foot block...again

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Can we verify whether footblocks are allowed at pickup in Vancouver? Some say pickup is just pickup, which isn't regulated, and the footblock rule only applies to league play. Others contend that pickup follows the same rules as league play. It seems now that footblocks are allowed on Monday night, but not on Thursday night. Does the VUL have an official position on this?

Entirely depends on: Do you know the person? And can you do it without breaking hands?


If they person you're marking is cool with it, then I see no reason why not. But if they are a stranger and there is no understanding between you, then I'd say no.

NO. FOOT. BLOCKS. Too many broken hands already, too many hotshots at pickup. Don't do it. Don't let somebody do it. It's not worth it.


"how did you break your hand?"


"some guy kicked me at pickup, I'm out 8 weeks"


Also the merits of the foot block attempt are dubious as it puts the marker off balance.

As to the rule...


It's pickup, the only 'rules' that apply are the ones you agree to on the field. If one of you wants

to play with footblocks, but one of you doesn't, you're going to have to come to an agreement,

as there's no authoritative rule-set covering pickup ultimate.

These are all interesting and valid personal opinions. But does the VUL have an official position? When someone tries to footblock me, it is apparently okay, but when I footblock someone else, they whine about it. An ad-hoc system based on a complicated mixture of implied anarchy, fear of injury, and [sigh] whether or not the guy is your friend will not work.


Either the VUL 'controls' pickup or it does not. If it does, then it seems league rules should apply. If it does not, then footblocks should be allowed. So i guess a better question is, "Does the VUL consider itself to have some degree of official oversight concerning pickup in Vancouver?"

I'll leave the 'merits of footblocks' alone, chalking that one up to ignorance.


VUL as a general rule has no footblocks. It should NEVER be attempted without prior agreement and understanding between those involved.


And there is precedent for 'ad hoc' system of rules: its called the captains clause. Done it for years in league, and it has yet to be an issue. Discretion and respect and you'll be fine.


For those that know me: stop laughing. If you dont, point is still true.

Rusty,


I'd suggest actually e-mailing the LC/ED/Board rather than hoping for a response on the forum. While they do tend to read/monitor our crazy ramblings, they seem to refrain from getting into league-related official-type things here. Feel free to post the response you get, though. I'm curious what the ruling is.

I'm not ignorant.

Addicted, you can't seriously expect everyone to huddle together every week before pickup and decide on footblocks or no footblocks. As for footblocks never being attempted without prior agreement, please remember that the rest of the world allows them per UPA and WFDF rules -- if the VUL takes no official position on overseeing pickup, then those rules should apply, ergo prior agreement inferred as simply a matter of playing by established rules.


I'll leave the 'captains clause during pickup where there are no captains' alone, chalking that one up to ignorance.

It wasn't a literal reference. My point being that if people agree, modifications to the standard are acceptable. I apologize if that connection wasn't made clear enough.


Pickup generally has a HUGE range in talent and experience. I never suggested everyone get together for a rules debate, but more when I play against people who usually play WITH footblocks, I see no reason why the two of us can just say "hey. You ok with footblocks? ya? Sweet." Done and done.


I'm not going to go out and start kicking every newbie I see, nor do I expect some random to try and footblock me without saying something.


And I'm not ignorant. :P

Rusty,


Sorry the responses didn't mirror what you wanted to hear. Yes the VUL has a rule against

footblocks.


As to your new question: "Does the VUL control pickup or not"... the answer is no.


It's pickup. By definition, it's non-organized ultimate.


Multiple sides could argue until they're blue in the face about which flavour of rules would be

the more appropriate default rule-set for the pickup around here. However the 'rules

governing pickup' is an oxymoronic phrase. Any argument you're involved in about the

'rules governing pickup' is A) silly, and B) never, ever going to be resolved.

Ah, the nice thing about not posting immediately is that inevitably someone (frighteningly it's often Temple for me) says what you want to before you have to. So this is basically a "me too" post for what he said.


As for the VUL "controlling" pickup, that's not quite true. The extent of their control is determining when which fields are officially available to VUL members for pickup.


To Addicted: Hopefully you won't go out and kick anybody, newbie or not. A footblock does not involve kicking, and anybody who thinks it does should not even consider attempting one.

I'm curious to know whether the VUL's insurance also applies to pickup. If so, and liability risks could be pointed back to the VUL, then the VUL actually does (or *should*) govern pickup. And then I'd assume the same rules for league would also apply to pickup.


