Foul or Not?

[larrypmac]

This play happened yesterday.

There was a swilly pass thrown. The intended receiver was there, but a younger, taller, faster defender was closing. Experienced receiver was waiting for the disc to come down within range, but the defender leaped and knocked down the disc... in doing so banged into the receiver.

Sounds like a foul, and it was called, but there are two reasons why it might not be. First, some contact when making aplay is to be expected and is not a foul. Second, the receiver had not yet made a play on the disc, although would have been able to make the catch if the defender hadn't knocked the disc away. Reason why it is: Defender did not make the defensive play without inititating contact with the intended receiver.

Foul? Called and contested.

Larry

[GwaiLo]

Foul on the handler for throwing a swilly pass.

[muskokajoe]

Called and contested sounds about right.

[atliu]

+1 for blaming swilly throws.

---
Anyway, this or a variation of, is like 90% of receiving fouls. Would like to see if can verbally dissect it, but I don't think we can. Which I guess is +1 for call and contest.

In my mind, it's a foul if:
1/ Receiver has established position, mindful to box out defender, waiting for it to come down, about to catch it at the highest point and gets pummelled by out of control, reckless defender.

It's not a foul if:
2/ Receiver is sitting back, ignoring the defender, patient. Defender adjusts trajectory, runs in from the side, gets in front and jumps and arms tangle with receiver and disrupt the catch.

Back to the swilly pass, if you put up dangerous hucks, players should be ready to battle (within reason) for the disc. I'd go no foul, unless there was a pummelling, or a clear hand slap.

Experienced receiver needs to stick out his ass and prevent the defender from getting there so defender has to let up or foul. I say this as the 5 ft nothing short guy who gets sky'd 9 times out of 10 (and calls foul on about 1/2 of them )

I'm not a rules person, but this makes sense to me.

[lwswong]

Foul on the handler for throwing a swilly pass.

RECEIVER ERROR. ALWAYS.

[GregS]

Alan's right that situations like this constitute a large percentage of receiving fouls. It's complicated by the fact that this is a gray area of the rules, and intentionally so. There are two rules that may come into play here.

II.E: Foul: Non-Incidental contact: contact between opposing players.

To fully understand this rule, we also have to refer to the definition of incidental contact.

II.H: Incidental contact: Contact between opposing players that does not affect continued play.

The "continued play" wording of II.H is well understood to include making a play on the disc, so from these two we know that if the contact did NOT affect the receiver's chance of making the catch, then it is NOT a foul. In particular, this means that if the disc is knocked away before the contact happens (and the contact isn't the only thing that stops the receiver from chasing down the disc before it hits the ground), then it's not a foul.

This is one of the gray areas. The amount of contact that's required before the receiver considers that their ability to make a play on the disc increases as the level of play does. In rec level, where people aren't as good at catching, pretty much any contact can be considered to have interfered with the catch, but GOAT players are used to, and implicitly agree to, quite a lot of jostling when going up for a "jump ball".

HOWEVER!

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.

So, if the contact is considered by the receiver to be dangerous, then it's a foul, and "I got the disc first" or "you weren't going to catch it anyway" are not valid reasons to contest.

This is the other gray area. Again, whether a play was dangerous depends on things like the level of play (top athletes with high levels of conditioning and training can absorb more contact without it being dangerous), and the relative size of those involved (a 220 pound man "bumping" into a 110 pound woman is far more likely to be "dangerous" than one 170 pound man bumping into another).

So, without seeing video evidence of the play in question, it's really hard to say whether it was a foul. Called and contested is a common result in such situations, but should certainly not be "automatic". Specifically, not a lot of people seem to realize that XVI.H.4 applies even if you hit the disc before the receiver, and many seem not to realize that XVI.H.4 exists at all. As a receiver (and as a captain, and as a defender), you should know this rule, and use it correctly to argue your case. If a play was dangerous, don't use II.E to argue that you could otherwise have made the catch, but rather use XVI.H.4 to argue that the play was dangerous.

[Mortakai]

Agree with Greg.

We also need to understand that there are two possible types of fouls here... a receiving foul, or a simple general foul.

With the general foul, if the stationary player was knocked over or off-balance such that they couldn't continue play as they would have without the contact, it's a completely valid general foul and the player is allowed to pick themselves up, brush off, and then get the disc checked back in. But this does not award that player the disc, or otherwise change the result of "the play". It just allows play to stop while the player recovers from the impact.

With the receiving foul, I see two things to consider - whether it was a dangerous play, or whether the fouled player would have had a second chance at the disc absent the foul.

