Pick or Defensive Foul

[Tooth]

Hello, we had sort of a weird situation at an observed tournament last
weekend and I'd like to hear some thoughts on it.

My team is on defense and the other team is in a sort of vertical
stack. They have one player make a diagonal in-cut from the far break
side to the open side and he takes his cut right across the front of
the stack. As he is crossing there is a throw that goes off a little
to the break side of the stack. An offensive player in the front of
the stack takes maybe a step to the break side and collides with the
defender that was following the other offensive player cutting across
the stack.

The offensive player calls foul, saying the defender took away his
possibility of going for the disc, but the defender called pick and
there was no way he could avoid the contact if he was to try to keep
guarding his man.

The observers ruled in favor of the offense, and gave the disc to them
where the disc fell incomplete. This seems wrong to me, thoughts?

[Jon Bauman]

Did the observers just rule on the foul call or both (uphold) the foul and (overrule) the pick call?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UPA 11th edition rules" group.
To post to this group, send email to upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.

[Steve Rieck a.k.a.Leak]

Howdy Tooth.........Leaker here. I'm just a Grand Master Geezer from
the 75 thru 80 Condors, so my opinion don't mean squat!!...LOL, but
back in my day that was
the only way a pick could happen..... i.e. when a O player
interupted (sp) a D 's chase after the guy he was guarding, so this
is a classic example of a pick, even
though the disc didn't end up going to the O you were chasing so it
didn't seem to effect your continued play for that disc, unless it
hampered you getting to the actual throw, if you had a shot at that.
The call that seems least appropriate is a foul by you on the O who
picked you. This opinion is only based on my take on
the Spirit of the Game, from when we were pioneering all these
rules........Thanks..............Leak

[Tooth]

They didn't overrule the pick call, he was following his man and
definitely close enough to make the call, no one argued that. The
observers came together and just said it was a foul and didn't give
any explanation.

[Jon Bauman]

Either there should have been a ruling on the pick, it it should have been back to thrower due to offsetting calls. Possibly the observers didn't realize there was a pick or they were overruling it and just didn't communicate effectively. There's no reason why there can't be both a foul and a pick in this scenario, and while a player should never argue with subjective facets an observer ruling, it's fine to ask if you don't understand what it is or what rules are in play.

[Steve Rieck a.k.a.Leak]

Hi Jon, since we're on picks already, I'll mention that rule was one
of my startling moments! After reading the rule book several times
incl. the annotated version,
The observers manual/ handbook a couple times, & approx 250 of the 350
plus blog topics, I realized that it really was true that, a pick
could be called by 2 defenders
who interferred (sp) with each other while chasing their O, as long as
they meet certain criteria. This is not in line with any other sport
that I'm aware of.
Along these lines, please explain the proper call for the following
scenario, if you would be so kind sir :)
.........................The O floods their left sideline with the
entire stack, with a marked handler pivoting comfortably slightly
closer to the long axis than the inner edge
of the stack. Next, 2 O cutters bust out of the head of the stack,
basically side by side, to the wide open, vacated side of the field,
followed by their markers in hot pursuit, also side by side, but
already burned, & 10 ft behind, then the 2 O, still shoulder to
shoulder, veer down-field approx 15 yards from the open side line and
continue parrallel (sp) to it down the field, the 2 D's still
pursueing as hard as they can, but still 10 ft behind. In fact
they're trying so hard that one or the other
stumbles a bit and they take each other out and go down in a heap. As
they jump up unhurt, they call a pick, stating they were with-in 10
ft, and it was cuz the O
players were running shoulder to shoulder that they had to run so
close to each other that they tangled up........Lets start with the
disc hasn't been thrown yet, then
move on to, the disc is in the air if their is a difference so
far?......................Is this a valid pick as per the 11th?

> > upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com<upa_11th_edition_rules% 2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Jon Bauman]

Just for the sake of clarity, here's the relevant rule (XVI.I.1):

A pick occurs whenever an offensive player moves in a manner that causes a defensive player guarding (II.G) an offensive player to be obstructed by another player. Obstruction may result from contact with, or the need to avoid, the obstructing player.

