Whose Foul?

[larrypmac]

The cutter is running back towards the handler at full speed. The defensive player steps in the path in front of the offensive player, and gets there first, but the cutter is unable to avoid the collision.

The defensive player called a foul on the offensive player, saying that he established defensive position. The offensive player called a foul on the defensive player, saying that the defensive player was not making a defensive play and was just trying to hinder the path of the offensive player.

Play stopped, both players picked themselves up, the disc was checked in (as a contested foul) and no one argued. I'd just like to know what's right. And to stir another discussion on the TUC Rules Board

Larry

[theprdg]

Assuming the disc was not thrown:

- If D player deliberately interfered with the O player, then blocking foul on D.
- If D player was poaching and unaware of O then incidental contact. O could call the foul and caution D to be more aware of the players around him.

Play isn't affected in either case. The fact that the incident was resolved seemingly quickly without argument is positive.

[jam9]

The defensive player steps in the path in front of the offensive player, and gets there first, but the cutter is unable to avoid the collision.

The key part in this situation is that you say the cutter is "unable to avoid the collision"

c Blocking Fouls:

A player may not take a position that is unavoidable by a moving opponent when time, distance, and line of sight are considered . Non-incidental contact resulting from taking such a position is a foul on the blocking player.

So it is a foul on the defensive player. I could understand the confusion of a defensive player that shuffles sideways and gets bowled over from behind, but that's also kind of their fault for not looking where they're going. I don't believe the defensive player's intentions matter in this situation (whether they deliberatly interfered or not).

Obviously there can be a bit of a grey area when a collision involves judging whether a player in motion will be able to avoid another player, and determining what other player's lines of sight are.
[/quote]

[GregS]

The defensive player steps in the path in front of the offensive player, and gets there first, but the cutter is unable to avoid the collision.

The key part in this situation is that you say the cutter is "unable to avoid the collision"

c Blocking Fouls:

A player may not take a position that is unavoidable by a moving opponent when time, distance, and line of sight are considered . Non-incidental contact resulting from taking such a position is a foul on the blocking player.

So it is a foul on the defensive player.

Almost. It's a foul on the defensive player if the contact is non-incidental. Since Larry said they had to pick themselves up, the contact was non-incidental in this case, but it might not always be. (Note: The annotation to II.H in the official online rules reads "For example, contact affects continued play if the contact knocks a player off-balance and interferes with his ability to continue cutting or playing defense." Contact does NOT need to interfere with someone's ability to make a play on the disc to be considered non-incidental, which is a common misconception.)

I could understand the confusion of a defensive player that shuffles sideways and gets bowled over from behind, but that's also kind of their fault for not looking where they're going. I don't believe the defensive player's intentions matter in this situation (whether they deliberatly interfered or not).

You're correct. Intentions never matter in the determination of whether something was a foul, except in XVI.H.3.c.1: "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." (This rule is entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand, just wanted to clarify that there is one place in the rules where intent matters.)

[larrypmac]

It was the opinion of the offensive player (okay, it was me) that the defensive player moved for the purpose of stopping the cut back to the disc. There was no throw, and the defensive player was watching the cut, not the disc.

I wouldn't say that it was not incidental. As the handler closest to the play, it was my job to be there for the dump, and by being knocked down and out of the play, I was also taking up valuable field area for another cutter.

The defensive player is a veteran who I respect and respect his knowledge of the rules as much as my own, but I thought he was wrong and it appears that the board here agrees with me.

And I will repeat - there was noting but good spirit in resolving the play.

Larry

[guzzwell]

Was he just busting his rear to hold the force?

[chellezoom]

what if this was a defensive play in a zone?
ie: the defender closes off the space in between the disc and the offence to deter the throw? If you get run into isn't it the O's foul as D has the right to move to create a D?

I understand it being a foul on D if we're playing man, but I've had people run into me going full tilt when playing in a zone as a mid... my job is to protect my area of the zone is it not?

thoughts? definitive answers? I'm by no means an authority on the rules.

