A further point has been pointed out to me - you should be able to get in someone's way when not playing the disc, as long as they're not playing the disc either. If someone wants to make a particular cut, I (as a defender) ought to be able to stand in their way, or even run in front of them provided contact doesn't occur. It may be that this is what the new rule is intended to cover. But if the disc is in the air and they're chasing it, I shouldn't be able to block them unless I'm making a legitimate play on the disc myself.
So the rule would need to contain some phrase about not getting in the way 'while not playing the disc and the opponent IS attempting to make a play on the disc' or something along those lines. Could probably be phrased better, but I'm just in from the pub... I think that would cover most things. B Lewis wrote: > I agree with what Benji and Andy are saying and I think Benji's rewording is > needed all this rule. > I don't think it is clear and it has a lot of implied meaning to it. > > Lewis > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of IndoorsDOC > Sent: 09 July 2008 10:36 > To: Andy Taylor; brit disc > Subject: Re: [BD] Blocking Foul :S > > I think the 'unable to avoid' bit is crucial - it's not a blocking foul > to slow down. I admit, though, I'd probably word it differently. There > needs at least to be a line about 'while not making a play on the disc'; > i.e. you should be allowed to take any position you like if doing so is > necessary to play the disc; and you SHOULDN'T be able to step in > someone's way for the sole purpose of getting in the way if you're not > making a play on the disc. > > I'd interpret the rule as : > > "A player causes a blocking foul by taking a position, /while not making a > play on the disc/, that a moving opponent will be unable to avoid and > contact results." > > But I agree with Andy that this still doesn't cover getting in the way > where there's no contact. I'd say the crucial thing about a blocking > foul is that you block someone when you're not playing the disc. Contact > shouldn't be the important bit, it's your reason for being in the way > that counts: > > - If you're playing the disc and you're in someone's way, then by > definition you've got position on him - you've got to the spot he wants > to be in /first/. I don't see that that should be a foul whether contact > is avoidable or not. If you get there first and contact is unavoidable, > he's fouled you, not the other way round. > > - And if you're /not /playing the disc, any attempt to slow the guy > down is a foul, again whether contact is avoidable or not. > > Contact should be irrelevant to this rule, and playing the disc should > be central. > > Rule 12.6 already contains similar phrasing to what I think we need - > > "12.6. A player in an established position, /who has not moved to that > position to intentionally/ > > /block another player while not making a play on the disc/, is entitled to > remain in that > > position and should not be contacted by an opposing player." > > - although this refers to a stationary player not being contacted, > rather than a running player getting in the way. It looks to me as > though the blocking foul rule is an attempt to settle what happens when > someone /has "/moved to that position to intentionally block another > player while not making a play on the disc" but I don't think it succeeds. > > Just my opinion, of course. I hope I haven't said anything stupid for > Roger to jump on... ;) > > B > > (P.S. if anyone out there is still reading and remotely interested, the > older and less controversial rule 12.7 seems to imply that you're > allowed to deliberately get in the way also: > > "12.7. Every player is entitled to occupy any position on the field not > occupied by any opposing > > player, provided that they do not cause contact in taking such a position." > > This seems to suggest it's OK to get in the way to the extent that > someone has to run around you to get to where they're going, as long as > there's no contact. I'd suggest a rewrite here, too. I think everyone > would agree that spirit would be breached by deliberately blocking > someone while not playing the disc, but in fact nowhere in the rules is > it covered properly, as far as I can see. > > Naturally it is difficult to phrase a good rule about this, so perhaps > it might be best to just put something in the spirit section about not > deliberately getting in someone's way just for the sake of being in the > way.) > > > > Andy Taylor wrote: > >> My understanding of that rule is: >> 'You may not step into the path of someone in order to make them run into >> > you.' > >> >> This goes against what I thought the rule used to be (although this may be >> > influenced from football rules) that you may not take up a position so as to > deliberately prevent someone from reaching their intended destination. As I > read the current rule: I can step into the path of a running player, > provided they will have enough time to swerve and avoid me / or slow down to > avoid me, in order to stop them reaching the disc. That seems wrong to me, > and not in keeping with the general ethos of the game. > >> >> As far as your example goes: if you have to slow down to get your >> > position, the defender should also have to slow down to get a jumping > position. If he runs into you in that situation, it is likely that he could > have been able to avoid contact (unless you can somehow slow down faster > than the average human), and so it would not be a foul. > >> >> Tails> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected]> Date: Tue, 8 >> > Jul 2008 22:47:07 +0100> Subject: [BD] Blocking Foul :S> > Also can anyone > explain this rule to me: > "A player causes a blocking foul by taking a > position that a moving opponent> will be unable to avoid and contact > results." > > Does that mean I am not allowed to slow down to get my > positioning to jump> for a disc if I know that the defender behind me is > likely to have contact> with me? > > I really don't understand the purpose > of this rule and I don't know how> people are going to interpret it at > Vancouver etc> Looks like it will either get ignored or get argued over > because people> don't understand it> > Lewis> > > > > __________________________________________________> BritDisc mailing list> > [email protected]> http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc> > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed > >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Play and win great prizes with Live Search and Kung Fu Panda >> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719966/direct/01/ >> __________________________________________________ >> BritDisc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc >> Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed >> >> >> >> > __________________________________________________ > BritDisc mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed > __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
