Stationary contact foul?

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Here's the situation:


- Poorly thrown high disk sort of near me

- I read the disk and position myself (stationary) between my defender and where the disk is going to ultimately be caught

- I use my arm to protect myself from being bumped by the defender

- I catch the disk

- Defender calls foul saying I can't use my arm to protect myself

- I look incredulous for a few seconds, argue a bit about the validity of the call, defender says doesn't matter: once a call is made I can only RTT if I contest

- obviously I contest and must RTT

- totally burn the guy the next throw for a score (talk about poetic justice)


What do you all think? Foul or no foul?


And my bigger question (regardless of the answer to the above), if you know that no rule has been broken do you argue or just RTT to resolve it later?


Thanks!

Sorry, I should mention that I looked in the rules and didn't see anything about using your arm, and if I was stationary the contact was a foul on the D

Someone pointed out in another thread that it's virtually impossible to change someone's mind on the field. So regardless of whether or not you know you're right, chances are they feel the same way, so your best resolution is going to be back to thrower.


Re: your original question, I'd say no foul, but that's based on the assumption that your arm was only protecting yourself and not being used against the D. Boxing out is cool, as long as you're playing the disc, as it is a foul to play the player and not the disc (XVI.I.8.a).

From my mental picture formed from your description, you're completely fine doing what you've done, you're playing the disc and aren't initiating contact. Now if you had've put your arm on his shoulder and pushed him away as he approached, that'd be a different answer, but just putting your arm out so they'd contact that instead of your sholder/chest, there's nothing wrong with that.


Somewhat similar situation to running down the field with a defender, chasing down a huck, both with arms/elbows slightly out and bumping each other making sure you each don't come too far into the other's space... legit and no foul. Pushing each other away by pushing your arms/elbows out more and harder is a foul.

wouldn't it depend on how "out" the arm was? Imagine playing the disc with the right arm up, while the left is straight out in the direction you are trying to box the defender. It doesn't seem right to me that one can be entitled to that much space.

you have the right to the space above you, not beside you. I can come up as close as I want before the disc comes down. If your arm stops/hits/interferes with me, it is a foul. (unless your arm is against your body)


From the description I see this as your arm bent 90 deg at the elbow and from the elbow to the shoulder level with the ground...definitely a foul.

Uncle_Buck, can you please point me in the direction of the rule for what you just wrote?


Thanks,


David

David, from your description, it appears that you made a blocking foul:


XVI.I.8. Blocking fouls:


a. When the disc is in the air, players must play the disc, not the opponent. A player may not move in a manner solely to prevent an opponent from taking an unoccupied position via an unoccupied path.


1. Contact resulting from playing the opponent is a foul on the blocking player.


2. If adjacent opposing players simultaneously vie for the same unoccupied position, the contact is considered incidental and is not a foul.



Sticking your arm out towards the defender sounds like you were moving "in a manner solely to prevent an opponent from taking an unoccupied position via an unoccupied path." Sure, you claim you were only protecting yourself with your arm, but from what? Ultimate is supposedly a non-contact sport, so you shouldn't have to be afraid of your defender running into you. If he hits your body (in an non-incidental way, of course), you can call a foul. Even if he was bearing down on you with incredible speed, would you really want to risk injury to your arm/wrist/hand, rather than absord the impact with your body?


Sure, you can argue that your arm was part of your 'occupied position', but this definition should take of that:


II.F. Legitimate position: Legitimate position is the stationary position established by a player's body excluding extended arms and legs that can be avoided by all opposing players when time and distance are taken into account.


It's a shame they don't use the words 'legitimate position' instead of 'occupied position' in the blocking foul rule, but I think most of us agree that the definition applies.

This seems to have been discussed before.


I think the key words are soley, and moving. The reference to II.F is not linked to X.VII.8 and is used in a different context, so doesnt apply.


I personally dont run and jump with my arms and legs all together like a toothpick, its unnatural.


Yes, Uncle_Buck's and Ian's posts are pretty much entirely incorrect (from the stand-point of the

rules).


Using your arms to box out your opponent (while also going for the disc) is not only legal, but

good receiving.


Putting an arm up that an opponent runs into with or without looking, so long as you didn't put

that arm into a truly unavoidable position, is perfectly legal, and is a foul on the initiator of the

contact.

As to whether it was a foul, see Temple's writings (not Buck's or Ian's). As for the validity of the call, it could be that the other player was looking at the disc and thought that your arm was pushing instead of remaining stationary, hence the foul call. Or, perhaps you weren't as stationary as you thought. It's very tough to tell from this side of the screen. Maybe the other player had a good reason to make the call, and you obviously disagreed, so it seems that it was resolved correctly.


