View topic - What's the ruling?

What's the ruling?

Clarify Ultimate Rules and post other useful Ultimate related stuff!

What's the ruling?

Postby larrypmac » Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:26 pm

Handler really winds up to throw a backhand, and knocks down the stationary marker with his forearm on the follow-through. I thought it was reckless play on the handler - I was the marker and I was hit hard with the forearm.

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

Postby march » Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:56 pm

I'm getting a flashback from last summer when I lost a tooth on the same play... except I was moving in an attempt to hand/face block the disc

Think of it like basketball, you can't be moving to get the offensive foul. Were you actually stationary or did you move your feet/torso in an attempt to stop the throw? Where did the thrower hit you?

Technically it's not a foul, but it is poor sportsmanship. The thrower should have more self-control than that.

official rule:
XVI.H.3.a.5: Although it should be avoided whenever possible, incidental contact occurring during the follow-through (after the disc is released) is not a foul.

dangerous play rule:
XVI.H.4: Reckless disregard for the safety of fellow players or other dangerously aggressive behaviour (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 This rule is not superseded by any other rule.
march
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:20 pm

Postby mjagger » Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:00 pm

Assault.
I heard the whack halfway down the field.
File charges.


Handler really winds up to throw a backhand, and knocks down the stationary marker with his forearm on the follow-through. I thought it was reckless play on the handler - I was the marker and I was hit hard with the forearm.
mjagger
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:50 am

Postby mattkirk » Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:16 pm

" knocks down the stationary marker with his forearm "

I can't possibly picture this (well, I can, but the only way I can imagine it is with me marking hulk hogan and he's playing recklessly. Specifically, it's his character from suburban commando with all that metal gear, ya know?, and I am still me).

If you were truly stationary and someone literally knocked you to the ground with the follow through on a backhand, that's unquestionably a dangerous play. I would call a foul, and then call a cheap foul later in the game just to get my money's worth.
mattkirk
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:20 pm

Postby GregS » Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:42 pm

Marc quoted the rule about incidental contact. Incidental is defined as "Contact between opposing players that does not affect continued play". I'm not sure if knocking a defender to the ground counts as incidental. Seems to me that, at the least, you could call a foul after the throw (result of the throw stands, but play stops, as per XVI.C.2.b.2).

I thought there was something about not being allowed to do something that makes non-incidental contact unavoidable, which would mean that if the throw couldn't be made without that follow through, it would be a foul. But, I can't find that rule right now. Maybe it's just the dangerous play rule that I'm thinking of. Or maybe I was thinking of the 10th edition, where the "follow through" rule ends with the additional words "unless the contact constitutes harmful endangerment", which seems to be defined as
XVI.I.5: If a player's attempt to make a play on the disc causes significant impact with a legitimately positioned stationary opponent, before of after the disc arrives, it is considered harmful endangerment.

That definition doesn't quite apply to throwing fouls, but I think the meaning is clear and we can extrapolate that the intention of the rule (in 10th edition) was that "significant impact with a legitimately positioned stationary marker occurring during the follow-through (after the disc is released) is considered harmful endangerment".
Last edited by GregS on Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby Kaplan » Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:34 pm

Technically the ruling is that the marker must be COMPLETELY stationary which almost never happens. Also, the markers arms must be in a solid plane ie. not curved around the offensive player. If the marker is in a solid plane and is absolutely motionless than it is most definately a offensive foul.

Now, good luck having anyone believe you on this one but it was talked about at the captains meetings this year. I say next time pretend you lost an eye, and ask the teams captain to bench the player. If that doesn't work, take 'em out at the knees.
Kaplan
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:13 pm

Postby lwswong » Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:51 pm

Kaplan wrote:Technically the ruling is that the marker must be COMPLETELY stationary which almost never happens. Also, the markers arms must be in a solid plane ie. not curved around the offensive player. If the marker is in a solid plane and is absolutely motionless than it is most definately a offensive foul.

Now, good luck having anyone believe you on this one but it was talked about at the captains meetings this year. I say next time pretend you lost an eye, and ask the teams captain to bench the player. If that doesn't work, take 'em out at the knees.


