What Kind of Foul is Dangerous Play

[Ben Supnik]

Hi Y'all,

XIV.H.4 defines dangerous play:
"Reckless disregard for the safety of fellow players or other
dangerously aggressive behavior (such as significantly colliding into
a stationary opponent), regardless of whether or when the disc arrives
or when contact occurs is considered dangerous play and is treated as
a foul.

My question is: what _kind_ of foul?

In particular, if a receiver gets hit while trying to receive the
disk, and the foul doesn't directly meet the "receiver foul" criteria
(e.g. the receiver is hit after the disk is grabbed by the defender),
would a call of "dangerous play" be treated as a receiver foul or a
general foul?

Thanks!
Ben

[Colin]

Proofread official response coming soon.

[Jon Bauman]

Apologies for the inconsistent text. You can ignore "If the disc was uncatchable anyways (to be determined by the fouled player), it is not a receiving foul but a general foul, and the play stands." A subsequent interpretation by the committee determined that in the case of a dangerous play that did not affect the outcome of the play, possession should revert to the thrower.

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Nate <bigg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 10, 9:24 pm, Jon Bauman <baum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's the official SRC interpretation:
>
> 1. Treat a dangerous play as a general foul, but for the purpose of
> continuation, the disc goes to the infracted player if that player would
> have had a play on the disc absent the dangerous play(er).
>
> 2. The dangerous play is the whole play, not just the contact that results
> from the play. This is supported by "no matter when contact occurs". The
> dangerous play itself is treated as a foul, not just the contact (which
> often is a foul by itself...). So it is a foul the moment the dangerous play
> starts (sort of retroactively). When the dangerous play starts before the
> disc is knocked away/caught (and the disc would have been catchable without
> the play, i.e., without the reckless player making any play on the disc), it
> clearly affected the play, and thus is treated as a receiving foul. If the
> disc was uncatchable anyways (to be determined by the fouled player), it is
> not a receiving foul but a general foul, and the play stands.
>
> 3. examples:
> a) defender lays out dangerously into receiver, but hits the disc (far) away
> before the contact:
> -receiver gets the disc;
> b) defender lays out dangerously into receiver, but the disc is going way OB
> anyway:
> -back to the thrower;

Isn't this a contradiction?  At the end of the previous paragraph you
said the play should stand.

> c) defender lays out dangerously into receiver, but the disc is thrown away
> to someone else:
> -back to the thrower.

Same question in this case, assuming the foul didn't affect the play.

Thanks,
- Nate

> > --
> > 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>

> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/upa_11th_edition_rules?hl=en.

--

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.