As for on-field discussions, a very brief discussion can sometimes be useful, though mainly only to make sure that the parties involved know what the call is. If it becomes clear that a rule is being misapplied (or invented) it can be mentionned, but anything more than a few respectful sentences is best saved for the sideline.

Thanks for all the replies.


Gin-boh, I guess it depends on the definition of "stationary". Stationary like toothpick or Stationary as in feet planted and minimal movement except to box out? It was definitely more like the second (but I would think the rule XVI.8.a.2 would apply so it would be considered incidental).


D

"Using your arms to box out your opponent (while also going for the disc) is not only legal, but good receiving."



WTF ??????


So, if the disc is coming down, I can put my elbows up so you can't come within a foot or so of me? Temple, I think you are out to lunch this one.


OR


Going for the disc I can helicopter so I my arms take up a cirlce that is 6 ft in diameter that you can't enter (I am still going for the disc). Hell I could out sky Lugskin doing that.....


NOPE! If I get hit with an elbow or an arm I will call foul every time. this is why extended legs and arms are specifically excluded..


II. F. Legitimate position: Legitimate position is the stationary position established by a player's body excluding extended arms and legs that can be avoided by all opposing players when time and distance are taken into account.


Along with


XVII. B. Every player is entitled to occupy any position on the field not occupied by an opposing player, unless specifically over-ridden elsewhere, provided that no personal contact is caused in taking such a position.


This should be clear that your arms are NOT part of your legitimate position, therefore I AM allowed to be there and your arms are not. Hence a blocking foul.

"If I get hit with an elbow or an arm I will call foul every time."


But we're talking about you running into that person's elbow or arm. They didn't put it in an

unavoidable position, which means you *could* have avoided it, but *chose* to run into that

elbow or arm.


That's just stupid to *choose* to run into an elbow or arm, and that's your foul.


--


Your logic is so flawed it makes me want to laugh (or shake my head and point you at the

three times this has been discussed in the past year or so).


You're simply wrong, and I'll walk you through it if you care to listen.


Your flawed logic is as follows:


1) The definition of the term Legitimate Position does not count extended arms and legs.


2) A rule that speaks nothing of Legitimate Position (there are several that do) is governed

by the definition of Legitimate Position.


3) Therefore if somebody 'violates' the rule alluded to in 2), which has absolutely nothing to

do with Blocking Fouls, that person has committed a Blocking Foul.


Do you see how that argument you just made is absolutely out to lunch?


--


If you helicopter your arms in a circle, and hit me with them, it's your foul. If you run to the

disc like an airplane, and I hit your arms (which weren't put in an *unavoidable* position),

then it's my foul.


Either way, if you helicopter or airplane, I'd suggest that you'd be much easier to beat to the

disc. If you're wondering why there's no rule to outlaw using arms to restrict O movement,

it's because there's no real advantage in doing so.


For further reading I'll point you at the following threads. If you don't believe them, or me,

(Or Gin-Boh, or Mortakai, or Art, or Brian, or a number of other people that actually know the

rules), I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


Running w/ Arms Outstretched: http://www.vul.bc.ca/v3/forum/forum_message_display.cfm?

FirstMessageID=947


Mid mid blocking popers: http://www.vul.bc.ca/v3/forum/forum_message_display.cfm?

FirstMessageID=8416

Running w/ Arms Outstretched: http://www.vul.bc.ca/v3/forum/forum_message_display.cfm? FirstMessageID=947


Mid mid blocking popers: http://www.vul.bc.ca/v3/forum/forum_message_display.cfm? FirstMessageID=8416



These are completely different and I agree you can run with your arms out.


But the original post was about going up for the disc with one player sticking his arms out for protection, much much different. In the original post, the reciever is stationary, using his arms to block the defender (he even says so), if this is legal why dont we see more strait arms to get our defenders away while waiting for the disc to come down?

What we have here is a strict reading of the rules (Temple) and he is right in that reading and a person dealing with real situations (UB) and he is right in his way.


Not going to argue the rule, but in UB's defense, in reality if you have two people going for a disc - the O puts up an arm to hold off the defender, the defender will likely bump into it as they aren't expecting it there (eyes are up and likely just barely know where the O is so they don't run into them). No foul yet assuming the disc still hasn't arrived and O's ability to catch not yet hampered - D will likely adjust to the arms position and shift to one side or the other - still no foul - O though in most cases will adjust their arm and many times contact is made - incidental contact so not a foul for that EXCEPT that this contact stops the person from taking a legitimate position on the field. That's a real situation - an O player standing stock still with their arm out isn't common. So you are probably both right in your own ways. Temple is right on with regards to the rules as written - UB is right in a real game situation in which both the O and D are constantly adjusting to get position on a catch and other factors come into play than just the base rule being discussed.

Sorry Dodgy, I appreciate your playing mediator, but this isn't a semantics vs. real world

question. The Rules(tm) and How The Game Should Be

Played(tm) are in full agreement on what should happen.


I think you're putting words in Buck's mouth. Nothing in the scenario under discussion even

hints at the possibility that the person with the

arm up is guilty of a foul or violation. I'll remind you of the words he typed:


--


Temple: "Using your arms to box out your opponent (while also going for the disc) is not only

legal, but good receiving."


Buck: "WTF ?????? So, if the disc is coming down, I can put my elbows up so you can't come

within a foot or so of me? Temple, I think you are out to lunch this one."


--


Buck is specifically saying that using your arms to box a receiver out is not allowed. That's

completely wrong. And that's the only part (right now) I'm correcting. And boy does it need

to be corrected.


You can put your arms anywhere you want (in a receiving situation), so long as you're not

putting them in an unavoidable position, or solely blocking an opponent (thus not going for

the

disc *at all*).


Boxing out your opponent with your arms is very good receiving.

I agree with Buck, and I do know the rules.


You speak for Mort/Gin/RatArt now? I'd like to hear their input. I see Mort above, but I wonder if his response was in support of this further discussion, or only as a means to protect yourself from being run into.

So, Temple, if we are standing still waiting for the disc to come down (as in the original post) and you get my elbow in the chops it is your foul because you hit your chin on my elbow??


Boy, I can hardly wait to play you...... ;)


BTW: I memorized the rules when they where less than two pages long and have kept up ever since. In my twenty years of Ultimate I have never seen or heard of someone using there arms in such a way and then claiming it is legal.


I'll say it again, by your thinking I could STAND (not run) there and helicopter to keep you 3-4 feet from the spot WHERE THE DISC IS COMMING DOWN. Dont run into my arms, it will by your foul. This is just stupid and I cant believe you think this is good O.

It's easy:


- You move your elbow onto my chin = foul on you


- I move my chin onto your avoidable elbow = foul on me


- You move your elbow to an unavoidable location and I then move my chin on it (perhaps while running past) = foul on you


If you are helicoptering, this falls into category #1, and any contact would be a foul on you. If you were boxing out, this falls into category #2 and any contact would be a foul on me.


If I was running past and you moved your leg and I tripped over it, category #1 (foul on you). If I was running and you didn't move and I tripped over your leg, category #2 (foul on me). Unless of course I was an Italian football player then in both cases it would be a dive.


Hope that clears things up a bit.

Temple - I'll stand by my interpretation of the situation and not Buck's more detailed commentary and helicoptering sidebars.


At the end of the day - by the rules your are right boxing out is allowed. In practice boxing out with an arm will invariably lead to a foul on you as boxing out is an inherently mobile activity. Say the only motion is that you jump upwards - arm stays still relative to your body but on the way up it knocks my hand out of the way of making a play on the disc - foul on you - or it clips me in the chin - alternatively, I attempt to shift to the left of your arm and you move your arm to continue the box out - at this point your motion is solely to prevent me from taking that position as it does not improve your play on the disc....so many scenarios in using an arm to box out an opponent end in a foul on the boxer that it should be discouraged, also it would actually impede most peoples jumping ability to hold an arm out in a stationary position.

Buck, David re-iterated in very small words, very slowly, the right way to play. It's the way

the rules say you should play, and in anybody's common sense, it's the way we'd want to

play.


It's not a hard concept. I'm happy to explain further if you're still having trouble with it.


--


Dodger, you can stand by your interpretation of the situation you interjected, and you're right.

I'm sticking with what the conversation is on. Standing still with your arm out is perfectly

legal (so long as it's not unavoidable).


It sounds like you're saying that boxing out with the arms isn't legal if you hit somebody's

arm out of the way. Okaaay... nobody's disagreeing with that (I didn't think anybody was

discussing that), but that's not what I'd call boxing out, and fortunately it's covered very well

with a completely different rule.


Perhaps I should have been more clear: You can use your arms to block an opponent if

they're not put in an unavoidable position, it's not *solely* to block an opponent, AND you

don't then move them to cause another foul (and you don't break any of the other rules that

have nothing inherently to do with putting your arms out, AND you don't have spiked greaves

which would be illegal under unsafe equipment, AND you aren't standing on another O's

shoulders, etc, etc...).

Temple...you go overboard with your statement alot....I agree boxed out arm perfectly legal - until it moves - I haven't seen a person catch a disc without moving very often. That is my point - in theory it is allowed in practice it will lead to a foul. Buck is arguing, I think, the in practice line - you are arguing the one specific rule line and not allowing any other factors into play. I see two people who will argue in circles about different things without mediation.


I equate this somewhat to throwing fouls-99% are on D because they move and thus create the foul - if the D is in position AND doesn't move then there is no foul - but D almost always moves. A receiver also almost always move and the boxing arm will almost always move - sometimes it'll be incidental but often enough it will be a blocking or a receiving foul.

"A receiver also almost always move and the boxing arm will almost always move -

sometimes it'll be incidental but often enough it will be a blocking or a receiving foul."


I'd agree with the first clause, but your conclusion is what I disagree with. I'm disagreeing

based on the fact that I think your blanket statement that nearly all box-outs result in a foul

is off the mark.


Believe me I'm not arguing the letter of the rule solely, I'm saying that your blanket

statement is wrong, and using that statement in any way to suggest that boxing out

effectively is a foul by the boxer in practice is especially wrong.


You can move your arms all you want when you're boxing somebody out, so long as you don't

violate any rule (and quite often you don't).


If the only movement of your arms is away from the receiver, then you're in

no way causing a foul, if you hack somebody's hands with your arm, then of course it's a

foul.


How often do you either swing your arms backwards when you're boxing out, or keep

your arms airplaned when you're jumping for a disc, and thus striking the receiver's arms

from below (which would be a foul, agreed)? I'd suggest not very often. Well, I'd suggest that

most players almost never do that.


If you're constantly putting your arms between you and the other receiver (and not in an

unavoidable position), then you're forcing that receiver to go around your arms. Usually this

gives you plenty of time to catch the disc, without fouling them. The assumption that it

almost always leads to a foul is bunk.


Be aware also that (when the disc is in the air), the only way it's a blocking foul is if you

don't try for the disc *at all*.

I'm trying to catch up on the conversation here, and am having a hard time getting into it. Perhaps it's age, perhaps it's senility, perhaps it's age-related senility; regardless, I'm having a hard time decifering what's being argued about here (or if you prefer: "... being 'discussed' here").


The rules say: Whoever initiates contact is guilty of the foul. Notable Exceptions: dangerous play/harmful endangerment, incidental contact during follow-through, verticality, blocking (both 'solely' preventing someone from taking an unoccupied position and taking an unavoidable position), marker's extended arms/legs restricting a pivot or throw. (... have I missed any?)


Are any of the items being discussed above fouls or not? Simply apply the following two questions to the example and we can all answer any of them for ourselves: First, has someone initiated contact?; and second, are any of the exceptions met?


I'm happy to show you what I mean, and rather than making up an example for myself, give me a specific example and I'll run you through the thought.

Mortakai, I guess one way the original example can meet one of your exceptions, is if the receiver stuck out his arm, and the defender couldn't avoid it, and ran into it:


XVI.I.8. b. When the disc is not in the air, players may not take a position that is unavoidable by a moving opponent when time, distance, and line of sight are taken into account. Contact resulting from a player taking an unavoidable position is a foul on the blocking player.


I'm not saying that's what happened in the original example, but it's a possibilty, since he put his arm out to 'protect himself' and was anticipating an impact. I wonder if this rule could be used to call a blocking foul on a 'traditional' box out (without the arm). If the person boxing out stops abrubtly, the other player will run into him, initiating unavoidable contact.


Many of you have successfully picked apart my original posting, and I must concede that from a literal reading of the rules, you are right. However, is there an agreement that it's the 'way we all play?' I posed this scenerio to two elite level players (one of them an observer) at the hat tournament this past weekend. Both of them seemed to think that standing still with your arm straight out to your defender while boxing out is a blocking foul, using the 'legitimate position' argument. But as it's been demonstrated, that argument doesn't hold water.


Does anyone else agree that taking up extra space with your arm before going up for the disc gives an unfair advantage? Should the rules be changed/clarified to disallow this? Or is everybody happy with the way it is now? If anything, I hope we all agree that some clarification needs to be done in order to head off these discussions. Maybe in the revised rules that are coming out?

Temple,


Watch the average person jumping from a standstill - they lower their butt, drop their hands below _and behind_ them then push their hands upwards and drive their legs upwards at the same time. If you jump without lowering your body first and/or with your arms already in the air (one boxing out) you are significantly impairing your maximum potential height. I would infer that most people would strike another mark from below they were boxing out because they have to lower their center of gravity to have an effective jump.


If you are constantly putting your arm between you and the defender then you aren't likley watching the disc or you are likley fouling the defense as they will get to where they want to go before you adjust (adjustment is by definition reactive and would be a very slow reaction when you aren't looking at the defender).


Finally - it can be a blocking foul even if you try for the disc - if you are moving your _arm_ in a manner solely meant to restirct the other players access to an unoccupied position - it's a blocking foul - you can do this and also be making a play on the disc - the movement of your arm can be treated as independant of your other actions especially if you are using it to box out and not as part of your attempt to catch the disc.


