disk space *whack*

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

I play in a lower div on Thursdays. I went to watch some div 1 games last week on another night, just to check it out, and saw a situation where the thrower held the disk flat with two hands, and moved it upwards hitting the chin of his marker. He moved it up and down a few times more in rapid succession, as if making the point that the marker was too close, and he should be able to move the disk freely in that space. The marker didn't call a foul, but I heard others on the sideline muttering "you can't just hit someone with the disk". Since the thrower intentionally hit the marker with the disk, I thought at the time that it should be a foul on the thrower. I realise there's a more competitive level of play in the higher divs, but to someone less experienced watching, one player hitting another with the disk doesn't look good.

Looking carefully at the rules later, the correct thing for the thrower to do would seem to be to call the marking violation "disk space" (XIV.B.3.), multiple times if necessary, or a general "violation" (XIV.B.8.) if the marker persists marking too close. If someone hit me with the disk on purpose rather than calling the actual violation I wouldn't be impressed. That said, it seems that the rules effectively make what the thrower did ok, because the marker was in an illegal position (XVI.H.3.a.3.), i.e. even though the contact was clearly intentionally initiated by the thrower, the rule says that "*Any* contact that occurs due to the marker setting up in an illegal position (XIV.B.3) is a foul on the marker."

I hope nobody does that to me, but if they do, what's the right call? Just accepting it and playing on doesn't seem right to me.

I should point out that I don't know the players, and this is just based on my one-off observation. It's quite possible the two players knew each other well and what happened was light hearted, although that wasn't how it appeared.

as far as im concerned the "Any contact that occurs due to the marker setting up in an illegal position (XIV.B.3) is a foul on the marker." applys to non intentional contact. IE. you cant punch someone if they are in your disc space and you cant slap someone if they are double teaming you. the appropriate call is "disc space" or "double team".

I believe you have it absolutely right. the appropriate call would be a foul on the thrower. it could also be considered a dangerous play as I would say being intentionally hit in the face with the disc counts as "reckless disregard for the safety of fellow players".

someone correct me if im wrong!

Temple... Temple... Where are you?

Mortakai, you would probably want to weigh in too... All the regulars will probably comment too.

Yeah. This is an interesting situation. If I can remember correctly, the disc is an extention of your body. Therefore, the individual is basically doing exactly that: they are physically pushing the individual out of the way.

However, I am not sure if the foul call is correct. It seems like there are two rules come into play here...

1. The offensive player is infringing upon the defensive player.

2. If we are assuming that the offensive player isn't moving, and the defensive player is pushing their way through...

What is the call? I am not sure.

I think I recall seeing the incident mentioned above, and it was funny to watch, though I was utterly mystified. To date, I'm not 100% sure what the thrower was trying to accomplish by repeatedly pumping and lowering the disc in front of his chest like that -- the marker looked like he was in a legal position from where I stood. I think the thrower was trying to draw a foul instead of instead of calling a marking violation, and testing the space between his chest and the marker's (if the marker is illegally close) can be a way of doing that.

To respond to one of the questions, no, the thrower should not try to deliberately strike, push or shove the marker, and particularly not on midline of the body. Such an action would be an infraction of XVI.H, and any non-incidental contact of the sort would be grounds for a general foul call, of course. The marker may even be in an illegal position, but that does not give the thrower carte blanche.

What I saw at the incident did not look like a deliberate strike, push or shove, though I did not spot any contact with the marker's chin. It looked to me like he might have been testing the space near his torso with disc, and maybe hoping for some contact on which to justify a foul call on those grounds. In short, I think he was clumsily searching for contact to invoke rule XVI.H.3.a.3. I don't recommend it, either way.

An uglier version of this:
- marker not giving disc-space
- thrower not calling "disc space" nor "violation"
- thrower pushes off marker with a fore-arm just prior to getting a throw off.
thoughts?

Achoo: foul. Every time.

To answer Achoo's question, it's a contact foul on the thrower if the marker calls it...

To answer the earlier ones, creating contact (whether a thwack in the nose or a disc thrust into the belly) is not the answer. These too are fouls.

The thrower can call 'Disc space' if the marker is too close, and that situation needs to be corrected (and the count adjusted according to the rules) without a stoppage in play. If the position is not adjusted, the thrower should then call 'Violation' and stop the play to address the problem.

