Blocking Foul

[JJ Jones]

Please allow me to post a second question to this forum in one day.

It involves the already highly discussed issue of blocking fouls. I
have researched this a great deal and still find that my specific
situation seems gray enough that I could argue both sides. With
Regionals next weekend and more than a couple teams practicing this
type of blocking, I want to make sure that I have the final word on
this from this esteem group of Rules aficionados.

I have read and am aware of the particular sections of the Rules
concerning this and the terms in place to try to put brackets around
this (e.g. XVI.H.3.C ). I have also found the USAU FAQ page attempting
to further describe and put boundaries around this (http://
www.usaultimate.org/faq/ "If a defender is purposefully getting in the
way of a cut or a cutter’s path to the disc, is this a blocking
foul?"). I feel the rules defend my point of view in the specific
instance I am about to define, but feel that the FAQ just referenced
puts doubt back in my mind.

Here is the situation:
i. disc is NOT in the air;
ii. defender takes position on stationary receiver (stopped disc or in
play) which is very close; less than a disc space in many cases; and
in most cases always maintaining physical contact with the receiver
(e.g. hand, forearm, etc pressed against receiver's body, shoulder,
arm, etc)
iii. receiver attempts to start a cut which would be 15 degrees or
more to one side or other of the defender; point being that it is in
no way attempting to run through the position the defender has already
taken.
iv. the defender is reacting solely to the receiver's movement and
quickly shuffles into the path causing the receiver to be obstructed
and in my opinion causing unavoidable contact and obstruction.

In my opinion, rule XVI.H.3.C.2 has been violated here. But this is a
tactic used by more than a couple of the higher level teams in our
section/region and they argue vehemently that they have gotten to that
position first and that the receiver is the one causing the contact.

And the text in the above referenced FAQ might be used to defend this
tactic, as it says...

"However, this does not mean that, as a defender, you cannot try to
anticipate where the cutter wants to go, and get there first, forcing
the cutter to have to slow down or stop to avoid you. (Just because
someone has started to run along a particular unoccupied trajectory
does not give them the right to that entire trajectory!) As long the
cutter can avoid running into you, it is perfectly legal to get in
their way and try to make them take a different route."

Bear in mind, in the situation I have outlined above, I am not talking
about a situation where the defender is 5 yards away from the
potential receiver and getting in the way well ahead of the offensive
cutter. This situation is where a defender has taken a position within
a disc space of the offensive cutter and merely moving left and right,
intentionally obstructing and blocking with little chance of the
cutter avoiding them unless they choose a path which is 180 degrees
away from the defender.

I hope I have specified this situation clearly enough to allow you to
give a clear and unequivocal response to it - but if not, let me know
which variables I am leaving out.

My interpretation of this is that it is not a question of 5 yards or 1
disc space, but a question of whether, in the offensive cutter's
opinion, the position taken by the defender is unavoidable by the
cutter, causing contact and obstruction in an otherwise previously
unoccupied space. Exactly what the XVI.H.3.C.2 states in my opinion.

My hope is to be able to print this and its response and take it to
Regionals next weekend to eliminate this practice by some teams and
the elongated argument that always ensues in the middle of a game.

Thanks,
Jeff

[themindset]

Hi Jeff,

Although I don't speak in any official capacity, I know this
disagreement on between different SRC members regarding a specific
part of your question (putting out an arm to block someone).
Personally, I agree with the SRC member who is from my region, in that
putting out your arm to block an O's path is BS, and is not a
"legitimately established position". I guess my point is that I don't
think you're going to get a clear answer that is 100% SRC sanctioned,
as I've seen other SRC members claim that once the arm is out and
stationary, it is legitimate.

- ben

On Oct 4, 11:26 am, JJ Jones <jjo...@jonestc.com> wrote:
> Please allow me to post a second question to this forum in one day.
>
> It involves the already highly discussed issue of blocking fouls. I
> have researched this a great deal and still find that my specific
> situation seems gray enough that I could argue both sides. With
> Regionals next weekend and more than a couple teams practicing this
> type of blocking, I want to make sure that I have the final word on
> this from this esteem group of Rules aficionados.
>
> I have read and am aware of the particular sections of the Rules
> concerning this and the terms in place to try to put brackets around
> this (e.g. XVI.H.3.C ). I have also found the USAU FAQ page attempting

> to further describe and put boundaries around this (http://www.usaultimate.org/faq/"If a defender is purposefully getting in the

[Jon Bauman]

Restricting another player's movement using one's arms is not legal and that point will be further clarified in the next revision.

The crux of the (not in the air) blocking foul issue is indeed whether the contact was unavoidable. Initiating contact while stationary is illegal (II.E: "It is the responsibility of all players to avoid contact in every way possible") and you should complain about that first and foremost. The "unavoidable" debate is going to remain debatable.

