head on a low throw could be just as (if not more) dangerous than a foot to a thrower's hand.

Realize that 99% of discs that hit defenders legs 'down-field' are not even considered dangerous (foot-blocks), but could you make an argument that if there is a 'distinct kicking motion' involved, that it could be considered a 'foot block/dangerous play'?

Does proximity to the thrower (of the foot to disc/face/hand act) define the infraction?

[jed]

I would argue that there is nothing inherently dangerous about blocking a throw with a foot; and in fact, laying out in/around an opponents feet is far more likely to result in a serious injury.

Both actions need to be undertaken with care; and in either case, as in most scenarios, whoever initiates the contact is guilty of the foul. I.e. if a defender kicks you, foul on them. If you lay out into a defender's extended foot, foul on you.

The primary reason marking foot blocks are considered unsafe (rightly or wrongly) is due to the speed at which the thrower's hand is typically travelling when they occur. This bears no relation to play away from the thrower IMO.

[jon160]

In terms of safety downfield, I think that trying to use your foot to block a disc that someone else has a play on, could (and would by many) be considered dangerous on the part of the defender.
I do not think a disc making contact with someone's leg downfield, (whether raised or not) should be considered a foot block.

Possible grey areas aside, I'd like to look at a more specific example, common in playing a zone:

You have a marker, within 3 metres, and a cup of 'n' players that are, theoretically, outside of that 3 metre radius. What if someone in the cup blocks the huck with their foot in a 'no foot blocks' league? By the definition given in defining that a footblock is on the marker (and possibly by extension, someone commiting a double team foul) within 3 metres. This would not be a footblock. By 'huck', I mean to say a pass that is meant to go further upfield, and no offensive player is in trying to make a play on the disc in the area of a footblock.

On the other hand, a footblock from someone in the cup on a player coming in to crash where they could potentially kick the player too, is another issue.

[GregS]

Let's not forget that, even without the TUC foot block rule, any time that you kick the handler, or kick the disc while it's in the handler's hand, or kick any receiver (thus impeding their ability to make a play on the disc), that's a foul. And if it's an obviously dangerous kick, that's a dangerous play foul. So, no additional rules, or interpretations of the foot block rule, are needed to cover any of those situations.

Therefore, my understanding is that the specific ban on foot blocks (subject to the Captains Clause, of course), as stated by Blue and quoted by Tugbo, is not to make kicking the handler a foul (it clearly already is), but to decrease the chance of the handler being injured by such a foul. I've been kicked in the hand plenty of times, I've kicked a couple of people (though I think only at tournaments, where this rule is not in place), and I've seen others do it. I also once stepped on someone's hand after a failed attempt to block a low-release pass. I can only assume that these sorts of things would have happened a LOT more without this rule. I've never seen someone get kicked because they're crashing the cup and maybe once seen someone get "kicked" when they were laying out for a low disc and the defender was extending a foot because it was easier or more certain than reaching down, so extending the rule to such situations would solve very little while opening a big can of worms. As such, I'd argue that the foot block rule should apply solely to marker-on-handler situations, and that the current wording adequately conveys that.

[mark_tran]

Let's not forget that, even without the TUC foot block rule, any time that you kick the handler, or kick the disc while it's in the handler's hand, or kick any receiver (thus impeding their ability to make a play on the disc), that's a foul. And if it's an obviously dangerous kick, that's a dangerous play foul. So, no additional rules, or interpretations of the foot block rule, are needed to cover any of those situations.

Therefore, my understanding is that the specific ban on foot blocks (subject to the Captains Clause, of course), as stated by Blue and quoted by Tugbo, is not to make kicking the handler a foul (it clearly already is), but to decrease the chance of the handler being injured by such a foul. I've been kicked in the hand plenty of times, I've kicked a couple of people (though I think only at tournaments, where this rule is not in place), and I've seen others do it. I also once stepped on someone's hand after a failed attempt to block a low-release pass. I can only assume that these sorts of things would have happened a LOT more without this rule. I've never seen someone get kicked because they're crashing the cup and maybe once seen someone get "kicked" when they were laying out for a low disc and the defender was extending a foot because it was easier or more certain than reaching down, so extending the rule to such situations would solve very little while opening a big can of worms. As such, I'd argue that the foot block rule should apply solely to marker-on-handler situations, and that the current wording adequately conveys that.

This.