Re: Contact after Disc is D'd - foul?

On Jun 5, 11:49 am, joe <forbes....@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 5, 8:06 am, Michael McNeil <rmichael.mcn...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jun 5, 8:39 am, CBrowning <cb.brown...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Occassionally I will see a situation where a foul is called due to
contact after the disc has been D'd.  I think these type of calls are
the weakest of sauces and I am curious if it is actually a foul.

Example:  Chump A is standing and waiting for the disc to get to him..
Super Stud B lays out for the disc, gets his hand on it and knocks it
away.  Super Stud's momentum then carries him into Chump A.  Chump A
calls a foul and then goes into a monologue about how ultimate is a
non-contact sport as he pulls up his knee brace, adjusts the elastic
band connecting his glasses, and then pulls up his other knee brace.

My old interpretation was based on whether the contact was more or
less guaranteed by the defender's actions (I hesitate to call him a
Super Stud if he has to wipe out the receiver in order to get the
disc). If he dives so that his center of mass goes directly through
the receiver's center of mass (and there is no bending/twisting
intended to avoid contact), then the contact is a necessary followon
to the dive and is part of the play and thus a foul call would be
justified since there would have been no block without the contact. I
don't know whether this interpretation is in line with the 11th
edition, though.


Also what about incidental?  Chump goes long for a disc, another Chump
is right on his tail and their feet accidentally get tangled up.
Happened to us this weekend and the guy argued it was incidental so he
contested.  Incidental or not...isn't it still a foul?- Hide quoted text -

By definition of the word, that is not incidental. ACcidental, yes,
but not incidental, as the receiver was knocked down. In this case,
the guy who is behind is at fault.


.

Relevant Pages
Loading