Stationary contact foul?

111 posts / 0 new
Last post

You're shoving a considerable volume of words into my mouth now.

If you have a speech to make, you can surely make it clear without conscripting me as the antagonist.

In my 14 years of league, and several years of competitive play I've never seen a defender call foul because the offense made contact with the person's arm who was guarding them. Also, I've never even seen a situation where I think a foul call of this type would be warranted.

On the flip side, I've been in games where defenders use their arms illegally on an almost constant basis. These fouls are often not called, mostly because there is often no advantage gained by making this call and stopping the offensive flow.

Off-topic, but it's not illegal to ride down the middle of the road as a cyclist. The exact wording of the section of the motor vehicle act in BC that applies reads thusly:

Rights and duties of operator of cycle

183 (1) In addition to the duties imposed by this section, a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle.

(2) A person operating a cycle

(a) must not ride on a sidewalk unless authorized by a bylaw made under section 124 or unless otherwise directed by a sign,

(b) must not, for the purpose of crossing a highway, ride on a crosswalk unless authorized to do so by a bylaw made under section 124 or unless otherwise directed by a sign,

(c) must, subject to paragraph (a), ride as near as practicable to the right side of the highway,

"As near as practicable" is the key phrase here, and that decision is left to the discretion of the cyclist.

"As near as practicable" is the key phrase here, and that decision is left to the discretion of the cyclist.

Wrong. "As near as practicable" is an objective standard, measured by the reasonable cyclist taking into account all the external factors (weather, road conditions, traffic, etc etc.) If your discretion is unreasonable you have broken the law.

Jon By Jon

Temple, you said "You can break no rules by using your arms to prevent a cut."

What about the one that everyone else is talking about here - reaching out and grabbing
someone as they cut past you? It sounds like you're encouraging everyone to play defense that
way, and then call foul on the cutter because they hit your arm.

@Fedex

As near as practicable can vary from rider to rider and day to day depending on experience, weather, time of day, etc, etc, etc as you have noted. What's practicable one minute, may not be the next. I don't know how one can assess whether any particular situation could be seen in universal terms. I don't see where in the Motor Vehicle Act section referenced your assertion is supported, but I'm not a lawyer either, so there you go.

We can take it to another thread in politics if you like, but I'm not going to continue the derail.

Jon: "Temple, you said "You can break no rules by using your arms to prevent a cut."

What about the one that everyone else is talking about here - reaching out and grabbing
someone as they cut past you? It sounds like you're encouraging everyone to play defense
that way, and then call foul on the cutter because they hit your arm."

--

Seriously? Are you really going to ignore the dozens (hundreds?) of times it's been said that
you can certainly break rules while using your arms to prevent a cut, but that using your arms
to prevent a cut is not *IN ITSELF* illegal?

I almost have trouble believing that your post wasn't a troll. How on earth could you have
read out of what I've written that I've even suggested that grabbing another player or other
'anything goes' actions when your arms are out are legal?

Grabbing another player is illegal. It's illegal regardless of whether you are using your arms to
prevent a cut or not. It is unrelated to using your arms to prevent a cut.

I'd be whole-heartedly behind any recommendation that says "using your arms to prevent a
cut is legal, but you have to make sure you don't violate any other rules (such as taking an
unavoidable position, grabbing another player, punching a player in the face, etc)"

However that's not what many have been saying. Many have been saying things to the effect
that 'people shouldn't use their arms to prevent cuts, because they may break other rules'.

The first is a good way to teach ultimate, the latter is a lazy-assed shortcut method of
teaching ultimate. It's passing the buck on educating people how to understand what is legal
and what's not.

Sorry everyone I can't let BikerCK have the last word on this drift - he is giving bad and perhaps dangerous advice.

BikerCK,

"I don't know how one can assess whether any particular situation could be seen in universal terms."

A reasonableness standard is applied in hundreds of courtrooms every day. Hey, bike anywhere you want, I just hope a bicyclist does not takes your advice that they have discretion to bike anywhere you want and I suggest you don't tell a motorist you have the right to bike anywhere you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

Even while I was typing this my google search found MacLaren v. Kucharek, 2010 BCCA 206. The Court of Appeal found cyclist 50% contributory negligent for not complying with 183(2)(c).

Even if you prefer the trial judges decision (which was overturned) NOBODY - not the trial judge, court of appeal or even the bicyclist was saying a bicyclist had discretion - they were arguing whether or not the bicyclist was acting reasonably to comply with 183(2)(c). The trial judge said yes, the court of appeal said - No. (interestingly - in this case, it seems the bicyclist did not move far enough left - i.e. he was correct to move out of the right lane but should have went behind the "through"/ "left lane" traffic rather than beside it)

I don't want to debate the merits of the decision, just point out that "as near as practicable" requires you to act reasonably. Everyone, you DONT have discretion to bike anywhere in the lane you want; it's not just obvious in the language the Act; it's common sense.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/10/02/2010BCCA0206.htm

"Everyone, you DONT have discretion to bike anywhere in the lane you want"

I'm not making that claim. My point is that 'practicable' varies from rider to rider and day to day and the situation.

BikerCK ""As near as practicable" is the key phrase here, and that decision is left to the discretion of the cyclist."

Me "Everyone, you DONT have discretion to bike anywhere in the lane you want"

BikerCK "I'm not making that claim."

...

I'm glad I helped educate you. Your welcome.

Pages