"To answer Achoo's question, it's a contact foul on the thrower if the marker calls it... "

Cite rules when making such a statement. And don't try to cite XVI. H. or XVI. H. 3. a. 4. I think you'll find that there isn't much in the rulebook that says this is a foul on the thrower, and XVI. H. 3. a. 3 is strongly on the side of it being a marking foul.

I'm not condoning intentionally hitting the marker, but markers need to stop cheating before they can start complaining about getting hit by the thrower, in any manner.

"thrower pushes off marker with a fore-arm just prior to getting a throw off. thoughts? "

Alex is right that the rules strongly favour the thrower in most situations (section XVI.H.3.a). That said, the thrower should still be careful about initiating contact, because deliberately causing non-incidental contact to the marker is still justifiable grounds for a foul call. The thrower may believe the marker is positioning himself illegally (and it may even be true), but the rules do not outright guarantee the thrower's right to then forcibly reclaim his space.

As the marker, I would allow some degree of contact to slide. I have to admit that I sometimes come too close, so I can forgive the thrower's occasionally putting up an arm to protect his throw. There comes a point, though, that I will call a foul on a thrower who shoves me a little too aggressively and compromises my ability to play defence. There is a fine line to judge, and both parties should realize that they do not have sacred rights to push each other.

To date, I think I have only called this foul a couple of times. Rather than further escalate this contest, it is better to discuss who is doing what wrong, anyway.

Alex,

I'm not sure that the rule you refer to does apply here. That rule refers to contact caused by the
illegal marking position, whereas running the disc up and down the space is not caused by the
marking position.

Frankly, I'm not sure that there's a rule that clearly applies to this situation, likely because the
rules assume that players will treat each other with respect. Which actually brings us to the only
rule that may be applicable - I.B and its discussion of competition not getting in the way of
mutual respect between players, all of which applies to everyone. Markers have to stop
"cheating" (assuming that they realize they are), but throwers have to start respecting the
marker all the same. There were two people in the wrong here.

"That rule refers to contact caused by the illegal marking position, whereas running the disc up and down the space is not caused by the marking position."

If he were set up legally, there would be no contact from running the disc up and down, just as there would be no push off foul if there was nothing to push off. The rule says "Any contact that occurs due to the marker setting up in an illegal position is a foul on the marker." The contact in these two scenarios exists *because* the marker set up too close, I think it's fairly irrelevant what kind of motion from the thrower initiated the contact, intentional or not.

If your argument is that it's clearly a foul on the thrower because they "caused" the foul and not the marker, I think you are going down the wrong track, because that would make nearly anything a thrower does when a marker is marking in the throwers' shorts a foul on the thrower.

Let's consider two examples:

So scenario A) already discussed, marker is 6 inches away from the thrower, stationary, thrower intentionally moves the disc up and down and hits the marker.
Scenario B) marker is 6 inches away from the thrower, stationary. Thrower pivots to the break side, unintentionally contacting the marker.

You might say these two scenarios are very different, but they are actually exactly the same. You say A) is clearly a foul on the thrower, he "caused" the contact, not the marker's position. By that same logic, B) would also be a foul on the thrower. He is initiating this contact isn't he, so he is "causing" it and not the marker's illegal position. I contend that XVI. H.3.a.3 makes B) a foul on the marker. Coincidentally it also makes A) a foul on the marker, because nowhere does it state the type of contact, or whether it is intentional or not, affects the status of it being a foul, in fact it says *any* contact.

"deliberately causing non-incidental contact to the marker is still justifiable grounds for a foul call."

Let's see a cite for this.

II.E: "Foul: Non-incidental contact between opposing players (see II.H for a definition of incidental contact). In general, the player initiating the contact has committed the foul."

XVI.H.3.a.1: "A throwing foul may be called when there is non-incidental contact between the thrower and marker. The disc in a thrower’s possession is considered part of the thrower."

Note that XVI.H.3.a.1 does not restrict throwing fouls to either the thrower or the marker.

Note that XVI.H.3.a.3 is an exception that applies only where the contact is caused by illegal positioning.

Note that XVI.H.3.a.4 does not imply that throwers can cause any contact to an illegally positioned marker with impunity.

As long as we are "noting" things, let's note that none of those rules refer to intent in any way. So whether an action is deliberate or not is irrelevant.

