blocking violation?

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

handler has the disc down field (man d) offensive wing cutter tries to go deep but check is obstructing the deep line cut, when the offensive player tries to go to the outside the d moves laterally to use his body to impede the movement (and cause a slight collision stopping the cut).

offence calls a blocking violation (that the D is not making a play on the disc and is attempting to obstruct a legal player move)

d player responds it's legal to block players and is good defence

i was under the impression that the D had to be static or making a play on the disc when attempting to use the body to obstruct player movement?

Was the disc in the air when the violation was called?

Relevant rules seem to be the following:

H. Fouls (II.E) c) Blocking Fouls:
(1) When the disc is in the air a player may not move in a manner
solely to prevent an opponent from taking an unoccupied path to the
disc and any resulting non-incidental contact is a foul on the blocking
player which is treated like a receiving foul (XVI.H.3.b).
(2) A player may not take a position that is unavoidable by a moving
opponent when time, distance and line of sight are considered. Non-
incidental contact resulting from taking such a position is a foul on the
blocking player.

as well as:

XVII. Positioning

A. Each 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.

So from your description of the events, the defensive player is NOT
committing a foul unless they are taking an unavoidable position or
the disc is in the air and they are making "no attempt" to play the disc.
From experience, "no attempt" is usually used quite loosely.

I'd also like to point out that you are allowed to occupy a unoccupied
position, but you may not use your limbs to BLOCK a player from
occupying a position. So you can't box out with your arms.

Furthermore, 'good defence' is positioning yourself to control the path of the
offensive player, but continuing to move. This is equivalent to forcing a thrower to
throw flick by standing on one side of them. There's no implied body contact, you're
just taking part of the field away.

Bad defence (and dangerous play) is stepping in front of the offender in their
cutting motion and stopping.

I agree:
-the defense does not need to be "static" to legally occupy a position in someone's way;
-the defense does not need to "make a play on the disc" to legally get in someone's way (indeed, that can be the cause of other kinds of fouls)

Just a word of caution about this last remark:
"I'd also like to point out that you are allowed to occupy a unoccupied
position, but you may not use your limbs to BLOCK a player from
occupying a position. So you can't box out with your arms."

The rules don't make any specific mention of the use of limbs with respect to "position" or as related to blocking, receiving, or general fouls. Indeed, it's not completely clear whether "position" is limited to baldly meaning "location on the field," or whether it includes "stance" in a more three-dimensional sense. So it's not outright unreasonable to think one could use outspread arms to "occupy" a legal position.

In practice, though, right or wrong, many players will call fouls when they perceive unfair use or excessive use of the arms as blocking devices. Arms are faster-moving than the rest of the body, are considerably less "avoidable" and it often LOOKS or FEELS like you're getting aggressively pushed or hit when an arm comes up in your way. Thus, to avoid such calls, coaches and captains everywhere tell their players not to use their arms as blocking devices. Frankly, I'm okay with that, in general, but I think it speaks more to a cultural practice than an actual rule.

just for clarification the disc was NOT in the air at the time (in possession of offensive handler on the the side of field) my mark is moving to block me with his body so i cannot run deep and moving to block any deep cut with his body and interfere with my movement down field.

sansera, i know what you mean about the discussion about "a play no the disc" but my point to my mark at the time was, you are not playing the disc as it isn't in the air you are deliberately trying to stop me from running by assuming a position that would result in a collision (this is why i stopped play and asked for clarification on field because i felt that one was certainly coming).

would it be applicable under XVII. Positioning

A. Each 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.

then as the disc is not in flight and he is taking a position which would result in a collision ?

"...my mark is moving to block me with his body so i cannot run deep and moving to block any deep cut with his body and interfere with my movement down field. "

Is he taking an "unavoidable position"? For example, if you start running and he cuts in front of you, can you avoid him? If you CAN avoid him and continue running, then it's not a foul.

If you CANNOT avoid him, it's a foul.

Seems pretty clear to me. I understand where you're coming from though, having someone continually getting in your way is frustrating.

Well, Sean, this is where a certain amount of judgment is required. There are numerous additional rules that could be cited in favour of a hardline foul-calling stance (II.H and XVI.H come to mind).

XVII.A may apply, but the wording doesn't seem as strongly related to this particular case as the blocking fouls section. XVII.A's "caused in taking" criterion tends to apply more seamlessly to those situations where a player clips another player in the course of taking a new position. Here, I am making a distinction between what is "caused in taking" and what is "caused after taking" (which is where the unavoidability criterion of blocking fouls is more directly suited).

And we must couple that criterion with tempering reminders such as XVI.H.2:
"Contact resulting from adjacent opposing players simultaneously vying for the same unoccupied position, is not in itself a foul."

So, your opponent may have taken a position that resulted in contact, and maybe even "unavoidable" contact (in a loose sense, as you both moved into a position), but that still does not necessarily qualify it as a foul.

