Double-team?

[msirvine]

Yesterday someone from my team had the disc with a mark, and another player ran up behind him to get a dump. The defensive player covering this runner got in between the thrower and the runner but then turned to face the thrower directly and add more pressure on the throw. He took his eyes off his offensive player, who backed up a bit but who was probably still within 10 feet of him.

After the play, we discussed the situation. The defensive player thought that he was justified because the offensive player he was covering got within 10 feet of the thrower. He also felt that he didn't need to have eyes directly on the runner in order to be covering him. There are many situations, especially in zone coverage, when the defenders don't look directly at the offensive players but are clearly not breaking any rules. This can happen very close to the thrower, such as when the cup jumps in to protect against a crashing runner.

However, I feel in this situation that a double-team call was merited.

According to the 11th edition,

Guarding (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.

Double-team (XIV.B.2): If a defensive player other than the marker is within three meters of any pivot of the thrower without also being within three meters of and guarding (II.G) another offensive player, it is a double team. However, merely running across this area is not a double team. "Merely running" means running for the exclusive purpose of reaching the other side. Running with an ulterior motive of interfering with the thrower in any way is not "merely running" and is a double team.

I think that the defender had every right to occupy that space so long as the runner got that close to the thrower, but when he turned to face the thrower directly, at that point he was not "reacting" to the runner he was covering. He was then "reacting" to the thrower, who already had a mark; thus, double-team.

I'll admit that "reacting to" isn't perfectly clear in the rules. It's not exactly what happened at our game, but if the defender is reasonably sure that a runner is just behind him, standing still and waiting for a dump, can he reasonably turn to face the thrower? If that runner isn't moving, then can the defender say that he is "reacting" to him AND the thrower at the same time?

Now that I've read the rule, I realize that I'm sometimes guilty of this myself when I'm on D and chasing my offensive player near the thrower. I often stick my hand out to put a bit more pressure on the throw as I run past, but this is not "merely running"; it's light interference but still interference.

[GregS]

If you can't see the person you're supposedly covering, you can't possibly react to them. Double-team.

If you're turned sideways so that you can see them in your peripheral vision, and you adjust your position based on what they are doing, I think that's fine.

[nantana50]

I don't think it's a double team if the player the defender is covering is within 10ft. I understand the way the rule is written but still think that you can't suddenly tell the defender that he has to defend a certain way if she/he's in that zone. (ie no face marking in that position or no marking with your back to the person you're marking while in that zone). If you're on O and you brought your defender in there then you have to deal with however he/she wants to defend you.

I think the rule is written to try to limit the active defending of the handler with the disc as the player runs by but if they set up to receive a dump then that changes things a bit as neither player is "merely running" or moving out of that space. So technically merely running isn't happening at all. It becomes active dump defense, which I believe the defender gets to choose how he/she can deal with, or which way they face, whether or not they spin around in circles or jump up and down alternating facing one way and the other. Anything goes? In order to make it illegal I'd say that the dump receiver just needs to widen that gap, which is essentially punishing the poach in that case.

[Eazy E]

I think that the defender had every right to occupy that space so long as the runner got that close to the thrower, but when he turned to face the thrower directly, at that point he was not "reacting" to the runner he was covering. He was then "reacting" to the thrower, who already had a mark; thus, double-team.

I realize that I'm sometimes guilty of this myself when I'm on D and chasing my offensive player near the thrower. I often stick my hand out to put a bit more pressure on the throw as I run past, but this is not "merely running"; it's light interference but still interference.

If you got the D, while running by, and the thrower called double team, would you agree with the call? From your first sentence above, I feel the thrower has a case as you're reacting to the thrower rather than the person you're guarding.

My interpretation of a double team is where I'm actively and purposefully ignoring my offensive player to focus on a thrower who is already guarded AND within 10 ft of the thrower.

[larrypmac]

I think that the defender had every right to occupy that space so long as the runner got that close to the thrower, but when he turned to face the thrower directly, at that point he was not "reacting" to the runner he was covering. He was then "reacting" to the thrower, who already had a mark; thus, double-team.

I realize that I'm sometimes guilty of this myself when I'm on D and chasing my offensive player near the thrower. I often stick my hand out to put a bit more pressure on the throw as I run past, but this is not "merely running"; it's light interference but still interference.

If you got the D, while running by, and the thrower called double team, would you agree with the call? From your first sentence above, I feel the thrower has a case as you're reacting to the thrower rather than the person you're guarding.

My interpretation of a double team is where I'm actively and purposefully ignoring my offensive player to focus on a thrower who is already guarded AND within 10 ft of the thrower.

I have always thought that a double-team call has to be made before a turnover. If there are too many people near the mark, make the call. You can't make a throw, have it blocked, and then decide that the person shouldn't have been there.