I don't think we ever discussed that your arms need to be in a straight plane. They CAN be curved, but they CANNOT infringe on the 1 disc space in any spot. For example, if you are standing 2 disc spaces away, your arms can be slightly forward and still not infringe on the one disc space within the thrower.
lwswong
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:24 pm

Postby Kaplan » Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:20 pm

This is verbatim from captains Wednesday night meeting.
Kaplan
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:13 pm

Postby Richard K » Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:45 pm

GregS wrote:I thought there was something about not being allowed to do something that makes non-incidental contact unavoidable, which would mean that if the throw couldn't be made without that follow through, it would be a foul. But, I can't find that rule right now.
Perhaps you're thinking of XVI.H. Fouls (II.E): It is the responsibility of all players to avoid contact in every way possible.
Richard K
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:34 am

Postby GregS » Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:23 pm

Richard K wrote:
GregS wrote:I thought there was something about not being allowed to do something that makes non-incidental contact unavoidable, which would mean that if the throw couldn't be made without that follow through, it would be a foul. But, I can't find that rule right now.
Perhaps you're thinking of XVI.H. Fouls (II.E): It is the responsibility of all players to avoid contact in every way possible.

Nope, what I'm thinking of is very specifically about doing something that makes contact unavoidable (e.g. moving to stand where somebody flying through the air is going to land), while this rule is more about initiating contact.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby Mortakai » Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:40 pm

GregS wrote:
Richard K wrote:
GregS wrote:I thought there was something about not being allowed to do something that makes non-incidental contact unavoidable, which would mean that if the throw couldn't be made without that follow through, it would be a foul. But, I can't find that rule right now.
Perhaps you're thinking of XVI.H. Fouls (II.E): It is the responsibility of all players to avoid contact in every way possible.

Nope, what I'm thinking of is very specifically about doing something that makes contact unavoidable (e.g. moving to stand where somebody flying through the air is going to land), while this rule is more about initiating contact.


Hmm... there's the blocking foul about an unavoidable position, and in the positioning section about players being entitled to position not already occupied by other players as long as contact isn't required (that's probably the one you're thinking of) and airborne players being entitled to land in previously unoccupied places.

Also, the general wording changes from 10-to-11 in the dangerous play wording and other rules that also had some kind of "unless the contact was dangerous" wording, was (at least partially) to make sure that "unless..." stuff in some specific rules and its absence in other specific rules didn't suggest that the dangerous exception should not still be applied to those 'absent' rules. Yes, some people think that examples mean: "that's 100% of the situations and if it's not in the example, it's not to be applied".

Unless the OCUA has specific additional rules about marker-thrower interaction, the 11th disc space rule doesn't include "planes" or needing to keep your arms in a plane ... the "arms and planes" requirements are when you're running around with your arms stuck out, you're required to make plane noises. Prop engines preferred, but jets are allowed if you're striking and a very fast sprinter.

And while I'm already here... about the original situation: A lot of the right things are already being said. Assuming the marker is in an illegal position already, it would normally default to a foul on the marker, but since the contact didn't affect the throw (disc already gone), this rule makes it more explicitly clear that normally the foul is not a foul. If the thrower purposefully makes the contact, possibly thinking they can call the foul on the throw and get an incompletion back (and hopefully not just not caring about the marker's wellbeing), this rule again makes it clear that it's not a throwing/marker foul. ... again because it didn't affect the throw. And intentional contact opens up another few rules and cans of worms.

So it shouldn't be a foul on the marker (normally)... and the marker 'could' validly call a foul on the thrower if they WERE in a legal position AND stationary (very rare, but might be the case if the thrower is 'drawing' a foul). And could certainly call a (dangerous play) foul on the thrower if they believed it was dangerously aggressive or made without regard to their safety.

Certainly expect a discussion that goes through a lot of this, and even if the disc "shouldn't"... it will often be coming back.

If I can also go on a little tangent here about the dangerous play. When it's called, it doesn't (or certainly shouldn't) mean that we're accusing the 'committer' of doing something reckless on purpose, but normally it's rather that we think they have done a play that they didn't think of the consequences of until too late and purely unintentional. I try to make that clear in my discussion with the other player when this call has been invoked (although I very rarely have needed to call that).

