intentional fouls....

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

do people think an intentional foul/breaking the rules would be frowned upon or thought of as unspirited?

My example would be if you are marking the thrower, and your teammates let you know, or you see that the O team has an open player striking long. You decide, you dont want to mark straight up, as this could break your force, and you dont want to give up the long huck....so you do something like intentionally move up on the thrower, forcing them to call disc space, or you strip the disc out of the players hand, forcing them to call strip. I would never suggest physically hurting the player with a foul, or a dangerous play, but just using the rules to your advantage to get a stoppage or slow down the play.

I haven't done this, but was thinking of it when this same situation occured last game. I just use the analogy of in bbal using an intenional foul to force free-throws.

Again, I am not implying any sort of foul that could be considered a dangerous play, intentinally slapping the players hand, or knocking into them....i do not think taking away disc space or stripping intentionally is conisder a dangerous play.

The shortest answer to the question is an unequivocal "yes." Note some salient literature in the preface to the 11th UPA Rules:

"In Ultimate, an intentional infraction is considered cheating and a gross offense against the spirit of sportsmanship. Often a player is in a position to gain an advantage by committing an infraction, but that player is morally bound to abide by the rules."

Yeah, i figured that would be the answer. I guess I shouldn't be comparing ultimate to any other sports...... Altho, I don't agree with it being a " gross offense against the spirit of sportsmanship", but i guess I have a different definition of sportmanship.

thanks

At the elite levels, that kind of thing happens all the time, at least in the open games. It results in stoppages far more often than you would normally see in league games. That's why it's way more fun to watch the women play.

Or, at least that what I tell the lady.

"I haven't done this, but was thinking of it when this same situation occured last game. I just
use the analogy of in bbal using an intenional foul to force free-throws."

That is an excellent analogy. It illustrates what a terrible aspect to sport it is and would be to
ultimate.

You're wrong if you think it's not a gross offense against sportsmanship or spirit of the game.
That kind of behaviour is nothing other than breaking the rules where you gain an advantage.
Behaviour like that would necessitate outside officials.

--

"At the elite levels, that kind of thing happens all the time, at least in the open games. It
results in stoppages far more often than you would normally see in league games."

Yes it occurs more often, because far too many players at the elite level drop spirit of the
game completely at the expense of victory. Of note is that UPA Observers are recommended
to issue Team Misconduct Fouls when a player is guilty of intentional fouling and Personal
Misconduct Fouls when there is a repeated pattern of such behaviour.

Out of curiousity, where would Team Orange draw the line? It seems like this kind of thing (intentional fouling/"bumping") is almost an accepted part of the game at that level. I'm by no means suggesting that the Big O stepping in would "ruin" elite ultimate, but at what point do you draw the line on bumps? Only if the team on the receiving end of them complains? Or what about when the crowd starts booing?

"That is an excellent analogy. It illustrates what a terrible aspect to sport it is and would be to ultimate."

Terrible aspect to sport?? are you kidding me? Have you ever played basketball? Fouling a payer in basketball to make them hit free throws is an important part of the game, and does nothing to take away from the sport. If your talking about the 'hack-a-shaq' tactic i would agree, except they made a rule to address that. Next your probably going to say they should taking fighting out of hockey....

I just think that ultimate has a different definition of sportsmanship.....which I fully accept. But to say this type of play is un-sportsman like, maybe under the definition that ultimate has made up, but not for any other sport. In fact, I think it is way worse to be that player (and we all know the type) who for example, tries to make every single in/out call because they feel they have the 'best perspective' no matter where they are standing on the field. And they are perfectly within the rules to do this, but to me that doesnt make it right.

As for the topic of the elite games where this sort of things happens alot and it slows down the game....well that is a given anytime you have competitive people who are allowed to call their fouls. I think they need to have ref's in the elite level's of ultimate....just my opinion.

There is some debate among the observers as to how liberal the TMFs should be handed out. I
subscribe to the idea that they should be handed out as the behaviour warrants, not simply
when something is truly egregious (that's what PMFs are for).

It may be nearly an accepted part of the game, but it's also nearly universally decried. I think
the only reason it's accepted is that there's no way to prevent it without observers. Most of
the elite ultimate played in our neck of the woods happens without observers.

It's not really a question of 'stepping in', I wouldn't assign a TMF if somebody intentionally
bumps another player, but no foul is called. However, if there's a call, and it's clear to me
that the foul was intentional, then I'd not hesitate to assess a TMF. Strong benefit of the
doubt must be given when somebody is assessing another person's intent, I wouldn't give a
TMF unless it was obvious to me.

