Number 1 is a hard situation. I agree that "I was going for the disc" is not an excuse in of itself. I guess it mostly depends on what you consider to be "incidental contact" and this varies from place to place. In the US a lot more contact is accepted on any catch attempt, and I think that in general if you were to make a bid bid on the disc which resulted in contact after the D then that would be considered an okay play. Depending on the contact this could also be considered "aggressive behaviour" under rule 404.13 F. It also depends on what the receiver was doing. If the receiver was standing still, and the defensive bid results in any contact, then that is strictly a foul unless it is considered incidental contact, but if both players are moving and both try to get to the same spot, then it is sometimes hard to say who had the right to that space. Generally depends on the specifics situation, but yes, "going for the disc" is not an excuse for fouling someone.
Number 2 is equally questionable. Yes, once the marker has set a legal position he is then entitled to that space, but it never says what this space is. Is it the space that surrounds his upper body, or the space around his entire body (arms included)? Rule 404.10 B also says that "the thrower may throw the disc in any manner and in any direction he or she chooses." If you don't beleive the marker has the right to the space occupied by his hands, then you could argue that the thrower has the right to throw through the markers hand. Personally if I thought that my hand was perfectly still and someone tried to throw through that space then I would probably call foul, but I think it is very rare that the defenders arm/hand is not moving. The it comes down to who got their first and who could have prevented contact etc. For number 3 I agree with you. I remember going to worlds in Hawaii and watchin some of the americans play defense. The thing I picked up was that a lot of them played D by trying to anticipate where the cutter wanted to go and putting their body in between the cutter and that point and adjusting constantly (this is subtly different from trying to anticipate were the throw might go and positioning yourself so that you can get to the disc first, which is how I see most UK players playing). I think that a defender moving into the path of a cutter is perfectly fine as long as the cutter has time to stop or adjust his cut and avoid contact, but there is no clear cut way to decide if there was enough time to adjust. In any close situation that will generally be a matter of opinion, and probably result in a contested foul. Still not got enough work to do Crispy -----Original Message----- From: Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Jun 3, 2004 9:00 AM To: brit disc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [BD] More Rules! Since we're on the subject, here are three common misconceptions of fouls. These are my interpretaions of the rules, but I am not absolutly sure if I am right (I have been wrong once or twice before, I presume, but I can't think of any examples). So I would welcome any clarification on these opinions. 1. "I was going for the disc" This is often stated after a defensive bid on the disc. This statement is largely irrelevent, because if you catch or block the disc before colliding with another player, it is still a foul IF they had a better position than you: 404.13 D2:If a player's attempt to make a play on the disc causes contact with a legitimately-positioned, stationary opponent, either before or after the disc arrives, that player has committed a foul. There are players out there who really need learn this as they frequently make dangerous bids on the disc. There was a classic example of this in the Final last weekend. 2. Throwing Fouls. If contact occurs between a thrower and his/her marker, it is often a foul by the OFFENCE - as long as the marker has established a legitimate position, the thrower is not entitled to encroach his/her area. 404.11 A2: When guarding the thrower, the upper body of the marker must be at least one disc's diameter from the upper body of the thrower at all times. It is the mutual responsibility of both players to respect each other's position and not encroach into the other's area once it is established. I would interpret this as allowing the marker to position his hand in the path of a throw. If he accuratly predicts where the throwers hand is going to travel to and has his hand there first, I would say this is an O foul (as long as he does not move his arm into the throwers area, but keeps it inline with his own body). If on the other hand the markers arm is in motion and 'chops' up or down onto the thrower's arm this is a D foul. 3. Collisions when cutting. This is the one I am least sure of. Offensive players will often sprint in one direction then turn 180 degrees to cut back in the direction they came in. If the D is able to predict this and stop dead, they will be blocking the path of the O, but only because he is already in that position. The O player will often run into the D player. My opinion is that the D is in no way obliged to move aside for an O player, and if he has both feet planted on the ground this is in fact an O foul, as long as the D didn't step into the path of an already moving O player. Obviously, both players are obliged to avoid contact, but who is to blame? If the D had tried to turn and follow the O, the collision would usually not happen, but on the other hand the O player is running, and the D player is standing still.. Jack PS, my next contract starts in a few weeks so I'll have less time to rant on this forum.. __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pootle.near.me.uk/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pootle.near.me.uk/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
