Another throwing foul question

11 posts / 0 new
Last post

1st Case

Today at the game, a thrower used his non-throwing arm to create a space (as in leaning toward the marker/box-out using arms) before making the throw. Neither of us were totally clear on the rules at the time so we let it go. After reading the rule below, it would've been a throwing (thrower) foul. Am I correct at interpreting this rule?

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.

2nd Case

A marker making incidental contact on the thrower's throwing hand (from the maker's perspective) while the thrower is faking his throws. It is not a big whack on the hand but rather a simple touch. The thrower does not release the disc and continues working on his fakes. Would the thrower be correct in calling it a foul if he feels the contact was not incidental? The rule says:

(1) A throwing foul may be called when there is non-incidental contact between the thrower and marker. The disc in a thrower’s possession is considered part of the thrower.

Does it all come down to the understanding of what a non-incidental contact is?


2nd case:
I'm not one of the rules gurus, but it is my understanding that non-incidental contact is contact that affects the play.

So, if as a thrower, you feel you could have made a play if it was not for the contact that occurred, then you have the option of calling a foul. You mention that it was a "simple touch" so it's likely that it would not have affected the play, but if the simple touch was tender, and very distracting, it's possible it could have affected the play.

Zaven, you're bang-on for the 2nd case.

For the first, yes, if the marker is legally positioned (which usually is further back than
many folks realize, so re-read and make sure you understand that rule) and the thrower
pushes him away with their arm, then absolutely that's a foul on the thrower.

Just to clarify a bit on the 2nd case. Not sure if it makes any difference.
The thrower *may* have intended to throw the disc. However, since the
marker got his hands in front of the disc and subsequently touching the
thrower's hand (due to thrower's forward throwing motion), the thrower
made a last minute decision not to throw. The disc would have been
blocked if he had thrown. Did it affect the play? Yes, I think so BUT not
from touching the thrower's hand. Correct?

For the 1st case, none of the rules outline in XIV (B) were broken.

All this talk of tender hand-touching sends shivers down my spine.

ammit, it sounds as though the thrower may have looked off a throw because the marker put his hand in the way of its intended path. The contact you describe sounds incidental.

That is, players playing ultimate affected the play; the contact really doesn't sound as if it affected play.

I don't know if some people consider it bad etiquette or annoying
stopping the flow of play, but if i were the thrower in the first case, I would
call a foul regardless of if I threw it or not. Lets take this case to the
extreme where the defender say pushes the throwers hand before he
throws the disc. Whether or not it was on purpose, it affected the thrower
and if a foul is called, the stall count should be reset to 0. As well, if
indeed that's how the defender intends to mark, he'll know that 1) its
against the rules and 2) you'll call him out on it.

Do you mean the second case? It sounds like you mean the second case, wherein the marker's hand brushes the thrower's on a look-off.

If we examine the "extreme" case, such that there is non-incidental contact, then there is certainly a foul. There is no question about that.

But the case described above is not the extreme. Why would you call a foul?

Oops yeah i meant the 2nd case. Extreme or not, if the marker illegally
prevents me from throwing, then i would call a foul. Fouls don't need to
involve major contact to be called. Again, the advantage of calling that
foul would be to reset the stall count and perhaps point out the fact that
the mark should not purposely make contact with the thrower.

Okay, so what you're saying is that IF you felt the contact was non-incidental, you'd call a foul regardless of whether you made the throw or not?

Yeah, you see it more in higher level play too where throwers will call fouls
on the mark even if they weren't throwing (i.e. pivoting and the mark
makes contact). In this case its pretty obvious for me to call a foul
because it seems like you would have been able to complete a pass if not
or the contact.

All right. In the original case described, the contact sounds very much incidental to me (because it was not the contact that prevented a throw, as much as it was the likelihood of a handblock that probably dissuaded a throw). I wouldn't recommend calling a foul in that case. If the contact was non-incidental, though, then I'd recommend calling a foul.