Banana pick

26 posts / 0 new
Last post

Yet another pick question:

Defender is tightly marking offenser. Offenser starts running and so does defender. Offenser does very tight cut, defender makes a banana cut. Couple of seconds later, defender almost runs into another defender. Calls pick. RTT.

What's the deal here? The defender was within 10ft but the offenser didn't 'move in such a way as to cause' the pick.

Thanks again,

Maybe the number of pick questions on the forum would indicate a rewrite of the XVI.K for the 11th rules...

As you describe it and as the rules are written, it sounds like a weak pick call that would warrant discussion with the defender after the point/game.

Here's a little hint for all you people out there that actually understand pick calls - when a teammate of yours calls a pick that you are sure should have been a non-call, then let them know....I saw a teammate call a pick while they were standing still and there check was 10 yards not just feet away....I wanted to tear a strip off him but after the game we disperesed too fast to have a chat. Strangely the offense was mighty calm about the call where I wanted to jump down my own teammates throat.

I think I am missing what doesnt make this a pick, or makes it a weak pick call?

It still sounds like the defender is staying with the movement of their check, and within ten feet, has to pull up due to another player in their path, therefore a pick.

I do not think the path the O and D take has to be exactly the same for a pick to be valid.

Please clarify, thanks


Yeah it may or may not be a pick, as Dodgy suggests it could certainly have warranted a

discussion after the point/game. It's really impossible to tell from the description what occurred,

but it is possible to imagine both a pick and a non-pick from the description.

It's difficult to get into the mechanics, so often it's better to not bother. Just keep in mind that

if the O's movement caused the pick, then it's a Pick.

If you can reasonably argue the case that the O's movement didn't cause the pick, then it's not

a pick.

However if a reasonable argument can be made for both sides, then that's a valid Pick/Contest

(not that there's much difference with/without a contest).

The way I read it was that the D ran into another D and the O player was not moving in a way that caused the D to run into one another. As such I read the rule:

"No offensive player may move in such a manner to cause a defensive player guarding a receiver to be obstructed by another player"

To mean that this was not a pick situation neither the O player nor one of his teammates created the pick situation via their movement. As such no pick.

As Temple notes you could read the comments differently than I did, but I'd think you were a moron if you did. No offence to the morons out their in the audience, I understand your struggles, I feel your pain.

In hindsight I really should make my descriptions clearer. A couple of notes:

The second defender in question was not between the chaser and the offenser.

If the chaser had more closely followed the path of the offenser, there would not have been a pick.

Sorry for the confusion,


So now in what universe is this ever a pick????

Defender runs into his own player who is not between himself and said check...thick yes. pick no.

So now in what universe is this ever a pick????

Defender runs into his own player who is not between himself and said check...thick yes. pick no.

"Defender runs into his own player who is not between himself and said check...thick yes.

pick no."

It's not nearly so cut and dry. Picks very, very often occur this way.

The mechanics are like the classic basketball pick. The D is facing the O, the O runs to the

D's left, and the D while trying to run in the same direction is immediately picked by a player

that is not between O and D, but is blocking D from running in the same direction as O.

This doesn't sound like it necessarily happened (if you think there's only one way to interpret

David's original description, I'd love to see an example of what you'd call ambiguous), but it

can certainly happen, and it is a Pick.

Like I said without knowing a lot more about a given scenario, it's impossible to suggest if it

was a pick or not. From David's clarifications it sounds like you couldn't reasonably argue that

the O's movement was the cause of the pick, but not with certainty.

There's a reason why the rules don't state the obstructing player must be 'directly between'

the D and their check, it's because that's not a criteria for the rule.

Still looks like a pick to me. Again the path of the O and D does not have to be the same.

If D is 5 feet behind O, O makes a sharp cut around a player, the D wanting to stay with the O does not need to go around the player, but through the player to stay with them. Pick, even though their paths are different.

If you extend this scenerio, the D is allowed their own path to stay with the O, as long as it is within 10 feet, they can chose it. If a pick happens, no one is at fault, you just have to reset the play...

It sounds like some here are suggesting that the 3rd/obstructing player needs to be in between the primary O and D players. That's not true and the rule doesn't say this.

Take this situation: I'm defending the second O in the stack. We're forcing home, so obviously (well, assuming I'm paying attention) I'm defending on the home side of my O player and am closer to the thrower than he... so at a kind-of 45 towards the thrower. My guy cuts in first, straight at the thrower, and I stay ahead of him so he doesn't get open coming in. If the first O in the stack or his D obstruct me from being able to keep my intended position on my O as he runs in because he's too close to the closer O/D pair, then I'm going to call pick. Neither of them came between my O and me, however, it's a valid pick.