[GregS]

what if this was a defensive play in a zone?

The rules make no differentiation, on this or any other point, between man and zone defence.

ie: the defender closes off the space in between the disc and the offence to deter the throw? If you get run into isn't it the O's foul as D has the right to move to create a D?

I understand it being a foul on D if we're playing man, but I've had people run into me going full tilt when playing in a zone as a mid... my job is to protect my area of the zone is it not?

You have no more (or less) right in a zone to any given space on the field. Anyone (O or D) can legitimately occupy any position on the field, as long as it's not already occupied or, as the rule jam quoted specifies, "a position that is unavoidable by a moving opponent when time, distance, and line of sight are considered." In other words, if you jump in front of someone and they crash into you because they can't avoid it, whether you're playing man or zone, and whether or not you saw them coming, it's a foul on you.

[larrypmac]

The defender clearly saw me coming and tried to beat me to the spot. In basketball, it's a charge on the offensive player, but in Ultimate, it's the defender's foul.

Larry

[lwswong]

The defender clearly saw me coming and tried to beat me to the spot. In basketball, it's a charge on the offensive player, but in Ultimate, it's the defender's foul.

Larry

this is true, but keep in mind, the way the rule is written, if he'd beaten you to the spot by a second instead of a split second, he'd likely have the right to that spot (and the foul would be on you), since contact is may have been avoidable with that extra time.

[atanarjuat]

To stress the point, the perceived intentions of different players, or the context of zone or man-to-man defensive schemes have no bearing with regard to this kind of blocking foul. The only criteria for XVI.H.3.c.2 are "unavoidability" and "non-incidental contact."

Establishing a position is perfectly legal by itself. Getting in someone's way is perfectly legal by itself. Even beating someone to a spot, or "simultaneously vying for a disc" is all perfectly legal, provided that the incoming player can perceive the imminent contact, and has the option to avoid, if so desired, or to mitigate the contact such that it's incidental. Practically speaking, the difference between "avoidable" and "unavoidable" is resolved in tenths of seconds, and it's related to the agility of the players in question.

However, getting in someone's way such that a collision is necessarily a foregone conclusion, and contact results from that of sufficient severity to affect continued play, then you have grounds to call a foul. There is a difference between two players willingly and readily entering contact and a player getting blindsided, tripped, or pasted. This rule addresses that difference.

If you think that a defender is deliberately and unabashedly hunting for contact, though, (as opposed to field position) that is a different kind of infraction. It is foremost a violation of XVI.H -- negligence in avoiding contact.

[DjDATZ]

You're correct. Intentions never matter in the determination of whether something was a foul, except in XVI.H.3.c.1: "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." (This rule is entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand, just wanted to clarify that there is one place in the rules where intent matters.)

Side question here, and because I had a pick called on me for it.

Both myself, a female teammate of mine and my defensive player were running on to a disc that was headed for the endzone. She was the closest to it, and she was the one making the play for the disc. As we got closer, I purposely slowed down to give her more space while my defender was behind me; he never bowled into me at any point during the play. As we got within range of the disc (you know, where people usually stand right below the disc), I purposely planted my feet and boxed him out from being able to get close to the disc, and she made the catch for the point. The opposing team proceeded to call a pick on me for a reason I still don't understand yet.

Was I in violation? As far as I was concerned, it was a completely legal play. I never moved him, just as we slowed down from a full-tilt run to a shuffle, I boxed him out so she could have enough space to make the catch without him getting in the way.

[GregS]

You're correct. Intentions never matter in the determination of whether something was a foul, except in XVI.H.3.c.1: "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." (This rule is entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand, just wanted to clarify that there is one place in the rules where intent matters.)

Side question here, and because I had a pick called on me for it.

