'XYZ' fouls I have known

37 posts / 0 new
Last post

I'm so tired of the 'bounced off' post that we have to get something else going. anybody got any decent stories to recount about fouls you've seen? Funny ones? 'Never see again in a million years' ones?

--> I'm so tired... <--

[I *was* going to stop you right there and make some kind of age-related comment... then I realized that I might be on the 'older' side of the fence.]

I'll let you figure out what category to put this one in...

Marker fouls the thrower during either the wind-up or the throw, where the thrower is knocked off-balance because of the contact. As a result, the pivot foot is either lifted or the thrower side-shuffles a little to regain their balance as they throw.


... thoughts?

I've got another one:

Thrower receives the disc near sideline, with a few people around (I think it was a zone, but it could have been a messy reset -- can't remember), sees someone striking and winds up for a long backhand huck. Defender who near the thrower is moving to catch up with his check. As he moves by the thrower, he gets clocked in the side of the jaw by the back of the thrower's hand, basically knocking him to the ground. Happened on Sat at practice. He lived, but ouch. Foul on the thrower (dangerous play)? Foul on the defender (he moved into the thrower's space)? Or just time for a beer?

I got an interesting one that made me laugh:

We were playing in a game a couple weeks ago and while we were on defense, playing a zone style defense, we were broken by a throw up the field, by the time our defenders got to the person with the disk, they couldn't figure out which was suppose to take the thrower and which two were suppose to back off and form the "cup" so two of them got relativley close until one called it and the other backed off. The thrower got upset and threw the disk to the ground and chastized the player who was within the ten feet. Granted she is learning the game and I do believe people should learn the rules, so I do not question his calling of the foul for double teaming and I wouldn't have minded if he just simply explained the rule rather than chastizing her over it. What I am wondering is, should our team have called a turnover because he threw the disk to the ground in his disgust over the incident? I didn't have the guts to do it cause I could have just seen the argument that it would have set off, but wouldn't that technically be a turnover?

I say absolutely call a turnover. It's also important to say it with a shit-eating grin as well.

He'll contest groundlessly and he'll get the disc back. But it will piss him right off and maybe,

just maybe, the jerk will quit ultimate for all the aggravation it causes him.

Under the "never in a million years" category, see the "8 on the line" thread.

I think it's all about perception - in the incident that Mike describes above, the player in question didn't mean to "throw the disc down in disgust" but rather pause play to help a new player understand the rule about double-teaming. He had called the double-team several times that point and felt the need to explain it after the cup kept double-teaming.

I talked to that player after the point and he was surprised to hear that the other team found the pause in play unspirited. I was also surprised to hear that he thought Mike's comment on the field was "rude and snarky" (his words) since I perceived Mike's comment completely differently. For reference, Mike's comment on the field was "thanks for the update." Personally, I thought Mike was saying "okay thanks for telling that person about the rule, now let's play ulti" but it wasn't seen that way by a couple of my teammates.

I guess my point is that it's really all in your perception of what happened. Someone on the board has a quote about there are three sides to an issue - person A's side, person B's side and the truth. I'm sure their quote is more eloquent though :P


Yes I did say that we were thankful for the update. There is really nothing much else to say when a person unilaterally decides to stop a game by placing the disc on the ground and then talk down to a player who is learning the game.

I don't want this incident to escilate any further then it already has, because to be honest the captain of the opposing team is a class act and handle the situation as best he could. In fact the rest of the team were a delight to play against and even the players on their team who were learning were keen to hear any tips or suggestions.

This incident though was a first for me. In a game where possession is everything I have yet to see someone throw the disc to the ground.

Can you explain what you mean by 'talk down to a player who is learning the game." This line can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Exactly what was said.

I am only asking, because there are a few place people would of thought they 'talked down to me' when I don't think they did.

It could also bring in a lot of other different view points and maybe it was even needed to be done.