I certainly don't have to play closer to my O than I want to (as long as I'm within 10'), nor am I required to alter my path and/or position to make the pick not happen, and I'm certainly not required to take the same line as he does. Normally, if I'm within 10' of my O, and my desired relative positioning on my O and his path causes me to be obstructed by someone else, then that's a pick. The situation in the first post sounds like it could very well be the same thing.

The way I read the OP was more like this imaginary scenario (which I don't believe is a pick)

Pretend there is an O player standing alone (or at the back of the stack or what have you).

The O that is being marked (presumably closely) runs horizontally towards that O player, and cuts before getting to that player. (say at 5 feet) with the D player not making as fast a cut. The D's momentum carries them past the lonely O player before they complete their cut. D calls pick.

The reason I don't believe this is a pick is because no movement performed by O caused the other O to either a) come between D and prohibit D's movement or b) cause D to change his/her path to continue checking ( or really make any of the requirements to be a pick)


That's basically exactly the scenario. The D that chaser almost ran into wasn't moving much so if the chaser had more closely followed the path of the O it wouldn't have been a pick.

The key criteria for me is "did O cause the pick?" and I would have to say definitely not.


If the O player comes within ten feet of ANY other player and the D player has to alter his/her line of pursuit it is a pick (being within the ten feet of O player of course).

The third player could be dead, it does not matter. It is the responsiblilty of the O player to ensure he/she does not go near anyone else that could possibly pick the D player.

Definitely a pick and definitely not a weak or lame call.......

Whoa Uncabuck that is an awfully broad statement - "O player comes within ten feet of ANY other player and the D player has to alter his/her line of pursuit it is a pick" This definition almost ensures a person could call a pick at nearly anytime on the field.

The point at contention is whose movement caused the pick.....clearly cutting in open space is not a pick and cutting right beside another player is almost always a pickable play. In between these two scenarios you have a range of potential situations - but cutting within 10 feet of any other player - or more specifically needing more than 20ft between two stationary players to not create a pick is nearly impossible on a field.

The situation described made it pretty clear that the mark started very tight on the O cutter - therefore they should be able to cut in fairly freely knowing that their mark is close and should need less space to stay in a position to play D. The fact that the D did not keep following the cutter means to me that the D movement caused the pick not the movement of the O player. Also you note that the D player needs merely to be required to alter their path to call a pick - they should have been altering their path anyway as the cut was obviously away from this other defender. The fact that they didn't again points to the fact that it was their movement and not the O's movement that caused the pick.

The O is moving, therefore caused the pick.(If the O never moved, the D would not move and there would be no pick).

I stand by my statement, if you go within ten feet of another player and as the D I have to alter my path, it is a pick, period.

I do not need to follow any line, any cutter or anything, as long as I stay within ten feet of my mark and that person goes near enough to someone else that I need to alter my line, it is a pick, how can you argue that?

The defender never has to follow their mark, any angle that keeps me near (within 10 feet) is legitimate. If you cut in such a way that I am interfered with, slowed down, made to turn is a pick.......

"If the O player comes within ten feet of ANY other player and the D player has to alter his/

her line of pursuit it is a pick (being within the ten feet of O player of course)."

There's a reason the rules don't say this (if they did it would make knowing a pick very, very

easy!), it's because it's not how the game should be played.

There's a reason the rules say the obstruction must be caused by O movement.

One has to use common sense (ruh-roh) to determine which obstructions are caused by O

movement, thankfully it's a lot easier to do on the field than on paper

Buck, when you start making up 'condensed' versions of the rule like you just did, you're then

going to be playing under a different flavour of the rules (an incorrect one incidentally), and

you're bound to get yourself into a scenario where you and an opponent both think the other

is cheating.


Buck, I'm going to drive a cement truck through the holes in your swiss cheese of of a

'condensed' rule:

Imagine I'm between my check and the handler, not too far from the disc. He then strikes

long. Me, my team,

hell the whole world knows that I'm not going to keep up with him. My teammate down the

field knows this as my check runs a few feet away from him. I'm still within 10 feet, and my

teammate jumps in front of me (before the disc has been thrown).

The O ran straight, not very close to my teammate, didn't move, but my teammate jumped

in behind me (not chasing an O).

Is that a Pick?

Of course not. But your made up rule says it is. Your made up rule sucks.

First, I did not make up a rule, I paraphrased it.

Second, in your scenario it is obvious that the second D player is cheating. Sorry, I did not realize that you folks cheat and you have to take that into account. Where I play, the rules says no one would purposely cheat and we play that way.

So, without the D player cheating (which could circumvent any rule), my statement holds true.

Also in your scenario, if the O player runs close enough to the second D player that you need to alter your course, it is a pick.

If you want to attack my statements, at least use my statement and not one YOU made up. I said "if the D had to alter their line", you said "if a second D player jumps in the way". You gotta be able to see the difference.

"If the O player comes within ten feet of ANY other player and the D player has to alter his/

her line of pursuit it is a pick (being within the ten feet of O player of course)."