Play on.
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Postby GregS » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:47 pm

Mortakai wrote:Hmm... there's the blocking foul about an unavoidable position

That's the one! [url=http://www.upa.org/ultimate/rules/11th#XVI.H.3.c.2[/url]XVI.H.3.c.2[/url]:
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.

Why couldn't I find that before?

Mortakai wrote:Unless the OCUA has specific additional rules about marker-thrower interaction

No idea about OCUA, but TUC sure doesn't. :-)

Mortakai wrote:If I can also go on a little tangent here about the dangerous play. When it's called, it doesn't (or certainly shouldn't) mean that we're accusing the 'committer' of doing something reckless on purpose, but normally it's rather that we think they have done a play that they didn't think of the consequences of until too late and purely unintentional.

I think that this goes for pretty much all calls. Entirely too often, people seem to take fouls, picks, etc. personally, as if they believe that the caller thinks that they did it on purpose. For the most part, these things just happen as a result of us not having perfect 360 degree vision, nobody's fault, nothing personal, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened and there are consequences.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby Mortakai » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:55 pm

GregS wrote:
Mortakai wrote:Unless the OCUA has specific additional rules about marker-thrower interaction

No idea about OCUA, but TUC sure doesn't. :-)

oh, oops... forgot where I was... ;p
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Postby Richard K » Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:52 pm

Mortakai wrote:...this rule again makes it clear that it's not a throwing/marker foul. ... again because it didn't affect the throw. And intentional contact opens up another few rules and cans of worms.

That is, it's not a throwing or marking foul if it didn't affect the throw. It still may be a foul (as Greg mentioned) if it affected continued play (i.e., you're picking your teeth off the ground and trying to stuff them back in your gums), which is simply a stoppage and the disc doesn't come back.
Richard K
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:34 am

Postby Drew_Hui » Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:02 pm

Hmmm, I've been told this story before and if I recall correctly, the contact from the thrower was against the marker's body. As such, it seems to me that this rule would come into play:

XVI.H.3.a.4
"Any contact initiated by a thrower with the body (excluding arms and legs extended from the midline of the body) of a legally positioned (XIV.B.3) marker is a foul on the thrower."
User avatar
Drew_Hui
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:01 am

Postby Mortakai » Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:34 pm

Drew_Hui wrote:Hmmm, I've been told this story before and if I recall correctly, the contact from the thrower was against the marker's body. As such, it seems to me that this rule would come into play:

XVI.H.3.a.4
"Any contact initiated by a thrower with the body (excluding arms and legs extended from the midline of the body) of a legally positioned (XIV.B.3) marker is a foul on the thrower."

Oh right... shoot...

Extended arms/legs need to be legally positioned and stationary... body (i.e., torso, head, unextended arms/legs) only need to be legally positioned.

thanks for the correction of my brain-fart.
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Postby josephkrengel » Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:42 am

This is one area of the rules that I've always wanted to see clarified; not so much in the official documentation but during the Captains meeting, or as part of a league-wide mailing.

I recently played a game where the opposing captain said that any contact on the marker before/during the throw is a foul; if captains are playing with that level of misunderstanding, a video or demonstration are necessary.

Of course the fact that I was knocked-out cold by the follow-through on a backhand a few years back has nothing to do with my strong feelings on the subject...
josephkrengel
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 12:05 pm

Postby larrypmac » Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:44 pm

Drew_Hui wrote:Hmmm, I've been told this story before and if I recall correctly, the contact from the thrower was against the marker's body. As such, it seems to me that this rule would come into play:

XVI.H.3.a.4
"Any contact initiated by a thrower with the body (excluding arms and legs extended from the midline of the body) of a legally positioned (XIV.B.3) marker is a foul on the thrower."


After a foul on the thrower, how do you restart play?

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

Postby Richard K » Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:59 pm

larrypmac wrote:After a foul on the thrower, how do you restart play

The same way as after any foul or violation: play stops, continuation rule XVI.C applies, and disc returns to thrower (unless it was a turnover) with stall count at count reached plus 1, or 9 if over 8 (unless contested, then 6 if over 5) (XIV.A.5).
Richard K
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:34 am


Return to Ultimate Rules and Tools

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron