Is there such a thing as Dangerous play?

51 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hao By Hao
#1

Okay so here is the senario that happened to me.

Team A throws the disk at this girl who runs for the disk. While she was going for the frisbee, 2 players from team B runs for it and another player from team B also goes for it.

In the end, the disk went down. one player form team A collide with the other player from team B(not the girl) but it wasn't a hard collision.

So I thought it was a turn over, however the girl calls out Dangerous Play, saying she saw big guys running at her and she couldn't do anything. Is there such a thing as a Dangerous Play. We didn't contest, and she got the the disk possession where it landed.

So here is my questions, Is there such a thing as a Dangerous Play call. That would just give the disk to the other team even if the throw was incomplete.
Is there such a rule. I am not blaming the girl, I am just making sure, because I never heard of something like that.

Thanks

"Reckless disregard for the safety of fellow players or other dangerously aggressive behavior (such as
significantly colliding into a stationary opponent), regardless of whether or when the disc arrives or when
contact occurs is considered dangerous play and is treated as a foul. This rule is not superseded by any
other rule."

If she calls the foul and you don't contest it, she gets the disc as if she had caught the pass.

IMO, this rule should be used very sparingly. Being afraid to make a play on a poor throw doesn't constitute dangerous play.

I agree with Colin that this rule should be applied sparingly (ideally there should be no reason to
invoke it.) While there has been considerable discussion over what constitutes "dangerous,"
merely seeing other people approaching, regardless of relative size, and making you want to
back off does not constitute danger, nor necessarily does a collision.

According to the rule, which Colin has displayed above, "dangerous play" has 2 requirements:

(1) "Reckless disregard for safety" and/or "dangerously aggressive behaviour"

-and-

(2) "contact"

The VUL doesn't have another additional "no-contact" dangerous play foul, so wrt fouls (including receiving fouls as this would be if it met the definition of a foul) this is all we have.

It doesn't sound to me that the big guys coming in were being reckless or dangerous, and "clean play" should still have been reasonably easy to maintain. Just because other players are approaching one's position, we can't assume that they won't be able to make a clean play just because they're coming in.

Which also leads to the (my presumed) assumption that the caller assumed there would have been significant contact as a result of this assumed potential future recklessness.

Now please don't get me wrong. I fully support that we need to play safely and regardless of whether you're a male or female, or meaty or boney (or anything in the middle... of both criteria). Certainly if any of these player have already shown that they're not in control of their bodies or unable to make good judgments when near other players, then by all means call a violation (i.e., non-contact infraction) and just cite the opening rule(s) about "win-at-all-costs" or other aggressive behaviour. But that's not a "receiving foul" (or any other type of foul - i.e., contact infraction), and so none of the people involved should get the disc.

But having said all of that, as Colin so eloquently (and much more succinctly) put it, if that's what she called, and no-one contested it, the disc is hers.

Yes, as quoted and discussed above, there is a "dangerous play" clause, but let me stress that it is treated as a foul, so it does not necessarily give the disc to the player making the call.

Many of these highly subjective calls can be politely resolved by a contest and a return to the thrower.

On a related note, Mortakai, I've never heard of anyone calling a an "aggressive play" (or "dangerous play") violation before. What would be the outcome in this scenario?

Correct, "a tanned rat", that player would only get the disc if that foul was considered a "receiving foul". (I.e., disc in the air and the contact affects that player's ability to make a play)

Examples of other types of fouls (i.e., not receiving fouls) include

(1) receiver catching the disc and then bowling through a stationary opponent -- didn't affect the opponent's ability to make a play on the disc and disc was no longer in the air

(2) collision through a dangerous pick situation (as opposed to a safe pick situation) -- affected a player's ability to continue play but disc not in the air

(3) dangerous collision after the disc has already sailed overhead -- did not affect the play

(4) thrower / marker contact where the thrower dangerously throws through an extended and stationary arm (i.e., reckless arm-to-arm contact)

None of these examples should award the disc to the fouled player. In many cases, the result of the play would often stand. Although having said that, in some cases, for 1 and 4, the disc perhaps should go back if claimed that it DID affect the play. But depending on the more particular situation for those examples, in some cases it would have affected and in others it wouldn't. But none of those would put the disc in the fouled player's hands, because they're not receiving fouls.

--> On a related note, Mortakai, I've never heard of anyone calling a an "aggressive play" (or "dangerous play") violation before. What would be the outcome in this scenario? <--

Okay, I'm talking about I.B, which many also cite as the (often despised) "spirit foul" claim. (Again, there's that word "foul", which isn't right.)