That's a direct quote of yours. It sure reads like a made up rule to me.

I gave an example where your made up rule sucks, and likely why it isn't the rule (if it were

the rule, it would be a lot easier. Suckier, but easier). In my example the 2nd D could just as

easily be running across the path without intending to obstruct the chasing D, the same

mechanics would occur.

Under your very definitive and very made-up rule that would still be a pick.

If you play by the rules that would not be a pick.

It's not a hard concept, the O has to cause the obstruction. It's not as hard and fast as you

say it is, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

I for one am grateful that if a D *causes* the obstruction (not just is the obstruction), it's not

a pick. Aren't you too?

UB:"First, I did not make up a rule, I paraphrased it."

What part of that sentence is too hard for you to understand??

Temple: "In my example the 2nd D could just as easily be running across the path without intending to obstruct the chasing D, "

If the 2nd D is crossing the field and the O player I am covering runs up field and they cross paths AND I run into the other D player it is a pick. Intention has SFA to do with it (just like fouls, from someone claiming to know the rules I thought you would know this)

It is the O player that must avoid crossing the path of the other D man. It is the O moving that causes the pick. The only way you could say that it wasnt the O moving is if the O player was stationary.

If you want to avoid picks, dont cut near other players....sheesh, it is that simple.

"If you want to avoid picks, dont cut near other players...."

Crap, there goes our vertical offence.

"If you want to avoid picks, dont cut near other players....sheesh, it is that simple.


From a reading the original post that is exactly what the O was trying to do they saw the defender in the path and cut away from them.....the fact that the D didn't follow shifts the cause of the obstruction from the O who was avoiding the pick situation to the D who didn't.

That is the point - it's everyone's responsibility to avoid contact. If the D has no responsiblity in this then you create an environment where people try to create pick situations as it's to their advantage. But at that point they are also increasing the possibility of collisions on the field.

Here's another example - O cuts long near but safely by an unmoving D player such that you shouldn't have to alter your path - the D player sees you are beat (behind the O) and starts running after the O player - say you catch up to your D helper but now must alter your path to avoid your own player. By your definition this is a pick - by rule though this shouldn't be considered a pick.

"What part of that sentence is too hard for you to understand??"

I do not think that word means what you think it means. I understand what "paraphrase"
means, you obviously do not.

Here's the definition of Paraphrase: express the meaning of something written using different
words, especially to achieve greater clarity.

You didn't express the meaning of the rule, you changed it to your 'simplified' and incorrect
meaning (and have defended it repeatedly).

However you want to call it, you changed the rule and are insistent that it is the right way to
play. I can't see how that's not making up a new rule.

It's definitely not paraphrasing, and you're doing yourself (and whoever might read your
words and believe you) an injustice by thinking you're simply paraphrasing.

Buck, do you see what happens when you "paraphrase" a rule, but paraphrase it in such a
way that you fundamentally change the rule, AND THEN are absolutely, and repeatedly
insistent that your 'paraphrasing' of that rule is the correct way to play?

Your 'simplified' albeit incorrect rule interpretation, is a great simple rule of thumb to tell
absolute beginners, but it's the wrong way for a 20 year vet who knows the rules cold to play,
and absolutely is not something that can be defended as an accurate interpretation of the

Sounds like a bad pick call.

Imagine a 10 foot string connecting the defender and the mark. If the mark makes a cut so that the imaginary string would touch an obstruction or player, that's a pick.

This is a four-year-old thread. What prompted its revival?

Regardless, I'm sorry, Brahm, but your rule-of-thumb does not accurately reflect the rule. There are many textbook picks that would escape your convention. Temple and Mortakai -- who are both very qualified to speak on this matter -- have already explained the dangers of paraphrasing rules.

The truth is that, with the given information, it is impossible to definitively ascertain whether the pick call was warranted or not. Personally, unless the defender was truly running in some utterly nonsensical trajectory, I would tend to trust the defender's call.

Yeah, I wouldn't say that paraphrasing the rules is inherently bad, but it's so often done very
poorly. Not only that, but it's almost impossible to make a paraphrased rule both accurate
and shorter than the rule itself.

The rules are hard to understand, because they are so terse. To convey a rule's meaning more
clearly requires a lot more verbage.

If you find yourself explaining a rule like Picks to somebody in a sentence, you're not really
teaching them the rule.

That's not to say that you can't make a much easier to understand explanation of the rule,
but it may take a few sentences to get right. Take the time to teach people the rule, it will
help everybody.

On the path of knowledge of how to play the game with spirit, short-cuts make long delays.


As an aside, I don't like your string theory (ha! see what I did there?). It's not exactly clear
what you mean by it (strike one), and I can think of several ways that it fails outright
(strikes two and three, ok bad sports metaphor there).