However, just because the VUL is responsible for aportioning out the fields, doesn't necessarily mean that all risks (and insurance) points back to them; e.g., when they allow club teams to use their fields, I'm guessing this isn't the case.

Hi guys.


If it's not VUL pickup and if it's not on a field permitted for use by the VUL, I don't imagine that the VUL's insurance will cover it. And if it is pickup arranged by whoever and it's open for whoever to attend... (insert the 'm' to make a 'whom' as your level of education demands)... then I expect you're allowed to insert whatever rules you'd like. ThunderBay catches in the endzone. Change players on the fly. No throws upside down. Whatever you'd like...including foot blocks.


As to the appropriateness of allowing foot blocks in league play again, that decision is supported whenever the question is raised at captain's meetings each year. It's regarded as unsafe, especially for recreational play. (Too many people use a kicking motion that endangers the handler. If people knew not to do this, and if they simply raised their feet along a plane to intersect the intended direction of the disc, then the situation would be different.)


Hmmm. What else? Glad to hear that last year's board was such a bane to pleasurable ultimate in 2006 (Dave -- winter league -- General Forum). Of course, the door is wide open for volunteers to come out and improve the league for 2007...


-A-

hey Art, what about VUL pickup on VUL fields though? ... VUL-specific rules govern? (my guess is "of course they do")


... and weren't *you* on last year's board? ;p

Yes, yes I was. And if only I could learn to be a boon, and not a bane...


I suspect, as do you, that VUL Rules apply to VUL pickup unless the players present agree to modify any rules...

There's also the point that at pick, such as Andy Livingston or Point Grey, not every single person there will be a VUL member necessarily, which means that even if the VUL sanctions the "event," even if they govern it, they can't necessarily be held responsible if someone not under the VUL's insurance umbrella gets hurt.


Then again, if they're governing it, they should probably make sure that only their members are involved...


Did I just talk myself into a circle?

Hmm the protect-the-league-from-liability hawks from the poker tourney thread are curiously

silent on this insidious threat to our league and society...


Where is the general call for alarm? Where are the keyboard-lawyers, with noses for business

other than their own, demanding inquiry?


/ Bah, never-mind.

"Where are the keyboard-lawyers, with noses for business other than their own, demanding inquiry? "


You're already here!

Temple - check post 12 - Mort did the job already - therefore no need for more hawking on this post.


Although - now that you're asking my opinion. I'd say that since the league pays for the fields, advertises their availability and the majority if not all of the attendees are VULS member on any given night, then the leagues insurance will definitely come into play for anyone who attends with respect to League (versus member based) liabilities. (ie the league will be liable if a non-member injures themselves at the event and if they have done the necessary paperwork then the insurance will cover this liability, but if a non-member injures a non-participant then the non-member would not be covered by the insurance in anyway.)


Now, the rules at pickup are an entirely different and separate matter. I don't go to pickup anymore, but I'd guess that an informal house rules sort of scenario exists and that will generally come from VUL rules as most of the pickup players are from the VUL and not from WFDF or UPA based rules leagues. In the end past precedent sets the rules - if footblocks are out based upon past play then they should stay out. And escpecially not become an agreement between individual players on the field as that can spawn other people doing it that haven't come to some agreements.


Finally - only absolute asses use footblocks in casual play.


Oh temple, you just had to open that can of worms didn't you. One O'clock in the morning and bored so he has to stir the pot.

"Finally - only absolute asses use footblocks in casual play. "


Why would you say that? That's equivalent to saying only absolute asses lay out for discs in casual play.


Matt

I agree. If it's not against the rules why wouldn't you footblock? Just because it's "casual play" doesn't mean it can't be an intense game with people playing to the best of their abilities... both on offense and defense.


That said, pickup tends to just be a good time to practice defending against hucks.

Wow Temple, what is your motivation for being so smug and offensive to everyone that disagrees with you? It's like your first attempt to be offensive didn't work out, so you felt you had to broaden your scope of victims to people who you acknowledge weren't even in this discussion.


You might want to start off some of your posts with a disclaimer that, while you present your point as fact, that they are really just your opinion. For instance your initial statement that "It's pickup, the only 'rules' that apply are the ones you agree to on the field." is obviously false. Even you must admit that at the bare minimum players should abide by the UPA/WFDF rules.


I'm not sure if you've ever played anywhere else, but many leagues pickup games have local rules as well. Things you run into the first couple of times you play pickup there, and then you just happen to know. Nobody yells at you or says your an idiot for not knowing, but rules you'll be expected to follow or participate in if you keep coming out. Like the Sunshine coast and Thunder bay. So clearly there are additional rules that can be observed at Pickup.