It's commonly considered a guiding principle, rather than a "rule" per-se, but it's in there and numbered... so if it really fits, call it. In reality though, it would typically just stop play and allow for the discussion to take place... assuming the player wanted to do it that way, rather than have the captains (or others of course) discuss it on the sideline afterwards. The count might change for a bit, but unless it's considered to have affected that play, the result of the play will probably stand (i.e., continuation rule).

However, having said all that... I think we need to be just as (or perhaps more) careful calling a violation under this clause, than we should be for calling a "dangerous play". And I think this is the only example where I've ever suggested it.

My usual example of where it really fits (better than the scenario under this thread) is where a receiver sprints at top speed past an entire stack at about 1-to-2 feet distance... that IS truly dangerous and reckless, and while there's no contact there is a HIGH potential for it (only one person needs to move just a little not seeing the sprinter coming). Something really NEEDS to be called here.

I'd also often argue that the disc should go back to the thrower ... that is, if he wouldn't have caused this "violation", he would never have gotten to the disc, and so the violation affected the play. But the main reason for calling it would be to get play to stop and explain the severity of what just happened.

However, having said all that... I've still never seen it happen, but just a hypothetical example that we've used within the SRC to illustrate what might be considered a non-contact 'dangerous play'. Although it still doesn't fall under that clause (as it's currently worded) because of the lack of contact.

Mortakai,

Can you clarify if you're inferring or stating that "contact" is a requirement of the rule.

The way I read the rule, "or when contact occurs" is actually placed a bit ambiguously. Your interpretation makes semantic sense to me, however, contextually, I would have read it as "when or if contact occurs".

I would have interpreted the rules with only 1 requirement (your #1), and everything after the "regardless" was flavour trying to give examples and clarifications of specific scenarios. (If/When the disc arrives is irrelevant; If/When there is contact is irrelevant.)

The other thing I'd like to bring to the table is the suggestion that in lower divs, and/or with new'ish players -- there is a non-trivial amount of what I would consider dangerous plays and reckless players.

On lower div teams there usually seem to be couple new'ish players (men usually) who have a lot of "passion" for the game, but little awareness of either their body, and/or the players around them.

IF I have noticed that you are one of those players, then I will try to not put myself in a situation where I believe you will recklessly make substantial contact with me where I could be injured.

I think in those scenarios where I have justified cause to believe that if I cleanly went in for a disc, that I would end up being crashed into, that 'dangerous play' can be a valid call.

To take the example even further, I have seen situations where players will actively move out of their position, away from an incoming disc, out of fear of being run into by players with not-so-great body control.

Dangerous play? no call? suck it up and potentially get a bruised rib?

I think the rule is clear/easy-to-use at higher levels, but what about in newbieville? Thoughts?

I think this rule needs to be explained because I see it all the time.

Women on our team are going for a disc, some guy comes barreling in at full speed and they back down cause they don't want to get plowed over. The women call dangerous play and the guy says 'well I wasn't going to hit her' as if our women were supposed to know that. It's bs.

What exactly do you think is bs kermit?

From your brief description, I would say the call is bs. Running at full speed in the direction of another player isn't necessarily dangerous or aggressive play. You can't call a foul just because you anticipate there might be a foul.

There was a huge thread last year where some people (knowledgeable of the rules) felt it WAS appropriate to call a 'dangerous play' foul in some situations like that. Running at full speed in the direction of another player isn't necessarily an aggressive play, but there are definitely times where that CAN be done in a dangerous or aggressive manner.

Agreed, Craig. If a disc is going to arrive at another player at the same time as me, then of course I'm going to be going full speed in their direction. It doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to hit them. The possibility of them stopping/dodging directly into the path of another incoming player is just as real of a possibility.

That said, I think everyone has a right to their own personal safety (perceived or otherwise). If they felt endangered, then it's not like we can tell them that no, they did not feel endangered. All we can do is contest (and look like an asshole/bully) and send it back.

I don't subscribe to the notion that contact must occur before a Dangerous Play call is made.
If one were not able to ever call Dangerous Play when no contact occurs, then there would be
no need for the rule, as dangerous contact situations are fully covered by other rules in the
book.

If a player is acting with reckless disregard for my safety, they're playing equally as
dangerous whether I have time to see them and step out of the way or not. That behaviour,
regardless of whether contact occurs, must be stopped immediately.