I just want to get the situation right before I comment.

i was there, the dude was clearly frustrated, and he definitely threw the disc to the ground and spoke/gestured in a harsh way.

no time out called? no stoppage in play? disc thrown to the ground? turnover. period.

if he was concerned with a systemic problem whereby he was getting double teamed all the time: time out; talk to captain; game on.

but hey, that's just me talkin'.

"Thrower receives the disc near sideline, with a few people around (I think it was a zone, but it could have been a messy reset -- can't remember), sees someone striking and winds up for a long backhand huck. Defender who near the thrower is moving to catch up with his check. As he moves by the thrower, he gets clocked in the side of the jaw by the back of the thrower's hand, basically knocking him to the ground."

This exact thing happened in a game I was playing in a few years ago. Except that in this case, the defender got a nosebleed.

Which, we found out the next day, actually was a broken nose (!)

You run within arms reach of somebody that you know is going to be swinging his arm quite fast,

and you take the risk that you're going to get clocked.

It's no foul and I can't think of a reason why it should be.

It's no different from getting a disc in the mouth, or twisting an ankle. It's unfortunate, but it's

part of the risk of playing the sport.

Now a thrower recklessly throwing into somebody that they see is there is another story, and I'd

call that a dangerous play foul. However there is no onus on the thrower to avoid players they

cannot see.

Not that I disagree with you Temple, but I would really like to see this rule clearly defined. In other sports, such as hockey, accidently hitting somebody with your stick is still your fault, whether you meant to or not. In that you are responsible for your stick, and I know that this is not a different sport, but it would be nice to see it clearly defined that if it is incidental contact and not intentional that it is not a foul.

yes, but in hockey, if you hit someone with your stick on a follow through of a shot, it is no penalty. There is a difference between careless stickwork and stickwork that is a result of a motion on the playing object.


And Mike, it can't be more clear in the rules, as has been described above:

XVI.I.6) Although it should be avoided whenever possible, incidental contact occurring during the

follow-through (after the disc has been released) is not sufficient grounds for a foul, unless the

contact constitutes harmful endangerment.

I don't see a part of that rule that can be made more clear what is not allowed. When you try to

define something like "harmful endangerment" in specific terms, all you do is limit its scope.

What about if the thrower is simply making a wild fake and not actually in the act of throwing the disc?

Assuming the thrower hit the other person and not vice versa or both hit each other at the same



Generally anytime you hit somebody it's your foul. There are some exceptions, I just quoted one

of them.

It's pretty clear that the exception doesn't apply to a fake.

quote - However there is no onus on the thrower to avoid players they cannot see.

That's a load of crap in my humble opinion. That's like saying a receiver can bowl someone over as they're catching a disc, because they did not 'see' the person. It's the responsibility of all players to avoid contact.

The definition of incidental generally involves 'minor'. Minor contact does not break someone's nose, or give them a concussion. Note, as you've said many a time, fouls are not intentional. So a thrower who 'smokes' someone on a follow through can have a foul called against them. If the thrower believes the defender put themself in a position 'to be hit' then they contest.


"That's a load of crap in my humble opinion. That's like saying a receiver can bowl someone

over as they're catching a disc, because they did not 'see' the person. It's the responsibility of

all players to avoid contact."

No actually it's not one bit like saying a receiver can bowl somebody over they didn't see.

The two situations are completely different, and there are completely separate rules that

govern each.

As a receiver, you're entitled to the space that isn't occupied. The onus is on you to look and

be aware of which space you can take.

As a thrower you're entitled to throw in your space. The onus is on everybody else to avoid

that space.

If you run up behind me and I hit you as I'm throwing, you've committed a foul

against me.

If that doesn't convince you I'm happy to explain thoroughly why it is the case. All you have

to do is show the rule that you think says it's the thrower's foul, and I'll happily debunk your


I recently heard about a co-ed game one time where a team was cupping and one specific handler would start breathing louder and louder faster and faster (almost like a countdown) before he would launch it as hard as he could directly at the heads of the cup as a means of throwing the deep pass...the cup had no choice but to just duck and get out of the way, they didn't even want to put their hands up to knock it down.