Remember the first two TMFs are effectively warnings. The subsequent ones result in
penalized disc position. If you've ever watched an Observed game, the players are already
much better behaved, because they know that they can't cheat by making or contesting a call
without grounds. Once a misconduct or two is handed out, the players adjust their game
surprisingly fast. Much of the blight of men's ultimate is eliminated.

One shouldn't assume the extra contact at the elite level is deemed acceptable. It's just that much of the contact not being called is D fouling O. In many circumstances, the O would rather not give the D an advantage of full field awareness (by stopping the play).

"Have you ever played basketball? Fouling a payer in basketball to make them hit free throws is an important part of the game"

Personally, I think basketball is a poorly designed sport since *breaking the rules* is part of the strategy. It certainly is important to make a strategic decision in basketball to foul a player, but that's also ridiculous that it's such a key part of the game. Knowingly breaking the rules of the game to gain an advantage means the game is poorly designed in my opinion.

It seems as though you're looking for approval to intentionally break the rules. Personally I don't have to think about it - it smacks of nothing less than cheating. However, if that's not your attitude then think about what you appear to be advocating.

Assume that it's acceptable to intentionally foul a thrower (or anyone, for that matter.) Sure, they get the disc back with a new count (assuming you don't actually contect a foul call), but what's stopping you from doing it again and again anytime they try to throw anything with a real gain until they get frustrated and look for a short dump. Then with a new thrower and a new marker, the routine is repeated. Sure, it's against the rules, but there's no consequence and it makes it a lot harder for the other team to score. Unfortunately it becomes exceedingly difficult to throw anything more than 10 yards accurately, cutters know they're unlikely to get throw until someone miraculously breaks the ouling rythm, and it's hardly recognizeable as Ultimate anymore. Surely there's a way to keep it from getting to this point?

Yes, two in fact. One is playing honourably and honestly. In other words, the way the rules assume the game is currently played.

The other is referees. Then you get people weighing the risks vs. benefits of fouling, seeing what they can get away with (especially when the ref isn't looking), getting upset and arguing because the ref didn't see it right or at all, not getting to choose to disregard the travel when the disc winds up in the hands of a weak thrower on the downwind sideline, and having to adjust your game to every referee.

In case you don't think this is significant, I'd like to tell you otherwise. I've been watching my girlfriend play women's basketball for several years, and I can't for the life of me tell you what a foul is. Sometimes a player driving to the net will put her shoulder down and send a stationary defender flying and it's the defender's foul. Other times an offender pivots into a moving defender and bumps her a little, and it's the offense's foul. One night a touch on the arm during a shot is a foul, while other nights a shooter's arm get's hacked and it's "clean." I can't tell you how frustrating and confusing it is to watch. (I'm not complaining about basketball, but more about the referee aspect.)

In short, I'd say that an intentional foul, even if there's no physical danger, is absolutely unacceptable in my opinion. If it was one of my teammates and he refused to change, I'd drop him or the team.

For the record, I think that the definition of sportsmanship (ie: playing with honour and respect) is universal, although different sport cultures may place a different amount of importance on it, and often the presence of referees is seen as excusing players from exhibiting as much.

Regarding jeebus' example of the player making all of the in-out calls, that player is most likely not at all "perfectly within the rules," and is showing little respect for the other players. The rules allow the player with the best perspective to make the call, but if a player feels that they have perspective from across the field, then either the other 12 players are even further from the action than the caller, or else the caller doesn't respect that someone else is likely better able to make the call. That is in fact an example of poor sportsmanship.

And for the record (very much off-topic), I do think that there's no place in hockey for fighting. Maybe you think that anyone of this opinion is some pacifist hippy-type, but I think that it is extraneous to the game and serves no purpose other than playing mind games and interrupting what might otherwise actually be an entertaining game. What's the point?

I think Jeebus asked an honest and legitimate question with a fairly straightforward answer. Many games do not regard certain strategic infractions of their rules as unsportsmanlike. As long as these games exist, we can expect this question to arise. It is by no means the first time I've heard it, and I certainly don't expect it to be the last.

I may have scanned this post too quickly and missed it, but I don't think I saw this particular rule pulled out:

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.

Just a side note...

Umm... If it is competitive and someone is intentionally coming too close to me. I wouldn't mind it, it gives me more space to break him and call the foul after I throw the disc :)

"players are similarly expected to make every effort to avoid violating [the rules]."

I guess we shouldn't play at all. It's a surefire way to avoid violating any rules.

Not everybody is a knuckle-dragging, hack-n-slasher who mixes ultimate and capoeira like you
Colin. :)