Now, that said, the benefit of the doubt absolutely *must* be given to the potentially
dangerous player before calling Dangerous Play.

Inherent in our sport is the expectation that people of all sizes and genders will be running at
full speed near and towards each other. If that is not acceptable to you, you have to play
either a gender-specific league or not at all.

There's a certain amount of risk in playing any sport, including Ultimate. That absolutely
doesn't mean that you should have to accept Dangerous Play though. The criteria I use to
describe it to people is that it's Dangerous Play when injury is likely to occur. Not if it's
merely possible, or that it's very likely to occur, but if you honestly believe that there was a
good chance of being injured had you not stepped out of the way, then call Dangerous Play.

If you're simply unsure whether the person has seen you, or will react to you, then you should
not make
the Dangerous Play call, even if you were afraid of the contact. Again, in a situation where
there's no contact, benefit of the doubt must come into play.

One should need a very good reason to call "dangerous play". "Big guy running fast at me" should not be enough to make the call.

The real culprit of most dangerous plays are bad throws. If a throw puts a receiver in a dangerous position, the receiver should use discretion on whether or not to pursue the disc.

Lots of perspectives, and that's good... I think we all agree that dangerous play is completely unacceptable, and we're simply discussing the semantics of how to stay safe and what call is the right call.

A couple of things to add, if I may. One is the main reason for the dangerous play rule, and the other is a bit about its wording. Regardless of that, though, we need to make whatever call is necessary (right or wrong) or have whatever discussion is necessary (at the time or later) to stop and/or minimize the risk of dangerous reckless play(ers) and the risk of resultant injuries.

So before we look at this rule, the overall 'foul' concept is that it's contact that affects the play. So for example, if someone has already caught the disc or swatted it away, and THEN plows into someone (with knee-breaking force) that this doesn't necessarily meet the definition of a foul (i.e., perhaps didn't affect the play) because the outcome was already known before the contact happened. Having this rule gives an additional option for a foul so that the ordering of events doesn't matter if the impact is dangerous / reckless and potentially injurious.

Other examples of this are: someone lays out for the disc from behind me, reaches past me and swats it away and then collapses onto my knees wiping me out; someone skies me by reaching over my head and then comes down hard with an elbow into my face. This last example would be a verticality foul except here I'm assuming they skied me before the contact (so not a verticality problem), but the contact was with reckless disregard for my safety.

Now onto the sematics of the wording itself. We (the SRC) chose the wording of this rule very carefully and it means exactly what we were trying to say. Regardless means "it doesn't matter whether", and not "for example but not necessarily".

"regardless of whether or when the disc arrives" is there because we didn't want it to just be limited to receiving fouls and wanted to state that the disc coming before or after doesn't matter, and also that it applies to unplayable discs (way overhead, already OB, etc).

"regardless of [...] when contact occurs" (without the "whether") is to state that the contact occurring before or after doesn't matter. But without the "whether" means that it DOES matter "whether" it happens. If it said "regarless of whether", that would mean we don't care whether contact occurs... but we do.

I don't want to ramble further (surprise!)... but I DO agree that this isn't necessarily the "standard" we want to hold for all levels and that it's okay to be "more careful" at the lower levels. However, it either needs to be at a rules level (including VUL-specific or Captain's Clause additional rules) or with proper direction and "nipping it in the bud" from the captains and ALL the players as it happens (for those players who throw themselves dangerously all over the place)... or preferably both. All my comments here are primarily focused on the UPA 11th Edition.

... and not necessarily how I play or even how I personally feel.

It's bs that the guy would run at her full speed when she has position forcing her to back off because she does not want to get run over and then when told it's a dangerous play to say 'well i wasn't going to hit her'. he's basically saying he was intimidating her even though he had no intention of actually hitting her. that's great for his conscience but it's still a dangerous play. and the only reason the women i know 'feel' like they are in danger is because they have been run over before.

i'm not sure why you're so adverse to calling dangerous play--the point of that call is to avoid fouls and dangerous situations and that's a good thing. maybe that guy will think twice about giving off the impression he's going to run through the women to get the disc.

I disagree, Colin. The real culprit of dangerous plays is people thinking they are better athletes than they truly are. They make plays they shouldn't or end up in positions they shouldn't.

The bad throw (aka hospital pass) is something that players with good judgment should often stay away from, and in that I think you and I agree.

Someone making a 'dangerous play' call at least stops the play and allows a dialogue to occur. There are three outcomes -- the call will stand, the call will be removed, or the play can be re-done. That's not a bad thing to see happen in rec play. People might get a better grip of the rules as a result.

