D-block or Foot-block

6 posts / 0 new
Last post

Here's something that happened and the handler doesn't know which it is. The check has long legs. When the handler throw the disc, it hits the check's leg when the check didn't try to foot block it. Is that T.O. or Foot-Block?

If the foot doesn't leave the ground, or if it's unintentional it's a TO, is it not?

Yes, I beleive the way most people interpret it is

that an attempt to foot block (successful or not)

is a foul.

If the disc hits a leg, without the marker

attempting a footblock, then it's a turn over.

How does that song go again? ...

... the leg-bone's connected to the ankle-bone... the ankle-bone's connected to the foot-bone...

Sounds to me (even though I'm a really bad singer) that the leg and foot are two different things.

... and the judges say... "TO"!

The VUL rules say: "If a footblock is used ...". 'Used' implies active, not passive; or if you prefer, the dictionary says that use is "To put into service or apply for a purpose; employ". If the foot is actively "used", then that's a footblock. If it bounces off the foot, but the foot wasn't "used" to block it, it's not a footblock.

Sorry to get so literal, but it's language that we're talking about here, and that's what the language says.

... plus that's also only common sense. But we know the problem about common sense, don't we? ... that's it's often not 'common'.

... and the judges say... "TO"!

That's fine. Personally I agree that it is not a foul if there was no attempt by the foul to foot-block the opponent.

Was there a dispute between the two players here? If there was a dispute and it can't be resolved quickly and fairly, we all know that it is a do-over, right?

Sorry, I meant by the 'marker' (not the foul)!