End Zone Foul

2 posts / 0 new
Last post

I have a question about XI.A.2: "When an in-bounds player in possession of the disc whose first ground contact will be completely within 
the end zone loses possession of the disc due to an uncontested foul ... that player is awarded a goal."

This means that if a receiver doesn't catch a disc in the end zone because of an uncontested foul, they never had possession, and thus aren't awarded a point, but instead get the disc on the goal line. I found a previous forum post that confirms this. My question is, does this not reward a defender for stopping an easy EZ catch by fouling, thus incentivizing more aggressive play? Why not penalize a defender for an uncontested foul by allowing a point?

You could look at the situation as rewarding a defender for stopping a certain goal, but the same argument can be applied to any foul. The rules are written with the explicit assumption that all fouls are not intentional. If a player is willing to intentionally break the rules to realize an advantage, then the structure of Ultimate has nothing to stop them.


As for awarding a goal, while the usual foul resolution process attempts to recreate the situation as it would have occured without the infraction, end-zone cases are special. Because a single catch in the endzone has so much more significance than one on the playing field proper, there is a higher "standard of proof," if you will, regarding awarding that catch. The existing structure still forces the offense to demonstrate that they are able to complete that pass. In the case of an uncontested post-catch (pre-landing) foul, the lack of contesting essentially says "yes, you caught it before the foul (and would otherwise have landed in the endzone), so yes, you scored.