Hey Kermit,

I think that Colin is trying to draw your attention to the contact requirement in the "dangerous play" foul clause. That is, again, you cannot make this particular call unless there is contact.

Now, none of us are excusing reckless or deliberately intimidating behaviour.

But on the other hand, I think you can see the problem in allowing someone to call a foul just because he/she is afraid of something someone else MIGHT do (but has not yet done).

yes, but if the only time you can call dangerous play is if there is contact, then the rule is redundant as any contact is a foul.

i will draw your attention to "(1) "Reckless disregard for safety" and/or "dangerously aggressive behaviour""

if i'm running full tilt at a women who has position on me and i intimidate or scare her into backing down, that's dangerous. it doesn't matter if i know what i'm doing and have no actual intention of hitting her. she doesn't know that, and the sad fact is that too many women have been plowed over and so now this is an issue.

"But on the other hand, I think you can see the problem in allowing someone to call a foul just because he/she is afraid of something someone else MIGHT do (but has not yet done)."

I honk my horn if I think someone is going to drive into the side of my car, not after they've hit me.

Actually, "any contact is a foul" is not correct. By definition, it's contact that affects the play or continued play (i.e., non-incidental).

Incidental contact is not a foul, which includes contact that occurs after the outcome of the play is known. If I knock your arm out of the way before the disc arrives, it's a foul because it affected your ability to make the play... if I knock your arm out of the way after the disc arrives, it's not a foul because it didn't... if I knock your arm out of the way with potentially injurious force because I don't give a crap if I hurt you it's a foul because it's a dangerous play - regardless of whether it's before or after the disc arrives.

If I could have stopped before hitting your arm, but you pull your arm out of the way and I then don't stop because I now don't need to... it's NOT a dangerous play foul because you're just guessing.

I don't think we're expected to let the girls play their game and the guys play their game and not let the girls and the guys play together ... they're playing the same game after all. Or in other words, if there's a single girl striker who's getting the disc thrown to her, it's not fair to suggest that the zone's deep defender who's been split by a guy on the other side can't sprint across the field to make a play on the disc because we need to be afraid the girl will cower in fear at the guy streaking across the field in her direction. That is NOT a dangerous play, or we'd get one called on us every other point, even though as I've seen the plays actually completed, there are many D's and no-one's either cowered or been contacted.

Just because the last guy plowed into you doesn't mean that every guy afterwards will.

... Just because your last boyfriend cheated on you doesn't mean all the rest of your future one's will.

Man... this sound so much like the "Minority Report" movie. Just like in real life, one shouldn't be sentenced to jail just because another person thinks he/she is going to kill.

"Just because the last guy plowed into you doesn't mean that every guy afterwards will."

no, but you're wary and that's my point.

"if I knock your arm out of the way with potentially injurious force because I don't give a crap if I hurt you it's a foul because it's a dangerous play - regardless of whether it's before or after the disc arrives."

define potentially injurious.

I hope we all know it's Ultimate we're talking about here. None of us are trying to do whatever necessary to win the game. None of us wants to hurt anyone. We all try to avoid others the best we can so no one gets hurt. AND "if I knock your arm out of the way with potentially injurious force because I don't give a crap if I hurt you it's a foul because it's a dangerous play - regardless of whether it's before or after the disc arrives." should NEVER EVER be in the mind of any ultimate players!

For the sake of argument, we can define "potentially injurious" to mean, "with potential to warrant an injury timeout."

Yes, a player has a right to be wary of other players, especially if they are behaving dangerously. One can definitely "honk a horn," to borrow the phrase, by yelling, "watch out!" or "careful!" Maybe even discuss it with the other team. But you still cannot make this particular foul call unless there is contact, as Mortekai has explained.

Hey, Mortekai, would an endangered player be able to make a "positioning violation" call under rule XVII.B? That is, if the endangering player leaves the ground, can the endangered player call a violation under that pretext and still dodge him so that no contact arises?

"But you still cannot make this particular foul call unless there is contact, as Mortekai has explained."

Really? So you're telling me a dangerous play call cannot be made unless the danger has already passed and the person is 'injured'?

Hmm... XVII... interesting tangent. It might be a stretch... but it's probably better/best to just call something if you're pretty damned sure there would've been potentially injurious contact except for your last-second dart out of the way... something, anything... then discuss and send it back claiming that it's an unresolved call.

But again, there's a big difference between "pretty damned sure there would've been potentially injurious contact except for your last-second dart out fo the way" and "saw a big guy coming in towards me".