Is there any kind of call on this?

Yes two calls on it:

1) Bad defense.

2) Asshole thrower (maybe, it's possibly just a bad thrower).

On defense your job is to stop the disc. If somebody's throwing so hard that you don't want to

put your hand in front of the disc, you're playing bad D. That's OK though. Sometimes it's

better to play bad D than hurt yourself.

As a thrower he's an asshole if he was throwing at the cup intentionally, and I'd say you have

a case for dangerous play (*only* if you truly beleive it is intentional, even then expect a

contest and justly so).

However, if he wasn't *trying* to hit the cup, say just completely oblivious to the cup, then

he's just a bad thrower.

If he was not trying to hit the cup, but betting that the D would just not want to get in the

way because he's throwing so hard, then there's still nothing wrong with that. If he's doing

this in a 'fun' game, he may be playing above the level of the game, but certainly within the


Think about it with common sense:

The throwers job is to throw it to his teammates. Sometimes they're far away and he has to

throw hard (please don't lets suggest that throwing the disc hard is against the rule).

The cup is intentionally using their bodies to *get in the way of the throw*. A big part of the

cup's job is to block the hucks.

Why would there be a foul here? I sympathise that the cup may not have been told exactly

what their job is, probably they were just told to "follow the disc with your arms up", but

that's the job. Don't play the position if you don't want the job.

There's no rule that says the thrower can't throw close to the D.

It was hard to find Temple. I mean...

I. Fouls: A Foul is the result of physical contact between

opposing players that affects the outcome of the play.

1. It is the responsibility of all players to avoid contact in

every way possible.

Note that it does say all players. That means the defensive player should be trying to avoid contact, and the thrower should be trying to avoid contact. Please show me where it says a thrower isn't a player.

6. c) Although it should be avoided whenever possible, incidental

contact occurring during the follow-through (after

the disc has been released) is not sufficient grounds for a

foul, unless the contact constitutes harmful endangerment.)

So, unless you're saying a punch to the head is incidental, I don't see where it says contact is allowed.


Matt, I guess I had trouble beleiving that that was your position. However it sounds like you

truly beleive,

so I'll elucidate.

First off, I'd have a hard time beleiving that it's the thrower that is initiating contact to the D

that's running by, but I suppose there may be a situation where the D might sneak up to the

thrower's blind-spot and sit there quietly and then get smacked. In this case the thrower

would be initiating contact. Otherwise, they're both causing the contact.

In either case:

I.E) General vs. Specific Rules: Many of these rules are general in nature and cover most

situations of play. However, some rules cover specific situations and override the general


XIII.C) The thrower may throw the disc in any manner and in any direction.

XVI.I.6.A) A throwing foul may be called when there is contact between the thrower and the

marker. The disc in a thrower's possession is considered part of the thrower.

XVI.I.9) Strip: No defensive player may touch the disc while it is in possession of an

offensive player. If a defensive player initiates contact with the disc, and the offensive player

loses possession as a result, it is a strip. A strip is handled in the same manner as a foul, but

an uncontested strip in the end zone is a goal.

Now you may say that if it was the hand that contacted the D and that D was not actually

covering the thrower and thus not a "marker", then the rules don't apply.

That argument would be wrong for the same

reason it would be wrong if it was used to argue that the D running by the thrower could put


hand in the way of the throw and block the throwing attempt while the disc is still in the hand

(somehow not initiating contact, and not touching disc). That is a foul as

much as the D accidentally blocking the throw with his head is a foul. Whether the D

intentionally blocked the throw or not is irrelevant, and the body part the (moving) D used to

block the throw is also irrelevant. From a rules standpoint both scenarios are exactly the


I'd think there's a

pretty solid argument that when a D physically blocks the throw while the disc is still in the

throwers hand, then they are (intentionally or not) marking the thrower.