Both myself, a female teammate of mine and my defensive player were running on to a disc that was headed for the endzone. She was the closest to it, and she was the one making the play for the disc. As we got closer, I purposely slowed down to give her more space while my defender was behind me; he never bowled into me at any point during the play. As we got within range of the disc (you know, where people usually stand right below the disc), I purposely planted my feet and boxed him out from being able to get close to the disc, and she made the catch for the point. The opposing team proceeded to call a pick on me for a reason I still don't understand yet.

Was I in violation? As far as I was concerned, it was a completely legal play. I never moved him, just as we slowed down from a full-tilt run to a shuffle, I boxed him out so she could have enough space to make the catch without him getting in the way.

I think you were in violation. Your move was solely to prevent him from getting to the disc; you were not boxing him out to improve your own play on it. It's perhaps a gray area because you didn't move into his path to do so, I'm not totally sure of the interpretation in this case. And the rule does say that non-incidental contact that results from such a move is a foul, but not the move itself, so (a) it's a foul not a pick and (b) it seems that he would actually have had to hit you for it to be a foul. The latter seems a bit strange, and contrary to the rule that you're supposed to do all you can to avoid contact, if the only way that the defender can "enforce" their right to make a play on the disc is to make contact with a player that they can otherwise avoid.

[theprdg]

After reading Greg's response, I'm inclined to think a pick is the correct call.

Per XVI.I.1, "A pick occurs whenever an offensive player moves in a manner that causes a defensive player guarding (II.G) an offensive player to be obstructed by another player. Obstruction may result from contact with, or the need to avoid, the obstructing player."

In this case your defender, while he was guarding you, has effectively switched to guard your female teammate in pursuit of the disc and you became the obstruction by getting in his way.

If your defender could reasonably make a play on the disc unobstructed, then the disc would go back to the handler if caught. If he was observed to be way out of reach of the disc, then the result of the thrown disc stands.

[oshai]

My first reaction is that this is a blocking foul. However, looking at the rule again:

XVI.H.3.c Blocking Fouls:
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 and any resulting non-incidental contact is a foul on the blocking player which is treated like a receiving foul (XVI.H.3.b).

it is not. The path to the disc was not unoccupied - you were already in it. you simply didn't move out of his way, and that, apparently, is ok.

It is also not a pick - it sounds like you were between him and your teammate+disc the whole time. you did not "move in a manner that causes a defensive guarding an offensive player to obstructed". Plus, he was guarding you (II.G Guarding: A defender is guarding an offensive player when they are within three meters of that offensive player and are reacting to that offensive player) not her.

[theprdg]

I don't agree that it's not a pick.

Imagine if you will, you're defending your player (Q), you look over your shoulder and a huck is coming off and your read on the disc is, "I can D this." In the distance is a lone player ahead of you making a go for the disc and Q is doing same. So at this moment, we have two O's and one D (you) chasing after a disc. Mid run, Q decides, I'm gonna not going to pursue and instead prevent you from getting to the disc and deliberately tries to box you out so you don't get to the disc.

You wouldn't let that slide because you were obstructed by an offensive player (Q) through a deliberate pick. Forget about the fact that you were defending Q before the huck, once the disc is up, your objective becomes the disc and not Q.

[DjDATZ]

So the reason I'm inclined to not think it's a violation of either is the following:

For it to be a pick on her, it would have to be her defensive player that got blocked by another player, which because she made the massive endzone play, was not the case, she just lost her player.
For it to be a pick on my defensive player, it would have had to have been another player impeding my defensive player's movement, which it was not.

And I think oshai has mentioned aptly as to why it wasn't a blocking foul.

So, verdict? Violation or no violation? I'm still of the belief that it was a legal play.

[tron]

I don't agree that it's not a pick.

Imagine if you will, you're defending your player (Q), you look over your shoulder and a huck is coming off and your read on the disc is, "I can D this." In the distance is a lone player ahead of you making a go for the disc and Q is doing same. So at this moment, we have two O's and one D (you) chasing after a disc. Mid run, Q decides, I'm gonna not going to pursue and instead prevent you from getting to the disc and deliberately tries to box you out so you don't get to the disc.