"A player may not move in a manner solely to prevent an opponent from taking an unoccupied position "

Here's the rule:


"When the disc is in the air, players must play the disc, not the opponent. A player may not move in a manner solely to prevent an opponent from taking an unoccupied position via an unoccupied path."


The two interpretations...note: the terms (intended) receiver and defender are interchangeable.



1. If one assumes that "move" implies all motion of the player as long as they are playing the disc, then the entended arm is just one part of a greater 'general' motion involved in the play.



2. If the receiver's motions can be considered as separate - positioning body for the catch one motion, extending arm to solely to block opponent and give more space another, then I can see how the second motion (extending the arm) could be considered a blocking violation (assuming the intent was clear, which would be difficult to judge). The receiver wasn't using that arm for the catch, solely to block.



So, by "motion" do the authors of V10 imply any/all motion, or is there room to isolate extraneous arm motions solely to obstruct the other player? Aren't there other places in V10 that discount limb positioning relative to body core position?



Complicating the matter further, what if the receiver extended his arm out and up into the (potential) vertical space of the defender? The principle of verticality implies the receiver cannot restrict upward motion of the defender using his/her arm. But it the receiver had it there first, who's space is it?



DNC By DNC

????


This seems to be getting way too complicated.


Offenders and Defenders have the right to try for the disc, and to occupy free spaces on the field.


I think that intentional contact with arms and legs is not allow in this non-contact game.


Incidental contact may happen when people are in close quarters going for the disc.


Verticality is a clear rule, if you cannot impede someone jumping.


Positioning your body for boxing is ok, using arms to push someone away is not, crouching to jump is just incidental...


Ok, so i made no reference to the rules, but I think these r the intention behind the rules. We dont want people pushing at each other while playing.

To quote the rule that Dave "missed" (XVI.I.8.a.2)


"If adjacent opposing players simultaneously vie for the same unoccupied position, the contact is considered incidental and is not a foul"


Hopefully end of discussion.

I think too many people were watching world cup with all the boxing out with your elbows, body, etc.... Crazy amount of contact for a non-contact sport.

hey Dave, I'm not trying to confuse things, but to point out that IMO, the rule as written in V10, seems open to some interpretation. Perhaps it will be clarified in the next rev.


And to clarify my previous post (since editted): the terms 'receiver" (ie intended receiver) and 'defender', are interchangeable.

Reading the description of the incident and using common sense, I would say foul on David.


David is stationary and waiting for disk to come down. David decides to reserve the space around him by holding out arms. Defender complains that David is using arms to obstruct defender rather than to play disk during the wait time.


(I was not persuaded that David was protecting himself with arms. One holds arms inwards towards body to protect; holds arms outward for offense.)

Sleepy, I don't think there's any ambiguity in the rule:


XVI.I.8.A) When the disc is in the air, players must play the disc, not the opponent. A player

may not move in a manner solely to prevent an opponent from taking an unoccupied position

via an unoccupied path.


I see the only way to interpret that is to interpret the entire movement of the player *solely*

preventing...


Think about it, if you want to interpret the other way, then *any* movement a receiver

makes to gain position would be a blocking foul, as it was not necessary to catching the disc.


Boxing out is perfectly legal, and it's completely unnecessary to actually catching the disc

(only to give yourself a better chance at catching the disc by preventing your opponent's D,

just like using your arm would be).


In your words moving your body between your Opponent and where the floater is coming

down is not "using [your body] for the catch, solely to block."


No I think it's pretty clear that they mean, so long as you're going for the disc, you can keep

your position by boxing out in any way that doesn't violate another rule.


I see the rule as preventing a D from getting in the O's way so they can't attempt a catch, or

a third receiver preventing an opponent from going up for a catch his teammate is making.


--


Dodger,


I don't know what you're arguing. If you're saying that when people jump, it's possible that

they smack somebody behind them, sure everybody agrees.


If you're saying that when people box out with their arms, it's almost always a foul, I think

you're on your own.


When I'm coming on to a high floaty, I stick my arms out, I force the opponent to take an

extra 2 steps to go around (I have position on him, why shouldn't I have the advantage?),

and at the last second I bring my arms in and make my bid. I don't smash the guy behind me

if he's right there.


I dunno, maybe I'm just an amazing Ultimate SuperStar, though most would agree that I'm

not. Likely if lowly Craig Temple can consistently box out without fouling, others can too.


--


Finally, I'd suggest to everybody to not trust the word of an Elite Player/20 Year Vet/

Observer/Rules Committe Member blindly. Every one of those people (myself included) can

and will make mistakes interpreting the rules. If the person you're talking to can't explain

their position logically, and back it up with the rules themselves, then they're likely playing

by the old Conventional-Wisdom rules knowledge.