However, the very solid foundation in the rules of the right outcome can just as easily be

backed up by common sense. The thrower is allowed and expected to throw the disc. Under

no circumstances is the thrower ever expected to make sure that they won't hit somebody

running up behind them before throwing. If that were the case, then the thrower would be

expected to do that *every* time they throw. This is not part of our sport. And I see no holes

in the rules that don't support that.

Now I'm confused. I'm talking specifically about a thrower's follow through hitting a player, not the disc hitting a player.

My point/belief is that all players should avoid contact (which is the very first 'rule' in the Foul section). So if as a thrower, you have a big follow through, it's your responsibility to ensure no player (marker or not) is in the area where you'll be swinging. As it is the player's responsibility to avoid putting themselves into a position to be hit. However, these things do happen (contact) and my understanding of the rules, is in this situation the player that got hit can call a foul (contact, of a significant level - i.e. not incidental). If the thrower believes there was no foul (i.e. it was incidental, or the player invaded my space, etc.) then they contest.

My previous understanding of your position was that the player that got hit cannot call a foul, because the contact is either 1) incidental) or 2) they invaded the throwers space, removing all onus from the thrower (i.e. the rules regarding avoiding contact apply more to one player than another). However, with your last post I'm wondering if we're even on the same page (I wasn't talking about the disc hitting a player).


Hmm...from what I gathered of the situation the breathing thing was a way of letting the cup know that a bullet was coming directly at them so based on your above post it was an asshole thrower. I'm not sure who the poor person was that had to learn the first time that the breathing was a warning,

It was a lower level game, this was his way of playing against the cup, from what I gathered he was sending a hockey players message...if you want to play cup on me, you're going to pay the price. And pay the price you would, if you imagine someone standing 10 feet away and hucking a disk at you, I would argue that you won't have time to react to where the frisbee is going ie. it would be like the poor soccer goalie in a shootout..you cover your nuts and it shatters your nose...you cover your nose and you can no longer have kids. I'm not even sure that in the case of a thin girl if she stuck her forearm out that it wouldn't break her arm (it was an all girl cup that he was doing this to)

The concept itself seems like it would qualify as a dangerous play...its grey though.

Intuitively it seems wrong simply because its against the SOTG, a bit of a win at all costs attitude.

'And Mike, it can't be more clear in the rules, as has been described above:

XVI.I.6) Although it should be avoided whenever possible, incidental contact occurring during the follow-through (after the disc has been released) is not sufficient grounds for a foul, unless the contact constitutes harmful endangerment.'

Temple, I guess I was missing something, I thought we were talking about hitting someone while you are pulling back to make your throw since the person describing the incident said that the defender was coming from behind. I didn't think we were talking about the follow through which would be after you have already released the disc. Sorry, my bad.

Mike my explanation to canuck is the answer to your question.

iamcanuck, funny I was talking about what Mike was talking about, which is what I assumed

you were disagreeing with.

Well, my explanation to him is the exact answer to your question, and vice versa (I'm not

sure which of us caused the confustions, but will hapily accept that fault).

Mike nicely requoted the appropriate rule about follow-through. With follow through there

should be no ambiguity.

If it's reckless endangerment follow-through (use your common sense), then it's a foul.

However, I don't see how it could possibly be reckless endangerment to follow through a

normal throw and hit somebody that was running up behind you that you didn't see.

I think that's pretty obviously the runner's fault for running so close to the thrower and just an

unfortunate accident.

There is no onus on the thrower to make sure nobody's going to be running behind them

before they throw. Practically every backhand huck in our game ends with a thrower's hand

following through

behind them. It's part of our sport, and is not reckless.