If dangerous play, or a second chance, the fouled player would be awarded the disc. ... and of course, either of these could be contested and have the disc sent back.

If neither dangerous nor a second chance, and the disc is already batted away before the contact (i.e., the result of the play was already 100% known before the contact), then it's not a receiving foul, and the fouled player is not awarded the disc. ... but it would/could still be a general foul.

... and the original post did not go into enough detail to determine which of any of these options it might be. Mainly, I'd want to know exactly what and why was the foul called... and what and why was the contest.

[Mortakai]

Foul on the handler for throwing a swilly pass.

... and in an Observed game, also either a TMF or a PMF to the handler for the bad throw.

[larrypmac]

It was not a second chance foul - the defender clearly whacked it out of reach.

I wouldn't call it a dangerous play, since the contact wasn't excessive.

My reasoning was that I was attempting to box him out and wait for the disc to get down to my level, and he didn't have a play.

Section XIX.G. In addition to the assumption that players will not intentionally violate the rules, players are similarly expected to make every effort to avoid violating them.

I reasoned that the defensive player was unable to make the defensive play without initiating contact, therefore a foul.

Larry

[Mortakai]

I reasoned that the defensive player was unable to make the defensive play without initiating contact, therefore a foul.

A foul, yes. A receiving foul, no.

The wording of the receiving foul is fairly clear, and if the contact did not impact the ability of the other to attempt to make a play, it's not a receiving foul. Since the disc was already out of "play attempt range", the contact will not impact the ability to make the play. That's exactly what the receiving foul rule says, and exactly what it means. The verticality rule has the same meaning, for the same reason.

The only time contact after the play has been made, matters, is when it's a dangerous play.

[GregS]

I reasoned that the defensive player was unable to make the defensive play without initiating contact, therefore a foul.

A foul, yes. A receiving foul, no.

So, to be 100% clear, Larry was right to call foul, but only to stop play and give himself a chance to make sure everything was still in the right place, and the turnover should have stood?

[drock3322]

Larry hasn't been clear on when the contact occurred.

The contact probably occurred in one of the following 5 ways. Larry, did the defender:

1. Jump on your box-out attempt from behind, in the process knocking you down and preventing you from reaching the disc, THEN clearly whack it out of reach?

2. Make an attempt at reaching through your out-stretched arms but in the process grazed your arm or bumped your leg (or similar light contact that might distract you), THEN whack the disc out of reach THEN bang into you?

3. Move around your box-out attempt, jump and whack the disc out of reach, THEN bang into you?

4. Jump higher than you, smack the disc away and with his follow-through smack you in the face/arms?

5. Jump over you from behind, reach past/through you without making contact first to smack the disc away and THEN land on you?

In my understanding,

#1 is always a foul
#2 is technically a foul but depending on level of play (and relative skill of players) is not usually called
#3 is not a foul
#4 is not a foul
#5 is not a foul (though might be dangerous play)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm not an expert and I've never been 100 % sure about these.

[larrypmac]

The first one. He jumped up and made contact with me on his way to hitting the disc. That pushed me out of the way. Had he not made contact with me, I would have had no play. But if he hadn't made contact with the disc, I would have made the play a second or two later.

[Mortakai]

The first one. He jumped up and made contact with me on his way to hitting the disc. That pushed me out of the way. Had he not made contact with me, I would have had no play. But if he hadn't made contact with the disc, I would have made the play a second or two later.

Oh. I didn't get that at all from the earlier information. I was interpreting that ALL of the contact was after the disc was already batted away.

Yes, absolutely, if, prior to his or your contact with the disc, the contact and push was made, and the outcome of the play wasn't yet effected (i.e., not yet batted away), and this contact affected your ability to make a play on the disc, then yes, absolutely this is a receiving foul. That's how the definition reads.

Apologies for my misinterpretation. Clarity of explanation is always important.

[larrypmac]

Cool.

[larrypmac]

Reading this nearly a year later and not really remembering that particular play, I think the more common occurrence is #3. Huck to streaking receiver, but disc floats too much and slows down. Defender catches up to receiver, jumps, knocks the disc away, and then crashes through the offensive player who was waiting for the disc to come within reach.

drock says not a foul.

Larry

[theprdg]

Correct. But dangerous play possible, yaddy-yadda, additional commentary ensues.

[nyxll]

Playing Mixed: yes a foul, and most likely contested.

Playing Open: might call foul, definitely contested, everyone proceeds to mock and shame player for not going to the disc all out.