Further. Just because somebody has been playing Ultimate for only 5 months, doesn't mean

that they're not right about a rule interpretation and one of those people is wrong. So long as

they make a good case and back it up, there's often no seasoning necessary.

All of which is to say that UB is exactly right in his Legitimate position discussion.


To reiterate:


II. F. Legitimate position: Legitimate position is the stationary position established by a player's body excluding extended arms and legs that can be avoided by all opposing players when time and distance are taken into account.


XVII. B. Every player is entitled to occupy any position on the field not occupied by an opposing player, unless specifically over-ridden elsewhere, provided that no personal contact is caused in taking such a position.



The other player has a right to that position on the field. You are NOT entitled to prohibit them from being there simply because you don't want him to be. It's not where you are.


It's quite clear, I don't think the rules need to be clarified.

Temple: Yes, I'm aware of the implications of interpreting the movements independly, but I think obstructions with an unused arm could be interpreted differently.


In most cases one would need both legs, torso, head and at least one arm to make a high catch, so any positioning of those wouldn't *solely* be to obstruct the other player(s). If while in the process of bidding for the disk, one chooses to leave an arm uninvolved in the catch, and instead moves it *solely* for the purposes of obstructing other player(s), I think the obstruction call could be argued.


Further, the first part of XVI.I.8.A states "When the disc is in the air, players must play the disc, not the opponent". The fact that this is stated first, and the *solely* phrase second, says (IMO) that avoiding obstruction is most important, and the *solely* is more a clarification to allow for differing path choices to the disc.


IMO, putting an arm out to enhance the box-out separation is definately playing the player, not the disc.


--> No I think it's pretty clear that they mean, so long as you're going for the disc, you can keep your position by boxing out in any way that doesn't violate another rule.


I see the rule as preventing a D from getting in the O's way so they can't attempt a catch, or a third receiver preventing an opponent from going up for a catch his teammate is making. <--


That's a good paraphrase of the SRC's collective opinion.

Dug, all I'm going to say (for the 2nd time in this thread) is that the definition of the term

"Legitimate Position" doesn't apply to rules that don't use that term (there are several that

do

and they very specifically intend to apply to the body and non-extended arms/legs).


Legitimate Position is a specific term in ultimate, you cannot interject the english definition of

the words into that. Legitimate Position has special meaning in Ultimate beyond the word

"position". The definition of Legitimate Position does not apply to the word "position".


This isn't an omission, it's an intention. Please refer to these two threads which even Buck

has already

agreed correctly state that you can stick your arm out to prevent somebody from moving

through that area (so long as they're not in an unavoidable position):


Running w/ Arms Outstretched: http://www.vul.bc.ca/v3/forum/forum_message_display.cfm?

FirstMessageID=947


Mid mid blocking popers: http://www.vul.bc.ca/v3/forum/forum_message_display.cfm?

FirstMessageID=8416

Yes temple, I've read your posts, and paid note to the tone of your posts. Congratulations on trying to exclude as many people as possible by implying that anyone that disagrees with your INTERPRETATION of the rules is a moron.


A couple of pionts about the rules as they apply here. (in my opinion)


1) unless your arm is in a cast, me contacting your arm is at most incidental contact. It won't prohibit you from making a play on the disc, and in itself will not affect the outcome of the play.


2) If you try to straight-arm a defender (or offender) in motion, that's also by definition reckless. Straight arming someone is either going to hurt them, or yourself.


So even if you contend that it's not a foul to put your arm out (sure fine) then it's also not a foul for me to attempt to occupy that position.

/*...sound of dead horse being beaten...*/


Mort: Has the SRC has considered this particular circumstance (arm use in boxing out) directly and deemed it OK?

Well, the example I cited for them in our recent meeting in Montreal was this...


There's a striker going deep and a defender on his heels. The striker glances back taking note of the defender's position and adjusts a couple of feet to be more directly in his path (not unavoidable position). The striker slows down and airplanes his arms out so that the defender can't get through his body and would also need to go around/under (/through) his arms to get a better position. Then at the last second, the striker pulls his arms out of the airplane position, and sprints the last couple/three steps into a jump to sky the disc.


Our discussion/agreement went like this...


Because he was playing the disc all along, his airplane arms did not mean he was solely moving to block out the defender and rather was good positioning. If the defender chose to go through his arms (assuming they were not unavoidable) it's one of two things... (1) it's a foul on the defender because he initiated contact, or (2) it's not a foul because moving the arm out of the way did not affect the striker's ability to make the play and therefore was incidental contact. Which of the two depends on how the contact ended up and what it did to the striker's ability to make the play; it all depends on the specific situation.