As for the insurance question, it is my understanding that the league's insurance covers drop-in participants to some extent, however I don't pretend to support this particular idea with actual facts. Since Mortakai already expressed that question I didn't feel the need to pipe in as well.


I disagree that someone who uses footblocks at pickup is an ass, unless the handler indicates that they're not comfortable with them.


Sorry if this response wasn't what you wanted to hear Temple.


Party on Wayne.


... party on Garth!

"the handler indicates that they're not comfortable with them."


Get rid of the disc and go long....or find another game....or GET comfortable......sheesh....


I am not comfortable with a defender chasing me, so stop. I am not comfortable with a marker within 3 feet of me, so stop.... AND I am really not comfortable with someone throwing a disc at 80 Km/hr so it will fly the length of the field.....


Come-on, "not comfortable" is a lame-ass reason for any rule change.

At pickup? You wouldn't stop kicking at someone's hand in pickup because they're not comfortable with it?



I guess it depends on a few things. If it's the standard AL pickup with one side of experienced players, maybe that person should move to the more relaxed side. However if I were playing on the more relaxed side and some "wanna-be" touring player was waving their foot at my hand, I'd ask them to stop too. Like any good rules argument, what's the variables?



And yes, I know that footblocks aren't kicking at someone's hand. I personally would be comfortable with most experienced players doing it (I'm sure I wouldn't blink if you were footblocking me). But for the record, at pickup, if someone were to ask me to not footblock them, then I'd respect that.

"You wouldn't stop kicking at someone's hand in pickup because they're not comfortable with it? ... I know that footblocks aren't kicking at someone's hand..."


So what you're saying is that you are fine with people footblocking at pickup then? Everything else in your post seemed to just be a transition from your initial "I'm-offended-and-shocked" remark.

C'mon, lets' all say it together now: "Footblocking does not involve kicking anybody's hand." What Dugly (along with others) seems to be referring to is simply playing dangerously, not attempting a footblock.


Perhaps it's this misconception - that to footblock involves trying to kick a hand instead of trying to get your foot into the path of the disc - that leads to people doing it wrong and other people getting hurt. I agree with the others who say that if you're not comfortable with a legitimate, safe defensive maneuver then either get used to it, find a way around it or find another venue to play. If it's a dangerous, stupid maneuver that you're concerned about (and you can dispassionately differentiate the two), then say something about it.

A footblock done right is like a leperchaun...infinitely cool if you actually see one - but nobody believes they actually exist.....


Using a kick/footblock is much more likely in casual play (ie.Div 2 and below including pickup) as most if not all people playing at that level don't know the difference. Also since a footblock is only marginally effective as a defensive action, then it should be reserved for competitive play (ie. Div 1 through to universal championships) where a 1-2% edge is worth it.


ergo - only asses would use footblocks in casual play.

Well...I do. (while maintaining both safety and respect for my opponent I might add)


Ergo you just called me an ass.


Try and be a little more respectful. Or at least say it to my face.

FTCLLL, i wonder what you think about layout Ds and skying someone for the disc -- both of which result in FAR more injuries than footblocks. Should skilled players be forbidden from using these during pickup? Are they asses for laying out and skying against less experienced players? I assume most people use pickup to practice skills rather than avoid developing them. Who waits until they are playing universal championships to learn how to footblock?


Your scientifically exact statistics aside, footblocks are more effective than you give them credit. The purpose of marking is to channel the disc, not to block it (blocking is a side benefit when the opportunity presents itself). Properly executed footblocks limit the thrower's throws -- you don't actually have to block the disc to be an effective marker.


Footblock injuries, btw, are also like leprechauns -- i know they exist, but i've never actually seen one.

"since a footblock is only marginally effective as a defensive action..."


You're doing it wrong. Try to keep your foot off his/her hand and on/near the disc, works quite well that way.


Ergo, you've called me an ass as well... I hear posts with name calling get deleted sometimes. :)

Wump: Yes, I'm absolutely in the camp that footblocks >should< be allowed at pickup. I agree it's a time to hone your skills and practice them. Why else would we huck it every point? It's not like it's actually going to score most of the time. I think it would be much better for us to use our discretion and simply not footblock where inappropriate than to have a rule prohibiting it.