--
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.

[JJ Jones]

Again - thanks Jon.

But - you really cannot rule on my specific situation. It is more like
an "NFL offensive guard defending the pass rush". Intentional movement
and blocking to prevent a cutter's move. It is positively unavoidable
by the cutter as the sheer responsive movement of the defender is
causing immediate blocking contact. We are starting with a one-to-two
disc space separation at most. But I hear you. If the entire
definition hinges on "unavoidable" (even when you add "when time,
distance, and line of sight are considered"), with that being as
subjective as all hell, then I do not see how - as stated in my
situation - it is not a blocking foul.

I do appreciate your comment as well on the "initiating contact while
stationary..." as this is something I have found in recent use at
various levels. Markers setting up with a forearm on your chest, arm
or shoulder; with substantive pressure in that contact.

Jeff

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

I've pulled out step ii in the 'situation' below, because that's not
the part I'm going to comment on, and it doesn't change my idea or
conclusion so...

I'm assuming that the receiver starting his/her cut in step iii, means
that they have sufficient momentum built up already that when the
defender moves in step iv, into the receiver's path, that the receiver
can no longer stop in time, because of that momentum, and that is the
reason for the collision.

Assuming that's the right interpretation, then yes, that sounds to me
like a fairly clear blocking foul on the defender because they placed
themself in an unavoidable position.

M

On Oct 4, 8:26 am, JJ Jones <jjo...@jonestc.com> wrote:
> Here is the situation:
> i. disc is NOT in the air;

> [snip]

[JJ Jones]

Agreed. Step "ii" is not strictly germane to the problem.

I can define the situation better. Let's assume O1 and D1 both
stationary, with D1 setup at O1's 12 o'clock. The distance between the
two is 2 disc spaces. (This distance is germane in only that it adds
to the "...time, distance, and line of sighting..." verbage of the
rules.)

O1 attempts to move to a position currently not taken to make a cut to
get the disc. We will say that move is to O1's 10 o'clock; assuming
that a move to 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock would involve O1
initiating the contact with D1 in a legal position; and therefore be a
foul on O1. But in this case, the path O1 is trying to take is
unoccupied. As soon as O1 starts his move, D1 (just waiting to shuffle
left or right) quickly shuffles in that direction, taking the charge
and causing unavoidable (in my opinion) contact. Blocking foul!

That is exactly the situation at question here.

To me it seems like the basic charging foul in basketball. If the
defender's feet were stationary before contact occurred, then perhaps
no foul. But in all of these cases, D1 was still moving and causing
the unavoidable contact.

Jeff

[Colin]

I guess I'm not familiar with this point of disagreement. To me,
running around like an airplane to obstruct other players or sticking
out an arm to closeline opponents does not sound like Ultimate. And
as Jon said, it will be further clarified in the next revision.

In terms of what JJ Jones described, it sounds like a textbook
blocking foul. Cutter tries to cut. Instead of playing defense,
defender just jumps in front of him, taking an unavoidable position.
Blocking foul. "I was there first" doesn't mean it wasn't a blocking
foul.

-Colin

[Fraggle]

I'll add a wrinkle to the situation: As in JJ's description, there is
one or two disc spaces between cutter and defender. When the defender
moves into the cutter's desired trajectory, they are facing the
cutter, reacting to movement, BUT rather than maintaining a stationary
position they are backpedaling or diagonally backpedaling. This has
the result of allowing the cutter to move in some trajectory, just not
the exact one they want, and is limiting their ability to
accelerate.

Is this still considered to be "taking a position"? If that were the
case, and the close defender/cutter were moving at faster speeds, is
the fact that a cutter can accelerate to a faster speed than the
defender in front of them can reach, would that be a blocking foul as
well?

Sidenote: it also seems there may sometimes be a difference of opinion
between the defender and cutter as to how quickly the cutter could
change direction if they chose to. Seems pretty easy to claim that a
desired trajectory led to unavoidable contact when the cutter didn't
WANT to go in another direction...

-Fraggle

> > > Jeff- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Colin]

*clothesline

If there is a bit more separation between the defender and the cutter
and the cutter closes the distance and then tries to make a move from
really close to the defender, it becomes a closer call. In that case,
honest defense is likely to result in some contact, but it is not
clearly the defender who is initiating that. So there is a bit of a
gray area. But in general, the honest defenders are positioning well
early or are trying to move with the cutter, at least to some degree.
The ones committing blocking fouls often just jump in front and put
their arms up, bracing for the unavoidable contact they know they are
about to cause.

-Colin

[Mark -Mortakai- Moran]

Yes, mostly agreed, although I don't care if the defender got his feet
stationary or not, if that shuffle/freeze action still caused
unavoidable contact, it's a pretty cut-and-dry case of blocking.

M