Your argument boils down to a different interpretation of "contact caused by the marker setting up in an illegal position." Actually, wait, let's note another thing, the rule says "contact that occurs due to the marker setting up in an illegal position" not "contact that is *caused* by the marker ... position"

So, in your opinion, if marker is straddling the throwers leg, stationary, and the thrower pivots into the marker, this is a foul on the thrower?

"So, in your opinion, if marker is straddling the throwers leg, stationary, and the thrower pivots into the marker, this is a foul on the thrower?"

No, I would call that contact caused by illegal positioning.

"As long as we are "noting" things, let's note that none of those rules refer to intent in any way. So whether an action is deliberate or not is irrelevant."

That comes across as rather sarcastic. No, intent is not a specific criterion for either non-incidental contact nor fouls. But an overtly deliberate action makes it easier to recognize its cause. That is, if a thrower pivots into me whilst making an attempt to throw, and I realize I am illegally positioned, I will not contest a foul call, and I will not make one myself. By contrast, if he deliberately throws an elbow into my chest to knock me out of his way, I will likely recognize that as not having been caused by my positioning.

"No, I would call that contact caused by illegal positioning."

So you recognize that contact initiated by movement of the thrower can occur "due to the marker setting up in an illegal position." This is an important distinction from contact "caused" by the marker's position.

"That is, if a thrower pivots into me whilst making an attempt to throw, and I realize I am illegally positioned, I will not contest a foul call, and I will not make one myself. By contrast, if he deliberately throws an elbow into my chest to knock me out of his way, I will likely recognize that as not having been caused by my positioning."

Both actions are the same. Since intent is irrelevant, they are both simply motions by the thrower that result in contact, due to illegal position of the marker. Remember, the rule says *any* contact.

"So you recognize that contact initiated by movement of the thrower can be due to illegal positioning of the marker."

Yes, of course.

"Both actions are the same. Since intent is irrellevant, they are both simply motions by the thrower that result in contact, due to illegal position of the marker."

I disagree. The marker may be illicitly positioned, but that does not mean that any and all contact is "due to the illegal position."

We can produce many additional examples (eventually reaching an extreme case) in which the thrower initiates contact that is unrelated to the technical positioning of the marker. The fact that the marker may be illegally positioned does not mean his position caused the non-incidental contact. And if the action is recognizably unrelated to the marker's positioning, then the thrower can expect to hear a foul call.

"I disagree. The marker may be illicitly positioned, but that does not mean that any and all contact is "due to the illegal position."

If the marker were not positioned in such a manner, the contact would not have occurred. The exact manner of the motion by the thrower makes no difference, because intent is not legislated. I really wish you would stop saying the marker's position did or did not "cause" contact, because that's not what the rule says. I feel there is a distinction between "causing" contact and contact occuring "due to" positioning. If a pivoting thrower creates contact "due to" a markers illegal positioning (a position you already agreed to) then an elbow swinging thrower also creates contact "due to" the markers illegal positioning. They are exactly the same, except you hold (rightful) disdain for the second action, but that doesn't make it any less "due to" the marker's position.

Imagine the case of a blind marker, who has no mechanism with which to divine intent, to him, contact is contact. A) He sets up in a legal position. The marker pivots, no contact. B) He sets up in legal position. Thrower swings an elbow, no contact. C) He sets up in an illegal position, thrower pivots and inadvertantly contacts him with an elbow due to the fact that he was so close. D) He sets up in an illegal position, thrower intentionally swings his elbow in the same manner as b) but this time there is contact due to the fact that the marker is close.

A) and B) are the same regardless of the action of the thrower, and C) and D) are also the same.

Alex,

I think that you are mistaken that intent does not matter in the interpretation of the rules. In fact, consider XIX.G:

"In addition to the assumption that players will not intentionally violate the rules, players are similarly expected to make every effort to avoid violating them."

Yes, it's in the "etiquette" section, but that does not change the fact that it's a rule. At the risk of sounding all hippie, I'd contend that this emphasis on respect is at the core of the sport, although I realize that there is a faction trying to change that and implement full referees amongst other things. But I digress. Now consider the opening words of XVI.H:

"It is the responsibility of all players to avoid contact in every way possible. "

The way I see it, deliberately (ie: intentionally) pushing the marker away breaks both of these rules. Admittedly, by the letter of the rules once a marker has established an illegal position the thrower is also bound by this, and should refrain from contact. There is, however, a mechanism to deal with the situation - calling disc space or violation. It's not ideal, but it's what you've got.

PS: your examples are getting a bit ridiculous, don't you think? A blind marker?

"If a pivoting thrower creates contact "due to" a markers illegal positioning (a position you already agreed to) then an elbow swinging thrower also creates contact "due to" the markers illegal positioning."

What can I say, Alex, except that I disagree in the general case? It's not that I mean to be difficult with you. The rule does not say that "non-incidental contact occurring when the marker is illegally positioned is a foul on the marker." If it did say something like that, I would find it easier to accept some of the actions you accept.

I think we're straying from the take-home message. We're debating what to do when people start consistently misbehaving, and the rules just aren't written in a way to facilitate this.

This much I think we can agree on:
1) Don't cheat
2) Assume they aren't trying to cheat
3) Take the moral high ground; please don't hit someone just because you think you're entitled to.

XIX.G. only applies if you are in fact violating the rules. Attempting to intentionally draw a foul does not violate XIX.G. unless your are doing something else that violates the rules, which you are not, unless you really want to try to call a violation of XVI.H. But consider the implications of XVI.H. as a callable violation, it makes nearly everything that occurs on the ultimate field a violation. Contact a player in any manner? Well if you were avoiding contact in every way possible you wouldn't have even been there. But wait, *double violation* on the person you contacted for not diving out of the way! He didn't avoid contact in every way possible either. I have never been convinced that this is even callable as a violation. I mean, can you call a violation of rule VI.C. on a player that has a primary concern other than the the health and safety of the injured player?

But anyway, if you want XVI.H. to be the reason why a thrower pushoff of an illegally positioned marker is illegal, then you are exactly right, if a marker straddles your pivot, then by XVI.H. you are *not allowed to pivot*. You would have to call disc space, wait for him to move back, then pivot. Pivoting would be a violation on you, (and of course, also on him, for not jumping out of the way).

Or if you were to consider the things under XVI.H. as exceptions to the general rule of XVI.H. itself, you would simply arrive at it not being a foul on you at all, and not be a violation of XIX.G. because you are not violating any rules.

JDD By JDD

To paraphrase the discussion so far:

Bart: OK, but on my way, I'm going to be doing this: [windmills arms]
If you get hit, it's your own fault.

Lisa: OK, then I'm going to start kicking air like this. [kicks] And
if any part of you should fill that air, [kicks] it's _your_ own
fault.

[they walk towards each other, then start fighting]

I'm pretty sure I was there that night (Jericho East?) and I think it was me you overheard, matthewc.

Alex, I see your point about rule XVI.H.3.a.3 ("Any contact that occurs due to the marker setting up in an illegal position is a foul on the marker....") but it needs to be applied with a bit of common sense. Would punching the marker be OK if they setup in an illegal position? "Your face was within a disc space! It's your fault!" That's effectively what happened last week, albeit with less force -- the marker moved the disc up and down quickly between his body and the marker's, and smacked the marker in the chin with it as a result. He wasn't trying to throw. He wasn't trying to pivot. He just smacked the guy. Maybe he was annoyed, but there are better ways to communicate. The marker looked too stunned to realize he could call a foul, I think. And he was barely within a disc space away. I can't for an instant believe the UPA rules committee would agree that's an acceptable way to indicate you want disc space.

"Would punching the marker be OK if they setup in an illegal position? 'Your face was within a disc space! It's your fault!'"

What you have to realize is that, for the purpose of arguments such as this, what would be "OK" and what would be "legal" may be completely different things. People often try to argue a non-existant "ridiculousness" clause, as you are doing now, but my focus here is on the rule, not general field etiquette of what "should" or "shouldn't" be called.

However, in the case of punching someone, it would clearly be illegal by XVI. H. 4, aka the "dangerous play" rule. Intentionally elbowing someone may also fall under this rule (probably depending on the severity and location of the contact) as well as other actions that I'm sure you can imagine.

I won't address the 'ridiculous' comment, given your blind player analogy above. :)

I think the SRC tries to make 'legal' as close to 'OK' as possible. To my point: do you think it's 'legal' to intentionally hit someone in the face with the disc (while standing still and upright, not throwing, and not pivoting)? If you do, then we have a problem.

The argument is that "ridiculous = illegal" which is obviously not true, I am allowed to use ridiculous examples of what is legal as much as I want :)

If it is not dangerous (violating XVI.H.4) then yes, I think it would be legal, if the marker is illegally positioned and we aren't attempting to invoke XVI.H. I won't repeat my reasoning because it is pretty well outlined above, along with atanarjuat's dissenting opinion.

We are invoking XVI.H. That's the whole point. How is it OK or legal to intentionally hit someone? Especially when there multiple ways to communicate verbally and safely?

Then the thrower will also invoke XVI.H.

Violation on the marker for not diving out of the way when the thrower moved the disc towards him.

If you want to use XVI.H. though, you would have to convince me first that it is a callable violation, instead of a mere statement, and you would further have to assert that XVI.H.3.a.3 is not an exception to XVI.H.

XVI.H. is an incredibly general statement that says "you are responsible for avoiding contact" and gives no penalty or remedy for if contact occurs. XVI.H.3.a.3 says "if any contact does occur in this situation, it is a foul on the marker (and therefor resolved under the appropriate rules).

(response to deleted post)

I am merely explaining what the rules seem to say.

Do not attempt to apply your value judgements about proper play to my statements about the rules.

Alex. What are you trying to say here?

In this specific instance, all of us (I am sure you do too) believe that this action was in bad manner. Period. End of story.

I don't understand why you are still arguing the logistics of things. Common sense generally tells us that this is wrong. I understand the rules help define situations and what to do in those situations. However, where did these rules and guidelines come from; basically a specific situation like this occurs and the definition of how to deal with it is there.

The only reason I can see you arguing about the rules is to understand what the consequence of this situation is.

Right now, all it looks to me right now, through your arguement is that you are trying to justify that this is legal and people should be doing this...

Now, if you really believe that, I can quote the spirit of the game "Such actions as taunting opposing players, dangerous aggression, belligerent intimidation, intentional infractions, or other 'win-at-all-costs' behavior are contrary to the Spirit of the Game and must be avoided by all players."

I am not justifying, the actions of the marker... However, even if the marker is doing something illegal, by not giving enough space, it doesn't give you any right to be waving the disc in someone's face(When you have the option of calling disc space).

Therefore, if you are justifying the actions of waving your disc around like that I believe that you should really reconsider this sport you are playing.

I believe there is a huge difference between doing it and trying to justify it.

I did delete that post. I found it was rather aggressive. That is why I deleted it. However, you did read it and I wanted to replace it.

I apologize.

"you are trying to justify that this is legal and people should be doing this... "

I am merely suggesting that it may be legal, I have made no statements implying that people should or should not be doing it. In fact, I have stated once already that what people consider "ok" and what is legal do not always coincide in the rules.

Okay. I agree with this. Now. What should we do about it?

Other then just arguing about the semantics of things?

Yes, it was at Jericho (West I think).

There's a discussion of basically this same issue on the 11th ed rules google group. Link below.

A couple of interesting points from there (same Craig?)

1. Contact "due to" the marker setting up illegally isn't the same thing as "any contact that happens after the marker sets up illegally". There is still a presumption that both players continue playing the game, rather than "drop the gloves". There's a good argument that contact where the thrower hits the marker with the disk isn't due to the marker setting up illegally; contact where the thrower pivots into the marker to make a throw is.

2. The assumption that non-incidental contact is unintentional and that deliberate non-incidental contact is illegal doesn't seem to be spelled out in the rules.

There's one other part that seems to apply:

"1. A. Description: Ultimate is a non-contact disc sport played by two teams of seven players."

That says it all for me, really. If we start down the road of deliberate non-incidental contact, we're not playing ultimate any more.

"2. The assumption that non-incidental contact is unintentional and that deliberate non-incidental contact is illegal doesn't seem to be spelled out in the rules."

In case anyone got the impression this is what I meant, I'd just like to say that it's not. I don't want to mislead anyone by having mispoken.

Different Craig, Matthewc. Craig Temple posts here as "Temple". This is Woods.

"If we start down the road of deliberate non-incidental contact, we're not playing ultimate any more." Agreed. That's the gist of my posts, rule interpretations aside. Two wrongs don't make a right. But I've spent too much time here already. Peace out.

Where is Temple and Mortakai?