If he was close to you (e.g., "adjacent"), and responding closely to your movements, and stepped into a position he saw that you wanted, there was probably a bump and I would not declare this a foul. If there was separation between you, you had momentum, and he stepped into a position that unavoidably caused non-incidental contact, then I would call that a foul. And between these two examples, there are inevitable shades of grey.

Sometimes the distinctions are difficult to make, but there is nevertheless an allowable distinction between "blocking" and "blocking fouls."

Hey Sean:
Defender is deliberately causing minor contact but not unavoidable collision.
For whatever reason, defender is being super competitive, which in itself, is not illegal.
Not everybody plays defence with that level of vigour.
Defender is sending you a message that he is not going to give you an inch. Game On!

no allen I've played at both the elite and varsity level. that contact shoulder to shoulder or minor impediment i can deal with (but will respond in kind) this cause a collision of shoulder to his chest meaning i have to run through him (i watched him do it the 2nd time and stated if you continue i won't hold up your causing a collision) he said no it was legal to impede me by using his body (so i would have to cut short or juke the other way to get away. in my mind this is no different then reaching out with a hand as you are trying to slow down an opponent

He had legal position behind you or in front of you. He moved with you
but held his position with his body the whole time. You never once tried to
run through the contact effectively. I was on the sidelines when this whole
thing happened, your own team started to argue with you to drop it
because you were upset and in the wrong.

It's called good defense homie.

Sean, your post concerns me. "Responding in kind," and warning him that if he keeps playing the way he is playing that you will run through him, these are things that have no place in the VUL. Assuming that I'm correct in which game is being referenced, it's Monday 2, and not worth this kind of aggression. I can't speak to how elite and varsity level ultimate is played, but if you feel that is how the game should be played, perhaps those options would be better for you.

@Sean FAIL
@Monday 2 LOL

Diff q, related though.

Disc is up, im tracking the disc, opposing player and i close, we bump, he catches and walks away with the disc.

My issue is that he came all the way to me (a few steps away from the disc being catchable) and then bumped me, then ran back to where he came from to catch the disc.

Now I know boxing out is all good and part of the game, but I kinda feel like he came out to bump me intentionally so that I couldn't continue to follow the disc - but not for the purpose of going to the disc.

Of course, it could be a horrible read, a bit of wind, or just bad luck... I figured it was boxing out and said nothing. But thinking back on it, he didn't really come to get the disc - would that be a blocking violation and if so would I call...foul? violation?

Is it different if its just the body as opposed to physically pushing a player away with ur arms? Cuz later on he did similar thing but using his arms to actually push me away... but the game was out of reach and we were all miserable in the lovely weather I didn't feel like it was worth the trouble.

Cheers

Hey, Sean. The distinctions between chest and shoulder, etc., don't really matter. Blocking a cutter with your chest is fine in itself. We've already gone over the applicable rules, so you have to decide if
(i) he was close enough to you to be "adjacent" and legally vying for positions before you could get them, or
(ii) he was stepping in your line of momentum, but generally avoidably in each case, and causing minor contact, or
(iii) he was stepping in your line of momentum, unavoidably causing non-incidental collisions.

I was not a witness to this incident, so there's not much more I can say to help you decide. My instinct is that this falls into either category (i) or (ii), for which I would not call a foul. I say this only because it sounds like he was consistently in your way at low speeds, which is tough to pull off if he was far off of you, and you mentioned in passing an ability to "hold up," which suggests to me some avoidability.

Hey, Babeejeanz.

Well, it's hard to tell what's going on inside the head of an opponent. You could always ask, I guess, but as mentioned earlier:
"When the disc is in the air a player may not move in a manner solely to prevent an opponent from taking an unoccupied path to the disc and any resulting non-incidental contact is a foul on the blocking player which is treated like a receiving foul (XVI.H.3.b)."

Of course, he might have flared out to get a better read or to get a better run-up to the disc. Boxing you out in the process is an allowable side-benefit.

Now, deliberately or not, solely or not, if he bumped you so hard that it subsequently interfered with your ability to make an attempt on the disc, that would still be a more general receiving foul:
"If a player contacts an opponent while the disc is in the air and thereby interferes with that opponent’s attempt to make a play on the disc, that player has committed a receiving foul. Some amount of incidental contact before, during, or immediately after the attempt often is unavoidable and is not a foul."

Using the body is not materially different from using the arms according to the written rules (as I said earlier, there are no specific prohibitions against use of the arms). BUT, use of the arms is a lot more incriminating. Pushing someone with the arms is not just gaining position or preparing to approach the disc; it looks an awful lot like deliberately throwing someone else off balance or out of position and generally "interfering with the opponent's ability to make a play on the disc." Yes, there's still a seed of doubt, but it begs for a receiving foul call.