Sounds like we agree. Unfortunately there's no rule against being a prick. There may be a

case for a dangerous play foul, but it really won't solve anything as it would most likely be

contested and cause a big pain in the ass. Speaking to the captain could work, but if he feels

he's not being dangerous then he's within his rights to play that way.

Unfortunately, beyond calling the

dangerous play, the best thing you can do if you're worried about safety and both sides

disagree about whether it's dangerous is to not play.

As to the speed of the throw. I can't really imagine it was any harder than an average long

huck. I don't imagine he was launching it much more (or up to) a full 100 yards every time,

so it sounds like it's your standard long huck. If you've got somebody in cup, whos job it is to

put their body in front of hucks, and that would cause them to have a broken arm if they

were successful in a normal huck block, then they probably shouldn't be in the cup...

I think we're on the same page now, lol.

I still disagree with your statement that there's no onus on the thrower as I believe it's all players' responsibility to avoid contact, but I will agree that the majority of the responsibility is on the defender (as they should recognize a normal throw and allow for that, as you mentioned). All players should be aware of their surroundings, and play accordingly.

"All players should be aware of their surroundings, and play accordingly."

Think of it this way if it helps:

Throwing a backhand and following through behind you without looking is playing accordingly.

Otherwise nearly every backhand thrown in all of ultimate is not playing accordingly.

It's part of our sport.

It's like walking 3 feet behind a horse. You probably will be alright, but when you get smoked

it's your fault. You either walk right behind it, or 10 feet behind it.

Do you agree that it is the responsibility of all players to avoid contact as best is possible?

What if you expect the horse to kick 3 ft. and stand back at 5 ft. but still get kicked?

I would expect a horse to kick more than 3 feet. If I was further away from the horse than I

thought I'd get kicked, and I did get kicked. I would think I was wrong in my estimation, and

that it was my fault I got kicked.

Yes I agree that it's all players responsibility.

I also know that there's a more specific exception for the follow through if it's not reckless.

Further, I know that throwing a backhand without first looking behind and to my right is not


Do you agree with that last statement?

Do you think that we need a rule change so that you cannot throw the disc without first

looking behind and to your right?

You know what, when I pull back after putting some stink on my flick, how do I know that

there's no defender's face that moved just behind my hand and is about to get smacked? Is

flicking without knowing if a player's face is going to be there reckless? Is it any different

from the backhand example?

Handlers have follow-throughs, batters swing bats, hockey players swing sticks. They're all

part of the sports at every level. There is a danger zone near those players that cannot be


Do not go into the danger zone if you don't want to get hit, because if you do get hit, it will

be your fault.

The baseball comparison is very true, to quote the Rules of Baseball:

If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

No rule changes required! Let's not even go there, lol.

No need to look over your shoulder (I'm not saying left or right, as I respect $%#$ lefties, lol), but you can usually tell if someone is coming up (stall count, footsteps, etc.) on your blindside. If you disregard the person as you believe the follow through will be incidental, then you're at fault.

The backhand follow through tends to be the most vicious, with the most chance of injury (though luckily still quite rare). I'll stick with my players' should be aware of the field around them and play accordingly.

Note that I'm not excusing the defender in these cases. They're very much responsible for their positioning on the field.

Interesting that you try to add stink to your flick. I'm trying to remove the stink from mine, lol.

Ok I think we can agree that if somebody hears somebody coming and intentionally swings away

anyway, then there's cause for foul.

This is not at all the point you made earlier, nor the point I was arguing against.

PS: I didn't leave anybody out. I used "my shoulder" for that exact purpose. I usually craft my

statements very carefully (as Dug is learning the fun way).

Temple, I would ask that you please don't refer to me in your posts unless you are responding to something I've said. Particularly don't try to drag me into debates I am not involved with. Your trying to imply that I agree that you craft your statements very carefully, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

Furthermore, I'm not involved in this discussion, I have no further opinion at this time that has not been represented here by some post, and do not wish to become involved.

Can you feel the hate?