You wouldn't let that slide because you were obstructed by an offensive player (Q) through a deliberate pick. Forget about the fact that you were defending Q before the huck, once the disc is up, your objective becomes the disc and not Q.

It is not a pick, you are defending Q your man can't cause a pick for you. It is a blocking foul, Q's movements are solely to prevent you from making a play on the disc so his player can catch it. It would be a different story if Q was boxing you out to make a play on the disc.

There shouldn't have to be contact to call a blocking foul, as long as Q wasn't making a play on the disc for himself and his movement caused you to let up inorder to avoid contact. It's like a dangerous play call, you don't call dangerous play only after there is contact and someone is severly injured, but this is only my interpertation. If you can only call a blocking foul after there is contact then you should just run into Q and call a blocking foul as his movements were solely meant to impede your play on the disc. Either way it's a blocking foul

[theprdg]

I was on a similar train of thought re calling it a blocking foul but I retracted because technically it isn't, by virtue of no contact being made.

I defaulted to 'pick' recognizing the defender was going for the released disc, which one could argue has now switched his defensive coverage to the girl in the endzone instead of Q, making Q the pick by deliberate obstruction.

[tron]

XVI.I Picks:
1. A pick occurs whenever an offensive player moves in a manner that causes a defensive player guarding an offensive player to be obstructed by another player.

I argue that it is not a pick becuase the obstruction wasn't caused by the movement of the person you were guarding (the girl) the obstruction was caused directly by Q who's intention was to deliberately impede your play on the disc. It wouldn't be correct to call a pick on the girl cus the obstruction wasn't due to her movement. You would call a blocking violation on Q

[theprdg]

I understand your interpretation, and I understand how my view may be flawed. In either case, I think we can agree that a violation is at hand and in both instances, the disc should go back to the handler.

[tugbo]

There are 2 blocking foul rules

XVI.H.2

A player may not take a position that is unavoidable by a moving opponent when time, distance, and line of sight are considered. Non-incidental contact resulting from taking such a position is a foul on the blocking player.

does not apply since there was no contact and so the position was necessarily avoidable.

XVI.H.1 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

DjDATZ was occupying a path to the disc and stopped moving. I do not believe that can be considered movement affecting an unoccupied path to the disc. I'll admit it seems weird for stopping for the sole purpose of impeding the defender to not be a blocking foul but it appears that neither blocking foul rule applies.

So that leaves picks

XVI.I.1

1.A pick occurs whenever an offensive player moves in a manner that causes a defensive player guarding (II.G) an offensive player to be obstructed by another player. Obstruction may result from contact with, or the need to avoid, the obstructing player.

II.G A defender is guarding an offensive player when they are within three meters of that offensive player and are reacting to that offensive player.

As mentioned earlier in this thread a pick only makes sense if we assume the defender was guarding the girl. Note that the defender must have been within 3 meters of the girl for this to be a valid call.

So which offensive player moved in a manner that caused the obstruction?

DjDATZ? He stopped moving. Seems odd to call stopping "movement" in any manner whatsoever?

The girl who caught the disc? From description it sounds like DjDATZ was in the way the whole time and that it wasn't her movement that caused the obstruction.

So I don't see a violation that can be called here unless stopping can be considered a form of movement. Which given that a disc can be "advanced" upward seems possible to me.

[atanarjuat]

To underline what has already been said (most recently by Tugbo), but which seems to be repeatedly ignored: there is no blocking foul in DJDatz's scenario.

There could have been, but there wasn't. There was no contact; ergo, there was no foul. In case it needed to be said, there's no such thing as a "blocking violation," either.

Arguably, one can still call a pick in this scenario, which is exactly what happened. The basis for calling a pick is that the defender in question was guarding the girl on offense at the moment that his pursuit thereof led him into the obstruction that DJDatz created.

