Travel / foul - priority of calls

[Mark R.]

We had a rules disagreement at Sectionals last weekend, and would
appreciate some advice on how it should have been handled.

Situation:

Thrower sets up with pivot foot at front corner of endzone. Marker
sets up legally. Thrower pivots, drags foot 18” or more (drag mark
clearly visible and thrower is now well away from sideline), throws
disc and hits marker, who is moving sideways to cover. Thrower calls
foul. Marker calls travel and asserts that the foul call is not
appropriate because the thrower had to travel to make the contact
possible.

Questions:

Assuming the thrower couldn’t have reached the space the marker was
moving into without traveling, what should the result have been? Does
it matter if the foul was called before the travel was called, or does
the infraction that happens first take precedence (or is there some
other mechanism for establishing priority)?

Thanks very much,

Mark

[Darrin]

That's a great question. I hope it gets answered.

Darrin

[Flo Pfender]

>
> Situation:
>
> Thrower sets up with pivot foot at front corner of endzone. Marker
> sets up legally. Thrower pivots, drags foot 18” or more (drag mark
> clearly visible and thrower is now well away from sideline), throws
> disc and hits marker, who is moving sideways to cover. Thrower calls
> foul. Marker calls travel and asserts that the foul call is not
> appropriate because the thrower had to travel to make the contact
> possible.

The marker is wrong. Both infractions and calls can co-exist, even if
one infraction made the other possible. Nowhere in the rules does it
say otherwise.

The only exception to this is on marking infractions, where any
non-dangerous contact between the thrower and an illegally positioned
marker following normal ultimate movements of the thrower is
considered a marker foul (and not a thrower foul).

> Questions:
>
> Assuming the thrower couldn’t have reached the space the marker was
> moving into without traveling, what should the result have been?

As I said, it doesn't matter if the thrower could have gotten there
legally or not.

> Does
> it matter if the foul was called before the travel was called, or does
> the infraction that happens first take precedence (or is there some
> other mechanism for establishing priority)?
>

The timing of the calls does not matter (as long as the calls are made
shortly after the infraction).
In this case, it sounds a lot like offsetting infractions on the same
play (i.e., the throw):
XVI.G. If offensive and defensive players call offsetting infractions
on the same play, the disc is returned to the thrower and put into
play with a check, with the count reached plus one or at six if over
five.


If you don't follow that argument because you say the travel was
before the throw, you start from the last infraction. So:

1. Was the throw complete?
Yes: treat as if no foul happened in further analysis.
No: treat like disc was not thrown and play was stopped.

2. Now resolve the travel call as usual.


Thus, if the two infractions are on the same play (the throw), then
they are offsetting and disc comes back with stall at max 6. If, on
the other hand, the travel is clearly before the throw(ing motion) and
it is therefore not the same play, they are treated separately, and
disc comes back with stall at max 9 (assuming the travel is not
contested).

If the two players can not agree which of the two is the case, we
invoke

XVI.D. If a dispute arises concerning an infraction or the outcome of
a play (e.g., a catch where no one had a good perspective), and the
teams cannot come to a satisfactory resolution, play stops, and the
disc is returned to the thrower and put into play with a check
(VIII.D), with the count reached plus one or at six if over five.

So, disc goes back with stall at max 6.

Flo.