And that's a pretty good meaning for "potentially injurious". I mean it to be contact where the angle/force might have injured, even though it might not have (i.e., you were lucky this time). For example, laying out into someone's knees that causes them to buckle hard to the ground COULD have broken a leg, wrecked a knee, caused a concussion. Just because the person WASN'T injured and able to get up didn't mean that it might not be the case the next time. Therefore, potentially injurious.

"But again, there's a big difference between "pretty damned sure there would've been potentially injurious contact except for your last-second dart out fo the way" and "saw a big guy coming in towards me"."

I 'think' for a lot of women having a 6'something guy sprinting towards you while looking up at the sky=pretty damned sure i'm about to get hit.

"And that's a pretty good meaning for "potentially injurious". I mean it to be contact where the angle/force might have injured, even though it might not have (i.e., you were lucky this time). For example, laying out into someone's knees that causes them to buckle hard to the ground COULD have broken a leg, wrecked a knee, caused a concussion. Just because the person WASN'T injured and able to get up didn't mean that it might not be the case the next time. Therefore, potentially injurious."

This is just ridiculous. You're saying it's only dangerous if the contact is sufficient that it might break your leg?

@ Mortakai and Temple:
I realize that I included a gender statement in my original post, when I lashed out at those reckless 'men'...

I would like to point out though, that while I do believe it is generally men that are more prone to wild and reckless play (be it a 'dangerous play' or not) -- I do not believe that 'helpless small women' are the targets. Bringing in arguments about having gender-specific leagues don't make any sense to me.

These reckless players, are reckless against all players on the field. If you blindly are diving for a disc and crash through 2 players to get it... I don't care if you mow down a small girl, or bounce off of a burly man -- it's still a dangerous play, and should be called either way.

@ Pricky McKnobHead:
Well said - i couldn't agree more!

That was an example, Kermit. I didn't say or suggest that it needed to be contact to that level. I don't think you'd want me to call it ridiculous that you've made that stretch, would you? Listen, a bruised cheekbone caused by reckless disregard or dangerous aggression would be just as valid.... or contact that "could" have done that.

... but again, that's another example.

I've sprinted in the direction of others many times while looking up at the disc tracking it and calculating where it's going to land... I still glance around and generally know where people are... and cannot recall ever significantly colliding with another person on the field because of reckless disregard for their safety or being dangerously aggressive. I'm playing the way I'm supposed to and if the other person was able to cower and call dangerous play on me just because I'm running in that direction, that'd be at least 10 calls a game... and all (in my opinion, anyway) unfounded.

You're not really what you're suggesting that this is a call that could be made anytime a defender is running into a receiver's area, is it? If so, we need to invest in a bunch of sumo suits and michelin man costumes, and call the game something other than Ultimate.

...maybe "bouncy-disc". And expand the definition of possession to include a disc trapped between the sweaty folds of skin. Gives "strip" a new meaning I think... perhaps we'll call that "ewww...yuck" instead of "strip".

"Really? So you're telling me a dangerous play call cannot be made unless the danger has already passed and the person is 'injured'?"

Well, that's a pessimistic but legitimate way of looking at it. Hopefully, the contact won't result in an injury this time. Maybe the victim braces for it or absorbs it or "gets lucky" as Mortakai put it. I'm envisioning the sort of collision after which I pick myself and say, "Foul! That could've put me in the hospital!"

Yes, kermit, it's a bit of a catch-22. But that's the rule as given by the SRC.

--> I'm envisioning the sort of collision after which I pick myself and say, "Foul! That could've put me in the hospital!" <--

Yup, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Not even "hospital-level" damage, but that's definitely the concept.

--> But that's the rule as given by the SRC. <--

... and then subsequently voted on and accepted by the players.

"I've sprinted in the direction of others many times while looking up at the disc tracking it and calculating where it's going to land... I still glance around and generally know where people are... and cannot recall ever significantly colliding with another person on the field. I'm playing the way I'm supposed to and if the other person was able to cower and call dangerous play on me, that'd be at least 10 calls a game... and all (in my opinion, anyway) unfounded.

That's not really what you're suggesting, is it?"

Clearly it's not. And perhaps you are aware of your body and others on the field and so it's not an issue, I can't say it's an issue for me either because I am also aware of what's going on around me. But there are many who do not have good field sense or awareness of their body and others around them.

At the very least, a dangerous play call will stop play and let that person become aware of the threat they represent and they will stop doing it in the future.