Now the heart of the debate here is whether that movement caused "obstruction". Certainly it caused the defenders to run right next to one another. And if the two offenders had crossed paths rather than run parallel, I'd say definitely a pick. Seeing as it was the defenders getting tangled it's somewhat debatable.

Now, what's clear is that even if the defenders were within 3 meters, if they didn't have a play on the disc (you say they were already burned) it doesn't matter whether the "pick" call is valid, the disc would stay with the receiver according to rule XVI.C.2.b.2:

For calls made by a non-thrower:

...

If the team that committed the infraction has possession:

... 

If the infraction did not affect the play, play stops and the result of the play stands.

This is true regardless of whether the disc was in the air at the time of the pick. However, if "pick" is called before the throwing motion the thrower is required to acknowledge as soon as possible. To willfully make a throw after you know there was a call is cheating (XIX.F):

When a call is made, throwers must stop play by visibly or audibly communicating the stoppage as soon as they are aware of the call and all players should echo calls on the field.

 

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com.

[Tooth]

So assuming the case where they are not overruling the pick call, the
correct call would be offsetting and back to the thrower? In essence,
they offset rather than the pick superseding the defensive foul? That
seems justifiable, definitely more so than giving the disc to the
offense up-field at the spot of the pick. Still seems sort of puzzling
to me that you could even be called for a defensive foul in that
situation, as it was unavoidable for the defender to collide with the
offensive player if he was to still try to follow his man terdue to
the path the offensive cutter took.

On Oct 26, 5:25 pm, Jon Bauman <baum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Either there should have been a ruling on the pick, it it should have been
> back to thrower due to offsetting calls. Possibly the observers didn't
> realize there was a pick or they were overruling it and just didn't
> communicate effectively. There's no reason why there can't be both a foul
> and a pick in this scenario, and while a player should never argue with
> subjective facets an observer ruling, it's fine to ask if you don't
> understand what it is or what rules are in play.
>

> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Tooth <dave.ferr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > They didn't overrule the pick call, he was following his man and
> > definitely close enough to make the call, no one argued that. The
> > observers came together and just said it was a foul and didn't give
> > any explanation.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "UPA 11th edition rules" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com<upa_11th_edition_rules%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Flo Pfender]

Well,
the correct action for the defender would have been to pull up (avoid
the collision) and call pick. He chose not to pull up and initiated
contact, thus he fouled. The pick still stands, though. Offsetting
calls, done.

If, on the other hand, the contact was unavoidable for the defender,
it was a pick and a blocking foul by the offensive player who suddenly
ran into a previously unoccupied space that the defender could not
avoid.

But since you are writing "unavoidable [...] if he was to still try
to follow his man", I am reading the situation that the defender could
have avoided the O by giving up the chase, so this specific situation
sounds like it was foul on the D and no blocking foul.

Flo.

[Flo Pfender]

One more thing, maybe the observers were right after all:
If the pick did not affect the outcome of the play since the disc was
thrown to a place the picked receiver could not have reached, and it
was both a D foul by the picked player and a pick, then one could
argue that the play stands like without the pick (i.e. disc to fouled
receiver due to foul) with the picked player allowed to catch up.
It comes down to deciding if the pick affected the play.

We should probably take this SRC-internally to get to a consense
resolution...

Flo.

[pacemaker]

Just a minute here.

There was a PICK if the defender was guarding (within 3m , reacting to
him) the original cutter as described.

Does the defender being PICKED affect the outcome of the defender's
play on the disc or his personal outcome of the play? NO

Did the contact between picked player and O player going to get the
disc affect the outcome of the play for the O player? Probably. Was
the contact a foul? Likely . Although it may actually be offsetting
fouls. Note that accidental contact is not the same as incidental
contact. The OP said "no way he could avoid the contact if he was to
try to keep
guarding his man. " Sounds like contact was avoidable if D calls pick
and stops/slows down. That's the purpose of the pick call.

Could the O player have caught or made a play on the disc without the
contact? Not sure from the description, but probably.

So....if O player could not have caught the disc anyway -- Turnover
(pick and foul, but they did not affect the play.)

If the O player could have caught the disc, then possession is gained
at the spot of the infraction NOT where the disc fell.