Now to put it into "real" context... almost everyone on the SRC is a top-level club player and that's their perspective... remember that more contact is acceptable at this level and their tolerance to whether the contact affected the play is different than in our typical league games. I'd expect that most people in VUL league would call the foul on the defender, and many times the defender would contest and suggest that the striker shouldn't be sticking their arms out. ... BTT.

Dug, you're changing the argument, which is fine, but you're trying to change the words I've

been saying. You most recently had said:


"The other player has a right to that position on the field. You are NOT entitled to prohibit

them from being there simply because you don't want him to be. It's not where you are.


It's quite clear, I don't think the rules need to be clarified"


That statement is entirely wrong. You and others have been making that assertion repeatedly,

and it's absolutely

incorrect.


It's not incorrect because I say it's incorrect, it's incorrect because it's not true. If I say 2 + 2

= 5 is incorrect, and illustrate in great detail why it's incorrect then either you have to

disagree with my logic in illustrating that, or you have to agree that it's incorrect.


Imagine if I'd given up long ago, a new person would read this thread and see 3 people

adamantly saying that blocking somebody with your arms is not allowed, and one or two

people say it's allowed in passing, who would they believe? Probably you, and that's not good.

I'm not going to let that go, as I'd feel the existence of the thread would be doing actual

damage to the knowledge of the rules in the VUL, which is the exact opposite of the entire

purpose of this forum.


This is the Rules Forum, this is the place to get the Rules right. Even if it means doing so at

the expense of telling somebody who "knows the rules" that they're incorrect, even if it

means that person feels a little foolish for repeatedly championing the incorrect position.


If it sounds like I'm treating specific people like a "moron", perhaps it's

because of repeated insistence that that standpoint is correct in the face of very clear

evidence to the contrary...


I don't think you or the other people stating incorrect interpretations are morons, but I'd

consider abject refusal to admit being wrong after

repeated evidence against your position is given in great, yet simple detail to be a bit foolish.


Also, I've never said that contact is always a foul (but in the OP it certainly sounds like it was

a foul on the crasher), if you

want to argue that fictitious position of mine, then I'll concede you your 'out' and let you win.


I do hope that the participants on this

thread that were so adamant about their incorrect interpretations (who've gone strangely

silent after being brow-beaten with the repeated evidence of the correct interpretation by

several people) are going to choose to believe that you can stick your arms out, and change

their understanding of the rules to accept this reality. I would hope that Dugly, Sleepy, and

Uncle_Buck wouldn't simply choose to ignore this thread and continue playing against their

own incorrect version of the rules.

Temple, I appreciate your committment to getting it right. However, you may, from time to time, have to excuse those of us who choose to trust a collective opinion more than a single emphatic one.



And so this is just a discussion. The fact that a similar example was brought to the SRC suggests that maybe it needed to be discussed somewhere (although perhaps not again here). And under the circumstances, 'correct' and 'incorrect' seem a bit strong.


But don't you see that if one person (there are at least 3 in this thread) is saying one thing is

correct, AND logically backing that up with evidence that you have no counter to, then

perhaps you should realize that regardless of the percentage of people that share your

opinion, your argument for your opinion simply holds no water?


Discussion is great, adamant refusal to accept points that you cannot refute is not great.


In this case, I'd be all for the rules stating it more clearly (well, I've talked about this before:

simply remove the definition of Legitimate Position, and exclude extended arms and legs

where necessary).


However, you're deluding yourself, and doing yourself and those you play an injustice by

thinking that a player being allowed to put their arms out to block somebody (if not

avoidable, or *solely* to block while the disc is airborne) is not in any way the correct

interpretation of our rules.


If you don't 100% agree right now that you're allowed to put your arms out, and others are

not entitled to run through them, then more discussion is warranted.

You know, with all due respect to Mort-ified and the SRC, not every eventuality is going to be covered in black-and-white. We'd have to see this play to see if Mr. Arm-Out was truly stationary and not deliberately blocking someone. It could be that it was not his foul. It could also be that it was his foul. But we'd have to see it.


David said his arm was out. Well, was it out the way a point guard in basketball touches his check (arm bent, and in this instance, not yet touching anyone), or was it out the way a running back straightarms a linebacker? Was it extended? Was it shoulder high or waist high? Was it this action that initiated the contact? So many things might be relevant to this situation that 101 posts won't shed any light on it...


Sometimes, the worst people to have involved in determining the outcome of the play are the players themselves. The player (busy watching the disc) might feel contact but not be able to accurately describe how it happened. The players might not be accurately aware of their own body position. (How often have we been sure we weren't moving when we certainly were...) The players will react emotionally, and they can only react subjectively. In some cases (not all, not most, but some cases) this is a recipe for a bad call to be made.



True enough, and I don't think anybody's arguing a propper resolution of the OP (without

qualifying their statements).