Why wait until someone actually gets injured before making the call? Doesn't make sense to me.

I think there might be a interpretation issue are work here.

My interpretation when reading Kermit's "a big guy running at you" is that it is his/her shorthand for: "a big guy who i've seen have little control of his body, and already slam himself into 3 of my other teammates, and is running full speed looking up at the disc, and hasn't once looked around him to see where other players are" (or something to that effect).

I think other people are interpreting Kermit's "a big guy running at you" as "a big guy running at you".

Okay, Kermit... I think we DO share similar thoughts...

The challenge is in the other player knowing which type of person is running into their area. We need to trust (1) that those that ARE in control are, (2) that those that are NOT in control actually know that and play accordingly, or (3) that those NOT in control that don't know it are quickly "corrected" by captain / teammate discussions as the first instances happen so they can become either group (2) or (1) before someone gets injured.

Yes, I can agree with making this call (or something anyway) for someone who should be in class (2) but appears to be pretending to be in class (1) ... but we need to be really sure that we're not mistaking that player as someone out-of-control when they're really someone like you or me.

It's certainly difficult... that's damned sure.

Last week a female player on our team was knocked to the ground by a male from the other team. It was accidental, but it resulted in our female going to the hospital for a CONCUSSION. I am sure that once she gets back on the field she will be TENTATIVE whenever an opposing male attempts to make a play near her. That sucks for her because she's OUT TO HAVE FUN, not win Worlds.

The play was an accident, but it was the result of POOR JUDGMENT. There is no need for a male player to run full speed and leap towards a female player who is much smaller. I am all for a "deep" defender making an EASY leaping play, if the defender is already deep and doesn't have to run full speed to make the play. IT'S ABOUT AWARENESS OF WHO YOU ARE DEFENDING, OF THEIR SIZE, AND OF YOUR SIZE. There is a difference if an opposing player wants to make a full-speed play on me (I am a physical specimen and I can take an accidental hit...cough cough) and if they want to make one on our females (who tend to get concussed when knocked over). Making huge plays is cool, but it shows a lack of true skill and awareness when you're apologizing to a crying girl for ringing her bell. So use good judgment.

It is up to us Captains to discuss with our teams the idea of "knowing who you're challenging on defense" and to display restraint when it comes to safety and fun. So talk to your team. Make it fun for everyone. Don't let obscure calls come into play in the first place. Be aware. Have fun!

Schinn,

I'm not going to defend the example in question, but I will point out that if every guy playing deep laid off a disc that was close to a girl, zone O would be a lot easier. The fact of the matter is: we're playing a game that involves people of all sizes and shapes sprinting at full speed (walking points aside). I agree that we need to be aware of where we are and who is near us, but I don't think it's necessarily right to adjust our defensive play because the person we're about to defend is small or large. I'm not a small person, but I don't appreciate being plowed into any more than any of the smaller people I play with.

I make those types of D's all the time, and I don't intend on stopping. That's my job as a deep. I'm still going to go after that D, and I'm still going to do everything I can to avoid contact, whether it's Kerri Strug or Andre the Giant.

SChinn: "IT'S ABOUT AWARENESS OF WHO YOU ARE DEFENDING, OF THEIR SIZE, AND OF
YOUR SIZE."

This is completely bogus. That argument is like saying that it's ok to throw a rock at my
head, but not a brick. A 140 lb person hitting me, a 210lb person is just as unacceptable as
the reverse. Definitely the potential for injury is greater with the latter, but in no way
whatsoever is the former acceptable either.

--

ceegee: "Bringing in arguments about having gender-specific leagues don't make any sense to
me."

You didn't read the context I'm guessing? I said that if a male running at full speed near or
towards you is not acceptable to you, then you should not play against males. People running
towards and near you at full speed (and in control) is part of the sport of Ultimate. That's
irrefutable. What is unacceptable is players playing out of control, but just because a person is
running towards you at speed, doesn't mean that they're out of control. Benefit of the doubt
*must* be given.

--

To Mort. With respect to the SRC's intention. I think you the SRC are wrong. I see that
interpretation of the Dangerous Play rule (that contact is required) as redundant, and I'd love
to see an argument proving otherwise. You cannot describe a Dangerous Play that involved
contact that is not already a foul based on the existing rules. The interpretation of 'affects
play' is broad enough that it encompasses any such Dangerous Plays.

Semantics aside, forgetting whether or not its redundant, what are the rules for? They're to
prevent unwanted things from happening. We have rules that prevent non-incidental contact,
because we don't want non-incidental contact.

It's not that we want to prevent reckless disregard for the safety of others that ends up
causing contact. We (ultimate players as a whole) want to prevent reckless disregard for the
safety of others. It is that reckless disregard that must be stopped. It must be stopped,
hopefully before somebody is seriously hurt. It must be stopped before there is contact.

Can anybody really suggest that if a player makes an unquestionably dangerous play, but
narrowly misses touching somebody, that there should be no option in the rules to stop play
and correct that behaviour? I say absolutely not.

I'm not sure whether I could actually describe a Dangerous Play that involved contact that is not already a foul or not. I think I could, but perhaps we would end up arguing semantics of the example I chose and it would distract us from what I think we should really be discussing. Many of the SRC members have said what you've said about "affects play" already, and I tend to agree, but there's a chance that we may miss an example that would have no other call than "dangerous play", so whether it's redundant, it's inclusion certainly helps minimize the risk that there's no call for a particular situation.

But overall, I completely agree that we don't want the "potential" for injurious collisions... and we need to do whatever we can to stop that from happening. Sure, a "mistaken" DP call for someone who is obviously dangerous isn't such a bad thing... at least the call can be agreed, contested, or withdrawn, but there will be (hopefully) valuable discussion.

And for those who want to call the game "by the rules"... just call a violation under XVI.H ("It is the responsibility of all players to avoid contact in every way possible.") and say that that particular player is not meeting that responsibility.

Just call something and discuss... or be thankful that it WAS a narrow miss and talk to their captain on the sideline about doing something about their "limbs akimbo" player before s/he puts someone in the hospital.

Ah, so a dangerous play that involves no contact should invoke XVI.H, but not a Dangerous Play
call.

That bit of semantic gymnastics seems to cut the legs out of any argument that there must be
contact before a Dangerous
Play call is made. A rose by any other name...

Contrary to what several later posters seem to be asserting, contact does not have to occur to
justify a call. Mortakai said as much in the early posts.

Kermit, SChinn et al:

In defining danger, gender and size have nothing to do with it. As Temple pointed out, 140lbs
hitting 220 is just as bad as vice versa. You see a larger person approaching and assume that
they are a danger, but perhaps they are extremely agile, are completely capable of avoiding the
other player and are going to do so. It's not fair for you to make a call before they demonstrate
otherwise. If there has been previous evidence otherwise, there should be a discussion before the
situation presents itself again. Stopping play just before it does is too late.

throws hat into the ring....

i myself have only seen it used twice, once with contact and once without

with contact was a brutal foul that made me wince (my own player did it) that resulted in the player being benched and discussions witht the other teams captain

the 2nd time was i poor use of the call and had i been older i would have called a spirit foul and asked the captain to deal with it

how i view the dp is simple

in the same box a spirit foul, meaning it is a special call not to be used often or lightly. like a foul +. the dp should not always necessitate contact (as kermit said i honk my horn prior to being hit). but like temple and other if there is no contact benefit of the doubt must be given

what constitutes a dangerous play: a situation involving ether a severe collision, or one where i felt i was danger (not meaning a defender is running at me, but where i felt scared) and finally and the bes use considering the arguments where no contact is involved but a opponent has displayed a potentially dangerous behavior which makes me uneasy. rather then calling it out on the field after the 2nd or third time (must establish pattern due to doubt) i would talk with their captain to find a resolution.. that system works very well

wowseanitwouldbegreat
ifyoucoulddevelopawritingstyle
thatwouldfullyreflectyourideas
whichmightinfactbeverygoodones
buthewayyouveleftthingsis
alittlebitdifficultformetounderstand

Running full speed under control does not equal a dangerous play. Running full speed out of control does.

Two weeks ago I had the only 'dangerous play' foul I have ever received called on me from the sidelines no less because I came in fast defending on a stationary player. I was in absolutely no danger of hitting her. I was yards away from her, I was just going full steam to get a line on the disc. Needless to say not less than 5 minutes later one of their players just clocked me from behind in what I would call an intentional foul that very rightly constituted dangerous play. If he didn't intend to hit me, then he had zero control. I was seeing stars.

Regarding women vs men, the rules aren't sexist, they apply to all equally.

I also like to point out that I often play Deep in the zone, and if I ever notice that somebody
(usually female) shies away from a disc because they hear me thundering towards them, I
make it a point to tell them that I won't hit them. Sometimes for a really swilly pass, I'll
tell them this as we're both going for the disc. I've noticed that this tends to comfort the
people that have been once bitten and twice shy, and they usually go for the disc.