If both players can call foul then the disc goes back to the thrower.

pacemaker -- thinking the rules would best support offsetting
infractions IF the defender could not have avoided contact even by
pulling up. i.e. the offender took a position which could not be
avoided when space and time are considered.

On Oct 26, 4:25 pm, Jon Bauman <baum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Either there should have been a ruling on the pick, it it should have been
> back to thrower due to offsetting calls. Possibly the observers didn't
> realize there was a pick or they were overruling it and just didn't
> communicate effectively. There's no reason why there can't be both a foul
> and a pick in this scenario, and while a player should never argue with
> subjective facets an observer ruling, it's fine to ask if you don't
> understand what it is or what rules are in play.
>

> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Tooth <dave.ferr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > They didn't overrule the pick call, he was following his man and
> > definitely close enough to make the call, no one argued that. The
> > observers came together and just said it was a foul and didn't give
> > any explanation.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "UPA 11th edition rules" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > upa_11th_ed...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > upa_11th_edition_...@googlegroups.com<upa_11th_edition_rules%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Flo Pfender]

>
> pacemaker  -- thinking the rules would best support offsetting
> infractions IF the defender could not have avoided contact even by
> pulling up.  i.e. the offender took a position which could not be
> avoided when space and time are considered.
>

agree to some extent (one possible interpretation) to everything else
you said. But this last scenario is not offsetting since here the O
commits a pick and a blocking foul, D does nothing wrong.

[pacemaker]

oops. I added on the extra bit erroneously. There are situations
where a double foul is a reasonable resolution. What I wrote is not
one of them.

[Tooth]

Some clarifications on the play:

The defender didn't actually call pick until after the collision, he
was running full speed following the same path the offensive cutter he
was following took. However, just after the moment the offensive
cutter went past the stack a throw went to the break side and the
offensive player in the front of the stack moved maybe a step and the
collision took place. After the collision the defender called pick,
there was no time to slow down or call a pick.

This part I find interesting: "Sounds like contact was avoidable if D

calls pick and stops/slows down. That's the purpose of the pick call.
"

I would imagine most experienced defenders would see the path that the
cutter was taking and slow down to anticipate the pick call, but the
defender is a freshman college player and just trying to stick on the
hip of his man which makes this situation a little different than
most. As I said he was following the same path of the cutter that went
close by the front of the stack, and I imagine most experienced
players would slow down and alter the angle they are following to make
this a pick. However, I don't feel that him not seeing the pick until
just before collision making the pick any less valid.

Not sure I explained that well, so I'm going to try with more words.
If the man in the front of the stack had not stepped out a step the
defender there would have been no pick and no collision (the offensive
players didn't collide after all), although the defender would have
sprinted fairly close across the front of the offensive player. With
experienced players with more field awareness, on a similar cut they
would see the situation and alter the angle of chasing their defender
and slow down to call the pick, in essence forcing the pick to happen
even without the offensive player in the stack moving into their path.
While this is sort of like twisting the rules (that feels to much like
cheating which I don't think this is, gamesmanship maybe?), I feel its
generally accepted because it prevents possible collisions like in the
situation we are discussing and the offense generally knows they are
giving the defense this option by making such a cut.

Thanks for the discussion and all the replies.Some clarifications on
the play:

The defender didn't actually call pick until after the collision, he
was running full speed following the same path the offensive cutter he
was following took. However, just after the moment the offensive
cutter went past the stack a throw went to the break side and the
offensive player in the front of the stack moved maybe a step and the
collision took place. After the collision the defender called pick,
there was no time to slow down or call a pick.

This part I find interest: "Sounds like contact was avoidable if D

calls pick and stops/slows down. That's the purpose of the pick call.
"

I would imagine most experienced defenders would see the path that the
cutter was taking and slow down to anticipate the pick call, but the
defender is a freshman college player and just trying to stick on the
hip of his man which makes this situation a little different than
most. As I said he was following the same path of the cutter that went
close by the front of the stack, and I imagine most experienced
players would slow down and alter the angle they are following to make
this a pick. However, I don't feel that this makes him getting picked
any less valid.