The vast majority of the posts on this thread centre on the question:


Can a player stick their arms out and prevent another player from moving through that space?


With the appropriate conditions (availability and not solely blocking), this is allowed.


After only 40 some-odd posts it seems like the Semi-Anual Can-You-Use-Your-Arms Debate is

coming to a close.

But according to Temple none of this matters this is black and white. You can have your arm anywhere you want and there are no arguments that can refute that.....Temple - this is why I went silent - not because I believed you were 100% correct but that fighting you on this issue was useless. My point is/was much the same as Art's, that there are many instances when holding that arm out is a foul on the blocker and as such it's not something we should recommend or even purport to say is ok according to the rules....because some dope is going to come along read all your insistent posts and then ram his arm into someones gut and think it's allowed - he/she won't have read the rules and understood them but instead will have read your position on a very tightly defined situation and extrapolated it to cover all others. That's not your fault but you definitely don't help the situation by being so adamant....


Finally, Mort's exampe with the SRC needs adressing - first it isn't really equivalent to this situation - I see the OP as describing a couple of players waiting for a disc to come down and are jostling for position in pretty much one spot not running in a line....second even given the exampel they did get the answer came down as, to paraphrase, 'it depends' upon the circumstances. Not nearly as black and white as you make it Mr. Temple, Rules Guru, Sir.

What starts out as extending the arms sideways, which is not a foul, often lead to escalation and overly aggressive use of the arms during a hospital pass situation. People do not just hold out their arms like a statue. When an opposing player comes alongside, usually the arms get more active and aggressive which causes the foul. One player feels that he is being pushed out of the way by an extended arm; while the other player thinks he has the right to box out by letting his arms do the work of boxing out.

I tend to think think of it as combination of both "it depends" and a "black/white rule". The black/white rule is about as good as we can expect from a written statement (i.e., the rules). The application of the black/white rule comes from each unique situation (i.e., it depends).


The rules are there to provide guidance on as many common situations as possible, while trying to keep them simple enough to be short and understandable... and therefore cannot encompass every possible scenario. That's our responsibility to learn and understand the rules and the intent so that we can then appropriately apply them to the unique situations.


I believe the "problem" is that relatively few learn and understand the rules, but rather take and rely on information inferred from specific examples/calls/resolutions on the field and applying that to other different examples/calls. Which without understanding the fundamental logic inherent in the rules will often result in incorrect and/or unintended resolutions.


Is there a solution? It's a difficult one unless everyone takes responsibility to learn and understand the rules... but then some also believe it's possible to get blood from a stone.

Here's something else to ponder. If a blocking foul is called, what is the outcome? If it's contested, it looks like this applies:


XVI.C. If a dispute arises concerning a foul, violation, or the outcome of a play (e.g., a catch where no one had a good perspective), and the teams cannot come to a satisfactory resolution, the disc is returned to the thrower and put into play with a check, with the count the same or at six if over five.


Ok, BTT. But what if it's uncontested? The bit about the fouled player gaining possession at the spot of the infraction is listed under Receiving Fouls (XVI.I.7.). Under Blocking Fouls (XVI.I.8.), there is no mention of what to do if it is uncontested. Should it be treated like a receiving foul? Fouled player gets possession? Back to thrower doesn't seem fair... if D was blocked from getting to the disc by O, and they both agree that it was a block, then O retains possession?

The problem with adamant positions is that they're usually only right under some very very strict circumstances. There are certainly situations where the description given would be a foul in either direction. As Mort and others have pointed out, there are many factors which simple black and white don't describe. It's the combination of these factors, in conjunction with the rules that lead to our understanding of what constitutes a foul in a given situation.



Temple, your assertion that you're being logical is at least condescending, and more likely just simply wrong. You should realize that ALL rules apply in ALL situations. Just because a given rule does not refer to another rule does not mean that the other rule isn't also in effect at the time. When someone discusses that other rule, it's ignorant of you to assume that they're discussing what you believe is the prohibition in effect.


Of course everyone here agrees that 2+2 = 4, but a+b only sometimes = 4, and sometimes doesn't. You wish to define a=2 and b=2, but don't realize when other people are saying a = 5 and b=7. You continue to argue that a2+b2=4, when others are saying a5+b7 = 12. Then you go on to say how stupid people are for not agreeing that 5+7 = 4



I tend to agree with your interpretation of "solely" as applied to blocking, but obviously we disagree on other circumstances. Does that make everyone else (those that disagree) wrong? Not necessarily.



You do a terrible disservice to the sport of Ultimate with your inflexibility, and I hope that people who read through this thread will take from it Mortakai's points about flexiblity, rather than your assertion that it's OK to straight-arm your opponents in all cases.

Pages