View topic - foul call when both players misread disc

foul call when both players misread disc

Clarify Ultimate Rules and post other useful Ultimate related stuff!

foul call when both players misread disc

Postby rchaos » Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:57 am

Offensive and defensive player both going after lofty huck. Both players misread the OI flick as it goes IO towards the end of its flight path. As offensive and defensive players realize the disc is misread, they turn around simultaneously and get tangled up with each other. Offense calls foul. Defense was not stationary at the time the infraction occurs, but contests anyways.

Should the foul call stand?
User avatar
rchaos
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:38 am

boo-urns

Postby carpetman » Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:04 am

I hate these situations. In all likelihood, the contact was probably incidental. It sounds like they were both making a play on the disc and jostling for position.

Unless one player is completely stationary or jumps straight up and contacted, I'd say no foul.
User avatar
carpetman
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:30 am

Postby mastahmeth » Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:20 am

I think if one player adjusts their read towards the disc before the other they have the right to call foul, but it must clearly be before the other player reacts, and the other player must be 'bodying' them to prevent further movement.

Anything else, I agree- you accept responsibility for setting up to make a catch in the wrong location and the turnover stands.

Also, if you probably wouldn't have caught it anyway, even if there has been body contact, calling the foul is against spirit of the game in my opinion- foul calls should never change the outcome of a play to put you in a better situation than if there'd been no foul in the first play.
User avatar
mastahmeth
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:02 pm

Postby Richard K » Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:34 am

mastahmeth wrote:Also, if you probably wouldn't have caught it anyway, even if there has been body contact, calling the foul is against spirit of the game in my opinion- foul calls should never change the outcome of a play to put you in a better situation than if there'd been no foul in the first play.

Actually, if the contact didn't affect play, then it's not a foul according to the rules (of course, not playing by the rules is also against spirit of the game (Preface, I.B)):

II.E. Foul: Non-incidental contact between opposing players (see II.H for a definition of incidental contact). In general, the player initiating the contact has committed the foul.

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

Exception (dangerous play):
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.
Richard K
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:34 am

Postby rchaos » Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:38 am

one could argue that, had the entanglement not occurred, then the O would still have a bid at the disc, so the contact did indeed affect the outcome of the play.
User avatar
rchaos
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:38 am

Postby Richard K » Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:04 pm

rchaos wrote:one could argue that, had the entanglement not occurred, then the O would still have a bid at the disc, so the contact did indeed affect the outcome of the play.

Then the question is only who initiated the contact:
- if the defender initiated the contact, then it's a receiving foul on the defender.
- if the offensive player initiated the contact, then, if the defender believes the contact affected his play for the disc, the defender may call a receiving foul (though if it was a turnover, continuation rule applies and the turn stands).
- if neither player or both players initiated the contact (i.e., both players vying for the same unoccupied space), then neither player is guilty of a foul and it should be play on.

Receiving fouls are covered by XVI.H.3.b. Of course, there are likely differing perspectives on the situation (especially in this type of situation), which often means a contest and the disc sent back to thrower. I find it often helps to explain (in 15 words or less!) why you called the foul (or contest) in this type of situation, so the other player knows what your perspective was and why you made that call in a spirited way (and they won't think you just auto-call things).
Richard K
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:34 am

Affecting the Play vs Affecting CONTINUED Play

Postby Mortakai » Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:45 pm

Assuming one person is considered to have caused the collision and contact, it could be a foul regardless of whether they had a play on the disc or not:

Obviously if the fouled player had a play on the disc except for the contact, this is a "receiving" foul.

However, if the fouled player did NOT have a play on the disc but this DID affect the CONTINUED play (e.g., knocked to the ground and resultantly lose ground on their check), it's also non-incidental contact and a therefore a foul. But it's NOT a receiving foul because the contact didn't affect their ability to make a play on the disc, and the fouled player should not be awarded the disc. But it's still a foul.

Just be careful saying it's not a foul because the player wouldn't have had a play on the disc.
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Postby mastahmeth » Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:56 pm

I guess I was making a point about when a foul should be called rather than what is a foul by the rules.

Yeah, if someone bumps into you, you can always call a foul. In 'rule-space' any contact initiated by another is generally callable, although agreeing on who initiated this contact can be tricky.

The reason I brought up 'spirit of the game' is to argue that not everything that can be called should be called. I think this principle extends from the lowest tiers of league, where it's not right to use players' ignorance of the rules to beat them rather than just outplaying them, to the highest touring levels, where it's tacitly accepted that if you play physical defense you don't call fouls when similar incidental contact occurs on offense.

I'd hope that as a player's field sense evolves, they begin to understand what transgressions make a difference to a game and which ones are technically illegal but not game-altering. Part of playing with spirit is then using that awareness to self-censor calling everything.

At the risk of starting an incendiary discussion, my biggest pet peeve on these calls is actually the use of 'travel' calls, in which a defensive player ceases to mark their opponent and instead just watches their feet, calling pivot slides of an inch or less to break up their opponents' flow. Just like in the receiver contact scenario, if you weren't in a position to contest a throw even without the travel, it kind of sucks to then use that travel to make up for being out of position.

There are definitely times someone travels to get away from a mark or get off a break throw, in which case the call is legit, but many times travel calls are used as a last ditch attempt to make stop a wide open thrower. I won't argue it on the field since it's technically correct, it just lowers the quality of play.

Anyway, that was a fun digression. I'm sure there are many other examples of where spirit collides with what is technically construable as a foul.
User avatar
mastahmeth
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:02 pm

Postby Mortakai » Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:57 pm

mastahmeth wrote:Yeah, if someone bumps into you, you can always call a foul. In 'rule-space' any contact initiated by another is generally callable

...actually it's not "any contact", but rather only if it affected the play, affected continued play, or is dangerous play... otherwise someone bumping into you is NOT a foul.

Completely agree about the non-throw or game-altering travels and other similar types of calls.
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm


Return to Ultimate Rules and Tools

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron