I got the disc first, even though I smoked/hit you

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Time and time again there are teams/players that have the misconception that as long as you make contact with the disc first, all contact after is not a foul!!?!?!

It would be nice if all players in the VUL actually bothered to not only read the rules but understand them.

Unless it's a dangerous play, they're right. No foul.

Need more info to make a judgement call, but my first thought was that you can still call foul, except it didn't affect the play. I am imagining a scenario where both go up for the disc and the defender swats the disc before following through onto the receiver's arm.

Just a few excerpts from the rules:

If a player's attempt to make a play on the disc causes
significant impact with a legitimately positioned stationary
opponent, before or AFTER the disc arrives, it is considered
"harmful endangerment" and is a foul.

Dangerous, aggressive behavior or reckless disregard for the
safety of fellow players is always a foul.

------------------
That being said, it is easy to see when a player has no regard for safety and is solely focused on the disc. I have given up going for the disc and prepared for 'impact' a number of times when I realized the person chasing me and the disc will make contact with me no matter what(even if they don't get the disc)! It is reckless and really has no place in the game. If you cannot control your body, you should not play this game.

Just make sure you don't call foul or dangerous play on the offending reckless player, that'll only make them angrier. Been dealing with this syndrome for years, you play a really aggressive team solely focused on winning at any cost, and you cannot do anything to reason with them. We had a game last Thursday where several of their players legitimately thought that any contact was "good defense" (sorry, you can't grab someone and throw them out of the way to get the disc, or hit someone from behind at the knees to prevent them from making the catch), and calling fouls only made things worse. The mocking from the sidelines whenever a (legitimate) foul call was made only intensified things further. Even after our captain talked to theirs, the dangerous play/fouls continued.

Regardless, and I've mentioned this several times in other threads, there's a serious problem *league wide* with regards to safe play, valuing winning over fun, understanding/respecting the rules and spirit in general. When my girlfriend, watching injured from the sidelines says to me (and I'll admit freely I can be a bit of an asshole) "Wow you handled that well, I would have punched him in the face for what he did", something ain't right.

I trust you guys have contacted the LC about this? Posting on the forum is fun and all, but if it's as big of a problem as it sounds like, you're better off escalating the issue through more official channels.

I'm not sure I agree to not call fouls. Their reaction is their choice. But if it's a foul, and
you include your reasoning for the call, sure they might not take it well, but that's how the
game is intended to be played. Their bad reaction is their choice. Then you react by not
reacting, which IS the better way to go. Eventually they WILL get it. Or not. But you need
to tell them they're playing against the rules, and foul/discuss is the primary way to so
this... or aren't you ALSO part of the problem?

seems like swigger and traction jackson have been holding in a lot of bitterness. have you guys tried talking to the other team? i find that helps, ive talked to other teams, had ppl talk to me, with great success rates.

frankly, while some of your concerns may be justified, i havent witnessed anything as extreme as how you describe it. it might just be a case (or several cases) of something that was borderline dangerous, and an overreaction. like i said, if you can give us more info perhaps we can decide whether something really is outrageous or not.

I don't know why you think there's a league-wide problem, Jackson. How many tiers and days do you play? I don't believe I've observed anything that would lead me to believe there's a pervasive moral decay. And I think Craig can attest that he receives very few spirit incident reports.

Incidentally, Swigger, those are 10th Ed. rules you're citing. I mention it only because the 11th Ed. makes distinctions among dangerous play fouls, receiving fouls, and general fouls (which may be related to a play, but which are neither dangerous nor receiving fouls) that may be pertinent to some of your experiences.

By league wide I just meant I've seen it on all 3 nights I've played on (Monday, Tuesday, Thursday), anywhere from Divisions 2 to 8. I'd also say the "problem" teams are a very small percentage of the league, but the number is steadily growing over the past 8 years I've played in the VUL. We've encountered at least one "problem" team on both nights I'm currently playing (Tues/Thurs) per division, per trimester. That's too many.

There seem to be less "we're here for fun and exercise" teams than there used to be, and more "we want to win at all costs, and if you make foul calls you're cheating" teams.

We've talked with teams, it helps *if* they're willing to listen. But if you're dealing with a "win at all cost" team, they're usually not in a listening mood. I'm just tired of seeing everything looked at as an "attack", instead of simply playing by the rules.

And if you see this as bitterness, Aaron, I guess there might be a little of that, but when you're forced to miss a year of sports due to a back injury caused by a dangerous hit from a reckless player that still causes you problems 7 years later, you might be a little PO'ed when you're seeing the number of dangerous plays increase every year. I do NOT want to see players get hurt for any reason, and accidents do happen, but I'm seeing way more players who think contact is part of the game. I apologize profusely for wanting players to be safe, and have fun in this great league we have here.

i played a "win at all cost" team on sat and a defending player came through my back to intercept the disc thereby knocking me right off the disc football-style and cut my shoulder somehow in the process. he tried to intercept the disc over my shoulder, or through it i guess. when i called foul, i was told that he caught it so it can't possibly be a foul. in addition, the team players openly made fun of my call and heckled me throughout the rest of the game. there was also a massive size difference between the male player and myself (female). a few minutes later, a defending female tried to intercept but she cleated my calf and didn't catch it-and she didn't tackle me/knock me off the disc, it seemed incidental so i didn't call foul. this "run down the girls" during co-rec is making me want to quit ultimate. i don't need to be injured because another player can't control their space. lots of players are completely capable of intercepting a disc without barrelling over anyone else.

Vancouverd,

Please have your captain discuss that game and that incident with Speedo, the League Coordinator. We need these types of issues brought to the league's attention so we can investigate, and determine what corrective action should be taken.

I kno this is an old thread but was chatting with my friends about an incident.

Wondering, so if all our newbies and up and coming players watch these highlight reels of players crashing and banging into each other, what are we telling them? This type of play is fair and okay and safe? Or that it's obviously not a foul because it's in a highlight reel... or... what? In particular, running people over from behind, as shown in many videos - particularly at 0:45, 1:29, 3:16 of this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq3pg0JcJSI

They all look the same, yet there are foul calls for similar plays that are way less violent.

Part 2... the question arose when one of my friends jumped and hit a girl's outretched arm, and she crumpled to the ground immediately. The two views seem to be that a) she didnt see him and moved into his space after he was airborne, therefore it was a blocking foul...and b) he knew she was there all along and just felt like he could get the disc before contacting her so no foul... Are either of these arguments actually valid...

Part 1: the tolerance for aggressive and potentially dangerous play depends largely on the level of experience of the players and the stakes of the game. I would expect people with more than 10 years experience playing a team from Seattle for a chance to play in Sarasota would be more willing to accept rough play than a newbie on a team vying for 3rd place in Tuesday 8.

All the same, it's always a good idea to err on the side of safety. If you have a bid on a disc but there's a possibility of injuring someone, don't go for it. The other player may even thank you for it.

Part 2: whatever the rules are, it's a good idea to avoid initiating contact, especially if you are larger than others in your vicinity. An injury doesn't hurt any less because you happen to be in the right.

Part I

"Wondering, so if all our newbies and up and coming players watch these highlight reels of players crashing and banging into each other, what are we telling them? This type of play is fair and okay and safe? Or that it's obviously not a foul because it's in a highlight reel... or... what?"

I don't think we're telling them anything in particular. It's a highlight reel -- not a how-to guide -- so of course there are going to be spectacular collisions and (without commenting directly on the examples given) probably fouls in it. Hopefully, nobody presumes that NASCAR highlights are transferable as driving tips from the pros.

I don't believe I've ever heard someone say, "No, it's okay, I saw Nate Castine do that to a guy in a video once."

Part II

Honestly, I have no idea, because the situation is very vague. Who was calling what kind of foul against whom? There could have been a foul of some kind in there somewhere, regardless of the arguments.

atanarjuat, highlight reels inspire people do they not? Many young kids who plays hockey aspires to pull off some sick trick they saw on TSN highlights right? Ok, NASCAR would apply to people racing =) Not road rage!

I don't believe I've ever heard someone say, "No, it's okay, I saw Nate Castine do that to a guy in a video once."

^unfortunately I have met some younger players who have used this sort of thing as an excuse - saying that if its okay in high level play, its all over youtube, he can do it too, therefore running a couple players over and wondering whats wrong...

Part 2 was just, disc goes up, girl stands under the disc trying to get it, dude thinks he has a play, so he jumps for the disc, and the girl (from my view) steps into his path to try and get a better position - she didn't know he was coming. So he hit her arm, and she promptly called foul on him for hitting her. I say from my view because then I feel he should call blocking foul since she steps into his way... althout not intentional, these sudden movements can't always be predicted right?
So I'm thinking blocking foul on the girl, and he goes and says that he got the disc first, so hitting her after obviously isn't a foul. Hence why I posted in this topic...

Speedo the LC - "If you have a bid on a disc but there's a possibility of injuring someone, don't go for it. The other player may even thank you for it."

True story: I've had someone thank me for not hitting her when going for a floaty disc. It shocked me, so I asked, and she had been seriously injured the previous year in a similar scenario.

It's not an easy thing to do for us competitive types, but sometimes giving up on a disc is the best course of action if the only way to make a decent bid at it is to potentially hurt someone. Human >> plastic.

Part I

Point being, though, that highlight reels in every sport highlight spectacles without regard to their being strictly legal, intelligent, or otherwise. There are lots of spotlight clips in any TSN airing that are infractions, fights, or crashes. There is no strict moral or technical guidance to a highlight reel. You asked what highlight reels tell us about rules or safety; I don't know what to say, except to say that there is no message in it.

Well, if someone cites YouTube as a reference for a silly play, you can always point out that YouTube isn't an illustrated rulebook, and it generally doesn't show foul discussions.

Part II

Well, there is potentially a general foul there in that contact affected her continued play, but not the outcome of the specific catch.

She did not commit a blocking foul (worth discussing anyway) insofar as her actions did not affect the outcome of the play nor continued play (other than her own).

The contact does not sound dangerous to me, so I would not qualify it as a dangerous play foul. I would reconsider this if the female player had been pre-established in the line of the receiver's leap and if the contact incurred had been correspondingly more severe.

I don't believe there was a receiving foul here, although timing becomes relevant. If the contact to her arm genuinely affected her ability to intercept the disc, then it would be a receiving foul.

Just my opinion...
but I find that people who don't feel/see where others on the field (in this case,
the girl who moved into the guy's landing area) are the most dangerous players.

Even more than those people trying to pull off "highlight reel" plays.

edit: This is assuming there is no one that plays that is actively looking to hurt
other players. If so, they would be the most dangerous.

You're kidding, right?

I'm looking in one direction (up or forward - it doesn't matter), change position slightly to try to catch a disc, and someone plows into the back of me -- someone I CANNOT SEE because I don't have eyes in the back of my head -- and you think I'm the dangerous one?

That's like blaming the front car in a rear-end accident, or blaming the slow skier for getting mowed over by someone coming down the hill faster behind them. There are obvious and defensible reasons that authorities consider those situations to be 100% the fault of the person coming from behind.

Players closing in on someone else -- someone they can CLEARLY SEE in front of them, and who may not see them at all -- are far more responsible for any collision that may occur. If not completely.

if a floaty disc goes up and you have to slow down and readjust, dont tell me you are surprised that other players (defenders) caught up to you. being aware doesnt mean you have to see exactly where everyone is, but that theres a good chance someones gonna be there and going for the disc as well.

i wont comment on whos responsible, since its not always the person behind who can see what happens. ie: if you happen to be the one behind taking a line that should have avoided the person, but that person suddenly changes his line into your path just as you are going up. whos responsible?

I am a big proponent of never making blanket statements.

"Part 2 was just, disc goes up, girl stands under the disc trying to get it, dude
thinks he has a play, so he jumps for the disc, and the girl (from my view)
steps into his path to try and get a better position - she didn't know he was
coming"

IF true, it is a foul on the girl:

XVII. Positioning
B. A player who jumps is entitled to land at the take-off spot without
hindrance by opponents. That player also is entitled to land at another spot,
provided that the landing spot, and the direct path between the take-off and
landing spots, were not already occupied at the time of take-off.

And I never mentioned that one person would always be coming from
behind... you are the one who assumed that. There are a lot of instances
where collisions are more of a "T-bone" or other variety. Hell, I've seen 2
people looking up at the disc who ran into each other head on.

What is the difference between someone who runs a red light because they
didn't see it, and someone who runs a red light because they think they can
make it without getting caught? Not much.

...but as I said, in my opinion I think the person who doesn't see/feel the red
light is more dangerous.

P.S. In your example "I'm looking in one direction (up or forward - it doesn't
matter), change position slightly to try to catch a disc, and someone plows
into the back of me" may be a foul on you, depending on specifics.
XVI.H.c.2 "A player may not take a position that is unavoidable by a moving
opponent when time, distance and line of sight are considered. Non-incidental
contact resulting from taking such a position is a foul on the blocking player."

I agree with Corn Pops in the sense that if the female player sees the guy
coming, and steps in a path where collision will occur, it is a foul on her
regardless of which direction the collision occurs. But if she doesn't see it,
then it becomes a path unavoidable when line of sight is considered.
Thus most likely a contested foul or incidental.

XVI.H.c.2 "A player may not take a position that is unavoidable by a moving
opponent when time, distance and line of sight are considered. Non-incidental
contact resulting from taking such a position is a foul on the blocking player."

The line of sight refers to the moving opponent, thus still a foul on the female.

If we are now asking, in general, whether a player can unknowingly commit a blocking foul, the answer is yes. Good examples including stepping out in front of a moving opponent and clipping him, inadvertently slapping his face, or accidentally tripping him -- provided the contact was unavoidable and affected continued play.

In this particular example, I'd just like to remind everyone that although you could argue that the female player NEARLY committed a blocking foul (and since this was on a reception attempt, we're really talking about a "receiving foul" here, instead), she didn't actually affect anything.

... yes, I know, late to the party, but...

"That's like blaming the front car in a rear-end accident, or blaming the
slow skier for getting mowed over by someone coming down the hill
faster behind them. There are obvious and defensible reasons that
authorities consider those situations to be 100% the fault of the
person coming from behind."

There's a HUGE difference to trying (wrongly) to blame the front car in
a rear-end accident when both the front and back car are moving in the
same direction in the same lane... to trying (rightly) to blame the front
car in a rear-end accident when that front car came from another lane
at the last second into the path of another car who had no time to
stop/swerve or any option at all except to hit the front car.

Same thing with a skiier... if the novice/slow skiier somewhat suddenly
cuts completely across the mountain right into the path of a skiier
going down the hill... such that there's no choice but to plow into that
novice skiier... it's the novice skiier's fault. Absolutely.

Sure, she doesn't have eyes in the back of her head, but that does not
remove her responsibility to not move into the path of other players
that are already airborne or otherwise cannot stop their trajectory.