Gin-Boh: Like any part of our fine sport, foot-blocks, when done improperly can be dangerous. For the first 4 years I played we never had this "no foot-block" rule, but that wasn't here. We learned 'em and we liked 'em! Just like lay-out D's and to a lesser extent skying people (not that I've ever done either of those last two, sheesh). Then again, for the most part until I moved to Vancouver I rarely saw people marking 1 discspace away as well.


So if someone isn't so comfortable with foot-blocks, then I guess I could save my foot-block-honing-practice for touring practice. Maybe I'm just not so worried about losing the foot-blocking edge that we so desperately hone at Andy Livingston.



But when you find yourself at Andy Livingston, and you're honing your l33t foot-blocking skills against some poor soul who doesn't yet know how to flick, but somewhere got the idea that foot-blocking should/isn't allowed at Andy Livingston, and one of you cracks out with a "Go find another sport!" I believe you're doing everyone a terrible disservice.



Now I know probably none of the rules-cops here are likely to be playing dangerously. I expect those of us who have actually bothered to read the rules have a pretty good understanding of where to draw that line.



Please also follow the link.

I have seen multiple kicked hands from kickblocks before the rule was changed. All in league play at the casual level by people who obviously didn't know how to do it right.


The problem with your argument is that both skying and laying out are skills/abilities that can be done with a high probability of of injuring nobody but yourself. I have played 14 years and never had anyone injure me and I have never injured a person during a layout of mine. On the other hand I have injured my shoulder, ribs, head etc... laying out and I gave another guy who attempted a d-block in front of me a concussion when his head hit my knee while I was running.


Even a skilled footblocker will have a hard time resisting the kick motion when the opportunity exists to get a few more inches/feet of extension for a defensive play. That action is only going to hurt the thrower. A footblocker will rarely hurt themselves. It's like comparing the never enforced bike helmet laws to speeding. It's a matter of who the most likely victim will be in an accident (ie. no one would purposefully kick another persons hand - say the best player on the other team - no that would never happen at a national championship - maybe not now but when there is real money on the line....?)


As to the utility of footblocks - are you trying to tell me that in a properly done footblock that only a vertical motion (ie. the only way you can do it without a kicking motion which would have both a vertical and horizontal motion) - that this will have any effect on my throws without getting you so off balance that I will have almost any other throw available to me afterwards. Really now - I find that unlikely and thus, to me only marginally (ie. 1-2% of the time) effective. To be more definitive - I'd argue that most throws - say 80% are thrown above waist thus not footblockable - the other 20% are an even mix of low backhands and virtually unfootblockable due to comparative extensions... and low forehands - of those I argue that only 1-2% are actually footblockable with any effect.


Finally, the use of footblocks in play where the skill range is mixed from beginner to advanced is asking for danger. Because that beginner is going to attempt what they see more skilled people doing and then that skilled player is going to get kicked. Put yourself in whatever slot you deserve. I know I'd rather not face the dreaded beginner kickblocker.

"you're doing everyone a terrible disservice."


Thats what I call it when someone demands (and I have seen it) to change the rules to suit themselves...IE: I am not comfortable with that rule - change it.......

We should just take a page from the basketball and soccer rule books and make foot contact (hand contact w/r/t soccer obviously) with the disc anywhere on the field cause for a turnover (on offence) or regaining possession at zero in the stall count for defensive foot-disc infractions. It would simplify things and concentrate on what Ultimate is ultimately about, running, throwing, and catching.


I've seen a ton of high level play but I haven't seen many effective footblocks. I don't think they add enough to the game to warrant enshrining them as fundamental to the sport.

Guys,


Until there is a majority of VUL players asking for foot blocks to be re-inserted into our games (league, tourneys and pick-up), this conversation will be the most we see of foot blocks.


I absolutely agree that foot blocks can be executed safely and effectively. (And Trav and Mort and Geoff and everyone, get me to tell you about the best foot block EVER over our next beer... Mo's invited too even though I'm too old for her... Said foot block was performed on a beach in Portugal, far away from the clammy hands of the VUL observers.) But as safe as a foot block CAN be, there are too many people who kick and who rick injuring people. That is a dangerous play.


You are far more likely to see things banned in league play because people don't know how to do it properly. A lay-out is a great play, but not when there are people standing there. (Dangerous play again.) It's in league play where you'll see someone bail out of their cut or their play on the disc and call 'Dangerous Play' on the opponent, head down and blazing at 100 mph, who is oblivious to the positioning of other players. (You don't see this in competitive play becasue people are more likely to have learned the where's and how to's.)


A foot block is a beautiful thing. And I doubt you'll see one in the VUL in 2007.

FTCLTL: I don't know what level or where you've been playing but....


I have been playing for a few years (quite a few) longer than you and I can say that I have "heard" of people getting their hands kicked and I actually saw (once) somebody with a cast on their hand (from a kick/footblock). PS: we have always used footblocks here......


BUT what I have seen is hundreds of MCL, ACL tears, separated shoulders, broken arms, broken legs, broken noses and even broken thumbs (mine) from dangerous layouts.


And as someone earlier mentioned, a footblock takes away the throwing lane, it saves me having to bend down that far (I would probably fall over anyway). It is not a kick, it is a block. It forces the thrower to bend/stretch just a little farther, hopefully causing swill.


Think of silent "D", you may not have blocked the disc with your foot, but you may have taken away a throw or caused swill. Both are what I call good footblocks, even though I did not actually knock the disc down.

HI Uncle Buck,


FTCLTL is almost as old as you are... Well, almost almost....


And with your comment..."BUT what I have seen is hundreds of MCL, ACL tears, separated shoulders, broken arms, broken legs, broken noses and even broken thumbs (mine) from dangerous layouts."


Are you referring to the person who lays out getting hurt or people getting hurt by that person who lays out? If it is the second one, you'd be saying that because an injury happens from a dangerous play in on instance, then it is justified in another. That won't pass scrutiny. And if it is the first, then it's akin to the foot-blocker kicking himself and getting hurt. I'm OK with that -- it's when the handler is hurt by a kick that I'm concerned...


Gotta run


-A

I was referring to the people who get taken out by dangerous layouts.


My point was that I have seen WAY more injuries from layouts (both D and O) than from footblocks.



-->you'd be saying that because an injury happens from a dangerous play in on instance, then it is justified in another. That won't pass scrutiny.--<


Huh?

Well Uncle Buck, I'm sorry you're more interested in practicing your already awesome footblocking skills than helping someone learn the game. I'm not pro-rule change in the UPA rules, I just figure we can use our judgement and sometimes lay off. If you don't want to, that's fine. If I bring a new person to Ulti and you say "Go find another sport" I'll just explain to them that not everyone that plays Ulti is like that, and for the most part people are pretty welcoming.


For the record, my PCL was severed by an ineffective layout D performed by someone with plenty of experience and tenure. It was just part of the play and a shitty situation. I've also got ACL damage that I'm waiting on surgery for and injury I got while playing Ulti though not a layout, came down funny from a sky. And I have also seen hands kicked from footblocks in other leagues.

UB,


What I'm trying ot say is that just because more injuries happen with shitty layouts doesn't justify ALLOWING foot blocks when they're been banned because they're done dangerously.


Layouts that injure people are examples of 'dangerous play'. The VUL rules allow for people to be disciplined for this too...

addicted: "Try and be a little more respectful. Or at least say it to my face."


Nahhh... That couldn't be you calling people ignorant in post #5.. or possibly your body was temporarily possessed by Vigo the Carpathian or something... it happens..

Ignorant...ass...a subtle difference. I was hoping one was less offensive and taken more literally. If only it was still defensible. You're right; musta been possessed. Oops. Sorry.


Back to the debate over differences between footblocks and layouts, seems the same to me. A footblock done correctly IS useful and not dangerous. Much like a layout. EITHERone can be done incorrectly and can cause injury. So why no talk of banning laying out? (I only bring that up because it seems so far fetched and silly you'll concede me my point, I'm not ACTUALLY suggesting banning layouts as I'd have to go find another sport)


Again, no one was suggesting footblocking newbies. The original argument was that it was ok between consenting players.

I think (even though it's been mentioned), we're vastly overestimating the skill of people in

the league and on this thread in avoiding kicking hands (no I'm not saying you reading this

always kick with a foot block).


An effective footblock attempt is pretty much identical to an effective handblock attempt. In

both you are attempting to get your hand in the throwing lane, not hit the disc itself or the

handler's hand.


However, how many times at all levels of play in the VUL do you see people making

handblock fouls where they hit the disc in the hand or the hand itself? I see it an awful lot in

all divs. This is due to so called skilled players doing handblocks, for lack of a better word,

incorrectly.


I ask now, how will footblock fouls be so much less likely to occur via incorrect footblock

attempts?


I say about the same percentage of incorrect footblock attempts will be made, and while this

will result in less hands being kicked than slapped from incorrect handblock attempts, the

impact of the kicks is much, much greater.


What's being gained by footblocks, an *extremely* slight increase in marker effectiveness

(maybe one block per game, but I bet that's overstating).


Footblocks are not welcome in my recreational league, I have to work tomorrow, and the risk

vs reward is simply not worth it.

As to why the argument for banning footblocks is different (while seemingly similar) to the

argument for banning layouts:


Following my last post. I think the percentage of footblocks done dangerously (if attempted

by the league as a whole) is much, much higher than the percentage of dangerous layouts.


Also, it is not the layout that is dangerous. An incorrectly done layout is not inherently

dangerous. What is dangerous is the "reckless disregard for the safety of fellow players".


Whether the person showing reckless didregard to safety is running, skying, or laying out is

irrelevant. It's the fact that they have a reckless disregard to safety that is dangerous.


Such a person is no less likely to injure somebody else if they abide by a "no-layout" rule,

but seeing as they posess such a reckless disregard to safety, they will certainly not abide

such a rule (likely through ignorance).


Really, what is needed is a rule preventing "reckless disregard for the safety of fellow

players". Fortunately we have such a rule.


--


To sum up; banning footblocks is different from banning layouts, because:


1) Non-reckless layouts are eceedingly unllikely to cause injury to other players.


2) Non-reckless footblocks are commonly attempted incorrectly, and are likely to cause injury

to other players.

"What's being gained by footblocks, an *extremely* slight increase in marker effectiveness

(maybe one block per game, but I bet that's overstating)"


You're being very charitable. By a factor of about ten I'd wager.

Despite it already being established that the effectivness of attempted footblocks is not directly related to the number of actual blocks, I see footblocks on a regular occasion (albiet, not in league, since they're not allowed).


I wonder where you get your percpectives on this: from a league that doesn't allow it? Or perhaps from touring experience, you know, where they actually play with footblocks? I'm guessing the former. Doesn't seem like a terribly informed position.


And I love the comparisons: Layouts, when done safely, are OK. But FOOTBLOCKS!? Wow. When you do those wrong you injure people. The arguement is baffling. And not in an "I'm kinda slow" sorta way, but more of a "That actually makes no sense".



And just to reinforce what I'm saying: I am NOT advocating re-introducing footblocks into league games. But at pickup, with consenting players, I see no problem with practicing them as they ARE useful, and are used in most of my ulti experiences.

"And I love the comparisons: Layouts, when done safely, are OK. But FOOTBLOCKS!? Wow.

When you do those wrong you injure people. The arguement is baffling. And not in an "I'm

kinda slow" sorta way, but more of a "That actually makes no sense"."


I thought it was pretty clear. Pretty much the only way you're going to hurt *somebody else*

with a layout is to do it recklessly. Whether they're running down a disc or laying out for a D

block, somebody acting recklessly is dangerous. It's not the layout that's dangerous or unsafe,

it's the acting recklessly.


You don't have to be acting recklessly when you slap somebody's hand when you're going for

a handblock, and you don't have to be acting recklessly when you kick somebody's foot when

going for a footblock.


Whatever percentage of handblocks result in hand slaps will be pretty close to the number of

footblocks that result in hand kicks. I see a whole lot of hand slaps by so called 'experienced'

people, who 'know what they're doing', let alone by the general rec populace.


If you disagree with that, I'd be very happy to see how you think impropperly done footblocks

wouldn't result in hand kicks the way so many improperly done handblocks result in hand

slaps...

-->You don't have to be acting recklessly when you slap somebody's hand <--


ack!! yes you do or you wouldn't be slapping my hand.... (or maybe everyone in VUL plays drunk ;))


-->I'm sorry you're more interested in practicing your already awesome footblocking skills than helping someone learn the game.......

If I bring a new person to Ulti and you say "Go find another sport" <--


Two assinine statements! First, although I am pretty f**king good (cough) when did I say I was more interested in practicing than teaching?


If you bring a new person to the sport and the first thing they do is start to change the rules because they are "uncomfortable", first I'll say "learn the game and get comfortable" (you can read eh Dug?), if they do and still want to change the rules then I'll say "Go find another sport".


"-->You don't have to be acting recklessly when you slap somebody's hand <--


ack!! yes you do or you wouldn't be slapping my hand.... (or maybe everyone in VUL plays

drunk ;))"


Well, while I think that is debateable, I was actaully speaking specifically of not having to be

acting with "reckless disregard for the safety of fellow players" when you slap somebody's hand.

Having just written it fully about 8 times, I abreviated the type of action to simply "recklessly".


I don't think you can worry about personal safety from an accidental hand slap (an accidental

cleat-kick is another matter).

Pages