Marker Fouls

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

So here's the rule I found in the 11th addition to the rules:

Disc-space is defined as follows:

If a line between any two points on the marker touches the thrower or is less than one disc diameter away from the upper body or pivot of the thrower, it is a disc space violation. However, if this situation is caused solely by movement of the thrower, it is not a violation.

So with the rule above states "However, if this situation is caused solely by movement of the thrower, it is not a violation." does it mean not a violation on the thrower or the marker.

So here's the situation:

Marker established a STATIONARY legal position to the thrower. Disc space has been made from torso to pivot foot. Thrower moves non-pivoting foot back to fake, creating more space between them, marker comes in to thrower, thrower moves non-pivoting foot forward and into marker to make throw. marker calls foul. Thrower contests it's not a foul.

Based on this rule, what is the call with the above play? or is there another rule that applies?

Rule XIV.B.3 has nothing to do with fouls of any kind; it just defines the "disc space" marking violation.

For throwing fouls, consult rule XVI.H.3.a.

The above play may have been a throwing foul on the thrower (that is, the thrower's fault). There is some missing information, and certain nuances, of course, preventing me from pronouncing a firmer opinion.

atanarjuat, you missed II.I and XVI.H.3.a.2 and .3

--

II.I) Legal position: A position established by a marker that does not violate any of the
provisions outlined in XIV.B.

XVI.H.3.a.2) In general, any contact between the thrower and the extended (i.e., away from
the midline of the body) arms or legs of a marker is a foul on the marker, unless the
contacted area of the marker is completely stationary and in a *legal position*.

XVI.H.3.a.3) Any contact that occurs due to the marker setting up in an illegal position
(XIV.B.3) is a foul on the marker.

--

XIV.B.3 is quite relevant to Thrower/Marker fouls.

As for the situation described (which doesn't have to match what really happened), if the
Marker was stationary in Legal Position (as per XIV.B.3), then any contact between the
Thrower and Marker which affects play is a foul on the Thrower.

If, however, the Marker was no longer in Legal Position (or if the part of the Marker that was
contacted was in motion, even if otherwise legally positioned), then it would be a Foul on the
Marker.

From the scenario described, it is unclear whether the Marker is still in Legal Position after the
"marker comes in to thrower". Remember, the Marker is only in Legal Position when all parts
of his body are 1 disc width away from the torso *and* pivot (plus the other 'straight line'
criteria of XIV.B.3). If the Marker leans to within a disc diameter of the vertical line above
the pivot, they are not in Legal Position.

Does that make more sense -C-?

"atanarjuat, you missed II.I and XVI.H.3.a.2 and .3"

No, I did not, thanks; that's why I referred to them, albeit not in meticulous detail.

Uh, ok.

atanarjuat: "Rule XIV.B.3 has nothing to do with fouls of any kind; it just defines the "disc
space" marking violation."

That statement is flat-out wrong. XIV.B.3 has a lot to do with Marker/Thrower fouls especially
in the way that -C- was referring to it. In fact it's probably the most relevant rule in
determining if it was a Thrower foul or a Marker foul.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you missed the relevant rules
which make that statement flat-out wrong (I quoted them for clarity). If that wasn't the case,
then it appears you read and misinterpreted those rules, or you were joking when you wrote
the above, or some other explanation entirely.

Regardless of why you wrote that, the important point is that XIV.B.3 is quite relevant, as -
C- had suspected, and others reading your post should know what you wrote was incorrect.

I was over-emphatic because it seemed to me that -C- just happened to be looking at the wrong section. That is, you won't find anything about fouls in the marking violations rules.
I should have said, "Rule XIV.B.3 does not address fouls of any kind."

atanarjuat: "I should have said, "Rule XIV.B.3 does not address fouls of any kind.""

...but is the exact rule you need to look at when determining Marker/Thrower fouls, because
it is required when addressing those Fouls.

atanarjuat: "That is, you won't find anything about fouls in the marking violations rules."

At first glance, that may appear to be the case, but that is wrong. XIV.B.3 contains key
criteria for determining Marker/Thrower fouls. It is referenced by the Throwing foul rules and
as such the criteria in XIV.B.3 are a *part* of the throwing fouls rules. Without XIV.B.3 you
cannot interpret the relevant foul rules.

-C- didn't even refer to the rule itself, he referred to the criteria within the rule that was
exactly applicable to the Foul scenario.

atanarjuat: "I was over-emphatic because it seemed to me that -C- just happened to be
looking at the wrong section."

He was looking in exactly the right place. XIV.B.3 is the right place.

There was no validity in what you wrote, it served only to distract him and others from what
was in fact the correct resolution to the scenario.

Please don't confuse people.

Re-visiting this topic....

marker made contact with thrower's arm AFTER throw was made...foul?

Nope, as the contact did not affect the play (ie: the throw was successfully released).

"marker made contact with thrower's arm AFTER throw was made...foul? "

Well, it COULD be a foul in a general sense (it may be contact that affects continued play), but it would be unrelated to the throw (the infraction did not affect THE play).

XVI.C.1. For calls made by the thrower:
...
(c) If the infraction occurred after the throw was released, the call is considered to have been made by a non-thrower (XVI.C.2).

"Well, it COULD be a foul in a general sense (it may be contact that affects continued play), but it would be unrelated to the throw (the infraction did not affect THE play). "

Totally correct... although in case this isn't clear to everyone, allow me to ramble...

It's not a 'throwing' foul, because it didn't affect THE play, but if it affects the thrower's ability to continue play --- e.g., threw them off balance or made them wince... both of which may take a second or two to recover from --- it would still be a _general_ foul. They wouldn't get the throw back if incomplete, but play would still stop and they would be allowed to recover before play continued.

It's the same thing about receiving fouls. Yes, the receiving contact may not have changed the outcome of the play (already sailing out of bounds, or way overhead with no hope to catch it)... but if the person is contacted in a way that they need time to recover balance or something similar, then it's still a _general_ foul... they just are not awarded the disc.