By the writ of the rule, this is perfectly *possible*, but not very *plausible*, Which is precisely why I would contest it. I have a hard time believing that the defender was genuinely guarding anybody on this huck, let alone both players -- he was reacting to the disc and not any particular person. The defender is trying to stretch the scope of the rule on a tenuous technicality. I suppose it works insofar as it expresses your disdain for a deliberately illicit block attempt and sends the disc back, but the confusion factor alone will get your call contested in the majority.

I feel that the real lesson here is this: even if you think someone (like DJDatz) is trying to block you illicitly, you should still try to make a play (no, not a dangerous one -- just a reasonable attempt). If he does successfully physically block you, then call a foul. Don't give up -- the pick rule is not intended to be a broadened version of the blocking foul rule.

[GregS]

I feel that the real lesson here is this: even if you think someone (like DJDatz) is trying to block you illicitly, you should still try to make a play (no, not a dangerous one -- just a reasonable attempt). If he does successfully physically block you, then call a foul. Don't give up -- the pick rule is not intended to be a broadened version of the blocking foul rule.

So, what you're saying is that, in this particular case, the rules are sort of encouraging the defender to make contact so that they can call the foul, contrary to XVI.H? Is covering this case better something that might be considered for a wording change in the 12th edition, and/or an annotation to the online 11th?

[tugbo]

I feel that the real lesson here is this: even if you think someone (like DJDatz) is trying to block you illicitly, you should still try to make a play (no, not a dangerous one -- just a reasonable attempt). If he does successfully physically block you, then call a foul. Don't give up -- the pick rule is not intended to be a broadened version of the blocking foul rule.

So, what you're saying is that, in this particular case, the rules are sort of encouraging the defender to make contact so that they can call the foul, contrary to XVI.H? Is covering this case better something that might be considered for a wording change in the 12th edition, and/or an annotation to the online 11th?

I think atanarjuat is saying that defender should have made his best attempt at a play without running into DJDatz. If DJDatz then moved to block the defender then XVI.H.1 applies. If there is contact then it is possible that XVI.H.2 applies. I would note that contact is necessary but not sufficient for the unavoidable contact necessary for XVI.H.2.

[atanarjuat]

It's not that the rule encourages contact in the spirit of making a call. I feel that's going about the logic somewhat backward. That presupposes that the player has done something wrong, and it's just a matter of formalizing the complaint.

Rather, I would say it thus: one should play until one sees a genuine reason to make a genuine call.

If a player merely stops in front of me, in a manner that is still avoidable enough that I can stop too, I have no way of knowing that he's trying to block me and only to block me from making a play. He neither initiated nor caused any contact. I should try to go around him. If he blocks me then -- he initiates the contact -- well, then, there's the act and the proof. That's an actual foul, and I can say, "Look, I'm pretty sure you're blocking me with no designs on the disc yourself."

In short, you should not try to call an infraction merely on suspicion -- and nor should the rules ever be phrased to punish players based on suspicion. If we broadened the rules to allow us to call picks or fouls every time people gathered to their mutual inconvenience under a floaty disc, for instance . . . this would become an intensely boring game.

[P.Sleeves]

Just one thought...

As we got within range of the disc (you know, where people usually stand right below the disc), I purposely planted my feet

One could make the argument that "purposely plant[ing]" your feet constitutes a movement.

[theprdg]

What I've gathered form all the below is, there is nothing wrong with boxing out. It is only until you encounter a situation where in the process of boxing someone out and non-incidental contact is made, is there an infraction (i.e. a foul) because the boxee, with consideration for time, distance and line of sight, was not able to avoid contact.

[drock3322]

There's even an argument to be made that the offensive player's movement to get in the way of his defender was not solely to prevent the defender to take an unoccupied path to the disc.

In that situation, I might argue that I was still playing the disc, but I chose to let my team-mate have priority on the catch. If she tripped and fell, or if there was a missed catch and I had an opportunity to catch the swill, I'd be making that play on the disc.

Am I totally off base here? I've always been under the impression that the majority of the time on floaty/box-out plays, unless you turn away from the disc and start actively blocking, then it's all kosher. It definitely varies on the level of play though.