Not sure I explained that well, so I'm going to try with more words.
If the man in the front of the stack had not stepped out a step the
defender there would have been no pick and no collision (the offensive
players didn't collide after all), although the defender would have
sprinted fairly close across the front of the offensive player. With
experienced players with more field awareness, on a similar cut they
would see the situation and alter the angle of chasing their defender
and slow down to call the pick, in essence forcing the pick to happen
even without the offensive player in the stack moving into their path.
While this is sort of like twisting the rules (that feels to much like
cheating which I don't think this is, gamesmanship maybe?), I feel its
generally accepted because it prevents possible collisions like in the
situation we are discussing and the offense generally knows they are
giving the defense this option by making such a cut.

Thanks for the discussion and all the replies.Some clarifications on
the play:

The defender didn't actually call pick until after the collision, he
was running full speed following the same path the offensive cutter he
was following took. However, just after the moment the offensive
cutter went past the stack a throw went to the break side and the
offensive player in the front of the stack moved maybe a step and the
collision took place. After the collision the defender called pick,
there was no time to slow down or call a pick.

This part I find interest: "Sounds like contact was avoidable if D

calls pick and stops/slows down. That's the purpose of the pick call.
"

I would imagine most experienced defenders would see the path that the
cutter was taking and slow down to anticipate the pick call, but the
defender is a freshman college player and just trying to stick on the
hip of his man which makes this situation a little different than
most. As I said he was following the same path of the cutter that went
close by the front of the stack, and I imagine most experienced
players would slow down and alter the angle they are following to make
this a pick. However, I don't feel that this makes him getting picked
any less valid.

Not sure I explained that well, so I'm going to try with more words.
If the man in the front of the stack had not stepped out a step the
defender there would have been no pick and no collision (the offensive
players didn't collide after all), although the defender would have
sprinted fairly close across the front of the offensive player. With
experienced players with more field awareness, on a similar cut they
would see the situation and alter the angle of chasing their defender
and slow down to call the pick, in essence forcing the pick to happen
even without the offensive player in the stack moving into their path.
While this is sort of like twisting the rules (that feels to much like
cheating which I don't think this is, gamesmanship maybe?), I feel its
generally accepted because it prevents possible collisions like in the
situation we are discussing and the offense generally knows they are
giving the defense this option by making such a cut.

Thanks for the discussion and all the replies.

[pacemaker]

On Oct 27, 7:39 pm, Tooth <dave.ferr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some clarifications on the play:
>
> The defender didn't actually call pick until after the collision, he
> was running full speed following the same path the offensive cutter he
> was following took. However, just after the moment the offensive
> cutter went past the stack a throw went to the break side and the
> offensive player in the front of the stack moved maybe a step and the
> collision took place. After the collision the defender called pick,
> there was no time to slow down or call a pick.

This is a very different situation than you first described. This
sounds like an offensive foul to me. The O player went in a path
whereby the collision could be not be avoided as a result of the O
player movement. The O player certainly *thinks* he has been fouled
and the result will likely be offsetting fouls after some discussion.
But the O player was unaware of his surroundings and he went to a
space where contact could not be avoided. Pick on O (did not affect
the play). Foul on O. No foul on D (but very hard to convince O of
this on the field).

originally: "no way he could avoid the contact if he was to try to
keep guarding his man. " This phrasing sounds as if the D player
chose to play through potential contact in order to keep guarding his
person. That's why some of the answers above sound the way they do.
That would be a D foul even though there is also a pick.

pacemaker

[Flo Pfender]

pacemaker nailed it. If it was as you described it was clearly an
offensive (blocking) foul, no foul on D. And the observers got it
wrong. Or the play was (in their eyes) different from what you
describe.

H.3.c.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.

One comment about your "experienced player". If a player alters his
path chasing a player for the sole reason to run into someone else and
call a pick is cheating. It is not a pick since no movement of an
opponent caused the obstruction but the choice of the player to change
his path. And calling a non-existent infraction is cheating.

Yes, hard to evaluate if the defender had other reasons for the slight
change of direction, but cheating nonetheless. On top of it, very
often it is advantageous for the D to avoid picks instead of running
into them and call them, so I would doubt that many experienced
players are looking for picks like this. Defenders used to do this
when they were burned, but since you can call picks only when you were
within 3m of your O, this bail out does not work anymore...

Flo.