Often people will play it safe and choose not to go for the discs that are contested. That's a
perfectly fine choice for them, but it's not a Dangerous Play. I equate it to those that choose
not to lay out for discs. They will be disadvantaged over those that choose to make the
slightly riskier play of laying out for a disc, but that doesn't mean that the rules should be
changed to remove that disadvantage. It's personal risk/reward, and that's the way it should
be. Naturally, I'm only talking about plays that involve full control and are not Dangerous,
there's no room for acceptance of truly Dangerous Play.

--

Last Summer my team Flikerish played another team three times. On the team was a small
girl that looked to be about 14. Naturally she must have been 19, because 14 y/o's don't play
League. ;) Well, the first game we zoned each other and a high swilly one went up deep to
this girl. As I'm running towards her I say something like "Don't worry, I won't clobber you."
She seemed to brace herself for impact and worriedly cried out "Yes you will!", and I rebutted
"No, I won't!". As you might guess, there was a lot of time under this hospital pass.
Naturally, being over a foot taller than her, and having plenty of time to get in position, I was
able to get the D, and did it very safely.

Throughout the rest of that game and each time we met, her team somewhat repeatedly kept
throwing it up to her deep against the zone (not the greatest strategy, as I used my huge
height advantage to get pretty much every one). I'd remind her each time we played, when
going for the disc that I wouldn't clobber her, and she was much more confident about going
for the disc. We had a pretty good (if lopsided) ongoing competition for the disc. The last
game we met, near the very end of the game, another long huck went up to her. This time,
she read the disc perfectly, boxed me out perfectly, and skied me for the point. She, and her
whole team went bananas. She was very proud of herself, she didn't get the disc due to some
sort of charity, she earned it. And I got to eat no small amount of crow from my team. :)

--

The moral of this long anecdote is that there's definitely no rule (or expectation) to stop me
from trying
my hardest against somebody much smaller than me, or even somebody who backs off 'just
in case'. However by communicating to that person and convincing them that they're safe, we
both had a much
better playing experience. It's funny, but one of my fondest memories of ultimate was
getting skied by a 14 y/o girl. :)

In response to post 42, I would like to remind everyone that THERE IS NO "SPIRIT FOUL"!
Things are done that are not very sporting, or are perhaps less than ethical, or that maybe aren't
much fun for everyone. These can be discussed after the fact in the hopes that they do not
happen again, but unless they contravene a specific rule they are not a foul.

Also, I second Pricky's point about writing. At the risk of being inducted into the grammar police,
I'd like to point out that you're writing to make a point. If people can't understand your point,
why write it? Punctuation and sentence structure developed for a reason.

Gin Boh, well there may not be a specific rule in ultimate which outlines a spirit foul as a violation the SOTG is very much a core value and principle of ultimate. when a player does something which is perhaps somewhat unspirited, yes you are correct it should be delft with on the sidelines. however there are very rare cases when an act so contrary to the SOTG occurs on the field that the spirit foul call is made to highlight then even so it is dealt with between the two teams and in some way shame the player in question. now this call does not cause a turnover or any other action on the field but i believe it is an important call in the game that should only be used during the most unspirited situations

"The corruption of the best becomes the worst" goes the old saying. What that means, in part, (IMO) is that attempts to codify what constitutes good and proper behaviour inevitably leads to the disaster of forcefullyy regulating our interactions with others, demanding obedience to rules, and taking away our free will to choose to behave with honour and respect. When this happens, we become do-gooding automatons and any positives we might see in our actions are nullified by the fact that 'rules' made us do it.

The more you make Spirit de rigeur, the less value it has, in a nutshell. Spirit demanded and enforced is worthless. The 'Spirit Foul' call devalues all of us who CHOOSE to play with spirit and makes our voluntary commitment to a common set of values a joke.

Now run away before I start quoting Ivan Illich and referencing the development of mandatory confession in the R.C. church during the Middle Ages!

I think if I ever heard someone actually say "Spirit Foul" during a game... well, actually, I have no idea how I'd actually react, although except for being caught so totally off-guard, I'd expect it to start with a big "bwahahahaha... oh wait, you're serious, aren't you?"

So, unless it was a call actually meant as a violation call directly related to I.B (... and in which case, it should be "violation", and not "foul"...), this call has no business being made to stop play.

I wonder if Sean could give an example of when he'd want to stop play due to a SOTG violation.