Foul on Thrower or Defence?

15 posts / 0 new
Last post

Okay, I've checked the previous posts but couldn't find anything so far on this one (they really should include a search feature!).

Here's the deal: The thrower has a mark on him. There is also another offensive player within a 10 yrd radius of the thrower. (the dump) I am face guarding the dump with my back to the thrower.

The thrower winds up for a big huck and hits my stationary arm on the backward motion of his wind-up.

Is it his foul, is it my foul? Is there even a foul?

But the thrower didn't hit *his* marker. He hit someone who was marking someone else...

He's marking the dump, not the thrower, so that rule doesn't apply, Colin.

Token, you could only call a foul if a) the contact affected your ability to make a play -- which doesn't sound like the case here, or b) a dangerous play -- i.e. if he took your arm off with the throw, you could call a foul.

The thrower cannot call a foul, because you are stationary, and he moved into you.

Craig's logic sounds right to me.

The thrower could claim that your arm wasn't stationary, and therefore it was you that initiated contact with him. Assuming this is why he called foul (or even if not) and that the contact messed up the throw, your contest should be that it was actually him that initiated contact with you. It'd then be up to him to agree with your contest and withdraw his foul call or he'd get the disc back.

Unless of course, the pass was completed; in which case, it's "play on" according to the continuation rules. Unless he called the foul while still on the wind-up (i.e., before the act of throwing), in which case a turnover would stand and a completion would automatically come back... so you shouldn't contest that one at all.

So how close was the dump? 10 yards is a long way. You sure you weren't committing a double team?

10 yards is a reeeeally long way. However, I'm pretty sure that's irrelevant. (FYI, 10 yards is just over 9 metres) :)

I assume you were referring double teaming by having 2 defenders within 3 metres or 10 feet of the handler... however, that's only relevant if you are not marking someone else. In this case, it sounds like the second defender was clearly marking the dump and not trying to "get away with" a double team.

Oh sorry... missed the 10 yards away ... i think i read it as 10 *feet* away.

If the dump is actually 10 yards away, I find it very difficult to suggest that someone standing within a couple of yards of the thrower can actually claim that they're guarding someone at least 8 yards away. That's certainly not what is meant by "in that area" in the double-team rule.

So, yeah, it was likely a double-team.

However, having said that, the thrower has to call it, and if they call it and then throw it away, it's still a turnover. I've heard it argued by others to be valid, but I don't believe you can validly make a double-team call on a retroactive basis.

sorry.. correction.. I meant to say 10 feet away.

That's what I thought I heard you say ;)

... back to my original response then (3/x).

The dump defender is not the marker, so the rules about marking fouls do not apply.

One could argue that it is a blocking foul on the dump defender because the stationary arm was extended and thus not a legitimate position. This arguement is relevant if the dump defender is in an unavoidable position - like if the thrower cannot wind up at all without avoiding the dump defender who is in the way. If the dump defender's arm can be avoided by the thrower then it's not a foul. Rules...

II. F. Legitimate position: Legitimate position is the stationary position established by a player's body excluding extended arms and legs that can be avoided by all opposing players when time and distance are taken into account.

XVI. I. 8. b. When the disc is not in the air, players may not take a position that is unavoidable by a moving opponent when time, distance, and line of sight are taken into account. Contact resulting from a player taking an unavoidable position is a foul on the blocking player.

However if this is the case then the offense does not get the disc back if the thrower subsequently attempts a pass that is incomplete. The wind-up is not part of a legal throw, so the continuation rule indicates that it's a turnover. Rules...

II. O. Throw: A throw is a disc in flight following any throwing motion, including after a fake attempt, that results in loss of contact between the thrower and the disc.

1. A pass is the equivalent of a throw.

2. The act of throwing is the motion of the thrower that transfers momentum from the player to the disc and results in a throw. Pivots and wind-ups are not considered part of the act of throwing.

XVI. G. 2. If the disc is not in the air and the thrower was not in the act of throwing at the time of the call and the thrower subsequently attempts a pass:

1. Play continues un-halted if the pass was incomplete and:

1. the defense called the foul or violation; or;

2. the thrower called the foul or violation.

Is it a foul on the thrower? Probably not. If it affects the dump defender's ability to play D - if the thrower then throws a dump or short swing and the dump cutter is still active - then it might be a foul. But if it's incidental contact before a huck then it's not a foul. Rules...

XVI. I. Fouls: A Foul is the result of physical contact between opposing players that affects the outcome of the play.

1. It is the responsibility of all players to avoid contact in every way possible.

"One could argue that it is a blocking foul on the dump defender because the stationary arm


extended and thus not a legitimate position."


Blocking fouls have nothing to do with Legitimate Position. The only position they're

concerned about are unavoidable position and position used solely to block a player.

The definition of that specific term only applies when that specific term is used (it is used


Legitimate Position is not an English term in the rules, it has a very specific definition when

it's defined as "Legitimate Position". One cannot use their own english definition of the words

in the term to use as a definition. Likewise one cannot apply that definition to the english

words in that term when they're not part of the term.

That *very specific* definition (which omits extended

arms/legs), does not apply when the English word "position" is used.

See one of the *many* threads over the past couple years. Most recently a week or so ago:

Stationary contact foul?

Further to that, and I'm pretty sure this point was brought up in the other threads addressing legitimate position and blocking, blocking is preventing an opponent from getting to a position on the field. The motion referred to in "move solely to prevent..." is the movement of a player as a whole, not any body motion.

Right. That's why I also made the point about contact being avoidable & it not being a foul. I think that we're writing the same thing.

So can this be applied to the marker. I'll use myself as an example to make things clear. I'm marking another lady, she throws the disc (which is intercepted by the defense) after she releases our arms make contact. Let's say my arm is moving in a downwards motion hers is moving in a throwing motion, who's foul is it?

Sarah, no foul, since the contact was after she released. (unless the contact was hard enough to cause harm)

XVI.I.6.c: Although it should be avoided whenever possible, incidental contact occurring during the follow-through (after the disc has been released) is not sufficient grounds for a foul, unless the contact constitutes harmful endangerment.